Monday, March 20, 2023

Peter Kreeft: Luther Was Simply Right About Faith Alone?

I've come across this quote from Roman Catholic author Peter Kreeft a number of times over the years:

"How do I resolve the Reformation? ​ Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works?​ Very simple. No tricks.​ On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. ​ As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel.​ Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children."​

It is interesting to find a Roman Catholic author saying anything nice about either the Reformation or Martin Luther... but the quote just seems too good to be true. Based on the context below, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft because... it is too good to be true. There are indeed "tricks" going on. 

 
Documentation
The version above was cut-and-pasted from an Internet discussion forum. It was posted without any documentation. Kreeft's comment appears in a published book: Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics (San Fransico: Ignatius Press, 1998). Via Google books, the quote can be found here and here


Context
The fourth issue is the most crucial of all. It is the issue that sparked the Reformation, and it is the issue that must spark reunion too. It is, of course, the issue of faith, of faith and works, of justification by faith. 
This is the root issue because the essence of the gospel is at stake here. How do I get right with God? This was the issue of the first century church at Galatia, a church Protestants see as making the same essential mistake as the Catholics-preaching the gospel of good works. Protestants dare not compromise on this issue or they would be turning to what Paul calls "another gospel". Thus his harsh words to the Galatians, the only church for which he has not one word of praise: 
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." 
How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed-indispensable to union between all sinners and God and to union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children. 
Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and, for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two "other gospels": the gospel of old-fashioned legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with "other gospels" is simply that they are not true: they don't work, they don't unite man with God, they don't justify.
No failing could be more serious; but on the Catholic side, as distinct from the liberal Protestant side, it is a failing in practice, not doctrine. When this happens, the Catholic Church fails to preach its own gospel. It is sitting on a dynamite keg and watering the fuse; it is keeping a million dollar bank account and drawing out only pennies. Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven. 
But there are two important verbal misunderstandings in the Reformation controversy over faith and works. First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation. 
Second, Catholic and Protestant theologians mean different things by the word faith. Protestants usually follow biblical usage: faith means saving faith, the heart or will accepting Christ. Catholics usually follow a more technical philosophical and theological usage: faith means the act of the mind, prompted by the will, which accepts Christ's teachings as true. In Protestant language, faith means heart faith, or whole-person faith; in Catholic language, faith means mind faith. Thus, Catholic theologians are right to deny justification by faith alone in that sense (which of course was not Luther's sense). For "the devils also believe, and tremble." in this narrower sense faith can exist without the works of love; as James writes, "Faith without works is dead." In the larger sense, faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms.

Conclusion
I see only one positive aspects of this quote: Kreeft espouses 20th Century ecumenism embracing (a position taken by a number of Roman Catholic scholars) not placing the entirety of blame for the Reformation on Luther. Rome's laymen often say the opposite: Luther was completely responsible for everything. Other than that, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft. Here are my reasons. 

1. Peter Kreft is putting forth theological confusion by inferring the Protestant Reformers had the same Gospel, but Rome's error was that they were not preaching this agreed upon Gospel in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. I've mentioned a number of times on this blog over the years, Rome did not have an official dogmatic pronouncement on justification previous to the Council of Trent: 
Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification. [Jaraslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation [New York: Harper and Row, 1964, 51-52].
All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].
2. Kreeft puts forth an ecumenical hodge podge statement attempting to portray an agreement between Rome and Luther: "Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven." What exactly is Kreeft saying?  Further down he clarifies he's putting forth pure Romanism: 
First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation.
This is not Reformation theology! In Luther's thought, being justified before God was on the basis of a perfect righteousness (Christ's) that is not one's own. One is not sanctified to eventual justification finally completed after being purified in purgatory. 

3. Kreeft then launches into a discussion of the term "faith" positing that Protestants use the word as defined by the Bible, while Roman Catholics use the word defined by philosophy and theology! I can only speculate he added "theology" as some sort of jab at Protestants clinging to Sola Scriptura while Rome's defenders have more than one infallible authority to "theologize" from (Tradition and the Magisterium). 

4. It's true that Trent says that faith is needed to be justified, but Trent did not affirm that faith alone justifies. The Protestant Reformers held that faith is placed in the works of another: Christ's works, and only those works serve as a basis for a right standing before God. In Protestant theology, the fruit of works are a response of gratitude that one has been justified. One's works are not done in the process of being eventually justified. 

5. Kreeft says "Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within." That seems "Protestant" enough until one reads his eventual clarification. He mentions James writing "faith without works is dead" and adds, "faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms." Using his own analogy, in Roman Catholic theology, one is a plant growing into an eventual justified blossom! 

Addendum
Here's an interesting YouTube link in which Scott Hahn wrote Peter Kreeft about this very issue. In the letter, Kreeft says (at around 1:40) that he "confused the truth in Luther, sola gratia, with the untruth, sola fide." 


12 comments:

Ken Temple said...

I used this quote before, even here. And we discussed it in the comboxes.
You are more accurate and nuanced and have included more context, as usual as your good research and scholarship demonstrates.

Even Roman Catholics praise your articles here as a whole as good for correcting lots of sloppy Roman Catholic criticisms of Luther and the Reformation.

I was just reading some of Casey Chalk's new book, "The Obscurity of Scripture", where is cites one of your articles on page 73. "Luther: "Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore"

Anyway, the fact that Scott Hahn rebuked Peter Kreeft for this section, (in the video you linked to) and that Kreeft and that Roman Catholic website changed the article - IMO, still demonstrates that Kreeft had made an admission about Luther and the Reformation that is telling.

I don't know if Kreeft has changed his original book that it is from. I bought a used copy several years ago precisely because they took the article down from the internet.

Larger context is good; thanks for giving that good advice and I agree that it helps to be accurate and also the other side (Roman Catholics) will respect us more for being accurate.

the quote you added about Kreeft's summary of the Council of Trent - "contrary to Luther" (p. 291, further down) shows Kreeft almost destroying that he said earlier.

Then later, Kreeft writes:
"What will Protestants have to repent of? Doctrinally, whatever they left behind in the Reformation that was not a perversion
. . .
but part of the apostolic tradition. . .
the teaching authority of the church, the inerrancy of her creeds, sacramentalism, apostolic succession, prayers to saints, Purgatory, transubstantiation, and even a definite papal primacy . . . " (p. 297)

so, this, in a way, also guts what he said earlier, IMO.



Ken Temple said...

We discussed that quote in the combox here.

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/10/called-to-communion-on-roots-of.html

Ken Temple said...

I am still trying to find the original article / post that I made here with the Kreeft quote that was the main thing in a short post.

hard to find

Ken Temple said...

I found it.

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/gods-soverignty-history-reformation.html

James Swan said...

Hi Ken, thanks for the links.

When I put this blog entry together, I had a vague memory of this quote and did see that we had sparsely discussed it many years back. I chose to take a fresh look at it. I am surprised that I didn't do a look at this quote all those years ago... maybe I did, I don't remember!

There used to be a person at my church that knew Peter Kreeft when he was younger, I may be mistaken, but I think Kreeft was local to my area when he was raised in a Reformed church. That's an even vaguer memory, the person has since moved away, so I can't ask.

This fresh look at the quote was provoked by a person on a discussion forum who keeps cutting-and-pasting the quote against Rome's defenders. Something didn't seem right about the quote, so I did a quick investigation. I guess in essence, I was helping Rome's defenders by doing the work... but it honors God's law when a context is treated correctly. The guy on the discussion forum appears to have finally stopped using it.

In your 2009 post linked above, the point on the fault for Protestant disunity being the sole fault of Protestants is the typical stuff spewed by Roman Catholic laymen without any actual Roman Catholic authority or credibility to even be giving their opinions! While Kreeft may be inaccurate in the way in which he articulated it way back then, he places himself outside of the "Luther was awful on everything" Roman Catholic camp and places himself on the ecumenical side of things. In that vein of Roman Catholic ecumenism, I did a post many years ago from Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz:

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Joseph%20Lortz

When it comes to Reformation history, Rome's defenders are all over the historical map... but they are supposed to be the beacons of unity showing us all what beauty it is to be part of the one true church.





PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 1.

"How do I resolve the Reformation? ​ Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works?​ Very simple. No tricks.​ On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. ​ As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel.​..

Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith,.. .

when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant...that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation.


While the term salvation can include the effect of regeneration, (cf. Titus 3:5) the holy state which results in works, the key issue is what the basis is for justification.

Which in Scripture is via effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating justificory faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) being what is is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in confessing the Lord (normally formally first by baptism) and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28).

And while works led by the Spirit (Rm. 8:14) do result from Abraham-type faith, and which fruit justifies/vindicates one as being a believer (manifesting "things that accompany salvation" - Heb. 6:9) and who thus are fit to be rewarded ("which have not defiled ..shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy" (Revelation 3:4), and therefore a promise of salvation can be made if one will obey (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38) since to believe is to obey;

yet, as with the palsied man to who could be told "Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk" (Mark 2:9) since the former effected the latter, yet the two are not to be confused as to cause and effect.

However, in Catholicism justification is actually by sanctification, via inward holiness/infused charity via regeneration which is effected by the act itself of baptism.

Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (CCC 1992) The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift...infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. (CCC 1999)

Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace)

Also, while there is a sense of "merit" as meaning believers being rewarded for the obedience of faith due to God promising such, and enabling and motivating believers to do what they otherwise would not and could not do (and can thus claim no credit for),

yet the words of Trent with its "works...truly merited eternal life" and emphasis on merit (issued in overreaction to the false concept of sola fide as being by an inert faith) can be understood as meaning "accounted" due to actually meriting/earning salvation.

"nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God...to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)

Canon 32 similarly teaches, "the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does truly merit eternal life."

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2.

Cannon 32 of Trent referred to at the end of my last (character-limited) post states,

"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema."

Regardless of how RCs may explain this as not teaching or fostering faith in one's own actual works/merit worthiness of Heaven, the belief that justification is via actual sanctification begins with baptism. As referred to before.


Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (CCC 1992)


Thus it is believed that the newly baptized, who are thus inwardly just, formally justified and made holy by their own personal justice and holiness, would go to Heaven if they died before they sin:

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . .) have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. (CCC 1023)

However, since the unholy sinful Adamic nature is all too alive after baptism and manifests itself in these "inwardly just" (righteous souls), then it means that unless they died having attained to the level of practical perfection needed, then they are in in need of postmortem purification:

Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence. .. (CCC 1264)

And thus, what flows from the original error of believing man must actually become good enough to be with God (rather than faith being counted/imputed for righteous, - Rm. 4:5 - and with obedience and holiness being evidential fruit of regenerating faith) is that of the doctrine of RC Purgatory, by which, besides atoning for sins not sufficiently expiated on earth, serves to make the baptized good enough to be with God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness " etc. (City of God XXI.24.)

One "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory)

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC 1030)

"The purpose of purgatory is to bring you up the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants).

"Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected." Purification must be complete..." "This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory." — John Paul II, Audiences, 1999)

Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

PeaceByJesus said...

However, this premise of perfection of character for final salvation eliminates the newly baptized from entering Heaven (if they died before they sinned), since while innocent (not that the act of baptism actually regenerates, as Catholicism teaches), yet they have not yet attained to "spiritual excellence," to elmination of "every trace of attachment to evil," to "perfection of the soul," to the level of practical holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

And this premise would also exclude the contrite criminal of Luke 23:43 from being with Christ at death, yet who was told by the Lord that he would be with Christ in Paradise that day. And likewise imperfect Paul, (Philippians 3:13) who attested that to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:7; cf. Philippians 1:23) And indeed it would exclude all believers who were told that they would be forever with the Lord if He returned in their lifetime (1 This. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul.

In contrast, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

And rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ to inherit the kingdom of God, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

Note also that the tradition-based Eastern Orthodox reject RC Purgatory, among some other substantial RC distinctives

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6) The Lord Jesus, in being "made perfect" (Hebrews 2:10) as regards experientially "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15) was subjected to this in the life.

Meanwhile the salvation by holiness via baptism and purgatory are all under the RC rubric of salvation by grace thru merit:

The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. (CCC 1813 )

Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods. (CCC 2027)

Most all of the posts by me her are from https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/06/basically-what-is-roman-catholic.html , by the grace of God.

PeaceByJesus said...

When it comes to Reformation history, Rome's defenders are all over the historical map... but they are supposed to be the beacons of unity showing us all what beauty it is to be part of the one true church.

You mean the "one true schism or sect." Based on this post by a RC (https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3755297/posts?page=6#6) but expanded, we have these camps (incomplete list):

1. Those that believe Francis is pope but a heretic.

2. Those who reject Francis as pope, and even as a Catholic (referred to by some as "Bergoglio the Heretic;" who "preaches and authors heresy;" being "the material and formal heretic;" this fraud of a pope; “an apostate,” "not a Catholic;" "Pope Frank..protestant;" "The Impopester;" "The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;" "...for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy") Incomplete list.

3. Those who held that Ratzinger was the last valid pope, and not have no living pope.

4. Those that believe disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic.

5. Church Militant types that chastise the Bishops but did not do so to the Pope (subject to change).

6. Supporters of "The Wanderer."

7. Supporters of the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who disowned The Wanderer.

8. The SSPX

9. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.

10. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy

11. Those that believe Francis is a false pope and that Ratizinger is (was) the pope, but now have no living pope.

12. The SSPV who reject modern popes and that John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid

13. Those that believe the SSPV is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.

14. Those who believe the SSPV is in apostasy.

15. Followers of pope Michael (of Kansas)

16. Followers of Pope Linus II (of England)

17. Followers of Pope Pius XIII (died),

18. Followers of Pope Alexander IX of Argentina

19. Those who also believe the Church is now completely controlled by (name conspiracy).

20. Those who believe it matters little who is pope or what one believes as long as they love the Catholic Mary and receive the Eucharist once a while, vote for liberals, and are in favor of women priests, and are averse to TradCaths, with some accusing them of being like Protestant (evangelicals - since they also make the veracity of church teaching subject their own judgment of what past church teaching consists of and means (but for classic evangelicals past church teaching Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed).

Both liberal and TradCaths consider evangelicals to be their enemies, despite or because those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic, have long testified to being far more conservative and unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death , though declension is taking place. We (I) must Pray, purify and preach.

TommyK said...

James, great post here. The book was published by Ignatius Press. Counter Reformation of the Jesuits, so there is DECPETION and RED FLAGS. Rome has not changed. Biblically, if Luther and the Reformers were right, and I personally believe they were right, then according to Scripture, the Jesuits are a major component of the anti-Christian movement, so how can there be unity with the Roman Institution without denying the Gospel, or distorting it? Keep Defending the Faith (Jude 1:3).

Cletus van Damme said...

A few issues:

1. Regarding Pelikan's statements, sure there were multiple formulations and technical language under discussion (hence the debates during Trent's sessions, the "duplex iustitia" convos of Contarini and Pohle with Protestants before Trent, etc) but it wasn't like there were no boundaries that informed Trent or that any old definition could have won the day - things directly tied to soteriology (that many Protestants reject) like baptismal regeneration, sacraments, loss of salvation and mortal/venial sin, etc. were not being widely disputed in the Tradition, not to mention the conciliar precedents in Orange, Valence, Ephesus, etc and the witness of Aquinas and the greek and latin fathers. And of course Pelikan converted to EOxy - he presumably considered some Protestant distinctives weren't part of the Tradition after all.

2. "In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation.This is not Reformation theology!"

Sanctification (which includes works) is certainly a necessary part of salvation according to confessional Protestantism. Protestant apologists get quite annoyed when RCs mischaracterize the traditional Protestant view and conflate justification with salvation or deny works are necessary, so I'm not sure why the exclamation denial above.

3. "It's true that Trent says that faith is needed to be justified, but Trent did not affirm that faith alone justifies. The Protestant Reformers held that faith is placed in the works of another: Christ's works, and only those works serve as a basis for a right standing before God."

RCs (nor Trent) don't deny faith is placed in the work of Christ - what do you think RCs put faith in for justification? And Christ's works are done in and through the justified which is why they merit in first place. So this characterization is off. Trent denies a particular formulation of faith alone justifies, not faith alone en toto, thus Benedict's famous statement from Nov 08 I'm sure you're aware of. Trent condemns ongoing extra nos imputation. But sola fide by itself does not entail that, thus why Aquinas and ecfs could affirm faith alone, though they hardly meant what the Reformers meant. Word-concept fallacy needs to be avoided on both sides.

4. "the fruit of works are a response of gratitude that one has been justified."

Trent states works only merit when one is already justified.

5. [Kreeft] adds, "faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms." "Using his own analogy, in Roman Catholic theology, one is a plant growing into an eventual justified blossom!"

And as Calvin replied to Trent, "we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone"

One is already justified before doing works. RCism is not Pelagian or SemiPelagian. Works of grace make one who is already justified further justified, or works of sin can make one lose justification. One must not conflate initial justification with final justification when analyzing the RC perspective.

TommyK said...

This sounds like the contemporary theology of John Piper with initial & final justification, etc...You cannot be further justified. You are either justified by Christ and His Mediatorial Sacrificial Work that is imputed or not (John 3:18, 3:36, Mark 16:16).