Protestantism's most embarrassing strawman (Catholic Justification)

I think the most embarrassing strawman of Protestantism is how it sees the Catholic view of Justification. In the Protestant's mind, the Catholic position entails a person starting off a little bit righteous, then has to work his way up to fully righteous. It's as if the Catholic had to fill up a gas tank, with the tank starting off at 1% full, and with each good work they increase the tank by 1%, until they get to the end of their life and the tank is 100% full. With this view in mind, the Protestant thinks the Catholic is never actually Justified in this life. As such, this "Catholic Gospel" hardly sounds like good news at all, and in fact is (understandably) seen as quite troubling. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic view, and if you can point this strawman out to Protestants it will completely pull the rug from under them. 

The actual Catholic view is that a Catholic is instantly 100% Justified the moment they convert. This then means that works have nothing to do with a Catholic getting Justified. So it is a complete strawman for the Protestant to say the Catholic view of Justification is a "process" while in 'contrast' the Protestant claims to stand firm on "the finished work of Christ". In the Catholic view, the moment one is baptized (usually as an infant, who obviously doesn't do any work at all), through the merits of Jesus, the individual is instantly 100% forgiven of their sins and instantly becomes an Adopted Child of God. Period. There's no "work" to be done. There isn't really such a thing as "initial justification," so such language should be avoided by all sides, since Baptism is not the start of some progressive life-long filling up of a 'righteousness gas tank'. 

Romans 9 like you've never heard it before

When we read the Bible with the wrong glasses on we will often miss some otherwise obvious themes and lessons. I think this is especially true with texts like Romans 9, which have become collapsed (usually by Calvinists) into a bare show of God's (seemingly arbitrary) display of His Power. But I want to propose that Paul had something more fascinating in mind than what any Christian already knows, i.e., that God is Providentially in control of all human events. 

I'm coming to believe that Romans 9 isn't so much focused on salvation/heaven as it is about first-born (priestly) status being lost to the younger born. Not only is there no clear talk about heaven, hell, etc, in this chapter, but there is a pretty clear First-Born theme when you know what to look for. Consider Paul's object lessons: 

• Paul's first example is Isaac being chosen over first-born Ishmael. When you read the actual story carefully, Ishmael was expelled as an illegitimate child, who mocked Isaac for being second-born (Gen 21:9-10; cf Paul says Ishmael "persecuted" Isaac, Gal 4:29-31). It is hard for us to grasp the significance of first-born status to the ancient mind, but it meant the world to them, especially when it comes to priesthood status.

• Paul's second example is of first-born Esau and second-born Jacob. God says "the elder will serve the younger," which isn't a reference to being sent to heaven/hell, but rather to supplanting birth order. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, and later on his father’s “blessing,” which likely was also a form of ordination (Gen 27:26-30).

• Paul's third example is when God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." This is not as obvious, but if you consider the context, the situation is quite striking. The context is of the Golden Calf incident, wherein the nation of Israel lost its collective priesthood status and was relegated to the Levites alone to offer sacrifices (Ex 32:25-29). The first-born son high-priest Aaron was said to be the Golden Calf ringleader (Ex 32:35), which meant it was up to second-born Moses to take upon the intercessory role of Atonement (Ex 32:30; Deut 9:18-20; Ps 106:19-23). It is within this context that God says because Moses' priestly intercession found favor in His sight, He would honor Moses' request to spare the Israelites. God was not ‘randomly’ showing mercy here as a demonstration of how He can show mercy on a whim whenever He feels like it.

• Paul's fourth example is that of Pharaoh, which was the head of the strongest nation in the world, Egypt. In some sense, Egypt/Pharaoh was first-born among the world, likely because their pagan gods were considered the strongest. The stated goal of Moses was told in Exodus 4:22-23, "You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son. Let my son go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son." We know Egypt had smothered God's first-born son, and God wasn't going to let this continue. The express instructions each time Moses confronts Pharaoh is to let the Israelites go "so that they may offer sacrifices" to God (Ex 5:1, etc). It was liturgical warfare, true religion versus false, pagan God against true God. By striking down Pharaoh's first-born son, this was effectively striking down Egypt's priesthood, and thus humiliating their gods, and vindicating Yahweh as the True God.

• Paul's final example is that of the Jews versus the Gentiles. Obviously, the Jews were to be the "chosen race, royal priesthood," first-born among the nations. Yet in rejecting Jesus, they lost their status, which triggered the influx of the Gentiles into the Body, who would then become God's priests for the world, under the heading of Jesus (the Father's first-born). Hence Paul's quote from Hosea: "Those who were not my people [the Gentiles], I will call ‘my people’" (Rom 9:25).

I think there's an undeniable 'first-born son supplanted by sin' theme here that Paul is making, and it ties all the chapter together, unlike lifting a few verses here and there without any coherent thread, and missing the richness of it all. What lesson is there for God to show mercy on Moses (who was a righteous man)? If the theme was really about God showing mercy unconditionally, we should expect the major sinners like Pharaoh to be shown mercy. In each case, there is sin involved by one of the parties. It is not a 'both are sinners so let's show mercy to one of them' theme. Paul is telling the Jews of his time that all these other first-born sons lost their status, and rejecting Jesus can lead to the same for you Jews. The first-born status also being tied to priesthood also means the undercurrent is that of True Worship, which makes the real issue about glorifying God liturgically, and only secondarily about saving men. (Side note: this is why for Catholics, when Scripture is read at Mass, it is first of all a prayer to God, and only secondarily a lesson to us. This is why the Protestant “worship” being nothing more than a Glorified Bible Study is the ultimate attack on Christianity, because it removes worship of God from the main equation and shifts focus subtly onto man’s quest for knowledge.)

Who shall bring an accusation against God's elect? (Romans 8:33) - Not who you might think.

Continuing on with my look at the Biblical term "elect," the first 'controversial' text I want to look at is Romans 8:33 where Paul famously asks: Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Before diving into that, it's important to recall what the Biblical term "election" (and "calling") refers to, particularly that the Bible doesn't use it to refer to someone who is unconditionally elected to make it to heaven. With that, we can quote the context and I'll present my case for "who" Paul has in mind here. 

³² He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴ Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” ³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This passage is often read by Protestants (typically Calvinist/Reformed types) to mean that the Christian is Eternally Secure. That no sin can separate us from God. Catholic apologists are right to point out that this list of dangers which Paul lists are not sins but rather persecutions. This is important because it means Paul is not at all saying that "no sin can separate us," because the fact is sin can separate us from God. That's the whole point of Adam & Eve falling into sin. They were in communion and the fell from communion with God. (I've not really heard a coherent explanation from Protestants as to how Adam & Eve could fall from communion with God if salvation is eternally secure.) What I want to do here is go one step further. 

What does "election" and "calling" mean in the New Testament?

Following up on my last post dealing with the OT definition of “election,” I’ve compiled my own finding of how the New Testament speaks of “election” and “calling” (both terms seem to be used similarly). In this study, the main themes to consider are whether the NT speaks of election/chosen/called as something that is (1) unconditional, (2) able to be lost, (3) unto salvation, and (4) corporate or individual. Going through all the verses where these terms have been used, to the best of my ability, here is how I’ve organized the ways the terms are used:

Speaking of Jesus choosing the Apostles:
Luke says that Jesus called many disciples, but only “chose” twelve of them by name to be Apostles (Lk 6:13; John 15:16; 15:19; Acts 1:2). From Judas being one of those “chosen” Apostles (Lk 6:13; Jn 6:70; 13:18), we can conclude this election was not unto (final) salvation, and could be lost (Lk 6:13; cf. Jn 17:12; Acts 1:25). The choice for these specific men was seemingly conditional, as it doesn’t seem anyone famous, rich, or powerful was chosen. Instead, from what we do know, Jesus picked four fishermen and a tax collector. And when it came to replacing Judas, candidates were selected based upon having personally walked with Jesus and saw Him Resurrected (Acts 1:21-26), with God being said to do the “choosing” among the final two candidates (Acts 1:24). Similarly, Jesus “called” apostles and Lazarus, but none of this was unto final salvation in and of itself (Mat 4:21-22; John 12:17). 

Similarly, the Apostles are said to have “chosen” certain qualified men to be deacons (Acts 6:5), to serve the poor, so neither unconditional nor about (final) salvation (cf Acts 6:2-3). And the same general conclusion can be said when the Church “chose” Barnabas and Silas (Acts 15:22; 15:25; cf Acts 13:1-3; Heb 11:8), because they were “leading men among the brothers” (cf Acts 15:32, 15:40).

Quickie Apologetics: Sola Fide & Losing Salvation

My "election/calling in the NT" article as a follow-up to my last post is taking longer than expected, so here's a brief post (on a different subject) for now.

One line of argument I use against Protestants is to ask them early on in the discussion if they believe salvation can be lost through (grave) sin. About 'half' of Protestant denominations do believe salvation can be lost if we turn to sin, fall away, lose faith, etc. But this raises an interesting dilemma: how can you say we are saved by faith alone if salvation can be lost? If faith is what saves you, then your works obviously cannot play a role. If your works do play a role in saving you (including keeping you saved), then obviously it's not faith alone saving you. You would be surprised how many Protestants get stumped by this question - and indeed they should, since it's a blatant contradiction. 

I've found this argument is especially useful against Lutherans, since they believe salvation can be lost through grave sin. In fact, Luther himself taught that salvation could be lost:

When holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. (Smalcald Articles #43).

Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles and Lutherans formally accepted them in their Confessional Book of Concord, so this is official Lutheran teaching. It is interesting that Paul himself quotes this example of David having lost his salvation and having to repent to become re-justified in Romans 4:6-8 (quoting Psalm 32). 

Recognizing this contradiction, we get the other 'half' of Protestants who logically hold that salvation cannot be lost. These require a different line of approach, but can still easily be exposed as well. Those who do believe salvation can be lost typically (rightly) appeal to the clear passages of Scripture indicating salvation can be lost (see HERE and HERE for some examples), and in this case they sacrifice logical consistency for Scriptural testimony. On the flip side, those who believe salvation cannot be lost are forced to explain away those many texts of Scripture, and in doing so they sacrifice God's Word for logical consistency. In reality, you shouldn't have to sacrifice either one, and that's why the Catholic Church is obviously correct in rejecting salvation by faith alone.

The meaning of the "elect" in the OT & 1st Clement

Jimmy Akin has a fascinating series on the 'original' meaning of the theological term known as the "elect". Over the centuries since the time of the Apostles, the term has come to mean something along the lines of "those predestined for Heaven," those who cannot lose their salvation, those chosen unconditionally, etc. But since this isn't the 'original' Biblical meaning, I think this is an unfortunate case of misusing key Biblical terminology and thus should be corrected. Catholicism has no problem with theology developing in a manner in which no Dogma or Divine Revelation is undermined, but really we should try to stick with the original understandings of key Biblical terms. I think this is especially crucial when it comes to reading the Bible, so we know what is being said rather than projecting our own assumptions immediately onto the text. And with that, I will dive right into Jimmy's three 11/17 articles (and will update this post when he makes a fourth), summarizing what he said, and I encourage you to read them yourself. 

Jimmy begins with looking into the Epistle of 1 Clement, which is a good place to start, because it shows what the earliest Christians thought about certain key terms. This Epistle is traditionally attributed to St Clement, one of the earliest Popes, and personal friend of Peter and Paul (Philippians 4:3), and there is no good reason to doubt this. The Epistle is staid to have been written around AD96, but Jimmy says it could be even as early as AD70. 

Does "no condemnation for those in Christ" refer to eternal security? (Rom 8:1 & 5:1)

I often see Protestants cite texts like Romans 8:1 and Rom 5:1 as proof-texts for their doctrine of Eternal Security (i.e. the belief that salvation cannot be lost). Upon first glance, it can seem that these texts could suggest this, but as will be shown this is reading too much into the text, as well as going against the very lesson Paul is trying to convey.

The texts in question say: 

• Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. {these italicized words are not found in some manuscripts} 
  
• Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we {let us} have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many Protestants read these verses and think that the "no condemnation" and the "peace" we have refer to our standing we will have standing before the judgment seat of Christ at the end of our life. They hold that we are fully and eternally entitled to enter heaven the moment we become justified by faith. 

While a Catholic would happily affirm that a person who is currently in a State of Grace is certainly to be at peace and is certainly in a position of no condemnation, the first thing to notice is that nothing here indicates this "no condemnation" and "peace" are permanent features in a Christian's life. In fact, based on the contexts and other passages, we should start off assuming these texts refer only to your present status, which can change later on if you turn to a life of sin. 

We must stop being the whores of goat demons - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Another one of the developing insights I've recently come across was found in a passing sentence in the book of Leviticus, chapter 17. This is the famous chapter where God explains why blood is 'special' and why the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood. This is one of the most important chapters in the Old Testament, since it speaks on the heart of the sacrificial system. This insight should radically alter your perception of animal sacrifices, such that you will see Penal Substitution truly has no place. 

I begin by quoting the relevant portion of Leviticus 17: 

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the Lord has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord. 6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.

Before the chapter goes onto speak on the issue of sacrificial blood, it begins by speaking on the location of where sacrifices are taking place. In this passage, God commands all animals which were slain for sacrifice to be brought to the priestly tent to be offered upon the altar, and anyone who fails to do this will be subject to severe punishment. Why is this such a big deal? Because God wanted to stop the Israelites from sacrificing "to goat demons, after whom they whore" themselves. This bizarre statement actually contains a crucial insight into what Sacrifices were all about: Liturgical Worship! Man's chief goal has always been to give God the form of Worship which God desires to receive; anything else is technically idolatry. In this case, the lesson seems to be that while in Egypt, the Israelites had picked up some bad religious habits, particularly offering worship to animal-idols, in this case a goat-deity. This got me reflecting and researching, which led me to some further insights by some Catholic Biblical scholars. 

"Eternal Life" according to Scripture

I thought I had written a dedicated post about the Biblical teaching on "eternal life," but after doing a search it seems I only wrote about it in passing (e.g. Here and Here). As with many of my posts, the heart of good apologetics is defining key theological terms according to the Bible. Most theological errors are due to people unconsciously assigning their own definitions to key theological terms, which results in building other theological conclusions on an faulty foundation. In this case, many people will read verses such as "whomever believes in him will have eternal life" (Jn 3:15) as if it were saying once you accept the Gospel your spot in heaven is secure forever. This is understandable, but it's a serious mistake and even misses the beauty of such texts. 

 

Doing a simple word search, the term "eternal life" appears in approximately 45 verses in the Bible. To keep this post short, I wont go through every verse, but you can and should follow the link to see the verses for yourself. The key verses I want to highlight are as follows:

• John 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
  
• John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
  
• John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
  
• 1 John 3:14-15 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 

In these passages from John, it is clear that "eternal life" is not something that comes in the future, it is not a ticket to heaven, but rather it is something you presently experience. In John's mind, to have "eternal life" means you have a relationship with the Trinity, the Trinity dwells within you. You "know" the Father and the Son, you have a spring of water flowing within, you have passed from spiritual death to inner spiritual life. In short, you have "eternal life abiding within" yourself (1 Jn 3:15). So all those times in John when Jesus says "believe and you will have eternal life," this is simply saying if you believe Jesus is your Savior, you will be in communal relationship with the Trinity. This communion can obviously be broken, as we see Adam originally had communion and fell, and 1 John 3:15 warns that mortal sin will result in no longer having eternal life in yourself (unless you repent). 

It is understandable why the term "eternal life" would confuse many, but it's pretty clear once you stop and try to understand the term from John's mystical perspective. That said, now it's time to look at how the term "eternal life" is used by Paul and other Apostles, because we will see a different usage than John's. 

How Protestants violate Paul's instructions on married clergy. (1 Timothy 3:2)

Protestants often bring up 1 Timothy 3:2 against Catholicism's rules on married clergy. Protestants say that Paul plainly says a Minister must be married, and thus Catholicism must use "traditions of men" to enforce celibacy to get around Paul's requirement for Church ministry. The irony here is that Catholicism actually does follow Paul's rules, and it is Protestants who pretty blatantly violate them. Let's first take a look at the passage in question and then I'll show why Protestants don't take the Bible as seriously as they think they do.

1 Timothy 3: 2 Therefore an overseer [Pastor/Minister] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The first thing to note is that Paul is talking about candidates for ordination here, Paul is not talking about those already ordained. This is important because Paul is saying that the married man who seeks ordination must already be married and he must already have children (note the plural). Nothing in this text indicates someone already ordained can still get married later on, and yet Protestants teach someone who is already a Pastor can still do these things after ordination. In fact, Protestant seminaries typically consist of young men studying for ordination, and of these young men a good number of them aren't already married, and an even larger percentage of them don't have children (note the plural) yet. Thus, Protestants are blatantly violating Paul's teaching here, all the while thinking they are following Paul's teaching. So Protestants should be careful when using this verse against Catholicism, because any Protestant seminarian who is not married, or married without more than one child, or even infertile, is thus prohibited from ordination based on their own Protestant logic!

Does falling away from the faith mean you were never really saved in the first place? (1 John 2:19)

Many Protestants teach that you cannot lose your salvation, so when a person "falls away" from the faith, some of these Protestants conclude that this person was never really saved in the first place. Their favorite prooftext for this claim is 1 John 2:19. Their interpretation is quite convenient, but is actually quite unreasonable, and it's is hurtful towards Christians who struggle with sin (thinking they might never have been saved). 

To begin, consider the context of 1 John 2:19,

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

These Protestants read 2:19 as saying these people who "went out" of the community by apostasy demonstrate that they never really were saved, since true Christians remain in the community. This interpretation is somewhat understandable, but it is very weak when you consider the context, the Greek words themselves, similar verses, and theological coherence.