How to punish a Calvinist (1 Corinthians 11:32)

I was recently reminded of a punishing passage from St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians that led me to write a quick apologetics article about it. The verse is 1 Corinthians 11:32, 

But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Paul is speaking of those Christians in Corinth who were abusing the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:17-34) and as a result God was inflicting punishments on them, such as illnesses and even death (1 Cor. 11:29-30). What is noteworthy about verse 32 is that Paul says God is chastising these Christians precisely to get them to change their ways so that they will "not be condemned along with the world." This teaching poses a serious problem for Protestant theology, particularly Calvinism, because Justification by Faith Alone teaches that the Christian cannot ever be condemned because they say Jesus was already condemned in their place. 

The only two objections I can foresee is for a Protestant to either argue (1) this condemnation somehow does not pertain to Justification, or (b) that this passage is not speaking of true Christians. But these are mere assertions and they do violence to the plain language of the text. For example, Paul uses terms like "judged" and "condemned," which would have to apply to the forensic categories of Justification. In fact, the phrase "condemned along with the world" can only refer to the damning to hell sentence that the unrepentant world will end up receiving. And if Paul is not talking about genuine Christians, then he cannot be using collective terms like "we" and speaking of chastisement, since chastisement pertains only to adopted children of God. So this verse solidly proves that not only are Christians not justified by faith alone, but that God chastises them when they turn to sin for a very grave reason: so that they will correct their ways and not end up getting damned in the end. (cf 1 Tim. 1:19-20; Rev. 3:19)

Why Protestants do not worship God.

I have come to a startling conclusion after reading two articles that I recently saw online, and that conclusion is that Protestants do not really worship God. I obviously have to qualify and clarify this statement, since it is a most serious charge, but it centers around the fact Protestants must admit that formal worship is a non-essential Christian teaching. If you stop and think about it, the fact is Protestants cannot agree on how or when Christians should worship, and unless a Protestant denomination wants to take a dogmatic stance, they're forced to take on the repugnant position that it doesn't really matter how or when (if ever!) a Christian should worship.

The first article I want to point you to is called "10 Reasons to be Involved in a Church." Before clicking on the link, just let the title of that article sink in. The impression given off is that while it is a good idea to be involved in a church, it is not something absolutely necessary. In fact, it comes off as seeking a church that suits your preferences, not some objective criteria by which all Christians should approach the issue. The article was written because the author claims only 8% of Protestants in Britain and only 40% of Protestants in America attend a church on Sunday. In other words, attending church is now seen as something purely optional to the Christian life. And this makes perfect sense with the "don't tell me how to be a Christian" mentality that Sola Scriptura causes. Not unsurprisingly, all 10 of his reasons are nothing more than suggestions, and none of his reasons include because Christians must worship God a certain way, such as a formal Liturgy. The closest he gets is saying "corporate" worship provides a "unique joy" that private worship does not. This is precisely why the whole idea of denominations are disappearing and collapsing into to go-it-alone 'house churches'. 

This leads me to the second article, "In Praise of Denominations," in which a popular Reformed blogger is trying to validate the idea that bitter doctrinal divisions within Christianity is a good thing! (1 Cor. 1:10-11) For example, he says Denominations are critical because they provide members with "theological precision," the ability to have Church discipline, intervene in controversy, and provide unity. The irony of his arguments in favor of Denominationalism is that these qualities he seeks to "safeguard" are the very things Denominationalism undermines! He doesn't realize that if a Protestant doesn't like what they see in a denomination, they can move on to one that will preach what they want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3) He doesn't realize that only the Catholic system can truly safeguard these things. It's also important to note that none of the things he sought to "safeguard" included worshiping God a specific way, which one would think should be the most important thing to safeguard. But we can easily see why, and that's because he unwittingly holds that one denomination can be just as good as another, which ultimately means formal worship is a non-essential.

The Church explains that even common sense shows us that it's absurd to suggest one can and should worship God as they please, as if one form of worship was as good as another. And realizing that God should be worshiped in certain ways compels us to seek out that Worship which is in fact the True one. This obviously requires one to find the True Church, which is impossible if Denominationalism is the norm. This practically makes the case for Catholicism in itself! 

One of the best documents the Church has issued in recent years is Dominus Iesus, in which the Church explained that while Protestants are Christians in virtue of having valid Baptism, it is wrong and offensive to speak of Protestant "churches" in any objective or formal sense. Rather, the more accurate term Rome says to use is "communities," and this is because Protestants lack Holy Orders, which is what defines the visible parameters of the Church. Included in this important fact is that Holy Orders are required for a valid Eucharist, which in turn means the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the formal worship God instituted and how God desires to be worshiped. Thus, to lack the Priesthood makes it impossible to truly worship God. And thus, in a very real (though not all extensive) sense, Protestants do not worship God.

The Papacy in the Parable of the Faithful Servant.

I don't remember where I first heard about this argument, but I was surprised that not many Catholics have quoted it when discussing the Scriptural proofs for the Papacy. The argument comes from the Parable found in Matthew 24:45-51 and also in Luke 12:

35 “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

On the 'ordinary level' of this analogy, Jesus is explaining that a Master can put a chief servant in charge to the Master's place while the Master is away. This only makes sense to our everyday experiences, for it would be ridiculous to suggest a wealthy land owner would not put anyone in charge of his workers. But even more than this, the natural mind knows that it makes the most sense to delegate one person as the chief steward, as this hierarchy will be the best way to preserve order and unity. In this parable, Jesus is responding to Peter, who clearly is the spokesman for the rest of the Apostles, and Jesus responds with this Parable speaking of a singular chief steward. This chief steward is even said to have the task of delegating food to the household. This is a beautiful description of the duty and role of the Pope. This is an obvious proof that Jesus entrusted Peter with "more responsibility" that others, and in turn demands those who fill the Papal office have have "more demanded" from them. 

The Eastern Orthodox might say that Jesus was saying all 12 Apostles are signified by the chief steward, but I do not see this as plausible by the fact Jesus is speaking in the singular when He could (and does elsewhere) speak of servants in the plural in the parable just before this (Luke 12:35-40). Plus, it would not correspond to any actual real-life example, for there is no such thing as "master of the house" in plural, since in the real world this structure devolves into factions.

I see no other coherent or plausible alternative interpretation than what I've just given. Sure you can say every Christian can be inserted into this parable, and that's true to an extent, but any attempts to downplay or eliminate the overtones of hierarchy is simply doing violence to the text. The parable is saying Peter is the "master of the house," the chief steward, to which the other 11 are immediately under him, and collectively they run the Lord's House, the Church.


Update: January 26, 2013. 
While I do not have the tools to easily search through what verses the Fathers have commented upon, I found that most of the Fathers who comment upon the Faithful Servant parable speak in general terms about it. But I did find this quote from St Ambrose from the mid 300s:

1. “Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” Not worthless is this servant: some great one ought he to be. Let us think who he may be.
2. It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself to feed His flock, who merits thrice to hear the words: “Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep.” And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion.

St Ambrose says the ideal figure for the Faithful Servant who feeds the household is St Peter, leader of the Church and given the duty to "Feed Christ's Sheep". This confirms the argument I originally made that this Parable especially applies to Peter.

How could Isaac atone for the sins of Abraham? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

A Protestant I was speaking with brought up Genesis 22 as an example of Penal Substitution, where instead of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac, a ram was sacrificed instead. I was shocked that he would use this as an example, for there are some pretty serious errors in that argument. Then I realized this is a great proof against the doctrine of Penal Substitution, so I decided to share my thoughts.

First of all, Abraham was already justified by the time Genesis 22 came around, so to suggest Abraham had to atone for his sins despite being justified is a blatant contradiction in Protestant theology. In fact, Protestants are adamant that James 2:21-24 (talking about Genesis 22:13) is speaking of Abraham's vindication, not his justification, so the sacrifice couldn't have been of a PSub nature. Second of all, this argument suggests that Isaac could act as a substitute for Abraham's sins in the first place, which is impossible because Isaac was a sinner himself (and Sacrifices must be pure). 

So if this situation was not that of Penal Substitution, then this means Sacrifices involving animals can be done for other reasons, such as showing thanksgiving to God. This refutes the idea that just because an animal is slain that it must be taking someone's punishment. And since this famous OT example prefigured the Father sending the Son to be a sacrifice, then this powerful foreshadowing points away from Jesus being a Penal Substitute as well.

Judas refutes Eternal Security (Calvinism)

One of the most powerful arguments to refute the Protestant doctrine of Eternal Security (also known as Once Saved, Always Saved) is the example of Judas. The typical objection these Protestants make is that if someone 'falls away' then they were never really saved in the first place, but this claim (aside from being unbiblical) doesn't work with Judas' example. Some will point to John 17:2 which says Judas was "lost," but this refers to his losing his salvation, as will be shown.  

The force of my argument rests in the fact that it is impossible to be an Apostle if one is not a true believer in the first place. (This causes problems for Reformed church leadership as well.) If the Protestant position were correct, the Bible could only have said Eleven were Apostles, despite the fact it plainly says Jesus chose Twelve (John 6:70). Further, the Bible is very clear that Judas was sent out by Jesus with the other Eleven to perform the same miracles (e.g. cast out demons) and preach the same Gospel (e.g. Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:1-4). If that wasn't enough, Acts 1:17 says Judas "was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry," and Acts 1:24-25 records the replacing of Judas by Matthias, when Peter says they need a person to "take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside." Clearly, Judas was considered a genuine Apostle and thus was (originally) saved.

Nearly every time Judas is mentioned, his infamy traces to one thing: his future betrayal of Jesus, not some non-converted status he had the whole time (e.g. John 6:71). It is only in John 13 where we see Satan "entered Judas," indicating Judas consented to the betrayal, but up until then Judas was not possessed by Satan. Next, look what the Scriptures say that turns the heat up even more on the Protestant position. In John 13:18, Jesus quotes an OT prophecy in regards to Judas, "But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'" To share bread with someone in the Hebrew mindset indicates an intimate relationship; something impossible if Judas was never a believer to begin with. But that's not all, most of us forget to look up the prophecy Jesus is quoting (hat tip to Joe for this), which happens to be Psalm 41:9, which says: "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me." What a new picture emerges after reading this! Indeed, the idea that Judas was so close to Jesus up until then shows just how serious and enormous the betrayal was, since the worst betrayals are those from the people closest to you. Jesus even calls him 'friend' at the moment of betrayal (Matthew 26:49-50)! This is unthinkable if Judas was never saved to begin with.