![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/07\/Cover-552x832-1.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Norman L. Geisler<\/a>\u00a0(1932 \u2013 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books<\/sup>\u00a0and hundreds of articles.<\/p>\n Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970\u201379) and Professor of Systematic Theology\u00a0at\u00a0Dallas Theological Seminary (1979\u201388) and a key figure in founding the\u00a0Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical\u00a0Thomist and considered himself a \u201cmoderate\u00a0Calvinist\u201d. He was\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn\u2019t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).<\/p>\n This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book,\u00a0Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It\u2019s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I\u2019m now giving them).<\/p>\n I\u2019ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: \u201cAreas of Doctrinal Differences\u201d (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my\u00a0Calvinism & General Protestantism web page<\/a>, in section XVII: \u201cCatholics and Protestants\u201d (second from the end). Dr. Geisler\u2019s and Ralph MacKenzie\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. My biblical citations are from RSV.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification . . . . Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God\u2019s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). (p. 222)<\/span><\/p>\n Here, Dr. Geisler bears witness to the fact that the distinctive and novel \u201cfaith alone\u201d Protestant soteriology scarcely existed before the 16th century. Thanks for the confirmation! Catholics have been making the same point for 500 years. Geisler made similar points in other parts of his book:<\/p>\n For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one\u2019s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection \u2014 the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of \u2018sanctification\u2019 then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of \u2018forensic\u2019 justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . . (p. 85)<\/span><\/p>\n One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (p. 502)<\/span><\/p>\n See also my article, including the leading Protestant historian of justification, Alister McGrath\u2019s almost identical opinion: Sola Fide<\/em>\u00a0(Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath)<\/a>\u00a0[Catholic365<\/em>, 10-31-23].<\/p>\n Geisler even notes that the classic \u201cfaith alone\u201d view was not, strictly speaking, initiated even by Martin Luther:<\/p>\n Melanchthon, Luther\u2019s great systematic theologian, did use forensic terms to describe justification. (p. 222)<\/span><\/p>\n Geisler commendably points out some other qualifications in Luther\u2019s own views, which is rare in Protestant \u201cReformation\u201d apologetics. These highlighted aspects reveal that Luther\u2019s position was closer to the Catholic belief regarding justification than most people are aware:<\/p>\n Amid the Protestant stress on Luther\u2019s discovery it is sometimes forgotten that Luther also believed in a progressive sense of the word \u201cjustification.\u201d For example, he said: \u201cFor we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous but moving toward righteousness (WA 391, 83; LW 34, 152).\u201d Further, \u201cOur justification is not yet complete\u2026. It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead (WA 391, 252).\u201d This sense of progressive justification is what many Protestants call \u201csanctification,\u201d the process by which we are made<\/em> righteous, not an act by which one is declared<\/em> righteous.<\/span> Toon adds, \u201cJustification by faith is both an event and a process. What later Protestants were to divide, Luther kept together. He is quite clear that there is a moment when a sinner is actually justified by faith. He then has the righteousness of another, the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to him.\u201d However, \u201cthis is the beginning of a journey toward a time (following the resurrection of the dead in the age to come) when he will in fact possess a perfect righteousness created in him by the Spirit of God.\u201d Luther also suggested that the believer is righteous in the eyes of God and yet sinful at the same time. \u201cFor Luther, faith is the right (or righteous) relationship to God. Sin and righteousness thus coexist; we remain sinners inwardly, but we are righteous extrinsically in the sight of God.\u201d However, \u201cLuther is not necessarily implying that this co-existence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition.\u201d Instead, for Luther, \u201cthe existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.\u201d (pp. 223-224; Geisler cites at length Peter Toon, Foundations for Faith<\/em> [Westchester, Ill., Crossway, 1983,\u00a0 58-59)<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve pointed this out, too, for many years. See, for example, my articles:<\/p>\n Luther\u2019s \u201cSnow-Covered Dunghill\u201d (Myth?)<\/a>\u00a0[10-5-05]<\/p>\n Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith<\/a>\u00a0[4-16-08]<\/p>\n Luther on Theosis & Sanctification<\/a>\u00a0[11-23-09]<\/p>\n Martin Luther: Faith Alone is\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Lawless Antinomianism<\/a>\u00a0[2-28-10]<\/p>\n Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther\u2019s Point of View<\/a>\u00a0[11-10-14]<\/p>\n Calvinist Origin of Luther\u2019s (?) \u201cSnow-Covered Dunghill\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[5-14-19]<\/p>\n Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), this second justification requires good works as a condition for ultimate justification. \u201cIt is thus both possible and necessary to keep the law of God.\u201d . . . Trent understood justification in two ways: the first and second phases which Catholic scholars refer to as \u201cinitial\u201d and \u201cprogressive\u201d justification respectively.\u00a0<\/span>(p. 225)<\/span><\/p>\n Very good. I have noted this, too:<\/p>\n Initial Justification & \u201cFaith Alone\u201d: Harmonious?<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-04]<\/p>\n Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-10]<\/p>\n Trent Doesn\u2019t Utterly Exclude Imputation<\/a>\u00a0(Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]<\/p>\n Geisler makes another very helpful and ecumenical observation, accurately conveying Catholic doctrine (it\u2019s refreshing to see):<\/p>\n Trent states that our initial justification must be seen as a \u201cgift.\u201d Thus, it comes as a surprise to many Protestants that Roman Catholics believe that \u201cIf anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done . . . without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be Further, \u201cnothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works; otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more<\/em> grace<\/em>.\u201d The new Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em> says clearly: \u201cThe merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness\u201d (2009). <\/span><\/p>\n It is only fair to point out here that when Catholic scholars cite James 2:24 (\u201cwe are justified by works\u201d) they do not mean this initial justification which comes only by grace. Rather, they are referring to progressive justification (growth in righteousness) which Protestants call sanctification. Trent does assert, however, that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses, making it dogma that \u201cby his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.\u201d It is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals disagree. (p. 226; italics his own, in citing Trent)<\/span><\/p>\n At the end, Geisler, like a good Protestant, denies meritorious works. In so doing, he opposes much Scripture:<\/p>\n Matthew 16:27\u00a0<\/b>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.<\/p>\n Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21<\/strong> And behold, one came up to him, saying, \u201cTeacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?\u201d [17] And he said to him, \u201c. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.\u201d . . . [20] The young man said to him, \u201cAll these I have observed; what do I still lack?\u201d [21] Jesus said to him, \u201cIf you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.\u201d (in the parallel passage Lk 10:27 the ruler says, \u201c. . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.\u201d And Jesus replied, \u201cYou have answered right; do this, and you will live.\u201d)<\/p>\n Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46<\/strong> Then the King will say to those at his right hand, \u2018Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.\u2019 . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.\u201d<\/p>\n Luke 3:9<\/b> (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.<\/p>\n Luke 6:35<\/strong> But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; . . .<\/p>\n Romans 2:6-10<\/strong> For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.<\/p>\n Romans 2:13-16<\/strong> For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n Galatians 6:7-9<\/strong> Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:18-19 <\/strong>They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.<\/p>\n Hebrews 5:9<\/strong> and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,<\/p>\n James 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26<\/strong> What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [22] 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. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.<\/p>\n Revelation 20:12-13<\/strong>\u00a0. . . And the dead were\u00a0judged\u00a0by what was written in the books,\u00a0by what they had done. [13] . . . and\u00a0all were judged by what they had done.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 John 2:3-5<\/strong>\u00a0And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says \u201cI know him\u201d but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:<\/p>\n 1 John 3:24<\/strong> All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. . . .<\/p>\n 2 John 1:8<\/strong>\u00a0Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n\n
\nreceive the gift of eternal life). (p. 238)<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n