June 10, 2019

June 10, 2019 By

This is a collection of various Facebook comments of mine in response to an earlier paper, Mandatory Priestly Celibacy: New (?) Argument. That ought to be read for background, because I made a highly specific argument regarding Eastern Orthodox priests, that has some subtle aspects to it.

*****

With the data I found (from America), we see that when there is a choice to be married or to be celibate, before being ordained as a priest, 90-93% of those who are Orthodox priests chose marriage. That, to me, does not suggest a very robust appreciation of celibacy (in conjunction with the priesthood) at all. Clearly, celibacy is more highly spoken of in Scripture, as part of the evangelical counsels, yet only 10-13% of Orthodox priests (in America) choose it? I think that undervalues celibacy.

***

I’m talking mostly about parish priests, not monks (where there is more agreement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy). We simply like most of our priests to be more like both Orthodox and Catholic bishops (celibate) than Orthodoxy does. If they want to bash our policy, we reply with the Bible and note that they have the same opinions regarding their bishops. So we apply it to priests, too, in the Latin Rite. Ho hum. No biggie. But because it has to do with sex, it is (as with all these issues) a big stink and never-ending controversy.

***

I already knew that I lacked worldwide statistics, so the argument is tentative in that respect. I said that where we do have statistics, 90-93% of Orthodox priests are married.

[My Orthodox dialogue opponent] precisely confirmed my argument by saying, “we don’t often have celibate parish Priests.” Why is that, if celibacy is valued in Orthodoxy as much as Catholics value it (as we are told)? We agree regarding monks and bishops. Thus, the argument is about parish priests. I’m not minimizing the importance of monasticism; I’m simply taking about one particular thing.

The Catholic argument regarding parish priests would be that they have to be responsible for hundreds or thousands of people; therefore, being single would be at least as important as it is for the monk, so that undivided attention can be given to the flock.

I’m not trying to force anything. I am giving the rationale for our view, which is constantly both maligned and misunderstood. This is what apologists do. The Orthodox (and Protestants) say that we overvalue celibacy; I am replying that they undervalue it, by the looks of things. The Bible appears to put consecrated celibacy on a higher plane than marriage (the evangelical counsels).

This is why, as a western, Latin Catholic, I am glad that celibacy is required for priests, since it merges the priesthood with heroic observance of the evangelical counsels.

***

If we get the total statistics and compare all Catholic priests with all Orthodox, it is still gonna be the case that many more Orthodox priests are married. So my question is: why? Why don’t we see many more celibate Orthodox priests than we do? Why is it that marriage is encouraged in their case but forbidden to the bishops and monks? In other words, what would be the argument against an Orthodox parish priest who wants to combine the monastic ideal with his own job as shepherd of a flock?

Why do Orthodox prefer their parish priests to be married rather than celibate?

***

I support folks keeping to all legitimate Christian traditions that are not immoral (such as, e.g., allowing contraception and divorce). I am defending the Catholic view of priestly celibacy that is constantly maligned and attacked, and challenging Orthodox to defend their own views.

I say that celibate priesthood is a higher state of life, according to the notion of heroic, consecrated celibacy, in line with the idea of the “evangelical counsels.” That seems to be what East and West disagree about; yet the East applies the same criterion to their bishops and monks, so I don’t see how they can denigrate our applying it to our priests. We simply have a stricter standard there. The Orthodox should respect that, since they are stricter than we are in a number of ways (such as fasting requirements).

It seems to come down to this notion that priests somehow have less capacity monks and bishops to be celibate, as if it is (practically) impossible or undesirable for them to do so, or as if there just aren’t enough men out there called to be both celibate and priests (which is the constant, droning secular argument against us). And this is what I object to, if that is the reasoning.

***

What we’re saying is that we choose to select our priests from among those men who are called to celibacy and the evangelical counsels.

St. Paul is talking about the average person (like me!), who is not living heroically. We’re modeling our priesthood in the Latin Rites after someone like St. Paul himself (and St. Peter): who renounces riches and the married life in order to serve his flock. Paul argued that the apostles (by extension, priests) had the right to both remuneration and to be married.

He renounced both in his own case, because he was living heroically: above and beyond. So the (Latin) Catholic Church says, in effect, “yeah; that is the sort of man we prefer in a priest: so that he can give ‘undivided attention’ to God and His flock” (1 Corinthians 7).

It’s not forcing anyone to do anything (this is why we encourage those discerning a call to take many years); it’s simply a standard and a rule. The NBA does not “force” anyone to be 6’11”. It simply chooses from the men who are that tall, to be in the NBA.

***

Yes, a single man doesn’t understand as well all the things involved in marriage (via empathy), but that is only one thing. And we shouldn’t overestimate the notion of having to personally experience everything in order to understand it. After all, that is one of the major fallacious pro-abortion arguments: “you’re not a woman! You can’t possibly understand or talk about abortion!” It’s not true.

The solution is not to ditch celibacy because discernment was lacking in too many cases, but to make the discernment more rigorous and strict. Nor does merely being married make a person, ipso facto, “more mature, psychologically stable, and orthodox.” (!!!) Surely anyone can see the fallacy there!

***

I also note that vocations (to celibate priesthood) are slowly increasing even now, with the constant talk of sexuality and attack on celibacy as an impossible ideal in Christianity (and supposed cause of sexual abuse and all the rest of the usual media / secular garbage).

Therefore, such heroic lives are still being formed and brought about by God, and our job is to find and encourage these people to become priests. But there will always be those who fall short. The entire human race is fallen. We should never be surprised by this. We have to especially do our best to minimize it in our clergy, because it is so scandalous when the priest falters and falls into sin.

A priest who says “I am called to celibacy and believe I am called to be a priest” is not “forced” to do anything. He is joyfully following God’s will for his life. Priests in the Latin Rite come from a very small group of men with that special call of heroic renunciation.

***

Why is it that Orthodox parish priests are far more likely to be married than not? I still haven’t gotten an answer to that simple question. And why does this not show that a married parish priest is the norm rather than a celibate one? What is the reasoning there? Is there any answer to my question, besides, “well, then the priest can relate to married couples better, because he’s married”? I’m simply curious as to the reasoning: why Orthodox monks are celibate but parish priests are usually married. There must be some rationale that Orthodox and Eastern Catholics give for that. But for some reason I have the greatest difficulty in getting an answer to my simple question.

Latin Rite Catholics can give many biblical, disciplinary, and practical reasons for why we think that celibate priests are a higher calling, while at the same time not denying the validity of the married priest at all. It goes back to the evangelical counsels and the Pauline “undistracted devotion to the Lord” that the single person can give.

If anyone can direct me to a specific defense of the practice of married parish priests and why they are preferred in Eastern Christianity, I’d love to see that.

***

Meanwhile, in two seconds in a Google search I can find Orthodox attacking our preference for celibate priests (this is what I have to deal with as an apologist):

The first error of the Westerners was to compel the faithful to fast on Saturdays. (I mention this seemingly small point because the least departure from Tradition can lead to a scorning of every dogma of our Faith.) Next, they convinced the faithful to despise the marriage of priests, thereby sowing in their souls the seeds of the Manichean heresy. (Except from The Encyclical Letter of Photius: 867 AD)

Photius makes no sense: if the evil, wicked “West” requires celibacy for priests, that is “Manichean,” whereas if the East requires it for monks and bishops, that’s not “anti-body” or “anti-sex” at all. The spectre of an alleged odious “anti-sex” mentality or prejudice seems to lurk behind so many critiques of our celibacy requirement, and here it is in Photius himself. Has he no knowledge of 1 Corinthians 7 or Matthew 19? Has he never heard of the evangelical counsels?

***

I am arguing, “okay, imagine a situation where celibacy is not required; does a priest voluntarily choose it or does he choose marriage?” And so Orthodox priests in the US choose marriage by a 9-1 ratio. Thus I concluded, based on that, that marriage is overwhelmingly the preference, and asked why that is? Why would the actual statistics come out like that, rather than 55% married / 45% celibate, or even 66-33?

And my sheer speculation was that celibacy is difficult, and folks will choose the easier path, given the choice; hence it comes out 9-1 in favor of marriage. Thus, making celibacy mandatory is advisable, so as to preserve the special charism and vocation of celibacy.

***

The late Fr. Ryland: a married priest in the Latin Rite (who was a friend of mine also), defended priestly celibacy in an article, and makes this historical statement (whether it is accurate or not, I don’t know):

The Eastern Orthodox discipline of optional celibacy (optional for priests and deacons, required for bishops), was first formulated in 692. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.

But the Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed the discipline of celibacy. One of its canons did retain the prohibition of bishops, priests, and deacons marrying after ordination. It also partly preserved the apostolic tradition in requiring perpetual continence of married men who were installed in the episcopate. But it decreed that married men ordained to the diaconate and priesthood could continue their conjugal life after ordination. The council herein both explicitly and polemically rejected the clerical discipline of Rome, which is to say, the apostolic tradition.

To justify this departure, Trullo quoted the earlier canons of the Council of Carthage. That council, as we have seen, had restated the rule of perpetual continence for all married clergy by appealing to what it called the apostolic tradition. Its records were widely available. Trullo changed the wording of the Carthaginian canons so that they mandated only temporary continence for married clergy only on days when they served at the altar. (This is effectively the Old Testament law for levitical priests who served in the Temple.)

Despite this radical alteration of the Carthage council’s ruling, the Council of Trullo blithely assured all who would listen that by their decrees they were only “preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order.” 11 The Catholic Church, of course, has never recognized the Council of Trullo.

If he is correct, the Eastern practice (similar to it’s late-arriving policy on divorce and remarriage) only goes back to 692, and hence is not apostolic, and barely even patristic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes about the Council of Trullo:

It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. . . . In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

Note that there was no tolerance for the Western preference for celibacy; it had to be a rule for “the whole Church” to be able to marry. Thus, the complaint (often justified) of Easterners of excessive Roman requirements and forced practices works both ways in this case. No Western bishops were even present to vote in this council! Yet they were supposedly bound to its decrees?

So we  find that at Trullo in 692 all Eastern bishops wanted to impose on the entire West the relaxation of celibacy. So it ain’t just the East wanting to observe its own traditions, but also to impose them on the West (whereas we usually hear about things the other way around: the pope imposing his will in the East). Then the obvious question to be raised would be, “why prefer a non-apostolic practice to an apostolic one?”

I’m just trying to understand rationales and to know the historical facts. If the practice can only be canonically traced to 692 then it’s not apostolic. Since it is a disciplinary and not doctrinal issue, that’s not a deal breaker altogether, but it does seem to me to be an argument for the preferability of priestly celibacy (if it has apostolic pedigree and the other practice does not).

I reiterate my own position, which is tolerant and all for observing more local traditions, while at the same time acknowledging that celibacy is a higher state of heroic renunciation and part of the evangelical counsels.

***

All we do is apply the Orthodox monastery requirements also to most parish priests. If our view doesn’t wash, then it also doesn’t among Orthodox monks. Therefore, by straightforward logic, any Orthodox argument against our celibate priests collapses, since if one estate of life is derided (celibate Catholic priests), the other corresponding one (Orthodox monks) goes with it (i.e., if we are logically consistent and making a fair, dispassionate analysis).

The Orthodox monk goes through the same conundrum that the Catholic potential priest goes through. I say that God gives the desire “to will and to do”. If He is calling one to celibacy, this doesn’t require all the anti-sex rhetoric and bloviations about how Catholics hate sex and marriage so much.

All it takes is an understanding of Jesus (some make themselves eunuchs: Matthew 19) and St. Paul (“I wish that all men were as I myself am” / “undistracted devotion” of the single man / everyone has his own calling).

Heroic renunciation of sex for the sake of the kingdom is not the same as being “against” sex. Man, if folks could just grasp that concept, I would be eternally grateful! It’s always been difficult for me to comprehend why many find it so difficult, because it was always utterly self-evident to me, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. It’s really not hard to understand at all. But because it has to do with sex, all this silly and irrelevant and hyper-polemical junk gets bandied about.

As I’ve said over and over, I have nothing against married priests (where they are allowed by canon law). I have been friends with two in the Latin Rite (the late great Fr. Ray Ryland and Fr. Dwight Longenecker).

So as usual, it is the Orthodox frowning upon (indeed, by the looks of it, also being downright prejudiced against) distinctive Catholic practices, while we are fully tolerant of Orthodox practices; indeed, allow them among Eastern Catholics and may (for all we know) allow them again in the Latin Rite on a wider basis, since we already do in terms of dispensations for Anglicans, etc. It’s a discipline and can change.

Surveys have shown that 80% of Catholic celibate priests would stay so even if allowed to marry.

***

If we allow choice of celibacy or not for [parish] clergy [which I have said over and over is what i am talking about], it seems like the de facto norm quickly becomes marriage. This appears to be the case in Orthodoxy (from what statistics I could find), and it certainly unquestionably is in Protestantism.

This, in turn (without judging any individual’s call; I don’t need to, to make my argument) seems to undercut what I believe is the priority given to celibacy (as a “higher / heroic calling”) in the New Testament. If we grant that, then it becomes an argument for making it mandatory, so that celibacy can be given the place of honor that the New Testament appears to call for.

That was my exact argument. The lopsided ratio among Orthodox priests suggests to me that celibacy is being undervalued in a way that St. Paul and Jesus (who even literally talked about leaving wives and homes and everything whatever for the sake of ministry) never do.

I’m not opposed to married priests in principle: even to a possible change in the Latin Rite (though I would favor a limited one, if so); my concern is with preservation and honoring of the celibate higher calling. To be concerned for one doesn’t entail being against the other (yet it is so often perceived to be so, because folks think in “either/or” dichotomous terms).

***

It could possibly be also in Orthodoxy that some of those who are called by God to be celibate and a parish priest refrain from doing so because of the environment that is overwhelmingly making a married parish priest the norm. In this case, they are not opposing God’s will so much as being discouraged from what they believe to be His perfect will, because of the clergy situation “on the ground.”

***

(originally 8-2-14 on Facebook)

Photo credit: P-JR (7-6-14); pellegrina of a Catholic priest [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019 By

[from my 2013 book, pictured above (see purchase & general information); available in Spanish and French as well), except that I have provided all the passages in RSV (the book was mostly KJV)]

*****

Salvation is Ultimately by Grace Alone

Where does it state that we are saved by grace alone?

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, 

Are we justified by grace?

Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

Are we called by grace?

Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 

Does justification come through grace rather than law?

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose. 

Salvation is Not by Faith Alone

Where is the Protestant notion of faith alone (sola fide) denied?

James 2:22, 24 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,… [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Are works, in conjunction with faith, said to be necessary for salvation?

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 

Is faith alone described as insufficient for salvation?

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

Do we actually “work out” our salvation?

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 

Can we deny God and our faith in Him, by our deeds?

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. 

Do we have to obey Jesus, as well as have faith in Him, to be saved?

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Is something more required for salvation than believing in and calling on Jesus’ name?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Can we deceive ourselves by hearing the gospel message of salvation only, and not being “doers” of it?

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Is obedience to Jesus directly tied to salvation (even without mentioning faith)?

Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 

Salvation is Not by Works Alone (Pelagianism)

Where is it expressly stated that our works cannot save us?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (cf. 2 Tim 1:9 above)

Is grace shown to be in contradistinction to works, in terms of salvation?

Romans 11:5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. [6] But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 

Grace + Faith + Works + Obedience = Salvation

Are grace, faith, and obedience ever linked together in one passage?

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

Is obedience to the gospel important, as well as belief in the gospel?

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . . 

Are faith and obedience aligned?

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — 

Is there such a thing as a “work of faith”?

1 Thessalonians 1:3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

***

(originally from 2013)

***

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019 By

From my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in 1996, published by Sophia Institute Press in 2003; pp. 32-39).

*****

Matthew 5:20 (RSV): “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

Our Lord here shows us that it is necessary not only to believe in him, but also to keep all the Commandments (as the Pharisees were scrupulous in their observance of Mosaic Law). This standard indicates the very high level of perfection to which we are called. “Faith alone” is refuted.

Matthew 7:16-27: “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So every sound tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ Everyone, then, who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”

Jesus puts salvation into very practical terms. He reiterates the teaching of Matthew 5:20 by emphasizing acts of obedience, as opposed to mere verbal proclamations or head knowledge. Even some miraculous works are not necessarily under his superintendence.

A similar dynamic is also present in Matthew 25:31-46, the great scene of the separation of sheep and goats, where Christ continually makes the works of faith the central criterion of judgment. And again in Luke 18:18-25, where the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asks if he has kept the Commandments. Upon finding out that he has, he commands him to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus was quite an incompetent missionary, according to the pragmatic evangelistic techniques and criteria for “success” which prevail among many of today’s Evangelicals.

Nothing whatsoever is spoken about faith alone in any of these passages, as would be rightfully expected if Luther were correct about the nature of saving faith. All Christians agree that a person living unrighteously is in great danger. Catholics say that such a one has lost the state of grace through mortal sin, whereas most Evangelicals contend that they were likely never saved at all. In any event, the actual outcome is the same in both cases if the sinning persists: hellfire.

Matthew 16:27: “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.”

Cardinal Newman comments:

Faith has a certain prerogative of dignity under the Gospel. At the same time, we must never forget that the more usual mode of doctrine both with Christ and His Apostles is to refer our acceptance to obedience to the commandments, not to faith. . . .

There are multitudes who would avow with confidence and exultation that they put obedience only in the second place in their religious scheme, as if it were rather a necessary consequence of faith than requiring a direct attention for its own sake; a something subordinate to it, rather than connatural and contemporaneous with it. . . .

These declarations, [He cites, in addition to Matthew 16:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Acts 10:42, James 2:24, and Revelation 22:14] so solemnly, so repeatedly made, must hold good in their plain and obvious sense, and may not be infringed or superseded. [Sermon: “Faith and Obedience,” 1836. All cited Newman sermons can be found in his Parochial and Plain Sermons (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987) and come from his Anglican period

Luke 14:13-14: “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

The idea here appears to be the same one expressed by our Lord in Matthew 16:27: that of differential rewards in Heaven commensurate with deeds done in his grace and with heartfelt devotion.

John 1:29: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

Here we see that sins are obliterated, not merely “covered over.” There are many other passages in the same vein:

2 Samuel 12:13: “The Lord also has put away your sin.”

1 Chronicles 21:8: “Take away the iniquity of thy servant.”

Psalm 51:2, 7, 9-10: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. . . . Blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.”

Psalm 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.”

Isaiah 43:25: “I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake.”

Isaiah 44:22: “I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist, for I have redeemed you.”

Ezekiel 37:23: “I . . . will cleanse them.”

Acts 3:19: “Repent, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.”

1 John 1:7: “The blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from all sin.”

1 John 1:9: “He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

The Greek word for “blotted out” in Acts 3:19, exalipho, is used in Revelation 3:5, where names from the book of life are blotted out — obviously an obliteration, with the most dire consequences. In Revelation 7:17 and 21:4, the word has reference to God’s wiping away tears in Heaven: again, clearly an absolute act of removal. Therefore, the notion that the above passages are only metaphorical or symbolic would appear to be a strained and implausible interpretation. The language is so definite as to leave no doubt: sin is taken away, put away, swept away, washed, purged, cleansed, blotted out, or removed.

Likewise, the word for “cleanse” in 1 John 1:7, 9 is katharizo, which is used to describe the cleansing of lepers throughout the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 11:5; Mark 1:42; Luke 7:22). This is indisputably an “infused” cleansing, rather than an “imputed” one. Why should God settle for anything less when it comes to our sin and justification?

To be fair, Protestants stress this actual sanctification, as we have already acknowledged, but in separating it in principle, and abstractly, from justification and the “working out” of one’s salvation, they have constructed yet another unnecessary dichotomy, the net result of which has been a lessening of the vital role of works, which thereby tend to be regarded as far less compulsory, to the detriment of holiness.

John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

The Greek word for “believes” is pistuo, and the Greek for “does not obey” is apitheo. There is a parallelism in this verse, whereby belief and obedience are essentially identical. When all is said and done, believing in Christ is obeying him. This ought to be kept in mind by Protestant evangelists and pastors who urge penitents to “believe in Christ,” “accept Christ,” etc. To disobey Christ is to be subject to the wrath of God. Thus, again, we are faced with the inescapable necessity of good works — wrought by God’s grace, and done in the spirit of charity — for the purpose and end of ultimate salvation, holiness, and communion with God.

St. Peter, in 1 Peter 2:7, uses the same parallelism, with the same two identical Greek words (believe/disobedient in KJV). St. Paul uses apitheo with regard to disobedience to parents in Romans 1:30 and 2 Timothy 3:2, and in a more general sense (describing sinners) in Titus 1:16 and 3:3. Obviously, no one disbelieves in the existence of his parents. St. Paul is speaking of disobeying parents’ commands. In the same sense, such disobedience (not mere lack of faith) is said to be the basis of the loss of eternal life in John 3:36.

To speculate further, if it be granted that pistuo (“believe”) is roughly identical to “obeying,” as it indisputably is in John 3:36, by simple deduction, then its use elsewhere is also much more commensurate with the Catholic view of infused justification rather than the more abstract, extrinsic, and forensic Protestant view; for example, the “classic” Protestant evangelistic verse John 3:16, Jesus’ constant demand to believe in him in John 5 through 10, and St. Paul’s oft-cited salvific exhortations in Romans 1:16, 4:24, 9:33, and 10:9, generally thought to be irrefutable proofs of the Protestant viewpoint on saving faith.

John 6:27-29: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal. Then said they to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ”

In verses 28 and 29, working and belief in Christ are equated, much like obedience and belief in John 3:36. In the marvelous phrase “doing the works of God,” we see that our works and God’s are intertwined if indeed we are doing his will. This is the Catholic viewpoint: an organic connection of both faith with works, and God’s unmerited grace coupled with our cooperation and obedience. Our Lord constantly alludes to the related ideas of reward and merit, which are complementary: Matthew 5:11-12, 6:3, 18, 10:42, 12:36-37, 25:14-30; Luke 6:35, 38; 12:33. St. Paul, using the same word for “works” (ergon), speaks in Acts 26:20 of the process of repenting, turning to God, and doing deeds worthy of their repentance. In other words, they will thus prove their repentance by their deeds.

Acts 10:31: “Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms have been remembered before God.”

Acts 10:35: “But in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

The Gentile Cornelius is told by an angel that his alms (works done in faith) put him in good stead with God vis-à-vis becoming a Christian. Later, St. Peter reiterates this by stating that whoever “fears him and does what is right” is accepted by God; that is, both faith and allegiance must be present. The ongoing principle of the organic closeness of faith and works is again evident.

Acts 22:16: “ ‘And now, why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ ”

Cardinal Newman comments on this verse:

A man may . . . [think] that in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans nothing is said about channels and instruments; that faith is represented as the sole medium of justification. . . . Yet from other parts of the history, we learn . . . that an especial revelation was made to Ananias, lest Saul should go without Baptism; and that, so far from his being justified immediately on his faith, he was bid not to tarry, but “to arise and be baptized, and to wash away his sins….”

Here, then, we have a clear instance in St. Paul’s case, that there are priestly services between the soul and God, even under the Gospel; that though Christ has purchased inestimable blessings for our race, yet that it is still necessary ever to apply them to individuals by visible means. [Sermon: “The Christian Ministry,” 1835]

The Protestant has difficulty explaining this passage, for it is St. Paul’s own recounting of his odyssey as a newly “born-again” Christian. We have here the Catholic doctrine of (sacramental) sanctification/justification, in which sins are actually removed. The phraseology “wash away your sins” is reminiscent of Psalm 51:2, 7; 1 John 1:7, 9; and similar texts dealing with infused justification, dealt with earlier. We note also a similarity to St. Peter’s first sermon in the Upper Room upon being filled with the Holy Spirit:

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

According to the standard Evangelical soteriology, the apostle Paul would have been instantly “justified” at the Damascus-road experience when he first converted (almost involuntarily!) to Christ (Acts 9:1-9). Thus, his sins would have been “covered over” and righteousness imputed to him at that point. If so, why would St. Paul use this terminology of washing away sins at Baptism in a merely symbolic sense (as they assert), since it would be superfluous? The reasonable alternative, especially given the evidence of other related scriptures, is that St. Paul was speaking literally, not symbolically.

***

Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, 1889, by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 27, 2019

March 27, 2019 By

From my book, The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004, pp. 124-126).

*****

1 Corinthians 11:27-30: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

St. Paul hints at the sacredness of the Eucharist when he warns (using extremely strong language) of the consequences of receiving it without reverence and discernment. The implication is quite clear: something more than mere bread and wine, more than a pleasant “memorial meal,” is going on here.

But again, many Protestants today have lost the sacramental outlook of Martin Luther (and to a lesser extent, even of John Calvin). Baptist apologist James White provides a contemporary version of Zwinglian symbolism:

Participation in the Supper is meant to be a memorial (not a sacrifice) of the death of Christ, not the carefree and impious party it had become at Corinth (The Roman Catholic Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 175).

Martin Luther would have a great problem with such reasoning, and in refuting it, he closely approximates what a Catholic response would be. He argues that it is pointless for St. Paul to speak of sin here (“profaning” in the text) if Jesus “is not present in the eating of the bread” and that “the nature and character of the sentence requires” this “clear” interpretation. Luther sums up his exegetical argument:

It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks” (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, 183-184).

I prefer what is often called the “superstition” of Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and the Fathers of the Church, as it seems to be far and away the most natural reading of all these texts. Augustine wrote:

[I]t is the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord even in those to whom the Apostle said: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself” (Baptism, 5, 8, 9; in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator. The Faith of the Early Fathers. 3 vols. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979, Vol. III, 68).

The eucharistic “Catholic verses” are some of the most important in the entire Catholic exegetical and apologetic arsenal. In order to avoid their clear meaning, Protestants must skirt them, special plead, and read their own prior biases into texts. This is, of course, all contrary to the usual Protestant acknowledgment that Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless the text clearly indicates otherwise.

These passages are so compelling that they played a crucial role in producing a nearly unanimous patristic acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Several major Protestant Church historians and experts on history of Christian doctrine note this (e.g., Otto W. Heick, Williston Walker, Philip Schaff, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Carl Volz). The historical facts on this point are indisputable. As just one representative statement, I cite J. N. D. Kelly, perhaps the most-cited patristics scholar:

One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors (Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978, 447).

Catholics need not be shy in defending the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The biblical evidence is very strong, and so is the history of the beliefs of the early Christians on this score. We have nothing to fear, and we can decisively win this battle of “competing eucharistic theologies” on the field of Scripture and history alike.

***

Photo credit: The Apostle Paul (c. 1657), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 27, 2019

March 27, 2019 By

From my book, The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004, pp. 79-83).

*****

1 Corinthians 9:27 (RSV): “I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

1 Corinthians 10:12: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Galatians 5:1: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

Galatians 5:4: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Philippians 3:8-14: “Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 4:1: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.”

Catholics believe, in accordance with these passages, that salvation can be lost and that one can fall out of faith and the good graces of God. Passages such as these about falling away from faith, or what is called apostasy, present a problem, however, for Calvinist Protestants, because their system requires them to deny the possibility that such a thing can ever take place. For them, sinners are elected by God from eternity and protected from ever falling away. Human participation or vigilance or effort plays no role whatsoever in ultimate salvation.

Therefore, the elect or “saved” person cannot possibly lose his salvation. When a person seems to be on the wrong path (caught up in adultery or some other clearly sinful behavior), the Calvinist community immediately assumes that he was never saved in the first place (or else he would not have sinned so badly). This is circular reasoning, and also contrary to much Scripture, such as the verses above.

[clarifying note from 3-27-19: my wording could have been more precise in the above two paragraphs. Catholics agree that the elect are the ones who are actually saved, and that God elected them from all eternity. The actual elect cannot possibly fall away. What we are contending, on the other hand, is whether a person who by all appearances is “saved” or “born again” (in the Protestant understanding) or regenerated and in God’s good graces, can fall from grace or salvation. We (from our limited human knowledge) can’t know for sure who is among the elect]

Albert Barnes, in his Notes, makes a fallacious analysis of Galatians 5:4. He tries to apply Paul’s words about apostasy to those who never possessed grace to begin with, since they were (like the Judaizers) trying to be saved by the law:

[T]his passage does not prove that anyone who has ever been a true Christian has fallen away. The fair interpretation of the passage does not demand that. Its simple and obvious meaning is that, if a man who had been a professed Christian should be justified by his own conformity to the law, and adopt that mode of justification, then that would amount to a rejection of the mode of salvation by Christ, and would be a renouncing of the plan of justification by grace. (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983)

This makes no sense and, with all due respect to Barnes, cannot be sustained from the text. The fact remains that these people fell away. Whether they fell away from a belief-system of justification by grace or from grace as a state of personal relationship with God, or both, makes no difference. For in both instances, they were either believing as Christians are, or in the state of grace and regeneration that Christians are in, by virtue of baptism and the personal decision to follow Christ.

Secondly, the entire tone and tenor of the epistle to the Galatians shows that Paul believes he is writing to Christians. He refers to “the churches of Galatia” (1:2). In 1:6 he speaks of the Galatians “deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.” This does not read as if they never knew or believed in God’s grace. One cannot desert something he never had. One cannot turn to something different if one never possessed the thing that is being contrasted with the different thing.

If St. Paul thought they had never possessed the true gospel in the first place, it seems obvious that he would have used different terminology; he would have written that they never did understand or accept the gospel of grace alone. He would not have expressed his judgment in terms of deserting and turning and falling away and being “severed from Christ.” Can a branch be severed from a tree to which it was never attached?

St. Paul assumes throughout that this was a case of apostasy of those who were Christians. He says they “received” the gospel (1:9); he refers to the “grace that was given to me” (2:9) and then says the Galatians had “begun with the Spirit” (3:3); he writes to them that “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . . . You are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:27-28); he says the Galatians are God’s “sons,” upon whom He “sent the Spirit of his Son” into “our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ ” (4:6).

St. Paul states that they formerly did not know God, but “have come to know God” only to return to bondage again (4:8-9). He believes that the Galatians “were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth [5:7]?” The entire letter explicitly indicates apostasy. It could hardly be more clear than it is. What else could Paul have written to make it any more obvious?

Thirdly, logically speaking, the fact that some might be turning to salvation by works and law does not prove that they never accepted salvation by grace alone. The two are not intrinsically related. Believing one thing does not prove that one never adhered to a different system formerly. Barnes simply assumes this (as is so often the case in Protestant exegesis — at least where “Catholic” implications are present), because he is not allowed to hold that anyone can ever fall away from faith, no matter what the Bible might inform us about such possibilities.

Fourthly, the Greek word for fallen, ekpipto, is often used elsewhere in the New Testament in the sense of “falling from that estate in which something once was”; for example: the stars from heaven (Mark 13:25); chains falling off hands (Acts 12:7); shipwreck and falling off a boat (Acts 27:26, 29, 32); and apostasy, or at least a spiritual degeneration (Rev. 2:5). Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel discusses the root word pipto in relation to apostasy:

[P]ipto may also be used for loss of faith and separation from grace (1 Cor. 10:12). At issue here is an apostasy from God or Christ which means disqualification (1 Cor. 9:27). In Rom. 14:4 standing and falling are oriented to the fact that each must answer to the Lord as Judge. The use is absolute in Heb. 4:11: a specific sin is not in view but apostasy. In Rev. 2:5 leaving the first love is the point (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 847)

Much more plausible is, I think, John Henry Newman’s sermon on Philippians 3:12 and related scriptures:

[W]e do not know the standard by which God will judge us. Nothing that we are can assure us that we shall answer to what He expects of us; for we do not know what that is. . . . This thought will surely ever keep us from dwelling on our own proficiency. . . .

The doctrine, then, that few are chosen though many be called, properly understood, has no tendency whatever to make us fancy ourselves secure and others reprobate. We cannot see the heart; we can but judge from externals, from words and deeds, professions and habits. But these will not save us, unless we persevere in them to the end; and they are no evidence that we shall be saved, except so far as they suggest hope that we shall persevere. They are but a beginning; they tell for nothing till they are completed. Till we have done all, we have done nothing; we have but a prospect, not possession (Parochial and Plain Sermons, V, 1840, Sermon 18: “Many Called, Few Chosen,” 1110-1119).

***

Photo credit: Apostle Paul (1633?), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019 By

Acts 16:30-31 (RSV) and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” [31] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

But of course, Jesus explains what it means to “believe” in Him:

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Matthew 7:14-27 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.  [15] “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. [16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ [24] “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; [25] and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. [26] And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; [27] and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”

Luke 6:46 Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?

Jesus Himself explained what was required (not just mere belief!), when asked how one receives eternal life: “Jesus vs. ‘Faith Alone’ (Rich Young Ruler)”.  I also found 50 passages having to do with judgment and entrance into heaven. Not one referred to faith alone or faith only.

Thus, if someone wants to simplistically appeal to Acts 16:30-31 (or John 3:16 et al) as some quick formula for “faith alone” as the supposedly biblical way of salvation, they at least need to understand in the context of biblical thought on salvation what it means to “believe” in Jesus Christ.

We all initially or in casual assumption, approach the Bible from a post-Enlightenment [hyper-]”rationalistic” mindset; whereas it has to be understood in terms of 1st century Semitic / Near Eastern culture, which is very different from Greek either/or rationalism. It’s not irrational, but it is a fuller, both/and understanding.

The Bible student must learn about the latter and also realize that the former is a profound influence in how he reads and comprehends the Bible, which has to be largely unlearned.

***

(originally 1-8-19)

Photo credit: The Lord’s Prayer, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 20, 2019

March 20, 2019 By

A friend of mine commented on my Facebook page (edited slightly for prudential reasons):

Certainly, no blogger / writer / apologist / theologian is going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and it’s good that there is a diversity of views, backgrounds, personalities, etc. If someone is pushing forward a viewpoint that someone else views as heterodox, it seems better to allow them to debate, engage, and discuss their disagreement (so long as it remains civil, charitable, and respectful), than to censor and expel.

Is it so wrong if there are [ostensibly Catholic] writers who hold heterodox views? It seems better to charitably engage and debate such people, than to censor, condemn, and punish them? For some people, ‘heterodox’ means views they disagree with (as opposed to views the Magisterium disagrees with). Too often, it reminds me of the old joke about ‘hate speech’: I’ll tell you what ‘hate speech’ is; it’s speech that I hate!

Heterodoxy is never a good thing, because falsehood is not good, and we know where it ultimately comes from. Dealing with individuals and educating them is one thing (a thing I do all the time). We must be patient and understanding if a person simply doesn’t know (as opposed to deliberate, obstinate falsehood).

Presenting the teaching of Catholicism in public is quite another. Identifiable Catholic writers are responsible to get it right. This is not a matter of mere subjective taste and preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, but of objective doctrinal orthodoxy. There is latitude and leeway on some doctrines, such as predestination, or, say, the charismatic movement (which I have defended, as have many popes). But most Catholic doctrines are pretty firmly established by now. So you may ask, “how do we know what is orthodox?” It’s easy:

1) Catechism of the Catholic Church
2) Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church
3) Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (revised and updated 2018 edition)
4) Ecumenical Councils [see a multi-lingual resource containing all the conciliar documents]
5) Papal encyclicals

[#1-5 are basically how we determine magisterial Catholic teaching]

6) Good (orthodox!) apologetics and historical materials explaining same if necessary.

I am good friends with the editor and translator of the latest versions of Denzinger and Ott, Dr. Robert Fastiggi.

If we lead people astray by claiming that Catholicism teaches or sanctions doctrine or moral view x, and in fact it does not, God will hold us accountable. Teaching in the Church in any capacity is a very serious business, and James 3:1 (RSV) states: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.”

I tremble every day and make sure anything I teach or convey in writing is in accord with the magisterium of the Catholic Church. As far as I know, I have never taught any serious doctrinal error in my 26 years of published Catholic apologetics (Karl Keating recently made note of this: in regarding my overall writings — in terms of orthodoxy — favorably, even compared to Jimmy Akin and Scott Hahn).

I’ve made mistakes, of course (and have publicly retracted and apologized when I did), but nothing of the nature of serious doctrinal dissent or falsehood, as far as I am aware.

The great apologist G. K. Chesterton wrote eloquently (in his 1908 book, Orthodoxy: written 14 years before he was received into the Catholic Church) about how orthodoxy — far from being a restrictive or negative thing — was wonderfully adventurous and a necessity:

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom–that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. (ending of section VI: “The Paradoxes of Christianity”)

Chesterton offers a delightful word-picture of Catholic tradition (my very favorite description of tradition) in the same book:

Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased. (from section IX: “Authority and the Adventurer”)

Conversely, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (to be canonized as a saint in the near-future), excoriated the opposite of orthodoxy: the logical reduction of theological liberalism or heterodoxy:

And, I rejoice to say, to one great mischief I have from the first opposed myself. For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of Liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often. Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrines in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society. (“Biglietto Speech” upon becoming a Cardinal, 12 May 1879)

Fifteen years earlier, in his spiritual autobiography, Apologia pro vita Sua, he had noted:

[T]there are but two alternatives, the way to Rome, and the way to Atheism: Anglicanism is the halfway house on the one side, and Liberalism is the halfway house on the other. (chapter 4)

Both Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone rejects any binding, required doctrine of the Catholic Church, they lose the supernatural virtue of faith. That is downright scary. Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, my mentor, used to reiterate this quite often in his Ignatian catechist classes that I attended.

This is no small matter. To be a Catholic is to accept, obediently in faith, all that the Church infallibly teaches, in her capacity as the Guardian of the apostolic deposit. If someone is picking and choosing what they will accept or reject in infallible Catholic teaching (what has been sarcastically called “cafeteria Catholic”), then they are already functionally or presuppositionally Protestant and have adopted the Protestant, rather than Catholic rule of faith.

We can always grow in our understanding, and better comprehend why we believe what we believe as Catholics (this is the function and purpose of apologetics: my own field, whereas catechetics deals with the “what”). We have an entire lifetime to do that. But in the meantime we believe and adjust our theological beliefs to be in line with those of the Catholic Church (yes, with all her tremendous faults and warts on the part of flawed individuals within her domain), rather than vice versa.

***

Photo credit: G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), at about the time he wrote Orthodoxy (1908) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 18, 2019

March 18, 2019 By

+ Comparison with Other Authors

I ran across this tonight in my usual scanning of the Amazon lists of bestselling books. I’ve always said that my books (and writings in general) probably require a high school education to have the most impact on a reader.

Secondly, I’ve reiterated that I am trying to challenge and “stretch” readers to expand their horizons in the theological realm. I resist at every turn, calls for “dumbing down” or simplifying, because I think it is important to show people that religious matters can be mind-challenging and intellectually stimulating, rather than infantile speculations for the gullible, as is often charged by agnostics and atheists. The more we Christian writers “dumb down”, the more that false impression is fostered.

Thirdly, I have said that oftentimes I feel like I am writing in a “zone” that is somewhere between undergraduate college and academia. I think that I use probably an above average number of “big words” and that I tend towards longer sentences (actually, the latter is seen below to be not as much the case as I had thought).

My three books for Sophia [as of 2007; it is now six], all now have, by the way, the “Search Inside” capability, as listed on amazon:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003)

The Catholic Verses (2004)

The One-Minute Apologist (2007)

“Search Inside” for The Catholic Verses, however, has less features than for the other two books. I think the reason is because it was only recently added to the other two, and as Amazon has developed it, more (rather interesting and fun) things have been added. One of the cool new aspects of this search and “analysis” capacity is called “text stats.” I’ve never seen anything like it. First it offers three measuring criteria for “Readability” (my emphases):

The Readability calculations estimate how easy it is to read and understand the text of a book.

The Fog Index was developed by Robert Gunning. It indicates the number of years of formal education required to read and understand a passage of text.

The Flesch Index, developed in 1940 by Dr. Rudolph Flesch, is another indicator of reading ease. The score returned is based on a 100 point scale, with 100 being easiest to read. Scores between 90 and 100 are appropriate for 5th and 6th graders, while a college degree is considered necessary to understand text with a score between 0 and 30.

The Flesch-Kincaid Index is a refinement to the Flesch Index that tries to relate the score to a U.S. grade level. For example, text with a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.1 would be considered suitable for someone with a 10th grade or higher reading level.

Then there is the “Complexity” criterion: percentage of “complex words” (three or more syllables), syllables per word, and words per sentence. Then, for both broad standards, one can compare a book with all other books, or other books narrowed down into more specific categories. So let’s see how my books rate:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Readability Compared with books in All Categories
Fog Index: 14.1
61% are easier
39% are harder
Flesch Index: 51.9
47% are easier
53% are harder
Flesch-Kincaid Index: 10.9
57% are easier
43% are harder
Complexity
Complex Words: 16%
55% have fewer
45% have more
Syllables per Word: 1.6
48% have fewer
52% have more
Words per Sentence: 19.8
70% have fewer
30% have more

It’s interesting that when one compares A Biblical Defense of Catholicism to others in the Catholic theology category, that it becomes (relatively) considerably easier to read. The first criterion then gives percentages of 36%, 34%, and 35%, and the second 43%, 40%, and 42%: quite statistically significant differences.

Here are the stats for The One-Minute Apologist:

Readability Compared with other books
Fog Index: 12.9
51% are easier
49% are harder
Flesch Index: 54.4
43% are easier
57% are harder
Flesch-Kincaid Index: 10.1
48% are easier
52% are harder
Complexity
Complex Words: 14%
50% have fewer
50% have more
Syllables per Word: 1.6
47% have fewer
53% have more
Words per Sentence: 17.9
59% have fewer
41% have more

All indications here are for a simpler book, which is to be expected, due to the summarizing, compact, Reader’s Digest nature of the book (two pages for each sub-topic). Only the syllables per word remained the same. The education levels required are what I would expect: two years of college for Biblical Defense (“BDC”) and one year of college for One-Minute Apologist (“OMA”): according to the fog index. But according to Flesch-Kincaid, only an eleventh-grade and tenth-grade education are required. If we average the two, it comes out to a half year of college for BDC and halfway through 12th grade for OMA.

And then averaging these averages for the two books (i.e., adding up the four measures and dividing by four), it comes out to exactly a high school education (12.0): precisely as I have said for years. I shall use this method to compare my books with others. Using the same averages for complexity, we arrive at the following “master readability index” for my (two) books:

Readability: 12.0 (high school education; roughly 54 percentile; a little bit above average for all books)

Complex Words (three + syllables): 15% (just about average for all books)

Syllables per Word: 1.6 (also just about average)

Words per Sentence: 18.85 (roughly 65 percentile: 35% of books have more)

Now let’s have a lot of fun and make some comparisons with other writers:

Scott Hahn (A Father Who Keeps His Promises + The Lamb’s Supper):

Readability: 11.95

Complex Words: 13%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 20.6

So compared to Scott, my writings require one-twentieth of a year more education to properly understand, have 2% more complex words, have .1 more syllables per word average, but 1.75 less words per sentence average. This is fascinating, since Scott Hahn is a professor, and I have a BA in sociology with a minor in psychology and no formal theological education. I would say, then, that he is deliberately making his material simpler to read (which is, I think, very good for an academic to do, so he is not just writing to other scholars), and I am not trying to do that at all, making our two “readability” indices come out about the same.

I’m curious about Peter Kreeft, since he is a philosopher by trade, and one of my favorite apologists (Catholic Christianity + Fundamentals of the Faith):

Readability: 10.73

Complex Words: 13.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 17.35

I find this very interesting also. Kreeft’s two books require about a year and a quarter less education than Scott’s and my books. His complex words are 1.5% less than mine and 0.5% more than Scott Hahn. He uses 1.5 less words per sentence than I do and 3.25 less than Scott. Clearly, again, he is simplifying, which is a good thing. When one is at the sublime level of intelligence and insight of a Hahn or a Kreeft, if one didn’t simplify, few would either understand or benefit.

How about a well-known and beloved historic apologist like G. K. Chesterton? He did not have a college education, so cannot technically be considered an academic. But he was an undeniably great thinker and writer (Orthodoxy + The Everlasting Man):

Readability: 12.9

Complex Words: 12.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 23.05

What is most surprising to me here is the words per sentence figure. I think of Chesterton as a short sentence-writer. Yet for these two books (his most famous apologetics titles), he averages 4.2 more words per sentence than I do, and also surpasses Kreeft and Hahn. His readability requires a higher grade level, as I would suspect, since, according to my hypothesis, academics writing for the populace have to necessarily simplify their writing and expression.

Chesterton, being more like me in this regard (no theological degree) probably felt that he could write as he wished. Consequently, his works actually require more education by these criteria than those of the academics Kreeft and Hahn. He was also an exceedingly wise man, and that surely requires more complexity to convey in words. But, curiously, Chesterton uses fewer complex words. It’s funny how all three average 1.5 syllables per word, but my average is 1.6.

How about my favorite writer, the great Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity + Screwtape Letters)?

Readability: 11.47

Complex Words: 9.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.45

Words per Sentence: 22.25

Lewis is notable for considerably fewer complex words. I’m interested in seeing how different his stats are for a children’s book and also for one of his strictly academic books, written to fellow scholars (and both scarcely “apologetic” at all, as are the above two books). If we examine his famous children’s book (part of The Chronicles of Narnia), The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, we find exactly what we would expect of a children’s book:

Readability: 6.7

[Flesch Index was 79.2, so that it is as easy to read as 95% of all books]

Complex Words: 5%

Syllables per Word: 1.3

Words per Sentence: 14.4

We see that it is suitable for a child in seventh grade to read, with far fewer complex words, words per sentence, and even less average syllables per word. But if we take a look at his scholarly works, we see, of course, a huge difference in the other direction. I shall average the results from five such volumes: The Discarded Image, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Studies in Words, An Experiment in Criticism, and A Preface to Paradise Lost:

Readability: 12.06

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.58

Words per Sentence: 19.56

This is interesting in that even the scholarly works are accessible to those with a high school education. Probably, Lewis’ work as a popular lay apologist spilled over into his actual academic writing (which is a good thing, I think). He still uses 1 % less complex words than I do (I appear to be the king of three-syllable-plus words!).

That was fascinating. Now, I’d like to analyze John Henry Cardinal Newman‘s works, that are considered by many very “dense” and difficult to read (and, in my mind, known for very long , eloquent sentences): An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (the edition used here also includes three other related works), Parochial and Plain Sermons (considered by some the finest sermons in the English language), Apologia pro vita sua (his spiritual autobiography), and The Idea of a University:

Readability: 13.79

Complex Words: 13.75%

Syllables per Word: 1.53

Words per Sentence: 24.78

Some individual differences in Newman’s writings are striking. Of these four titles, The Idea of a University was significantly less “readable”: a remarkable 17.45 average, or the middle of thee second year of graduate school (!!!). Development came in second, with 13.6 (middle of sophomore year in college), while the other two were about equal: 12.0, or high school education. Idea also had far more words per sentence than the average: 33.1. Development had the most complex words: 17% and Sermons the fewest: 10%, with the others in-between.

How would St. Thomas Aquinas rank, then? His writing is often synonymous in many people’s opinions, with difficult, dry-as-dust writing. Summa Theologica gives these statistics:

Readability: 9.7

Complex Words: 13%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 15.1

This is most surprising. Less than a tenth grade education is required, and there are relatively fewer complex words and long sentences. So it seems that the great Doctor uses simple words to get his extraordinary ideas across. His thought processes, and how he argues and utilizes logic, however, are something else again, and cannot be measured by these criteria.

I’m curious about the eminent Protestant philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Some of his more well-known straight philosophical works are Warranted Christian Belief, God and Other Minds, The Nature of Necessity, and Warrant and Proper Function. Here are the average stats:

Readability: 14.7

Complex Words: 16.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.63

Words per Sentence: 24.35

This is as expected for a modern analytic philosopher. He’s the most difficult to read of anyone thus far: more than halfway through junior year of college, most complex words and syllables per word, and sentence length just slightly lower by average than the “long-winded” Cardinal Newman. Warrant and Proper Function is his most difficult book to read, with a 16.5 readability rating, 17% for complex words, 1.7 average, syllables per word, and 28.1 words per sentence.

A modern philosopher, Rene Descartes, shows very high numbers (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy):

Readability: 18.95

Complex Words: 12.0%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 39.4

Descartes (in this one work) has the highest readability level of anyone on my list (almost three years of graduate school), which is interesting because I read this in a first year of college introduction to philosophy course (12 years of school). The strange thing is that his “big words” are a low proportion. He also wins the highest words per sentence, hands down.

As an example, I was curious to look at a technical scientific work. How about The Elegant Universe, by physicist Brian Greene (that I happen to have in my own library)?:

Readability: 15.5

Complex Words: 18%

Syllables per Word: 1.7

Words per Sentence: 24.2

Not surprisingly, Greene breaks the record in the first three categories, with the readability rated at halfway through the senior year of college.

I’m curious about someone like John Calvin, who writes in a pretty “high” and (some would say) quite dry style. Here are the stats for his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Readability: 10.2

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 15.9

Like St. Thomas Aquinas, I think the ratings here are surprising, in the more “readable” direction. But again, complete thoughts are not able to be measured, so that a writing may use relatively simpler words in the service of relatively more complex ideas. I think that is true of both Aquinas and Calvin.

As for Catholic theologians, it is said that Hans Urs von Balthasar makes for very difficult reading. I’ll do an average of his (Explorations in Theology: I. The Word Made Flesh, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: III, and Elucidations):

Readability: 16.83

Complex Words: 15.33%

Syllables per Word: 1.57

Words per Sentence: 30.77

Balthasar’s Explorations in Theology, I comes in the highest level of readability: 18.25 years of education, or third year of graduate school! He also has the highest average for readability, by quite a margin (almost one year of graduate school), and the highest average for words per sentence, by far (remarkably, twice as much as both Aquinas and Calvin). So, yep, he is definitely difficult to read. No question, by these stats.

And of course we ought to include Pope Benedict XVI (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Introduction to Christianity, God is Near Us: The Eucharist: the Heart of Life, The Nature and Mission of Theology, Principles of Catholic Theology, and Truth and Tolerance):

Readability: 14.49

Complex Words: 16.17%

Syllables per Word: 1.62

Words per Sentence: 24.42

The Holy Father rates high in difficult readability (middle of third year of college), and has the highest percentage of three-syllable plus words of anyone except for philosopher Alvin Plantinga). He is also just o.o1 less average syllables per word than Plantingaand ranks fairly high in words per sentence.

Lastly, I’d like to see how my books compare in this regard with some of my fellow apologists. First, Patrick Madrid (Where is That in the Bible + Pope Fiction):

Readability: 12.93

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.55

Words per Sentence: 22.1

Pat comes in high for readability: almost a year of college (and almost a year more than my average). He comes in slightly less than I do in the next two categories and with three words plus more per sentence, average, than my writing.

Karl Keating‘s three best selling books (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, What Catholics Really Believe, and The Usual Suspects), come out this way:

Readability: 11.85

Complex Words: 14.33%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 18.93

This is quite close to my rating in all respects: the closest of anyone surveyed yet: just slightly lower in the first two categories, the same in the third, and slightly higher in the fourth.

How about Steve Ray (Crossing the Tiber and Upon This Rock)?

Readability: 13.18

Complex Words: 15.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 21.6

Steve tops Pat Madrid in difficult readability, with a year in college and a bit more, uses slightly more “big words” than I do, and almost three more words per sentence.

Where does Jimmy Akin (The Salvation Controversy, Mass Confusion) come down on the spectrum?:

Readability: 14.78

Complex Words: 16%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 25.35

Jimmy’s readability is high (third year of college), but part of that is accounted for, I think, by technical terms that would be necessary for his book on the Mass (which averaged 15.95, whereas his other book averaged 13.6). He also writes a lot of words per sentence than anyone thus far, even Cardinal Newman.

Mark Shea is an apologist who majored in English. I think that certainly makes for better writing, but does it lead to more complexity too? Well, let’s see, using his two bestselling books (By What Authority? and Making Senses Out of Scripture):

Readability: 13.7

Complex Words: 13.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.55

Words per Sentence: 24.5

Mark’s readability quotient comes in pretty high, while (curiously) his use of complex words comes in low, while words per sentence are very high. Perhaps English majors, then, like long, complex sentences (perhaps with more difficult syntax), while not necessarily using more “big words.”

Following this line of thought, I am particularly curious about Thomas Howard, an English professor who writes excellent, eloquent books about Catholicism (semi-apologetic in nature). I think of Howard as having a fabulous vocabulary. I shall average his books, Evangelical is Not Enough and On Being Catholic:

Readability: 11.75

Complex Words: 12.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 20.6

This is a bit surprising. Howard requires less than a high school education (but then, I suppose, professors are used to simplifying in class), and has a low complexity rating. This means to me that, though he uses many words that I never heard before, he also must use a lot of simpler words overall.

My friend, Al Kresta, a great talk show host, wrote a book of apologetics entitled Why Are Catholics So Concerned About Sin? Here are its stats:

Readability: 13.35

Complex Words: 15%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 22.1

Now, a comparison chart compiling all we have learned: each one from more complex (and longer sentences) to less complex:

Readability (years of education required):

Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 18.95
Balthasar, Explorations in Theology, I 18.25
Newman – Idea of a University 17.45
Balthasar (3) 16.83
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 16.5
Brian Greene (physicist) 15.5
Jimmy Akin (2) 14.78
Alvin Plantinga (4) 14.7
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 14.49
Cardinal Newman (4) 13.79
Mark Shea (2) 13.7
Newman – Development 13.6
Al Kresta (1) 13.35
Steve Ray (2) 13.18
Patrick Madrid (2) 12.93
G.K. Chesterton (2) 12.9
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 12.06
Dave Armstrong (2) 12.0
Scott Hahn (2) 11.95
Karl Keating (3) 11.85
Thomas Howard (2) 11.75
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 11.47
Peter Kreeft (2) 10.73
John Calvin (Institutes) 10.2
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 9.7
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 6.7

Complex Words (3 or more syllables; percentage):

Pope Benedict XVI, The Nature and Mission of Theology 20%
Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology 19%
Brian Greene (physicist) 18
Newman – Development 17
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 17
Alvin Plantinga (4) 16.5
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 16.17
Jimmy Akin (2) 16
Steve Ray (2) 15.5
Balthasar (3) 15.33
Dave Armstrong (2) 15
Al Kresta (1) 15
Newman – Idea of a University 15
Karl Keating (3) 14.33
Patrick Madrid (2) 14
John Calvin (Institutes) 14
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 14
Cardinal Newman (4) 13.75
Peter Kreeft (2) 13.5
Mark Shea (2) 13.5
Scott Hahn (2) 13
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 13
G.K. Chesterton (2) 12.5
Thomas Howard (2) 12.5
Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 12
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 9.5
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 5

Words per Sentence: 

Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 39.4
Balthasar, Elucidations 34.8
Newman, Idea of a University 33.1
Balthasar (3) 30.77
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 28.1
Jimmy Akin (2) 25.35
Cardinal Newman (4) 24.78
Mark Shea (2) 24.5
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 24.42
Alvin Plantinga (4) 24.35
Brian Greene (physicist) 24.2
G.K. Chesterton (2) 23.05
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 22.25
Patrick Madrid (2) 22.1
Al Kresta (1) 22.1
Newman, Development 21.7
Steve Ray (2) 21.6
Scottt Hahn (2) 20.6
Thomas Howard (2) 20.6
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 19.56
Karl Keating (3) 18.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 18.85
Peter Kreeft (2) 17.35
John Calvin (Institutes) 15.9
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 15.1
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 14.4

Syllables per Word:

Alvin Plantinga (4) 1.63 (highest average)
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 1.62
Dave Armstrong (2) 1.6 (tied with Keating, Ray, Kresta, & Akin for highest average among apologists)
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 1.45 (lowest average for non-children’s books)
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 1.3 (lowest average)

Readability (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 14.78
Mark Shea (2) 13.7
Al Kresta (1) 13.35
Steve Ray (2) 13.18
Patrick Madrid (2) 12.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 12.0 [12.5 for Biblical Defense alone]
Scott Hahn (2) 11.95
Karl Keating (3) 11.85
Thomas Howard (2) 11.75
Peter Kreeft (2) 10.73

Complex Words (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 16
Steve Ray (2) 15.5
Dave Armstrong (2) 15 [16 for Biblical Defense alone]
Al Kresta (1) 15
Karl Keating (3) 14.33
Patrick Madrid (2) 14
Peter Kreeft (2) 13.5
Mark Shea (2) 13.5
Scott Hahn (2) 13
Thomas Howard (2) 12.5

Words per Sentence (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 25.35
Mark Shea (2) 24.5
Patrick Madrid (2) 22.1
Al Kresta (1) 22.1
Steve Ray (2) 21.6
Scottt Hahn (2) 20.6
Thomas Howard (2) 20.6
Karl Keating (3) 18.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 18.85 [19.8 for Biblical Defense alone]
Peter Kreeft (2) 17.35

Conclusions About My Own Writings Compared to Other Apologists Today:

*

I use big words: a lot of syllables per word average (tied for highest), and lots of three syllable plus words (surpassed only by Akin and Ray and tied with Al Kresta).

But I don’t use long sentences (less than everyone except for Peter Kreeft).

With the big words and shorter sentences, I’m about in the middle for “readability” — a high school education, as I have said for years; ironically, I placed above the three professors and Karl Keating, who has a degree in law, but lower than five strictly lay apologists (less formal education and none or far less in theology). Of the ten listed, only Scott Hahn actually has an advanced degree in theology (doctorate).

I have the most divergent ratio regarding lower level of education required (12 years) compared to the highest percentage of “big words” (15%). This, combined with the shorter sentences (ninth lowest of ten) makes my “profile” perhaps the most unique of all ten current apologists, producing a graph with great peaks and valleys (apart from possibly Mark Shea’s, which is similar in divergence but in a different fashion). That’s not to claim that my writing is “better”; only that it is different in its qualities in these respects from most of the others. Karl Keating’s “profile” is the most similar to mine, judging by all three categories.

Related to the above, most of the authors tend to be either high or low in all the categories, and to maintain a similarity across the three major categories (with the lowest numbers being more complex and lengthy):

Jimmy Akin 1-1-1
Mark Shea 2-8-2
Al Kresta 3-4-4
Steve Ray 4-2-5
Patrick Madrid 5-6-3
Dave Armstrong 6-3-9
Scott Hahn 7-9-6
Karl Keating 8-5-8
Thomas Howard 9-10-7
Peter Kreeft (2) 10-7-10

One might average these three figures for the “Master Complexity Quotient”:

Jimmy Akin 1.0
Al Kresta 3.67
Steve Ray 3.67
Mark Shea 4.0
Patrick Madrid 4.67
Dave Armstrong 6.0
Karl Keating 7.0
Scott Hahn 7.33
Thomas Howard 8.67
Peter Kreeft (2) 9

Ironically again, it is the three professors and lawyer who score lower for complexity and higher for readability, then myself, and then the “lay apologists”. I have interpreted this as meaning that academics are better acquainted with the effort to simplify one’s thoughts for the function of educating students. I don’t really try to do that (except deliberately in my latest book, The One-Minute Apologist and in The New Catholic Answer Bible, due to strict demands for brevity); the result being that I come out in the middle overall, compared to other apologists. That’s fine with me; I rather like that.

Jimmy Akin leads all four categories (i.e., more difficult and complex compared to others, at least judging by words alone).

Mark Shea‘s writing requires a high education (13.7 grade level) while using less complex words (13.5%), but Karl Keating requires less education (11.85 years) and uses bigger words (14.33%).

After Jimmy Akin‘s three 1’s, Al Kresta is most consistent across categories, followed by Pat Madrid and Thomas Howard (tied for second).

Style, rhetoric, argumentative technique, use of humor, sarcasm, hyperbole, polemics, analogy, exaggeration, logical points, use of citations, structure of sentences and chapters and books, and the like, are all factors not at all included in these analyses. How they could be measured is a fascinating question, and probably unanswerable, in the same way that people’s tastes in, e.g., classical music and its performances and recordings, can hardly be quantified by any measure that is objective across the board (which makes it all the more fun and challenging to discuss). Variety is definitely the spice of life, in apologetics, as in literature, generally-speaking, and the wider arena of all the academic fields and the arts.

I’m afraid I will likely continue to write as I have been writing: spontaneously. It cramps a writer, I think, if he is consciously having to check himself and say, “I can’t use big words,” etc. I am what I am, just like musical composers differ in style and complexity. Some folks will like the writing, others won’t. It will be over some heads, but not too many. The study here says my writing will be understood by those with a high school education, so not even one year of college is required. That’s what I’ve always thought and striven for, so I hit it right on the nose.

I’ve had some big-name critics (editor-types) say that my writing was too complex or not stylish enough or not to their own taste. But robust sales would suggest otherwise. :-)

***

(originally 5-26-07)

Photo credit: published by Sophia Institute Press in 2003. See book and purchase information.

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019 By

This exchange came about in a Facebook discussion of my blog article, Faith & Works: Oil & Water or Two Sides of a Coin? Rev Ken Howes (Missouri Synod) is a friend of mine. We have engaged in several enjoyable and constructive dialogues and have great respect for each other. I would contend that such friendship (or at least respect: whether friends or not) is absolutely necessary for any truly good and instructive dialogue to take place.

Pastor Howes  has a law degree from Valparaiso University and a Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Theological Seminary, and is working on an STM degree with the Institute of Lutheran Theology: in the area of systematic and historical theology. His words will be in blue.

*****

It’s not “either or” It is “both and”. The only question is the order in which they come.

Lutherans are often accused of antinomianism (a disregard for Law). That allegation is not true as to most Lutherans. But there are Lutherans who go there. I would say they’re not very good Lutherans, but they’re awfully influential in ELCA.

Faith does indeed produce works. We differ on the relationship between works and salvation. The saved will do good works; good works are the mark of the saved. But salvation itself is not the fruit of those works. We’d say you have the right cart and the right horse, but have put the cart before the horse.

Let me ask you, then: how come in 50 passages I have found having to do with the final judgment or entrance into heaven, works are mentioned in all 50 of them as key factors. Faith alone is never mentioned. Faith was mentioned in one of the fifty, but alongside works.

[note: I would say that this suggests our view of sola gratia, with synergy and merit: not Semi-Pelagianism]

Is that not the very opposite of what we would expect to find in the Bible if the Lutheran sola fide were true in the sense that you believe it?

Another favorite (and I believe, devastating) argument that I make is from the rich young ruler. He asks Jesus how he may attain eternal life (salvation). Jesus asks him if he kept the commandments (yes; this is works); then He tells him to perform another work: sell all that he has. Jesus says not a thing about faith in Him alone.

You prove only that the specific phrase “faith alone” does not appear in those passages. I could play the same game and ask why John 3:16 does not say, “For God so loved the world that whosoever does good works should not perish but have everlasting life.” Or why John 11:25 doesn’t say, “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me and doth good works, though he die, yet shall he live; and he that liveth, believeth in me and doth good works shall never die.” The fact is that faith is a prerequisite to salvation; good works are a mark of salvation. Salvation doesn’t occur without both, one as the way by which one is saved and the other as the consequence of that salvation. Those who believed in him also did good works. At the same time, it is also true that those who believe in him are still sinners and still do that which they hate (Rom. 7).

It’s not just that “faith alone” doesn’t appear (the only time it does appear in Scripture, it is condemned: in James), it’s that faith scarcely appears at all in the 50 passages. Heres a summary:

1) “faithful” (2) and “faithful servant” (2) appears in Matthew 25:14-30 in the midst of various works.

2) “work of faith” appears in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-12.

3) the “faithless” will end up ” in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur” in Revelation 21:8.

That’s it! This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the overwhelming centrality of faith alone as the means of salvation.

We totally agree on grace alone and we agree that faith is a necessary and key ingredient in salvation, but deny faith alone. John 3:16 doesn’t teach faith alone, because “believe” includes the notion of works in it. I wrote about this in some depth in my first book: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

John 3:36 [RSV]: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

The Greek word for “believes” is pistuo, and the Greek for “does not obey” is apitheo. There is a parallelism in this verse, whereby belief and obedience are essentially identical. When all is said and done, believing in Christ is obeying him. This ought to be kept in mind by Protestant evangelists and pastors who urge penitents to “believe in Christ,” “accept Christ,” etc. To disobey Christ is to be subject to the wrath of God. Thus, again, we are faced with the inescapable necessity of good works — wrought by God’s grace, and done in the spirit of charity — for the purpose and end of ultimate salvation, holiness, and communion with God.

St. Peter, in 1 Peter 2:7, uses the same parallelism, with the same two identical Greek words (believe/disobedient in KJV). St. Paul uses apitheo with regard to disobedience to parents in Romans 1:30 and 2 Timothy 3:2, and in a more general sense (describing sinners) in Titus 1:16 and 3:3. Obviously, no one disbelieves in the existence of his parents. St. Paul is speaking of disobeying parents’ commands. In the same sense, such disobedience (not mere lack of faith) is said to be the basis of the loss of eternal life in John 3:36.

To speculate further, if it be granted that pistuo (“believe”) is roughly identical to “obeying,” as it indisputably is in John 3:36, by simple deduction, then its use elsewhere is also much more commensurate with the Catholic view of infused justification rather than the more abstract, extrinsic, and forensic Protestant view; for example, the “classic” Protestant evangelistic verse John 3:16, Jesus’ constant demand to believe in him in John 5 through 10, and St. Paul’s oft-cited salvific exhortations in Romans 1:16, 4:24, 9:33, and 10:9, generally thought to be irrefutable proofs of the Protestant viewpoint on saving faith.

John 6:27-29: “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal. Then said they to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ”

In verses 28 and 29, working and belief in Christ are equated, much like obedience and belief in John 3:36. In the marvelous phrase “doing the works of God,” we see that our works and God’s are intertwined if indeed we are doing his will. This is the Catholic viewpoint: an organic connection of both faith with works, and God’s unmerited grace coupled with our cooperation and obedience. Our Lord constantly alludes to the related ideas of reward and merit, which are complementary: Matthew 5:11-12, 6:3, 18, 10:42, 12:36-37, 25:14-30; Luke 6:35, 38; 12:33. St. Paul, using the same word for “works” (ergon), speaks in Acts 26:20 of the process of repenting, turning to God, and doing deeds worthy of their repentance. In other words, they will thus prove their repentance by their deeds.

We really don’t disagree about what constitutes the life of a Christian. In the long run, I’m not sure how critical the order in which we put them is. You agree with us that grace, delivered through faith, comes first (CCC, sec. 2010). We put all works after, not before, justification, but we do not thereby minimize the role of works in the Christian life.

I’ve often made the same point. At the same time I have to critique faith alone as a most unbiblical concept. But grace alone and faith and works are eminently biblical.

Whether faith alone is biblical depends on whether it’s taken as a license to antinomianism. If that, then I agree with you. Works are part of the Christian’s life. But “if it is by works, then it is no more grace.” So works follow justification; they do not precede it. But that should not be taken, and I agree that it sometimes is, to mean that “as long as I believe, it’s all OK.”

It comes down to the “third use of the Law.” The regenerate person wants to live a God-pleasing life. For him, the Law provides a guide: “This is God-pleasing; this is not.”

The danger for the Lutheran is antinomianism; the danger for the Catholic is semi-Pelagianism. Correct Lutheran teaching is not antinomianism; correct Catholic teaching is not semi-Pelagianism. But you can find both–even some antinomianism among Catholics and some semi-Pelagianism among Lutherans.

Look at all the supposedly Catholic congressmen and governors who think abortion is just fine; and you can find some pietistic Lutherans who get so wrapped up in “personal holiness” that they become semi-Pelagian.

I agree that many who distort a given communion’s teaching are found in any group. The devil does that . . .

works follow justification; they do not precede it.

You keep telling me that but I’m interested in biblical passages that you think establish that belief. I’ve given plenty of Bible to support Catholic beliefs.

I’m not accusing Lutherans of antinomianism. I’m simply saying that “faith alone” (even rightly understood) and the separation of sanctification from justification is unbiblical, and I think I have more than proven it with scores and scores of Bible passages. I understand the Lutheran (and general Protestant) position (used to hold it myself), as shown by this article: Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith.

John 3:16; 11:25-26; Rom. 3:28; 4:2-4; 5:1-2,9,15-16; 7:24-25; 10:9; 11:6 Eph. 2:8-9. There are more; but those will do for now. Our justification is by grace through faith. Being justified, we are then raised to new life in Christ, in which our lives are marked by living in the Spirit rather than the flesh (Rom. 6; Eph. 2:10).

Thank you. I will look those over.

I asked for biblical passages that suggested your statement: “works follow justification; they do not precede it.” Now I’ll comment on the ones you produced, looking for mentions of works in context.

John 3:16 (RSV) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Works are mentioned in 3:21: “But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.” This shows that the good deeds (enabled and “wrought in” and by God) were present before the person went to the light (Jesus), which is the opposite order to what you claim: people believe in Jesus, and then good works follow in gratefulness, etc. To me, this indicates Catholic synergy and merit, not faith alone.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, [26] and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

I don’t see works in context. On the other hand, “believes” is pisteuo: which I analyzed in my comment above from my book, as having works contained within its definition and biblical application. Therefore, this asserts the Catholic view of faith and works together in justification — not faith alone. They’re together, as opposed to it being a sequence of “believe in faith / do good works as a result.”

Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

First of all, Paul made it crystal clear that he had a quite positive view of works in the scheme of salvation in Romans 2:5-13. But here Paul is referring to Jewish reliance on the specific works of the law, not to works in general, as N. T. Wright and others have explained at length. Protestants often misinterpret Paul in this way. The “new perspective on Paul” (Wikipedia article) replies as follows:

Paul was not addressing good works in general, but instead questioning only observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the ‘boundary markers’ that set the Jews apart from the other nations. . . .

In 1963 the Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl published a paper arguing that the typical Lutheran view of the Apostle Paul’s theology did not fit with statements in Paul’s writings, and in fact was based more on mistaken assumptions about Paul’s beliefs than careful interpretation of his writings. Stendahl warned against imposing modern Western ideas on the Bible, and especially on the works of Paul. In 1977 E. P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In this work he studies Jewish literature and Paul’s writings arguing that the traditional Lutheran understanding of the theology of Judaism and Paul was fundamentally incorrect. . . .

Paul’s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of “works of the law”. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by “works of the law” is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives interpret this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God’s standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works alone (note that the “new” perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation; the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

By contrast, new-perspective scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. It is argued that in Paul’s time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah (“the ancestral customs”), or to follow the Roman Empire’s trend to adopt Greek customs . . . The new-perspective view is that Paul’s writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs makes a person better off before God, pointing out that Abraham was righteous before the Torah was given. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.”

*****

Romans 4:2-4 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.

Regular contributor to my blog, “Adomnan” offered some very helpful commentary on Romans 4:5:

. . . “the one who does not work but believes — I would translate “believes” rather than “trusts” here — him who justifies the ungodly” is not a generalization about all who believe, but refers specifically to Abraham. Paul sees Abraham at this point as typical of all Gentiles who believe, or perhaps as their exemplar or “father.” However, Abraham is the sole person being spoken of.

[Dave’s note: “trusts” in RSV for Romans 4:5 is pisteuo (Strong’s word #4100), which is translated in the KJV “believe” or “believer” (1) or “believing” (1) 238 times out of 246 total appearances, or 97% of the time (“trust” also a few times) ]

When Paul says that Abraham “does not work,” he isn’t saying that Abraham has not done good works. In fact, Abraham had been justified since he responded to God’s self-revelation in Ur and had done many good works worthy of being reckoned as righteous. Romans 4:5 is describing but one instance of a good work (an act of faith) that was reckoned as righteous.

In context, “does not work” means “is not doing the works of the Law:” that is, Abraham has not yet been circumcised and is still a Gentile. He does not do works of Jewish Law, works of Torah.

In Greek the phrase “the one who does not work” could be translated — clumsily — as “the non-working one,” non-working not in the sense of not doing good works but in the sense of not doing works of Torah. Paul’s use of the definite pronoun suggests he has a definite person in mind (Abraham).

In the second part, “believes on him who justifies the ungodly,” the word “ungodly,” in context, does not mean wicked. Abraham was not wicked at this stage in his life. He was already justified. It means “Gentile.” “Ungodly” in Greek is asebes, a word that refers to the sphere of religious observance, and not to evil in a wider moral sense. Essentially, it means “non-observant” of the Jewish Law, or “impious” from the point of view of the Jewish Law (which would be the point of view of the Judaizers). We have no adequate word to render this concept in modern English, but “Gentile” comes closest.

Paul is saying that someone — Abraham in this case — could be “impious” from the point of view of the Jewish Law (i.e., a Gentile), but righteous from the point of view of God. “Justifies the ungodly” thus amounts to “regards the Gentile Abraham as righteous.”

In sum, Paul is saying that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham (not for the first time!) while he was still a Gentile. And this is the same point that Paul makes throughout Romans 3 and 4; i.e., Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be judged righteous by God. They only have to respond to God’s revelation with faith, as Abraham did while still as Gentile.

Or, to paraphrase all of Romans 4:5: “And to Abraham before he had done any works of Torah but still believed in Him who regards the Gentile as righteous, his belief was credited as an act of righteousness.”

[Dave]: Abraham’s justification is also discussed in James 2, and there it is explicitly tied in with works, thus providing a perfect complementary (very “Catholic”) balance with Romans 4.

For much more on this issue and similar passages, see: Justification is Not by Faith Alone, and is Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications).

Romans 5:1-2, 9, 15-16 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [2] Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. . . . [9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. . . . [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.

I don’t see anything about works in context, so I fail to see how these passages support your statement: “works follow justification; they do not precede it.”

Romans 7:24-25 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Again, when I look for works in context, so that this can be evidence for your assertion, I found these:

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

That is: “don’t do these bad deeds. If you don’t [implied, I think: “do good works”], you’ll be saved.” That’s works and merit as part and parcel of the equation (like the sheep and the goats passage), not exercised faith alone, guaranteeing salvation, followed by grateful good works of the already saved person.

Romans 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Salvation is contingent (“provided we . . .”) on suffering with Jesus. Thus, it’s something beyond faith. It’s a meritorious work, through which (along with grace and faith) we will be saved. Thoroughly Catholic and unProtestant . . .

Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where is the notion of works following (the point at hand)? I don’t see it. Maybe I missed it.

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

I think this is “works” in the sense described by the New Perspective on Paul: not all works (which Paul espouses in several places: notably Romans 2).
In any event, context again lacks a passage saying that good works would follow in gratefulness for an achieved salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God —
[9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This shows Paul using “works” in both senses. 2:8 is simply grace alone, where we have no disagreement. 2:9 shows that we’re not saved by the Mosaic Law, but by Christ and grace. 2:10 shows how good works are part of this faith. There is no clear indication of the chronological order you speak of: [salvific] faith [with assurance], then good works in Christ.

I’ve shown in many papers against total depravity that the Bible definitely refers to good works and good men before regeneration or justification.

Lastly, I don’t see the proposition we are debating in Romans 6, either. Perhaps you can show me where you think it is.

In each case, justification happens on the basis of faith. Works are not the basis of justification. But the justified do good works. Romans 6 describes the new life to which we are raised. When we have been raised to the new life, we are already justified.

I suppose one could take that view, from a Protestant paradigm. But it seems odd to me that — like sola Scriptura, perspicuity, and so many other Protestant distinctives — it is not clearly laid out. It seems to me that it would be if in fact it were true.

This is the biblical problem I have with these things, whereas I can find tons of Scripture for virtually all Catholic teachings, save for some that are mostly implicit, like the Marian doctrines.

I don’t find this strict separation, as I showed in 50 passages from Paul, subtitled, “St. Paul’s Teaching on the Organic Relationship of Grace, Faith and Works, and Obedience”. See also:

Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation . . . Always Enabled by God’s Grace

New Testament on Sanctification by Our Own Actions

St. Paul vs. John Calvin: “Doers of the Law” Will be Justified

Very extensive presentation of your case. You’re basically refuting a case I wasn’t making. To your credit you do it very well. I agree entirely that we uphold the Law and keep it as a guide to our conduct, both as to what we should and as to what we should not do.

Alright, brother. :-) I was directly responding to your own statement of belief, but whatever. Thanks, as always, for the engaging and stimulating discussion.

***

Photo credit: statue of Martin Luther (1483-1546): founder of Protestantism and Lutheranism [Max Pixel / Creative Commons Zero – CC0 license]

***

February 15, 2019

February 15, 2019 By

This is from my book, The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004, pp. 63-68).

*****

James 2:24:“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (cf. 1:22, 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 26).

Catholics believe in an organic relationship between faith and works. Far from being intractably opposed to one another, they are in fact inseparable. Faith is necessary to produce truly good works, and works in turn are the evidence of a true faith. This verse would appear, on the other hand, to present a problem for the fundamental Protestant notion of sola fide, or faith alone. The Bible here expresses precisely the opposite proposition: one is not justified by faith alone.

Much of the Protestant polemic historically has been oriented toward “faith alone,” and a false charge that the Catholic Church asserts salvation through works. It is no small wonder, then, that verses such as this one make Protestants squirm. Protestants must provide an explanation for this verse and related ones that escapes the straightforward, literal meaning.

We can be fairly sure that if the passage had stated the opposite — “a man is justified by faith alone,” an idea that never appears in a single verse in Holy Scripture, nor is it taught in the Bible as a whole — it would have been one of the centerpieces of the Protestant apologetic. But since the verse flatly contradicts one of their major premises, Protestants are forced to come up with tortured explanations or else ignore it altogether.

The common Protestant reply to James 2:24 (and the book of James in general) is to say that a different sense of the word justified is being employed by St. James. He is referring to the fruit of justification and the merely outward indication that one is saved. Catholics, on the other hand, follow St. Augustine’s understanding of merit:

What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts? (Ep. 194, 5, 19; in Ott, 265).

But these two clashing approaches to justification have a substantial meeting point: both accept the notion of sola gratia, or salvation by grace alone (over against the heresy of Pelagianism, which holds that man can be saved by works or his own self-generated effort). Both also believe that good works are necessary in the Christian life.

Catholics believe that faith and works are more closely tied together, and related to justification itself. Works can follow only by God’s grace and do not cause salvation, but they must be present, because (per James), “faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

In large part, the Protestant-Catholic dispute is over the distinction between justification (that is, salvation) and sanctification (holiness). Protestants believe that the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with justification (which is imputed to the believer or declared by God), yet that it should follow from it. Catholics think they are closely related. The practical result is arguably the same in either system.

Classical Protestantism will not accept a person as “saved” if that person shows no fruit of good works in his life. They will deny that he ever was saved if he habitually engages in serious sin. Both Luther and Calvin taught this. Luther wrote (contrary to much Evangelical talk today):

We must therefore certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both (in Althaus, 246).

Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith (in Althaus, 246; also LW, 34, 111; cf. 34, 161).

St. James is emphasizing the works element of salvation, and St. Paul, the faith element. But neither denies the other element (see in Paul, e.g., Rom. 2:5-13; 1 Cor. 3:8-9; Eph. 2:10; Titus 3:8). Neither James nor Paul compartmentalizes works and faith into distinct theological constructs of “sanctification” and “justification.” Rather, what is seen here is an organic unity, precisely as in the Catholic view.

But many Protestants whom I have come across think that the Bible distinguishes here between justification before God and justification before men. Their argument hinges on a different sense of justification in James compared with the rest of Holy Scripture.

Catholics believe that salvation is an ongoing endeavor, not a one-time event, as Protestants think (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 9:27, 10:12; Phil. 2:12-13, 3:11-14; Heb. 3:12-14). Obviously, if it were an instantaneous event, there would be no time for works at all, so works are irrelevant and meaningless in any discussion of justification in that sense. James is discussing justification-in-process. Ironically, Luther himself seemed to believe in ongoing justification:

Our justification is not yet finished. It is in the process of being made; it is neither something which is actually completed nor is it essentially present. It is still under construction (in Althaus, 245).

On the other hand, at certain points in his life, Luther was willing to disavow the canonicity of James. Paul Althaus noted how Luther believed that even some passages in the Bible cease to “have the authority of the word of God” if they “cannot be unified with the witness of all the rest of Scripture.” Thus, Luther wrote in 1543, three years before his death:

Away with James. . . . His authority is not great enough to cause me to abandon the doctrine of faith and to deviate from the authority of the other apostles and the entire Scripture (in Althaus, 81).

The year before, Luther had written:

Up to this point I have been accustomed to deal with and interpret [James] according to the sense of the rest of Scripture. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not agree to my interpretations, then I shall make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove (in Althaus, 81; LW, 34, 317).

In his preface to the New Testament, written in 1522, Luther famously described James as “an epistle of straw” (see Bainton, 259). He did not consider it the true writing of an apostle (even in 1545, the year before his death). In his revised version of his preface to the book, he stated that it taught works-righteousness, “rends” the Scripture, and “resists” St. Paul.

Luther was equally strident when defending his addition of the word alone after faith in Romans 3:28:

Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough…. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery (in O’Connor, 25; Letter to Wenceslaus Link in 1530).

Obviously, if the book of James did not make Protestants (perhaps Luther, above all) squirm, they would not be led to adopt such desperate measures and arguments to explain it (away, as it were). Thus, I once had an Internet dialogue with a person who constructed his entire exegetical argument from James’s use of the word see in this verse. He reasoned that James was referring simply to outward manifestations of true saving faith, which came by faith alone, because this was what other human beings could see.

I doubt that this is a very common Protestant interpretation of the verse, especially among scholars, but it does in any event illustrate the extent to which even thoughtful, intelligent Protestants (and this person was pretty sharp) will go to explain the difficult passages of James that seem to contradict their theology.

This argument (and, more important, the sophisticated version of it that does not depend on the words “you see”) collapses utterly, however, in light of a rather simple contextual consideration. James 2:21, three verses before, reads, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” This justification was not “before men,” but before the Lord. Yet Scripture teaches us that Abraham was justified in that very act, even though no other human being was around to see it.

That is not to say that his faith was not important. His act of obedience displayed great faith — a faith inseparably united with his actions. In fact, the very next verse (James 2:22) gives us exactly this authoritative interpretation: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works.” The real clincher, however, comes in verse 2:23: “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ ” Note what has occurred here. If the fulfillment of Abraham’s “faith alone” act of “believing in God” came via a work, which no one else saw, two things logically follow:

  1. Faith and works are shown once again to be two sides of a coin. They cannot be, and should not be, separated. St. Paul’s “belief reckoned as righteousness” is grounded in a work, and authoritatively so, since one apostle interprets the same passage that another has interpreted, based on an Old Testament passage. Inspired — God-breathed — Scripture cannot contradict itself.
  2. The Protestant “faith alone” concept that is built upon the Abrahamic verses having to do with faith, among others, cannot possibly be interpreted as excluding works altogether (that is, from justification). It simply cannot be done.

*

In popular Protestant understanding, the radical dichotomy of “faith versus works” largely dominates. This is unbiblical, as I think can be demonstrated in the commentary above and in a close examination of related passages such as those that follow.

Sources

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand. New York: Mentor Books, 1950.

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (LW). American edition. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55). St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955.

Henry O’Connor, Luther’s Own Statements. 3rd ed. New York: Benziger Bros., 1884.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Patrick Lynch. Edited by James Canon Bastible. 4th edition in English. Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, reprinted in 1974.

*****

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Trump Convicted of 34 Crimes Affirms...
Kermit Zarley Blog
2
The "Eve" Excuse Is Back
Progressive Persuasion and Passion
3
Why “Getting them Saved and Baptized”...
Breathing Space
4
Donald Trump: The Personification of Evil
Progressive Persuasion and Passion
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Us for Them: Chapter 3: The Coddling of...
What Should Believers Do When Leaders Fall?
The Mormon Saturday Evening Post Arrives in the...
Thriving Outside Religion
Simplest Influence: Father's Day and the Power of...
5 Rules for Divorced Dads to Make Dating...
view all Family blogs