![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/09\/GraceofGod.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Phil Johnson<\/a> is the Executive Director of popular Protestant expositor John MacArthur\u2019s\u00a0Grace to You<\/i>\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0ministry, and ordained elder and pastor at Grace Community Church. The following dialogue took place on the public\u00a0Theology List<\/i>. Phillip\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019d like you to show me where the\u00a0Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/i>\u00a0says anything about God securing our cooperation by grace.<\/span><\/p>\n Gladly: #1989, 1992-1993, 1996, 1998-2003, 2007-2010, 2018, 2022-2023, 2025-2027, pp. 482-487, 489-490.<\/p>\n #1996 reads:<\/p>\n Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n #2027:<\/p>\n No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But, Dave, not one of those passages teaches that God\u00a0secures<\/i>\u00a0the sinner\u2019s cooperation.<\/span><\/p>\n I disagree (what else is new?). I think #1996, 1998, and 2001 in particular do precisely that, and more, since they speak of eternal life as a gift of God, entirely unearned by man apart from God. The immediate question above had to do with God securing our\u00a0cooperation<\/i>, not salvation, and I answered it, 25 times. If you meant \u201csecure our salvation\u201d (a different proposition), then \u2014 in my humble opinion \u2014 you should have made that more clear.<\/p>\n Read my post again. I did not merely ask you to cite where the\u00a0Catechism<\/i>\u00a0refers to divine grace. I asked you to show me where it describes grace as something that actually\u00a0secures<\/i>\u00a0either 1) a positive response from the sinner, or 2) ultimate salvation for anyone.<\/span><\/p>\n In the immediate context above, you referred to the sinner\u2019s cooperation, not \u201cultimate salvation.\u201d In fact, we Catholics do hold that God elects persons to eternal salvation. Right now in my debate with [a Calvinist], you\u2019ll note that he often refers to the Thomist position on predestination as very similar to his own Calvinist position (at least where the elect are concerned, I would hasten to add).<\/p>\n . . . and that does not demonstrate what I asked for. It doesn\u2019t even come close. Note that it describes grace as \u201chelp.\u201d So it\u2019s saying grace is something that assists the willing sinner. This does\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0suggest that grace\u00a0secures<\/i>\u00a0anyone\u2019s willingness.<\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0Catechism<\/i>\u00a0wisely refrains from elaborate expositions of predestination. Catechisms are not systematic theologies. They are written for laymen attempting to understand and live out Catholic Christianity, not philosophers, theologians, or impractical people like us who have nothing better to do than sit around and discuss stuff like supralapsarianism, transubstantiation, and antidisestablishmentarianism. Even so, I think the three citations above \u2014 rightly understood \u2014 provide the stricter answer you are looking for.<\/p>\n Even semi-Pelagians believe that grace is a necessary aspect of salvation. No one has disputed that Roman Catholicism believes that much.<\/span><\/p>\n Not even Jack Chick or Tony Alamo et al?<\/p>\n But, Dave, the simple fact is that Rome does\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0believe grace actually\u00a0secures<\/i>\u00a0the salvation, or even the willingness, of anyone.<\/span><\/p>\n And Bah humbug!!!!!!!!!!!! Patent falsehoods . . .<\/p>\n Indeed, this is a major point on which Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Semi-Pelagians, and Arminians all agree against the Reformation: all these views deny that God has any control whatsoever in gaining the sinner\u2019s cooperation and assent. Instead, conversion is left to \u201cfree will.\u201d Therefore your God is helpless to save someone who is determined to pursue sin and rebellion.<\/span><\/p>\n This is abysmally ignorant and astonishing in one so learned and otherwise eloquent. Aside from the citations above, anyone can readily verify the outrageous falsity of these charges (at least with respect to Catholicism), by reading the following chapters from the\u00a0Decree on Justification<\/i>\u00a0from the Council of Trent: 3, 5, 7, 8, and also the Canons 1-3. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott states that the following proposition must be believed by all orthodox Catholics (a\u00a0de fide<\/i>\u00a0dogma):<\/p>\n GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ott says that the doctrinal definitions of Trent presuppose this.<\/p>\n Well, I urge anyone who really thinks I might be wrong to read those documents and see for yourself that there is nothing here to suggest that grace actually\u00a0secures<\/i>\u00a0a positive response from the sinner. The grace described by Trent cannot ensure even the repentant sinner\u2019s ultimate salvation. On the contrary, if you read the\u00a0whole<\/i>\u00a0document, you will note that the\u00a0Decree on Justification<\/i>\u00a0(chap. 15) teaches that those who receive grace can lose it by committing a mortal sin.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course. Just as in Calvinism, someone who goes to hell (due to mortal sin, in Catholicism) is obviously not among the elect (but even so, we can\u2019t know that for sure, as we don\u2019t know the eternal destiny of anyone \u2014 excepting instances such as Elijah). Calvinists have no more \u201cassurance\u201d than we do because when someone falls away, you simply say that proves he was not divinely elected.<\/p>\n We simply can\u2019t\u00a0know<\/i>\u00a0with certitude who is to be saved, and who damned, whatever the deluded self-confident claims are to the contrary. It reduces to an epistemological, not theological, problem. Believers in both parties, however, can certainly have a very high degree of assurance of being in right relation to God, especially if they are living righteous, upright lives, which is a\u00a0sign<\/i>\u00a0of election in both systems.<\/p>\n [Snip stuff on Catholicism and predestination. I\u2019ll leave all that to someone else.]<\/span><\/p>\n Very convenient for you! This is precisely what is most relevant to the discussion, and you want to \u201cleave all that to someone else.\u201d I assume, then, that you\u2019ll \u201cleave\u201d the response to my predestination post to \u201csomeone else\u201d too?<\/p>\n [he did, but no one else in a list of 100 or so Protestants \u2014 I was the lone active Catholic \u2014 ever took up the challenge]<\/p>\n You have in effect claimed that the Council of Trent affirmed the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistable\u00a0[sic]\u00a0Grace.<\/span><\/p>\n No, you\u2019re putting words in my mouth. But my predestination post ought to be of great comfort and use to you, when you see how similar we really are, just as I have been pleasantly surprised about Calvinism, the more I learn about it, from people who have been patient enough to explain it carefully.<\/p>\n My God<\/span>\u00a0[note the implication that Catholics, and even Arminian Protestants, worship a different God]\u00a0on the other hand, can even effect the total turnaround of someone like Saul of Tarsus\u2013or worse yet, Phillip Johnson.<\/span><\/p>\n Mine, too. We worship the same Lord.<\/p>\n I believe that Roman Catholicism, since Trent, has so seriously corrupted the doctrine of justification that it does not deserve to be regarded as authentic Christianity (cf. Gal. 1:8-9). I deplore Catholic doctrine, just as I deplore Mormon doctrine<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Then you are one\u00a0confused<\/i>\u00a0individual indeed. This is self-defeating and ludicrously incoherent and thus unworthy to be adhered to by any educated Protestant.<\/p>\n That does not mean I dislike Roman Catholics, any more than it means I dislike Mormons<\/a>. I have great love and concern for people trapped in the darkness of both systems.\u00a0<\/span>And for that very reason I would no more assume a Roman Catholic is a brother or sister in Christ than I would make such an assumption about a Socinian<\/span>\u00a0[non-trinitarian]\u00a0\u201cProtestant,\u201d a gnostic new-age \u201cChristian,\u201d or anyone else who denies that Christ\u2019s righteousness alone is the sole and sufficient ground of our justification.<\/span><\/p>\n What about John Wesley, or C. S. Lewis, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Soren Kierkegaard? Are they equally as suspect in your eyes, on the same grounds? Mother Teresa and St. Francis of Assisi quite possibly in hell . . . ? This is so absurdly asinine, one wonders how to respond. I haven\u2019t figured it out yet.<\/p>\n I believe Romans 4:4-5 makes a crystal-clear dichotomy: \u201cTo the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.\u201d Verse 4 describes those who are working toward ultimate justification. Verse 5 contrasts them with true Christians, who refuse to work for any part of their justification \u2014 but instead they rest their whole confidence on a righteousness that is imputed to them. (See also Phil. 3:7-9.) I\u2019ll leave it to you to declare which category you fit into.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m in the category of those who \u201cwork out\u201d their \u201cown salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in [me], both to will and to work for his good pleasure\u201d (Phil 2:12-13 \u2014 NRSV; cf. Mt 5:20, 7:16-27, 16:27, Lk 14:13-14, Acts 6:7, 10:31,35, Rom 1:5, 2:5-13, 6:17, 10:16, 15:18-19, 16:25-6, 1 Cor 3:8-9,13, 4:5, 15:10,58, 2 Cor 5:10, Gal 5:6, 6:7-9, Eph 2:8-10, Col 3:23-25, 1 Thess 1:3, 2 Thess 1:8,11, 1 Tim 6:18-19, Titus 1:15-16, 3:5-8, Heb 11:8, Jas 1:22-27, 2:14-26[cf. Ps 106:30-31], 1 Pet 1:2,17, 2 Pet 1:10, Rev 22:12).<\/p>\n You think \u201cworks,\u201d even those wholly wrought by God\u2019s enabling grace, have nothing to do with justification and salvation. I think the Bible (per the above evidences) perspicuously teaches otherwise, which is why\u00a0sola fide<\/i>\u00a0was unknown, according to Norman Geisler, between the times of Paul and Luther.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally from late 1996)<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Art4TheGlryOfGod by Sharon<\/a> (2-2-13)<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY-ND 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Phil Johnson is the Executive Director of popular Protestant expositor John MacArthur\u2019s\u00a0Grace to You\u00a0\u00a0ministry, and ordained elder and pastor at Grace Community Church. The following dialogue took place on the public\u00a0Theology List. Phillip\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue. ***** I\u2019d like you to show me where the\u00a0Catechism of the Catholic Church\u00a0says anything about God securing our […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":23567,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,50],"tags":[1987,1482,1985,1986,145,238,2342,244,1471,229,1650,1123,1120,2344,1210,2071,146,2341,1118,243,1207],"class_list":["post-23561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-salvation-justification","tag-appropriation-of-grace","tag-catholic-soteriology","tag-co-laborers-with-god","tag-cooperation-with-gods-grace","tag-eternal-security","tag-faith","tag-faith-alone","tag-grace","tag-grace-alone","tag-heaven","tag-hope","tag-imputed-justification","tag-infused-justification","tag-justification","tag-merit","tag-moral-assurance-of-salvation","tag-perseverance-of-the-saints","tag-salvation","tag-sanctification","tag-soteriology-2","tag-synergy"],"yoast_head":"\n