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. 

Did Paul really think his Jewish opponents saw themselves as being sinless?

Standard Protestant teaching says that the reason why works cannot justify us is "because we are sinners," which is another way of saying that if we were not sinners, then works could indeed save us. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog (e.g. here), Paul never suggests works could save even if we were sinless. In this post, I want to add another detail which goes against this Protestant idea, namely looking at whether the Jews ever considered themselves sinless. I will now turn to the Scriptures to show that the Jews clearly did consider themselves sinners, which thus totally undermines the Protestant Perspective on Paul.

As I was looking around for some Protestant quotes on this matter, I came across this gem from R.C. Sproul's ministry: 

God’s people were justified by faith alone under the Mosaic covenant even though some verses in the Law say the doing of its precepts brings righteousness and life. One of these is Leviticus 18:5, which Paul quotes in Galatians 3:12. We might conclude from a superficial reading of the Mosaic law that old covenant people were saved by works, not faith. Some Christians have held this position. However, the Torah shows us that while it reveals God’s righteous standard, our Creator knew that sinners could never save themselves by doing the Law. For example, the inclusion of sacrifices to atone for sin presupposes that the people will fail and have to look for another way to be justified.

The first sentence here says that under the Law people were justified by faith alone "even though" the Law says you are justified by works. How could the Bible say justification is by faith alone if it teaches justification by works? This claim is a blatant contradiction in thought, which is sadly so characteristic of the PPP. But that's not all! The quote also goes on to say that the Law included instructions on performing sacrifices to atone for sins, since it was obvious that nobody could be sinless. What Jew would go around considering themselves sinless when they were fully aware of the long chapters in Leviticus dedicated to instructions on atoning for sin? Why would God issue a Law that simultaneously demanded sinlessness and a means to atone for sin? Did a single Jew on the annual Day of Atonement, dedicated to atoning for all the sins of the Israelite nation, seriously think they were without sin?

"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. 

Love this quick yet effective refutation of sola fide (which the Protestants didn't see coming).

I think I've come upon a devastating yet subtle 'quickie' argument against the Protestant (especially Reformed) notion of justification by faith alone. Catholics will often point out that "faith that works through love" is what Paul meant when he spoke of the essence of a justified believer (Gal 5:6), and that without love we are told by James that "faith is dead" (James 2:24-26). Protestants think they have an answer for this, by insisting (without proof) that "true faith always comes with love" with it. This seems like a save at first, but thinking about this means the Protestant is saying that when a person receives the gift of faith prior to justification, they also receive the gift of love along with it. That's a problem, and here's why. 

If a person receives faith and love prior to justification, it means the unsaved individual loves God already, prior to even accepting the Gospel message! This cannot be, and thus the Protestant must reject this and say faith doesn't automatically include love along with it prior to justification. This leads to a few significant but plain conclusions:

(1) Faith prior to justification lacks love, and thus this faith must start off 'dead'. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just an incomplete thing, which is why justification is still needed. 

(2) Justification must be what bestows love, and this seems confirmed by Scripture (e.g. Romans 5:5), and thus the Protestant can no longer say justification is purely forensic, but rather infuses divine gifts into the soul.

(3) Dead faith prior to justification becomes living faith after justification by the addition of love to faith, and herein is the essence of a justified believer. This would mean it isn't Christ's Imputed Righteousness that makes all the difference, but rather the presence/absence of love, and thus suggests your justification (salvation) hinges upon what you do with that love. This is why texts like Revelation 21:8 list "unbelief" as one of the many sins that can damn a person, because it's possible to have faith and be damned by other grave sins.

Given the above, when Paul says we are "justified by faith," he isn't saying we are "eternally saved by faith," rather he's saying that we receive God's love within us by believing in the Gospel, and that this is just the beginning of our salvation (Rom 13:8-14; Gal 5:13-14).

How Protestants completely botch the Biblical teaching on what being "Born Again" means (a.k.a "Regeneration" in Calvinism)

As I looked upon the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Regeneration," I was fascinated by what I saw. Below I will quote from the entry, but trim it down for brevity and to highlight some key points:

Regeneration is a Biblico-dogmatic term closely connected with the ideas of justification, Divine sonship, and the deification of the soul through grace. Confining ourselves first to the Biblical use of this term, we find regeneration from God used in indissoluble connection with baptism, which St. Paul expressly calls "the laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5). In His discourse with Nicodemus (John 3:5), the Saviour declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The idea of "birth from God" enjoys a special favor in the Joannine theology. Outside the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:12 sq.; 3:5), the Apostle uses the term in a variety of ways, treating "birth of God" as synonymous now with the "doing of justice" (1 John 5:1, 4 sq.), and elsewhere deducing from it a certain "sinlessness" of the just (1 John 3:9; 5:18), which, however, does not necessarily exclude from the state of justification the possibility of sinning. It is true that in all these passages there is no reference to baptism nor is there any reference to a real "regeneration"; nevertheless, "generation from God", like baptismal "regeneration", must be referred to justification as its cause. Both terms effectually refute the Protestant notion that there is in justification not a true annihilation, but merely a covering up of the sins which still continue (covering-up theory), or that the holiness won is simply the imputation of the external holiness of God or Christ (imputation theory).

Why Head Coverings blind Protestants.

I think I've formulated a new apologetics argument that should prove fun and (hopefully) fruitful when talking with Protestants. Basically, the way Protestants view the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist is similar to how Paul describes the reason for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. The result of this line of thinking would not only force Protestants to make Baptism indistinguishable from Eucharist, but also to 'raise' Head Coverings up to the level of a new Sacrament in itself. Let's see where this goes. 

Penal Substitution is the key to understanding Protestant Evangelicalism.

Over at the CCC Blog I recently posted "Understanding Christ's Cry of Abandonment" and I began by 'predicting' that by Good Friday we'd see a flood of posts from well-educated Protestants (mostly Calvinist/Reformed) who were going to completely botch the meaning of "My God, Why have you abandoned me?" And it turned out, a number of Protestant outlets posted on precisely this.

As you read the following quotes, take note of how the Protestant understanding of the Cross (Penal Substitution), in which they openly speak of "Christ being damed to hell in our place," is directly linked to Justification by Faith Alone and is the heart of the Gospel as Protestants understand it. So if you want to improve your apologetics and dialogue with Protestants, you should be ready to talk about this issue. Even the average Evangelical you run into believes this stuff, they just don't realize this is what they're espousing with their "Just say the Sinner's Prayer" theology.

And now the quotes from famous conservative Protestant ministry blogs (with my highlights). Since it's about 2.5 pages of quotes, I have trimmed them only to cut down on size:

How much did prayer cost God?
March 30, 2015 by Justin Taylor [The Gospel Coalition blog network],

[Quoting Reformed Pastor Tim Keller:] The only time in all the gospels that Jesus Christ prays to God and doesn’t call him Father is on the cross, when he says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus lost his relationship with the Father so that we could have a relationship with God as father. Jesus Christ bore all the eternal punishment that our sins deserve. That is the cost of prayer. Jesus paid the price so God could be our father.

“My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?”  
Mar 30, 2015 by Dr. Pastor Joel Beeke [Ligonier Ministries],

Experiencing the full brunt of His Father’s wrath, Jesus cannot stay silent. He cries out: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Here Jesus descends into the essence of hell, the most extreme suffering ever experienced. It is a time so compacted, so infinite, so horrendous as to be incomprehensible and, seemingly, unsustainable. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. With Jesus as our substitute, God’s wrath is satisfied and God can justify those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). You are immune to condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and to God’s anathema (Gal. 3:13) because Christ bore it for you in that outer darkness. 

This is a beautiful summary of the Protestant understanding of the Gospel. Jesus died in our place, we accept this by Faith Alone, and we can never lose our salvation.

Problems with the Reformed view of Federal Headship and problems with the Reformed view of Liturgy.

I have two new guest posts up at [old deleted blog]. Since the blog was deleted I will have to post them here: 

THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF FEDERAL HEADSHIP:
The Reformed notion of Federal Headship states that all of mankind lives under the representative umbrella of a father figure, namely Adam or Jesus. They say the reason why God can consider all men subject to the consequences of Adam’s deliberate sin, even though we didn’t personally sin, is because God judges us ‘in Adam’. Likewise, when a person is saved, the Reformed say that person is worthy of the blessings of salvation, not for anything they did, but because of the perfect obedience of Christ, with God judging them to be ‘in Christ’. To put it crudely, it’s as if all mankind were placed in one of two boxes, one labeled “Adam”, the other labeled “Jesus”. God doesn’t judge you personally, only by proxy, only based upon the box you’re in.

With that imagery in mind, popularly termed “Imputation,” it can be easily seen why Protestants believe salvation cannot be lost and why they shudder to hear Catholics teaching that our works play a role in our salvation: If we are ‘covered up’ (hidden) in the box labeled “Jesus,” and that’s all God judges us worthy of heaven or hell based upon, then obviously God wont be judging us based on our personal sins (causing us to deserve hell) or on our person good works (causing us to deserve heaven). This is what Protestants mean by “Christ Alone” and “Grace Alone”.

But if this Federalism/Imputation framework is true, then why does the Bible frequently speak of our personal sins being forgiven and our personal sins being the basis of our damnation? Why is God concerned about our personal failings if He is judging us solely based on the failings of Adam? If we are in the box labeled “Adam,” and that’s all God looks at, why does God care or judge us according to the box of our own sins? The only answer I can envision is that Federalism/Imputation must wrong (or only half-true). It is wholly inconsistent and even equivocal for a Protestant to say Jesus as Federal Head represents the believer entirely but Adam as Federal Head represents us only partially. Just as “Jesus plus our works” is anathema to Protestant ears, by the same logic, so must “Adam plus our works” must be rejected…and yet the latter is contrary to Scripture’s frequent claims of our personal sins being the object of God’s wrath and forgiveness (Romans 1-3).

This is not to say that Adam and Jesus are not ‘heads of humanity’ in a real and crucial sense, because Catholicism certainly believes they are heads. The point is that it cannot be Sola Headship as the Reformed teach, but rather (somehow) a combination of headship and our personal living.

REFORMED APPROACH TO LITURGY:

Is a Christian free to worship God however he pleases? I think all of us would intuitively answer “No” to that question. Man’s duty to worship God is too important to just be a free-for-all. This is especially true for Christians who have God’s Revelation, particularly the Bible. The Confessional Reformed tradition (rightly) understands that man is not only not free to worship however he pleases (since this would ultimately tend towards man worshipping himself), but in fact man should not worship in any way not clearly laid out in God’s Word. This notion is known in the Reformed tradition as the “Regulative Principle of Worship” (RPW), wherein man must worship God how God has revealed He wants to be worshiped. The goal of this post is to show that while the RPW sounds good on the surface, I think it quickly runs into some serious problems.

Most non-Reformed Protestant traditions (especially Evangelicalism) take a more ‘lax’ approach to Christian worship, generally holding to the idea that many forms of worship are acceptable so long as they don’t contradict Scripture. That view doesn’t see the Bible as prescribing a specific form of worship, but rather only ‘ruling out’ unacceptable practices (e.g. the use of images). Clearly, the ‘worship question’ is not trivial, yet Sola Scriptura has led to a more relativistic, human-centered approach to Christian worship, as each believer is seen as autonomous, not having to be subject to any specific pastor/congregation and having the ‘right’ to worship however he pleases (including simply sleeping in on Sunday). Rather than go on a tangent about Sola Scriptura in general though, I think the Confessional Reformed RPW view should be analyzed in light of what Scripture says, because it seems to me the RPW has little to no Scriptural support – which is quite ironic.

The most obvious starting point in discerning whether the RPW is actually Biblical is to find whether Scripture lays out any specific example of Christian liturgy. Some Evangelicals will say they base their Christian liturgy off of “The Acts 2 Church,” but at that point in the Church (Acts 2:42-47) there wasn’t even a book of the New Testament written yet, so “The Acts 2 Church” couldn’t even have been a Sola Scriptura based Christian liturgy. Moreover, there aren’t really any details here or anywhere else in Scripture of what precisely early Christian liturgy looked like. (Such information comes mostly from inspired Apostolic oral teaching, which Protestants reject.) So given this lack of specific Biblical testimony, from what I’ve been able to gather, the RPW is really a bunch of verses strung together to ‘form a principle’ (hence the name RPW), which ironically leads Reformed liturgy becoming more a work of men than a command of God.

To see this problem more clearly, consider John Calvin’s official liturgy which he instituted in Geneva in 1542 [1]: The liturgy begins with Confessing Sins, Prayer for Pardon [2], then goes on to Scripture Readings [3], a Sermon, a Collection of Alms, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, Words of Institution, Consecration of the Bread and Wine, and concludes with the Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:22-27). Now we can all agree that none of this is necessarily a bad thing when considered individually. The problem is that this “liturgy” is nowhere instituted in the Bible. Is man really free to just lift the Aaronic Blessing from the OT and append it to the Christian Liturgy and call this approved by God? Not if they are being honest. And as anyone can see, a whole host of liturgies can be invented using this cut-and-paste method. [4] This is clearly an unacceptable position for a Christian to take.

Given this brief look at Reformed Liturgy, it seems to me that the RPW not only is self-refuting (since it’s not a specific principle taught in Scripture, just a gathering of verses here and there), it also exposes one more flaw in Sola Scriptura, since it makes liturgy more or less relative to the whims of the individual (guided at most by some generic ‘principles’). So while it is good that the Reformed take worship of God seriously, they unfortunately find themselves in a conundrum wherein as hard as they try to “worship God as He has commanded in His Word,” they end up worshiping God according to blatant traditions of men. Only an appeal to inspired Apostolic oral teaching and Apostolic Succession (both of which Catholicism has) can ground a Christian in true worship and prevent a slide into man-centered relativistic “worship”.

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship#John_Calvin.27s_Liturgy

[2] It’s not clear to me how the Confession of Sins and Prayer for Pardon is compatible with the Reformed idea that man’s sins are completely forgiven at the moment of Justification and that God only views man in light of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him. Why ask for forgiveness of sins every Sunday if you believe all your sins were already forgiven and that God never counts your sins against you?

[3] It’s also not clear to me if the Scripture reading is taken from a fixed lectionary of readings (if so, where did the Bible teach this?), or if the Scripture reading is a randomly chosen text (and if so, where does the Bible say we worship God by randomly selecting which texts we feel like reading?).

[4] Note that in the Wiki link above, Calvin had noticeably modified this 1542 liturgy from his 1540 liturgy, including removing Psalm 124:8 from the start, removing the recitation of the Ten Commandments (with each Commandment followed by Kyrie Eleison) and removing the Nunc Dimittis before the conclusion. Did the Bible tell him he could make such revisions? Does he not realize a whole host of liturgies can come about by this mixing/cutting/pasting?

Biblical proof that being "Clothed in Christ" has nothing to do with Protestant Imputation.

[Old deleted blog guest post I made, now posted in full here] I show St Paul certainly did not have the Protestant dogma of "Christ's Imputed Righteousness" (by faith alone) in mind when he said we are "Clothed in Christ."

I have often heard Protestants explain the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in terms of the believer being “clothed in Christ’s righteousness,” which they take to mean our sinfulness is covered over by Christ’s perfection, causing us to appear pure and holy before God (though ‘underneath’ the clothing we remain sinful). But as I came to look at how the Bible speaks of “clothing” I came to realize something very different than the Protestant notion of Imputation was being taught. What I came to realize was that what the Bible was describing was actually the Catholic view of grace and salvation, not the Protestant view.

Generally speaking, Protestants understand the saving “grace” of justification as a disposition of God, wherein God knows He doesn’t have to save anyone, but He ‘graciously’ (undeservingly) sends Jesus to fulfill the law and die on the Cross (all in place of the believing sinner’s inability to do these things). This is where the Protestant notion of being “clothed in Christ’s righteousness” comes in, because even though God knows the sinner is ‘beneath the clothing’, God ‘graciously’ (mercifully) overlooks this and instead focuses on the clothing (i.e. what Christ did).

On the other hand, Catholics understand the saving “grace” of justification to refer to God’s divine life and power (2 Cor 12:9) acting upon the sinner, causing the sinner to be transformed. As the Catechism puts it: “Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life.” (CCC#1997) In this view, “grace” is what gives spiritual life to one who is spiritually dead (i.e. those in mortal sin), somewhat akin to the electrical charge that enters into a dead battery to recharge it.

In both viewpoints, grace is absolutely necessary, and in fact we could say both the Catholic and Protestant views believe man is saved ‘by grace alone’. But the radically different views of grace entail radically different views on salvation, which means this dispute must be settled beyond the semantic level. And this is where a study of the Biblical notion of “clothing” comes in.

Catholic theology has traditionally viewed saving grace from three perspectives: building, elevating, and perfecting. I believe these three aspects of grace are clearly found in how the Bible uses the Greek verb endyo, which literally means “to put on clothing,” and if this holds true then the Protestant equating of Imputation with that of “being clothed” must be abandoned (in fidelity to God’s Word).

The first claim to look at is the Catholic notion that grace ‘builds upon our human nature’. That which is natural to a being pertains to its own inherent abilities and qualities. That which is super-natural literally refers to those abilities and qualities that go beyond nature (since ‘super’ means ‘beyond’). When it comes to salvation, there are certain things we cannot do precisely because they require abilities that go beyond our natural abilities. I recall St Augustine using the analogy of seeing in the dark, saying that it doesn’t matter how good our eyesight is, the only way we can see in the dark is from the special assistance of a torch. We see this concept found when Paul speaks of “putting on the armor of God,” for example: “But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation” (1 Thess 5:8; see also Rom 13:12). In Ephesians 6:11-18, Paul speaks of this “putting on the armor of God” again, including putting on the belt of truth, breastplate of righteousness, and helmet of salvation, as well as taking up the shield of faith and sword of the Spirit. And before Jesus Ascended into Heaven, He told the Apostles to “stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49), speaking of the divine gifts (e.g. tongues) which the Holy Spirit would pour out on Pentecost. In all these texts the clothing analogy is clear: these divine gifts equip us, building on our nature, to enable us to fight the good fight and do God’s work, which we otherwise couldn’t do by our natural human powers.

The second claim to look at is the Catholic notion that grace ‘elevates our human nature’. It is universally understood that certain people and places demand a certain elevated level of respect. We know that this means you must dress appropriately for certain events and have your house neat and orderly to properly welcome special guests over. Beautifully capturing this notion is the way the Old Testament describes Jewish Temple: For God to be able to dwell there, the Temple had to be ‘elevated’ beyond that of a regular building (by using the finest gold and decorations), and that the High Priest had to be ‘elevated’ beyond that of a lay person (by using many fancy garments instead of regular clothing, e.g. Lev 16:23). This is precisely why Churches should be beautifully adorned and why parishioners should dress up for Mass, because anything less is quite insulting to God’s Divine Majesty.

Hidden in his earthly Temple analogy is actually the more profound reality of the Christian having the Trinity dwell within us. As Paul says, Christians are “Temples of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16-17), and as Jesus says in John 14:23 that ‘anyone who loves me, the Father and I will come make our dwelling within him’ (see also Eph 3:17). With this in mind, grace is what elevates us to become a welcoming and worthy home for the Trinity to come and dwell within us. Such a task requires a thorough ‘renovation’ of our souls and especially an adornment of love, as Paul says: ‘Put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together’ (Col 3:9-14). And elsewhere, “put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24).

What is also fascinating is that this ‘putting on of the new self’ is identified in Romans 13:12-14 as “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, making no provision for the flesh,” telling us what being “clothed in Christ” really refers to in Paul’s mind! This fits precisely with Paul’s concluding thoughts of Galatians 3, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (3:27), since Scripture describes Baptism as a cleansing, image renewing, and regenerating bath (e.g. Acts 22:16; Titus 3:4-7; Romans 6). Notice that according to the plain reading of this verse, we become “clothed with Christ” by Baptism, not by faith alone.

The third claim to look at is the notion that grace ‘perfects our human nature’. Closely related to the last two aspects of grace is the notion that grace perfects us, meaning it takes us to a place where our human nature was supposed to be (and hence why Adam ‘falling from grace’ was such a tragic, devastating fall from a super-natural state to a merely natural one). To help get this concept across, is interesting to note is how those in heaven (both humans and angels) are described as being “dressed in (white) robes” (e.g. Rev 7:9-14, 15:6). One would think that a person in heaven should be described as naked, since nudity (ideally) is supposed to signify innocence and purity. Since we know nudity itself isn’t bad, the presence of “robes” would suggest that human nature itself isn’t enough to experience heaven, human nature must be ‘perfected by grace’. Indeed, St Paul tells us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” meaning our natural bodies aren’t naturally made to live in heaven anymore than we can just go live in outer-space. The body must be glorified by grace, which is why Paul follows this up by saying: “this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:50, 53; see also 2 Cor 5:1-5) – verses clearly referring to the perfecting work of grace.

With all this in mind, a final thought: It is common for people to say, “I don’t need Christianity to get to Heaven. I’m a good person, so I’m sure God will let me in.” The problem with that logic is that getting into heaven is far more than about being a ‘good person’. If you ask these people if you can come to their wedding, they’ll respond by saying: “No, I don’t know you.” Exactly, because wedding invitations aren’t based on who in the public is a ‘good person’, but rather on who is a friend of the Bride and Groom. Similarly, you must be a friend of God, having a relationship with Him, to be invited to His Wedding. God has no reason to invite you to His wedding feast if you never really cared about being in relationship with Him. A person needs the (super-natural) “love of God within them” (Jn 5:42; cf 1 Jn 2:5; Mt 24:12) if they are going to in relationship with God. This is how the parable of Matthew 22:10-13 is to be understood, where the man not clothed in the symbolic “wedding garment” was not welcome at the wedding feast. As noted in prior articles, this helps explain that the Catholic view isn’t about ‘working our way into heaven’ as it is about being properly disposed (i.e. in a state of grace) to be in a relationship with the Trinity, starting now.

Protestants like to quote Zechariah 3:3-7 which speaks of Joshua having to put on clean garments as proof of Imputed Righteousness, but this interpretation is presupposed and really has no merit from what has already been shown. The story fits quite well with the Catholic view of grace, especially the concluding verse which in which God warns: “If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access.” This indicates that sins can cause him to lose his rights, which makes no sense in the Imputation view (since God overlooks your personal sins). In fact, using the principle of Scripture-interprets-Scripture, we see the Catholic view vindicated in Revelation 3:3-5, where Jesus says: “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment.” These garments these saints are wearing cannot be referring to Christ’s righteousness Imputed, since Jesus speaks of them as taking care not to defile the garment (which is impossible if it’s Christ’s righteousness), so it can only refer to sanctifying grace gained, with the potential of it being lost through sin (cf James 1:12; 2:5). The parable of the Prodigal Son should be understood in a similar manner, wherein the father order the servants to “clothe” the returned son with a new expensive robe, signifying a reconciled status after being “dead” in sin (Lk 15:22-24).

In conclusion, we have seen the Catholic understanding of grace beautifully captured in the Bible’s use of the analogy of being “clothed”. Further, it was shown that being “clothed in Christ” and “clothed in righteousness” (as used in the Scriptures) cannot refer to the Protestant notion of Imputation, meaning they should avoid such terminology out of fidelity to God’s Word and orthodox theology.

Is Imputation taught in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

Protestants consider 2 Corinthians 5:21 to be one of the chief Biblical proof texts for for their doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. In fact, they put so much emphasis on this verse that a lot of their credibility hangs on it. Given this, I want to provide Catholics with some key information on what to say when speaking with a Protestant on this crucial text, because if you can stop them in their tracks here, you'll have gone a long way towards causing them to rethink everything about their own position and what Catholicism has to offer them.

Is the Imputed Righteousness of Christ the only hope for a person to become right with God?

[The following is a Guest Post I made at another blog but the blog was deleted a couple years ago]

How does a sinner become right with God? That’s a question Reformed Protestants love to ask, and for good reason, since it’s one of life’s most important questions. But the interesting thing is, the Reformed answer contains a serious flaw, and recognizing this can help explain where their understanding of Justification goes off course and get corrected. This blog post, which is somewhat a continuation of the last blog post, will address the problem and explain the solution.

The Reformed answer for how we can “stand before God and be right with him” is typically summarized as follows: Since we are sinners, we’re obviously not righteous, so we need Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. As the prior post explained, the Reformed understanding of righteousness is perfect obedience to all of God’s commandments. So Christ’s righteousness imputed to us means that we need Christ’s perfect obedience (also called “Christ’s Active Obedience”) transferred to our account, so that God can then “count us as righteous” (i.e. Justify us), just as if we had been perfectly obedient ourselves. Sounds simple enough, and it is simple, but there’s a problem that emerges and cannot be ignored.

Now everyone agrees that Adam was originally created in communion with God and was in a right relationship with Him. But how can this be if Adam had not yet perfectly kept all God’s commandments? In other words, Adam was not yet righteous (in the sense of perfect obedience) and yet he was in communion with God, with God being well pleased with him.

Do you see the dilemma the Reformed position falls into? The Reformed rightly recognize that Adam didn’t have to have perfect obedience to be in a right relationship with God, but the Reformed also say that us being in a right relationship with God requires perfect obedience. Something’s wrong here. Logically speaking, if Adam didn’t need perfect obedience to be in communion with God, then neither should we.

The difference between Adam and us is not which one of us had perfect obedience (since neither Adam nor us ever did), but rather a matter of Adam not having sin and us having sin. Thus, if justification is about putting us in a right relationship with God, then needing a perfect obedience isn’t the solution, but rather getting rid of the sin. This is precisely why the Catholic understanding of ‘getting saved’ (or ‘getting justified) is one of remission of sins and cleansing our hearts, which is basically the undoing of the damage Adam caused.

While it needs to be said that Reformed theology does teach that ‘half’ of Christ’s work on our behalf was to secure the forgiveness of sins (i.e. Christ suffering for us), they go off course by saying the other ‘half’ of Christ’s work was perfectly keeping all God’s commandments in our place. If they were to say that Justification was simply the forgiveness of sins, they’d be a lot closer to the Catholic and Biblical position. But by understanding justification as being declared before God to have perfectly kept God’s law, the Reformed have basically put themselves in a bind. They’ve incorrectly defined what it means to be “Justified,” and that’s not a trivial matter.

To state it another way, the Reformed have (unintentionally) collapsed two distinct Biblical events into one event: Conversion and Final Judgment. Conversion is about becoming right with God, restoring the broken relationship which Adam originally had and lost for us. The Final Judgment is about departing this life in friendship with God, with God declaring you a “faithful servant” from growing in that relationship. Using an analogy: Conversion is being adopted into God’s household, while Final Judgment is God declaring that you’ve been a faithful son in his household and ready to receive your inheritance. Just to clarify, Catholics are not saying you ‘buy’ your adoption or inheritance, these are gifts that God wants to give us at the proper time, should we accept them. (Note: You can also throw your gifts away by mortal sin, which then requires Confession to recover them.)

With all this in mind consider the Biblical witness on the matter.

When the Bible uses the term “justify,” it never (clearly) refers to declaring someone to be perfectly obedient before a judge, but rather is about declaring a person is vindicated (or not guilty), particularly when speaking of having sins forgiven. For example, Deuteronomy 25:1 speaks of the civil justice system, with the judge having to “justify the righteous” (NASB) man in a lawsuit. This certainly doesn’t mean the judge is declaring the defendant of having kept the law perfectly throughout his whole life, but rather simply that the man isn’t guilty of the charges against him. In other famous texts speaking of civil justice, God does not approve of human judges “condemning the righteous” (e.g. Ex 23:7; Prov 17:15; Is 5:23), which also wouldn’t make much practical sense if perfect obedience was in view, because nobody would be perfectly obedient in the first place. The point simply is this: There’s big difference between saying someone is ‘not guilty’ and saying someone has been perfectly obedient, and justification in the civil sense is only concerned with the former.

Turning to the New Testament, there is abundant testimony as to what Christ did for man, but never does the sacred text speak of Christ’s work for us in terms of perfectly keeping the commandments in our place. Rather, every major text speaks simply of Christ getting rid of our sins and restoring our communion with God. (To keep things brief, only the book of Acts will be examined in this post, with the Pauline Epistles being examined in the next blog post.)

After the Resurrection, Jesus tells the Apostles that the Prophets foretold “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk 24:47). And this is precisely the message the Apostles carried into their Gospel preaching in Acts: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”; “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out”; “repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins”; “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins”; “through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed”; “cleansed their hearts by faith”; “be baptized and wash away your sins”; “that they may receive forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 15:9; 22:16; 26:18). The message is consistent throughout, whether it’s Peter, Paul or another disciple doing the preaching.

So why do none of these Gospel proclamations in Acts speak of needing Christ’s perfect obedience to be able to stand before God and be right with Him? Did the Apostles forget a key piece of the Gospel Message? Catholics say No, the concept of Christ’s righteousness simply wasn’t part of what it takes to be right with God.

For those interested in commenting, please remain focused on this subject at hand. The subject is not about Mary, the Papacy, Indulgences, but simply the proper definition of Justification and whether it’s taught in Acts (with plenty of time for discussing Paul’s Epistles in the next blog post).

Reformed Professor Matthew Barrett and the shallowness of the Protestant grasp of Scripture

I'm not writing this brief article to make fun of anyone, but simply as an example of the sad situation Protestantism finds itself in when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I really want to emphasize this because for a long time and even still to this day Protestants are under a serious delusion that Catholics are too dumb to really know the plain teaching of Scripture. In this post I want to give a brief look at what a Reformed Seminary Professor posted on his blog.

Matthew Barrett has a PhD in systematic theology, is editor of a major Reformed magazine (Credo), and is a professor at a Reformed college. Just yesterday he posted on the Credo Magazine blog a post titled "It is finished: A reflection on John 19:30." Just by the title, you'd think that Dr Barrett is going to exegete this verse, and in fact I was drawn to read this post precisely because I know this verse is important for the Calvinist view of the Atonement. But when you read the brief "reflection," there's no actual exegesis of the text at all. He merely quotes the text in passing a few times, which is simply how most Protestants approach this verse. 

These two concluding paragraphs form the heart of his post, so that's all I'll quote and comment upon:

When we come to the cross and we see the enormous amount of suffering Jesus underwent, we tend to focus solely on his physical suffering: the crown of thorns, the nails, and the crucifix. But as important as all of this is, we cannot miss the main thing: the most excruciating thing about the suffering servant’s cross is that he bore the very wrath of God that was ours. The Lord laid upon Christ our iniquities and Christ took the due penalty for those iniquities. We see this and we hear it when Christ cries out, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Mark 15:34). And then come three beautiful words, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

What is finished? Christ, as he says in the garden of Gethsamani, has drunk the cup of God’s wrath in full (Matt. 26:39), and by doing so, as Hebrews 1:3 reminds us, Christ “made purification for sins.” As our high priest Christ “entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12; cf. 9:13, 25-26). Indeed, this is good news.

Again, this man has a PhD in systematic theology, so he should know how to exegete Scripture and know how things fit together. And yet these handful of sentences show the most embarrassing level of interpretive skill and grasp of theology. But really, this is par for the course for the highest levels of orthodox Reformed Protestant scholarship.

Dr Barrett starts off by making the standard Protestant claim that Christ's physical sufferings at the hands of men, as dreadful as they were, were in fact nothing compared to the spiritual suffering of enduring the Father's Divine Wrath. Such statements are so obviously outrageous that I'd expect others to be speaking up against it. Dr Barrett both trivializes the physical sufferings of Our Lord and introduces a completely foreign concept of God's Wrath being poured out on Christ. Sadly, as I noted earlier, this is in fact the best Protestantism has to offer. It's not that they do this on purpose, but they have serious 'blinders' on that prevent them from thinking clearly. Such is the reality of sin, and such is the position one is put in when they're outside the Catholic Church. Trivializing the physical sufferings of Christ is equivalent to denying the Crucifixion, and God help me if I or any Catholic trivializes the heart of our salvation like that.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse on the "My God, why have you forsaken me?" comments, because I've covered that many times before. I just want people, Protestant and Catholic, to just stop and look at how shallow Reformed theology is and the liberties and desperation it takes with the Sacred Text. It's truly an abuse of God's Word if there ever was one. And to follow this up, Dr Barrett brings up the main text in question, "It is finished," as if he had actually exegeted and proved his thesis. He is oblivious to the fact "It is finished" has it's own context in John, and he's oblivious to the fact John (and Luke) never mention the "forsaken me" quote, despite Dr Barrett's insistence that this "forsaken me" text is the heart of the true understanding of the Cross. He has the audacity to ask "What is finished?" without even looking at the context. And he concludes by quoting all these texts from Hebrews, not realizing the absolute silence in Hebrews about any reference to God's Wrath (or Active Obedience). What's going on folks? And to think this is the enlightened 'wisdom' of men who don't want you to be Catholic? Give me a break.

Once you have the right glasses on, you have a hard time taking Protestantism seriously. To get the right glasses on, you just have to realize that Protestants don't really follow the Bible at all, but rather they follow a completely unbiblical "tradition of men"  called Sola Fide, and they accept this as a starting premise and from there proceed to make Scripture fit. The Reformation wasn't about Sola Scriptura, it was about Sola Fide, specifically the agenda of presuming its truth and forcing the Scripture's to agree (resulting in numerous other "traditions of men" they are forced to embrace). 

I guess what's really hard about reading this kind of stuff is that I really hoped for better, and I truly believe Protestants owe us Catholics better. But it's almost as if God's Word has a built in safety feature, where the moment someone starts to tamper with it, absurdities surface. That's precisely what happens with Protestant scholarship, and Reformed theology in particular. If the Reformed blogosphere isn't going to call out such embarrassing statements which the Reformed PhD's routinely make, then how can we really take them seriously?