Rome's Doctrine

Between those holding to a plan of salvation, says Warfield, there are those who think of this plan along naturalist and there are others who think of this plan along supernaturalist lines. As against the Pelagians who hold to a naturalist view “the entire organized Church—Orthodox Greek, Roman Catholic, Latin, and Protestantism in all its great historical forms, Lutheran and Reformed, Calvinistic and Wesleyan—bears its consentient, firm and emphatic testimony to the supernaturalistic conception of salvation.”

Continuing from this point Warfield then divides the supernaturalists into sacerdotalists and evangelicals. The issue between them concerns “the immediacy of the saving operations of God.” The church of Rome, holding the sacerdotal point of view, teaches that “grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not.” On the other hand, evangelicalism “seeking to conserve what it conceives to be the only consistent supernaturalism, sweeps away every intermediary between the soul and its God, and leaves the soul dependent for its salvation of God alone, operating upon it by his immediate grace.” Now Protestantism and Evangelicalism are “coterminous, if not exactly synonymous designations.”

….Protestants are Protestants in the interest of being more consistently supernaturalist than are the Roman Catholics. … We are not to define the essence of Christianity in terms of its lowest but rather in terms of its highest forms. Calvinism is “Christianity come to its own.” Beginning from Calvinism we should descend to universalistic Protestantism and thence to Romanism as deviations from the true view of Christianity.

It is Romanism with which we are now primarily concerned. Accordingly Romanism should be regarded as a deformation of Christianity, in fact as its lowest deformation. And this deformation expresses itself not merely at some but at every point of doctrine. The differences between Protestantism and Romanism are not adequately indicated if we say that Luther restored to the church the true doctrines of the Bible, of justification by faith and of the priesthood of all believers. The difference is rather that Protestantism is more consistently and Rome is less consistently Christian at every point of doctrine. It could not well be otherwise. Having inconsistency at one point of doctrine is bound to result in inconsistency, at all points of doctrine, Rome has been consistently inconsistent in the confusion of non-Christian with Christian elements of teaching along the entire gamut of doctrinal expression.

In the question of starting point it is all-important that we have a truly Christian doctrine of man. But this Rome does not have. Without going into details it may be asserted that Rome has a defective doctrine

….On this view the natural man does not need the light of Christianity to enable him to understand the world and himself aright. He does not need the revelation of Scripture or the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order that by means of them he may learn what his own true nature is.

Christianity therefore needs, on this basis, to be presented to the natural man as something that is merely information additional to what he already possesses. The knowledge of Christianity is to be related to the knowledge derived from the exercise of man’s powers of reason and observation in a way similar to that in which at the beginning original righteousness was added to the image of God in man.

But without the light of Christianity it is as little possible for man to have the correct view about himself and the world as it is to have the true view about God. On account of the fact of sin man is blind with respect to the truth wherever the truth appears. And truth is one. Man cannot truly know himself unless he truly knows God. Not recognizing the fact of the fall, the philosophers, says Calvin, throw everything into confusion. They do not reckon with the fact that “at first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude” but that after the fall man is equally corrupt in all aspects of his being.”

….It appears then that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between Romanism and Calvin on the origin and nature of the “disturbance” in human nature. The view of Rome is essentially the same as that of the Greek philosophers: in particular, that of Aristotle. According to this view the disturbance is endemic to human nature because man is made up, in part, of nonrational elements. To the extent that man consists of intellect he does not and cannot sin. The “disturbance” in man’s make-up is not due primarily to any fault of his own. It is basically due to “God” who made him. On the other hand, according to Calvin, there is no “disturbance” in the nature of man as he comes forth from the hands of God. The “disturbance” has come in as the result of sin. Accordingly every one of fallen man’s functions operates wrongly. The set of the whole human personality has changed.

…The result is that however much they may formally understand the truth of Christianity, men still worship “the dream and figment of their own heart.” They have what Hodge calls “mere cognition” but no true knowledge of God.

Still further as the “philosophers” and Calvin differ on the source and nature of the “disturbance” in human nature so they also differ on the remedy to be employed for the removal of that disturbance. According to the philosophers man does not need supernatural help for the removal of the disturbance within his being. According to the Greek view, so largely followed by Rome, man’s intellect has within itself the proper set. The fall has not disturbed the set of the saw and therefore there is no need of the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to reset it. The nature of the intellect and its activity is almost unaffected by what happens to man in the course of history.

In opposition to this view, Hodge, following the lead of Calvin, stresses the fact that the whole set of sinful man needs to be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man must be “renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col 3:10)... This renovation is said to be ¿~ not in knowledge, much less by knowledge, but unto knowledge, so that he knows. Knowledge is the effect of the renovation spoken of.” A little further Hodge adds: “The knowledge here intended is not mere cognition. It is full, accurate, living, or practical knowledge; such knowledge as is eternal life, so that this word here includes what in Eph. 4.24 is expressed by righteousness and holiness.”

…. “According to the evangelical doctrine the whole soul is the subject of regeneration. It is neither the intellect to the exclusion of the feelings, nor the feelings to the exclusion of the intellect; nor is it the will alone, either in its wider or in its more limited sense, that is the subject of the change in question … ”

“Regeneration secures right knowledge as well as right feeling; and right feeling is not the effect of right knowledge, nor is right knowledge the effect of right feeling. The two are the inseparable effects of a work which affects the whole soul.”

We conclude then that it is natural and consistent for Roman Catholic apologetics to seek its point of contact with the unbeliever in a “common area” of knowledge. Roman Catholic theology agrees with the essential contention of those it seeks to win to the Christian faith that man’s consciousness of himself and of the objects of the world is intelligible without reference to God.

But herein precisely lies the fundamental point of difference between Romanism and Protestantism. …The Protestant principle finds this in the self-contained ontological Trinity. By his counsel the triune God controls whatsoever comes to pass. If then the human consciousness must, in the nature of the case, always be the proximate starting-point, it remains true that God is always the most basic and therefore the ultimate or final reference point in human interpretation.

….But the Roman Catholic apologete does not want to prove the existence of this sort of God. He wants to prove the existence of such a God as will leave intact the autonomy of man to at least some extent. Rome’s theology does not want a God whose counsel controls whatsoever comes to pass.

The church of Rome, holding the sacerdotal point of view, teaches that “grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not.

I have never heard that. Rather, as the Orthodox Church teaches, God can communicate outside of the Church, but that is not our concern. Ours is to minister wihtin it.

Accordingly Romanism should be regarded as a deformation of Christianity, in fact as its lowest deformation...

You call this "theology?" It's ongoing, repetitively redundant, never-ending resurfacing of the same old, same old, blather.

He wants to prove the existence of such a God as will leave intact the autonomy of man to at least some extent

Yes, to account for our sin.

Rome’s theology does not want a God whose counsel controls whatsoever comes to pass

No, the Apostolic Church never believed in the Reformed God who is the source of sin.

“The church of Rome, holding the sacerdotal point of view, teaches that “grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not.”

I believe the author was trying to say that in Romanism, Grace is communicated through the Sacraments, which are administered by the (Roman) Church. He then draws a distinction between Protesantism, in which Grace is communicated through a personal relationship with Christ.

“Rome’s theology does not want a God whose counsel controls whatsoever comes to pass”

God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Righteousness is doing as He sees fit and obeying His commands. If everything that happens does so because God made it happen, then there is no sin. If Satan rebelled against God because God made him do it, then Satan didn’t really rebel- he was just doing as God commanded and therefore did not sin. If it was God’s will and design that 9/11 happened, then the terrorists behind it really were carrying out God’s plan. It is utter nonsense and perhaps blasphemous to assert that the evils of the world, great and small, were controlled by God.

>>Righteousness is doing as He sees fit and obeying His commands.<<

The sinner, unregenerated, is not capable of doing that. The saved is not capable of doing that. That is why we need Christ as our intercession. We are made holy through Christ, not by any act or behavior on our part; and we can stand before a righteous and holy God only by being clothed in Christ’s righteousness.

>>If everything that happens does so because God made it happen, then there is no sin.<<

Adam had perfect freewill, and chose to deliberately sin. Consequently, the world and all it’s inhabitants were cursed through him. Don’t think that man, nature, the world, etc is ‘spiritually neutral’ - we live and walk on ground that has been cursed, and we walk and live in sin. Sin = death, that’s why ‘bad things’ happen.

God is not dependent on man to carry out His will. He is sovereign over His creation and does as He pleases.

Isaiah 45:5-7

“I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.”

I believe the author was trying to say that in Romanism, Grace is communicated through the Sacraments, which are administered by the (Roman) Church.

God is free to communicate grace any way he wishes. Normatively, he has left us the sacraments as the means to do that.

Cornelius van Til is as much an authority on "Romanism" as I am on Calvinism, which is to say, he's not one.

I have never heard that. Rather, as the Orthodox Church teaches, God can communicate outside of the Church, but that is not our concern. Ours is to minister wihtin it.

That is the Catholic point of view as well, as over against the erroneous statements of Mr. van Til.

It was St. Thomas Aquinas who said "God is not bound by the sacraments".

This whole article is hogwash. Attacking a straw man, Van Til repeated misstates what the Catholic Church teaches and then refutes that “teaching.” For example, he writes “The church of Rome, holding the sacerdotal point of view, teaches that ‘grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not.’” This is not what the Church teaches. What it does teach is that individuals can obtain grace through their own private prayers to God (although that grace is ultimately mediated through the Church.) BTW, every Christian who has been baptized with water and “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” belongs to the Catholic Church although only those who assent to all of its teachings belong fully to it. Therefore, every Christian who prays privately to God has his prayers mediated through the Church.

Also, the Church does NOT teach that God created man with a “disturbance” in his nature, which is located in the non-rational elements of that nature. Nor does it teach that the intellect cannot sin. The Church has always taught that man’s nature is fallen as a result of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. And it has always taught that even man’s intellect is affected by Original Sin and by the person’s own actual sins.

And while the Church does teach that it is possible to rationally demonstrate the existence of God, it is only through revelation that we know anything about God other than the fact that He is pure Being and the first cause of everything else that exists.

Van Til’s ignorance of Catholic teaching undermines all of his arguments here.

It is difficult to read a heavily redacted essay and get a sense of its true merit. This is especially true when the one who has redacted “less-necessary” text is one who is familiar with it to the point that they may be unknowingly presenting what Mel Brooks called “Highlights from Hamlet.”

By this I mean that everyone remembers “To be, or not to be?” as being the pivotal moment in the play, and anyone who well knew the play would understand the wider context of young Hamlet’s angst; however, if the actor strode out onto the stage with a stride full of dramatic purpose, uttered “To be, or not to be?” and then scampered stage left it would hardly be Hamlet even if that is most of what many people will remember.

This poetic brevity is a problem when deciding what text to include from out of an essay, especially a longer one, since the familiar reader (never mind the writer) knows far too much about the subject matter for his audience’s own good, those who aren’t unfamiliar with the subject already, that is.

***It is difficult to read a heavily redacted essay and get a sense of its true merit....This poetic brevity is a problem when deciding what text to include from out of an essay, especially a longer one, since the familiar reader (never mind the writer) knows far too much about the subject matter for his audience’s own good, those who aren’t unfamiliar with the subject already, that is.***

I agree. However, if you can get the reader to come to some sense of the writer’s position without overwhelming them with all the particulars then perhaps there is a possibility of moving the reader to the next level of comprehension when otherwise they might be lost to any understanding.

God allows many evils but doesn’t create them. satan is the ruler of this world for now, but God ultimately is in control, even of satan (which ticks him off a bit). All of God’s plans and purposes for us are being played out with satan as a lead actor. he won’t be forever. God eventually comes back on stage and satan gets sent to his eternity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.