![\"Catholic](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/03\/Catholic-Verses-550x834.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
[full book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (1-2-05)<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n My Introduction to the Series<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-04]<\/p>\n Part I: Binding Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[12-30-04]<\/p>\n Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion<\/a>\u00a0[12-30-04]<\/p>\n Part III:\u00a0Ad Hominem<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[12-31-04]<\/p>\n Part IV: I\u2019m an Ignorant Convert?<\/a>\u00a0[12-31-04]<\/p>\n Part V: Deceiver Dave<\/a> [1-1-05]<\/p>\n Part VI: Penance\u00a0and Redemptive Suffering\u00a0<\/a>[1-2-05]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n <\/p> ***<\/p>\n Chapter Nine of The Catholic Verses <\/i>deals with the subject of Penance. Four passages are presented in this brief chapter, specifically:<\/span><\/p>\n Philippians 3:10<\/b> that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; (cf. Gal. 2:20)<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 8:17<\/b> and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 4:10<\/b> always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.<\/span><\/p>\n Colossians 1:24<\/b> Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ\u2019s afflictions.<\/span><\/p>\n The first two are grouped under the heading \u201cSharing in Christ\u2019s Sufferings\u201d and the second under \u201cCarrying Christ\u2019s Afflictions in Our Bodies.\u201d It is important for the reader to understand the relevance of the concept of suffering in Roman Catholic soteriology. But it is also difficult to explain or illustrate in a blog entry that is aiming for brevity as well. So here\u2019s a reading assignment for the serious reader.<\/span> Go here <\/a>[linked] and read the first four chapters of this official Roman Magisterial document, Indulgentiarum Doctrina<\/i>, the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences. Pay close attention to the language it uses regarding sin, punishment, suffering, penance, and grace. Now, if you are not in a position to read that much, allow me a few selected quotes:<\/span><\/p>\n [omitted, since off-topic]<\/p>\n Again, White illustrates his astounding inability (or deliberate unwillingness \u2014 which would border on outright sophistry) to stay on the topic. I am not treating the subject of indulgences here (let alone magisterial documents on same). The specific topics are those that White noted above in my two sub-headings. I dealt with indulgences in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/i>, chapter 8, pp. 162-165 (current Sophia edition; pp. 117-119 in the first edition), and also on pp. 152-155, including footnote #166, from Bertrand Conway (pp. 110-111 in first edition). My first book has been out for over three years (and he has a copy). If White was so eager to \u201crefute\u201d what I wrote about indulgences (including explicit biblical proofs right from St. Paul and Jesus), he has had ample opportunity. So why bring it up now<\/i>, when it is extraneous to the subject matter of my current book? I also (it should be noted), dealt in a fair amount of depth with verses like those above, in my first book, in the long chapter on penance (pp. 147-165), whereas in the current work, I only briefly touched upon it with five pages. In fact, White\u2019s response on penance is more than twice as long as my entire short chapter (3359 words to 1615).<\/p>\n Sadly, this is a typical tactic of White\u2019s where I am concerned. He\u2019ll ignore massive writings that I have done on some subject (all the while mocking how many \u201csubstanceless\u201d words I write). Then he\u2019ll select a brief treatment and act as if it were the sum total<\/i> of my argument, and ridicule and dismiss it as absurdly inadequate (along with the obligatory potshots at my ability, intelligence, etc.). He did this with my 35 minute-or-so presentation on Catholic Answers Live<\/i>, concerning Bible and Tradition, devoting many of his webcasts to a mere introductory, ten-point talk, when I have written more on that topic (enough for several books \u2014 and I do have one unpublished book on this very topic, available in Microsoft Word format) than any other. He wanted no part of those writings, but went right to the brief presentation. This \u201capologetic strategy\u201d may fool some folks, but not the ones I am trying to reach (those with an open and fair mind, and willing to carefully consider both sides of a debate).<\/p>\n You get the \u201cflavor,\u201d I hope. The concept of suffering is tied in with a synergistic, grace-prompted, but still free-will driven, concept of penance\/merit\/forgiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n Soteriology proper is a huge topic, beyond our purview. I refer readers to my first book: chapters on penance and purgatory (the latter is 27 pages), or my web page on Penance and Purgatory<\/a>.<\/p>\n Once again, in citing Phil. 3:10 and Rom. 8:17, Armstrong does not consider it necessary to actually handle the verses, establish context, meaning, anything exegetical.<\/span><\/p>\n This gets back to the nature and purpose of the book; already-discussed.<\/p>\n They are simply cited, and then the assumption is made that Protestants have no place in their theology for \u201csuffering.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is exactly the opposite<\/i> of what I contended, as even White\u2019s own citations of my words prove.<\/p>\n And his source for this (if you happen to be widely read in meaningful Protestant writing you are probably wondering, since you have read lots about suffering and its role in conforming us to the image of Christ) is\u2026himself!<\/span><\/p>\n No, my \u201csource\u201d is long experience in Protestant circles and what many great Protestant authors have themselves<\/i> noted (see examples below).<\/p>\n Evidently, Armstrong\u2019s audience does not include serious minded Protestants, for such writing immediately informs one that Mr. Armstrong\u2019s \u201cProtestant\u201d experience was anything but serious.<\/span><\/p>\n No need to respond to ad hominem<\/i> attacks. I get plenty of laudatory letters\u00a0from <\/a>\u201cserious minded Protestants.\u201d<\/p>\n Well, even if consulting secondary sources without providing primary exegesis would be sufficient, the point is that Armstrong has no concept of the depth of writing from non-Catholic sources on the meaning and purpose of suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n My providing of my list of Protestant authors read and books in my library<\/a>\u00a0quickly disposed of this lie (C. S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga and Leibniz offer no depth on this subject??!!!). As a result, White was forced (by his own intransigence) to switch from calling me \u201cignorant\u201d to now accusing me of \u201cknowing deception.\u201d<\/span> I fought shallow Protestant views of suffering as a Protestant as far back as 1982, when I refuted the \u201chealth-and-wealth \/ prosperity \/ hyper-faith\u201d teachings<\/a>, largely utilizing the wonderful critiques of a wise Protestant man and virtual father of the evangelical counter-cult movement, the late Dr. Walter Martin (not<\/i> an anti-Catholic himself). I had been prevented from accepting such nonsense by the wonderful teaching of Pastor Richard Bieber<\/a>, in whose church I first began seriously following Jesus. This godly pastor was the single most influential person in my early committed Christian life, besides my brother Gerry.<\/p>\n further, the Roman Catholic use of the term, especially in reference to penance, would require his proving that in the context of writing to the churches at Rome and Philippi Paul intended to communicate, through the term \u201csuffering,\u201d the kind of thing Armstrong has in mind as a Roman Catholic, and once again, he does not even try <\/i>to make this connection. It is simply assumed.<\/span><\/p>\n White again commits the fallacy (one of numerous ones in his \u201ccritique\u201d) of thinking that everything I try to utilize from Scripture is intended as an explicit \u201cproof\u201d of full-blown, fully-developed Catholic doctrine. This simply doesn\u2019t follow, nor is it true in fact.<\/p>\n Armstrong then says that outside of certain forms of Pentecostalism<\/a>, \u201cthey will not deny that a Christian needs to, and can expect<\/i> to, suffer.\u201d Expect to suffer? Surely. Walk as Christ walked and one will suffer the hatred of the world. But \u201cneed to\u201d is a completely<\/i> different animal, especially in the context of Rome\u2019s beliefs regarding the subject, as noted previously. I believe fully that God intends to conform me to the image of Christ, and a number of the experiences I will go through in that process will take the form of what can be properly identified as \u201csuffering.\u201d But \u201cneed to\u201d so as to expiate temporal punishment of sin? Need to so as to perfect my justification before God? Most assuredly not! This is the issue, and Armstrong leaves it untouched.<\/span><\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t dealing<\/i> with all that. Again, I dealt with penance (and biblical evidences for same) at great length in my first book. This particular section was about (as White noted above) \u201cSharing in Christ\u2019s Sufferings\u201d. Period. I\u2019m not trying to prove fully-elaborated Catholic doctrines (in this case, our theology of penance) with every biblical passage I am treating. Only a fool would do that. But White gets a lot of mileage by making illogical accusations about straw men of his own making. After all, it \u201csounds good.\u201d And that is the name of the game for the sophist. White obviously couldn\u2019t care less about what I was actually<\/i> arguing, in context<\/i>. His game is to make me look foolish and ridiculous, whatever it takes (lying and wholesale, cynical distortion included). Christians \u201cneed to\u201d suffer insofar as it is a requirement of the New Testament. That<\/i> was my argument here. See, e.g.,: Philippians 1:29: \u201cFor it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for Him,\u201d and 1 Peter 2:21: \u201cTo this [suffering] you were called.. .\u201d There are many more such passages. Many Protestants (and Protestant theologies) minimize<\/i> these. It is an undeniable fact, however much White protests.<\/p>\n He writes, \u201cMost Evangelicals do not take it that far, yet still minimize the place of suffering, and hence, of the related notion, penance. This represents a scandalous lack of understanding of the deeper, more difficult aspects of Christianity.\u201d I think this represents a scandalous lack of understanding of the deeper, more meaningful works of Calvin, Edwards, the entire body of the Puritans, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Warfield and any number of modern writers.<\/span><\/p>\n First, let\u2019s get the context of what I wrote, lest readers get a warped, out-of-balance idea of it. White deliberately omitted the following passage of mine, which occurs immediately above his last citation above:<\/p>\n It is only certain strains of evangelical Protestantism (particularly one brand of pentecostal, \u201cname it, claim it\u201d Protestantism, which asserts that believers can have whatever they like merely by \u201cclaiming\u201d it and having enough \u201cfaith\u201d) that try to pretend that suffering is foreign to the Christian life (in extreme cases, not God\u2019s will at all<\/i> that we even have sickness, etc.), who ignore this crucial aspect of the passage. They pass right over it as if it weren\u2019t even there. (p. 128)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, as to White\u2019s additional comments: he keeps trying to make out that I am an ignoramus, unacquainted with serious Protestant treatments of suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was precisely<\/i> because of my familiarity with those sorts of writings, that I was very careful to qualify<\/i> my assertions (\u201conly certain strains,\u201d \u201cMost . . . do not take it that far,\u201d etc.).<\/p>\n Secondly, I am obviously generalizing in a broad manner. To do so does not require a denial that there are many exceptions to the tendency under consideration. An example of a generalization about Catholics would be: \u201cCatholics don\u2019t read their Bibles as much as evangelical Protestants do.\u201d This is a true and undeniable statement. I recently had an article published in This Rock<\/i>about this very subject. But it also has literally thousands of exceptions. I read the Bible more than many individual Protestants. Etc. White\u2019s utter misunderstanding of this aspect of the chapter on penance overlooks this.<\/p>\n Thirdly, as another generalization, only Catholics who fully understand the Church\u2019s teaching on suffering and penance would (unfortunately) be more biblically informed and at an advantage to Protestants on this topic (i.e., the average evangelical as an individual probably has a superior understanding of suffering compared to the average Catholic). But that doesn\u2019t mean that there is a widespread deficiency in Protestant circles also, regarding this topic.<\/p>\n Fourthly, as I showed above, I was critiquing mostly certain pentecostals, who wildly distort this biblical teaching. When I was a Protestant, I read people like Corrie Ten Boom and Elisabeth Elliot: godly women who had suffered much themselves, and who presented a much more biblical view of suffering in the Christian life.<\/p>\n Fifth, here are reflections from four wise Protestants who have a developed theology of suffering, about the widespread deficiency of same in Protestant circles (i.e., it\u2019s not just \u201cDave the ignorant Catholic who [supposedly] isn\u2019t acquainted with the best Protestant theology\u201d who is saying this):<\/p>\n I need no longer try to follow Christ, for cheap grace, the bitterest foe of discipleship, which true discipleship must loathe and detest, has freed me from that. Grace as the data for our calculations means grace at the cheapest price, but grace as the answer to the sum means costly grace. It is terrifying to realize what use can be made of a genuine evangelical doctrine. In both cases we have the identical formula \u2014 \u201cjustification by faith alone.\u201d Yet the misuse of the formula leads to the complete destruction of its very essence.(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship<\/i>, New York: Macmillan, revised edition, 1959, 54-55)<\/p>\n . . . several dozen of their children had died because of an error (I believe) in theology. (Actually, the teaching of the Indiana church is not so different from what I hear in many evangelical churches and on religious television and radio; they simply apply the extravagent promises of faith more consistently.)<\/p>\n (Philip Yancey, Disappointment With God<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1988, 26; referring to a church which held that any medical treatment was a denial of faith; hence fifty-two children of sect members had died)<\/p>\n Suffering is God\u2019s plan for us. In western cultures suffering is seen as very bad, to be avoided at all costs, and sometimes even an indication that something is very wrong. It is considered abnormal. Unfortunately, most western Christian cultures hold an inadequate theology of suffering also. As cross cultural workers in Christian ministry we must move beyond the myths we have received from our culture, and develop a solid biblical view. God\u2019s view is absolutely essential to be able to handle suffering well. God\u2019s word clearly shows that suffering is anormal part of the Christian life, especially suffering for Christ. \u201cFor it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for Him\u201d (Phil. 1.29).\u201cTo this [suffering] you were called.. .\u201d (1 Pet.2.21).<\/p>\n . . . I. OUR VIEW OF SUFFERING VS. GOD\u2019S VIEW<\/p>\n A. Cultural Myths about Suffering<\/p>\n 1. As Christians, we should not suffer in this life.
\n2. When we are living in His will, living godly lives, we should experience few hardships.
\n3. Suffering means something is wrong. It is an abnormal state.
\n4. Suffering has no redeeming or positive results.
\n5. Suffering means we can have no joy. It robs us of the choice to rejoice.
\n6. Spiritual people don\u2019t hurt emotionally when they suffer.
\n7. If God really loves us He won\u2019t let us suffer very much. His love means that He will puta hedge around us to keep terrible trials from entering our lives.
\n8. When we do suffer, God is punishing us out of anger. He is vindictive and wants us to suffer when He is angry with us.<\/p>\n