Protestant Ignorance

I remain, even in these feel good days, Rome still teaches a false gospel, still calls for the damnation of people like me who preach the true gospel. Now I am happy to confess that explaining the nuances that separate infusion from imputation, distinctions between justification and sanctification can require a bit of theological training and historical understanding. I’m sorry to confess that Christians generally have precious little of either. If we can’t see what the big deal is with a little contemporary modalism, if we want to open the tent wide to welcome in those nice Mormons, what chance do I have for making the case that Rome is outside the pale?

Our ignorance is likewise apparent in how we look at the recent canonization of Popes John and John Paul (13th and 2nd respectively). I fear we think that what Rome did was merely to give them a super-duper merit badge. We cheer politely, even if we are a little fidgety about Roman theology, in the same way we would cheer politely if our crazy uncle won the big horseshoe tournament at the state fair. The craziness we’re not sure about, but he’s kin and did well.

What Does Roman Catholic Canonization Mean?

These two forms of ignorance, however, come together. That we don’t understand the nuances on justification is why we don’t understand what just happened in the canonization. The church at Rome just determined that these two popes exceeded God’s expectations for obedience. These men not only were able to escape the punishment of purgatory, having no need to purge their sins, having already achieved the holiness necessary to enter heaven. Not only that, but all the merit they achieved which was beyond what was required was deposited, along with the merit of Christ, into the Treasury of Merit. This merit can become yours, via the purchase of indulgences.

How can Rome know this? They have a system for testing. All saints and only saints, escape purgatory. We know who the saints are, however, through a process of testing. In order to demonstrate that these men were saints, three miracles that resulted in prayers people prayed to these men, must be verified. Three miracle merit badges apiece, and then we know these two men went directly to heaven, without passing go or stopping for a quick burn in purgatory.

Sin, Grace & Mercy
I’ve had friends swim the Tiber, who have been trained in sound theology who went Roman Catholic. I’ve participated in careful, precise arguments over justification. I understand how someone could take a bad turn there. I am grateful for Rome’s fidelity on issues related to the incarnation and the Trinity, on the ancient creeds. I understand the hunger to be able to see the one true church, for it to have an address. But I can’t fathom how anyone could believe the silliness we’re all supposed to be celebrating. Rome actually insists that we believe that when these popes died, they wrote a check for more than they owed and calmly told God He could keep the change. Jesus, however, tells us the only way in is by beating our breast and crying out, “Lord be merciful to me, a sinner.” My prayer to our Lord is that He would tear down this high place, this lofty thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, that our every thought would be held captive to the obedience of Christ.

This post first appeared on rcsprouljr.com

Here is an excerpt from correspondence I had with a Roman Catholic named Steve today – I will put my words in bold so that it is easy to follow along:

John Samson: Luther argued that the Bible is our sole ultimate authority.

Steve: I would say he (Martin Luther) argued that his interpretation of his particular version of the Bible was the ultimate authority.

John Samson: and I would strongly disagree with what you would argue for. I would argue for the perspecuity of Scripture – that in its essential message, it is clearly understood. The Scriptures on the subject of salvation are clear to anyone who will read the Bible.

I also do not need a so called infallible council to tell me that “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) actually means “a man is justified by faith along with works of the law.”

Steve: James 2:24 (AKJV) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

John Samson: I do not pick and choose what I believe. I believe ALL of Scripture and seek to rightly interpret it by means of the context in which those verses occur…

R. C. Sproul – Knowing Scripture; InterVasity Press, p. 83, 84

Steve: Yes it may take a man of R. C. Sproul’s erudition to make sense of this mess and still remain in the reformed tradition. As for me, a mere uneducated, semi-literate reader, I can not make the mental leaps necessary to reconcile the citations of James and Paul via Luke. To me it seems that Paul is talking about works of the law. Paul is saying we are not justified by sacrificing crops or livestock. We are not justified by circumcision or observing holy days. After all Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles knew little of Jewish law. James, on the other hand is stating that if you don’t do good, you aren’t good. Do right and you must be right. In that we have the tempest in the teapot that Martin Luther had to make into a movement. At any rate, as Sproul says, “The claim to faith is vindicated or justified when it is manifested by the fruit of faith.” and you can’t manifest fruit without work for the work is the fruit. And since you need faith to manifest fruit, faith alone isn’t enough. So in spite of this easy explanation you want to make a big deal out of it and start your own religion? Oh wait, . . . yes you do, and Martin Luther did! I’ll stick with Christendom as it had been practiced.

By the way, did Martin Luther mention who won the farting contest he had with the devil?

John Samson: It was not a tempest in a tea pot when the very gospel of Christ was (and is) at stake. Paul and James spoke of justification in TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. There is nothing hard to understand here. Luther did not start his own religion – justification by faith alone has always been the way of salvation and is contstantly affirmed by the early Church fathers. Please read this.

Also: taking a cheapshot at Luther is an ad hominem attack and evidence of a failed argument – it is like saying “you cannot be right because you have a big nose.”

Steve: Mentioning that a man misunderstood the context of Paul and James,mentioning that a man wanted to eliminate the “straw gospel” of James because it disagreed with his feelings about justification by faith alone, and mentioning that he had mental delusions is not the same as saying a man has a big nose. It is merely pointing out that his reliability as a church authority should be questioned. Martin Luther was a man of great faith unto his own interpretations of the Bible and was able to start a movement of which you are an adherent. Was the man of sound mind? To me, his argument fails on its own merit. But when you fail to agree with me on the merit if is argument (and vice versa, I fail to agree with you on the merits of his argument), then the soundness of his mind is a secondary test. A test which he also fails to pass. In my opinion, of course.

John Samson: 1) I believe Sproul’s argument is sound regarding the context of James and Paul and EASILY understood. Paul in Romans has a context of justification in the ultimate sense of being declared right in the sight of God for salvation. That is what the entire book of Romans is addressing. James is asking a completely different question concerning what true faith looks like. That is what the entire book of James is addressing. Both of these assertions are easily defended. Even a casual reading of the two books would affirm this.

2) Luther was a young reformer when he said the book of James was an epistle of straw. No one claims Luther’s infallibility on the Protestant side … Luther changed his view after lengthy study of the book and ADMITTED such. As the link I gave you provided, Luther DID NOT come up with a new doctrine when he heralded justification by faith alone. He was merely the one that stood for it in a historical context that meant his life was in danger for doing so – facing Rome’s anathema in the process, just as I do, for conscience sake. As we look at some of the world changers in history, there is often a fine line between genius and insanity. If Luther was indeed insane, may God raise up many millions of lunatics in our own day who will stand for the truth of the Gospel, no matter what the cost.

Steve: Agreed: “may God raise up many millions of lunatics in our own day who will stand for the truth of the Gospel” Amen, brother. I am one of the Catholic ones standing up.

John Samson: If you truly do so, you will face the eternal and irrevocable curse and sentence of damnation (anathema) of Rome, just as I do.

“If anyone says that the justice [or justification] received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, #24).

Steve: Not bothered. I have faith and works. Separately and together. So by St, James and St. Paul, I am covered.

John Samson: We can make a distinction between a man’s head and a man’s body without inflicting harm on the person, but if we separate head and body, we kill him. Though faith and works are not to be separated (works flow from true faith) they HAVE TO BE DISTINGUISHED or else we believe a false gospel. With all my heart I appeal to you to flee the false gospel of Rome and embrace the once for all message of the gospel of Christ – “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8,9

…..

For a comparison of evangelical v. Roman Catholic issues see this helpful short article by Nathan Busenitz here.