Saturday, August 25, 2018

Emails I Wrote to Myself as I Was Making My Transition from Protestantism to Catholicism

I recently came across a few emails I had written and sent to myself on Thursday, March 19, 2015.  I remember writing them, sitting in the computer lab in the library at Utah Valley University and grading philosophy papers.  When an idea occurred to me, I would stop grading and email the idea to myself.  As I describe here, I began my transition to the Catholic Church on Saturday, March 14.  During the week from that Saturday to the end of the following weekend, I did a great deal of thinking with regard to the workability and truth of Sola Scriptura.  It was during this week I first realized that I had been defaulting to Sola Scriptura without a good basis for doing so, and that the default really lies on the side of the Catholic Tradition and interpreting Scripture in the context of that, following the Spirit-guided teaching of the Catholic Church.  I had been taking Scripture and Church Tradition as independent pieces which had to be justified independently.  Thus, I felt that if I knew Scripture was a locus of revelation, I could stick with it alone unless some independent proof could be presented for Tradition.  What I had not been taking into account is the historical reality that Scripture originally came in the context of Catholic Tradition, and that the Protestants had to rip Scripture out of that context in order to establish Sola Scriptura.  Once that piece was properly in place, it became apparent that the default is not with Sola Scriptura but with Scripture as interpreted within the context of Catholic Tradition.  I could no longer assume the sufficiency of Scripture out of the context of an authoritative interpretive tradition.

I came to call this line of reasoning my "default" argument.  I describe it in the article linked to above (my narrative outlining my doctrinal history leading to my Catholic transition).  I've also discussed it here, as well as other places.  At the end of that first week of thinking, beginning on Saturday, March 14, I was ready to write up a kind of semi-formal version of my default argument, and I did so (you can read it here).  But what I came across in the series of emails I wrote on Thursday, March 19, was the writing where I put down my thought processes chronicling the very beginning of my awareness of the default argument.  I had been writing to myself quite a bit that week previously (this is one of the major ways in which I tend to help myself to work out ideas), but in these emails is where the scale was finally tipped to the Catholic side.  By the end of them, I was no longer simply baffled by the practical difficulties of Sola Scriptura and where they had led myself and my family; I had now spotted the fundamental problem with my previous reason for going with Sola Scriptura.

Anyway, I found it very interesting to read these emails and observe my own train of thought on that day, so I thought I'd post them here as well.  I sent several emails to myself that Thursday, and I've separated them below as labeled by the time I sent them.  I've left them unedited from how I wrote them at the time.

Enjoy!

12:20 PM:

1. We can say there is a line somewhere at which general feasibility comes to an end.  People in general can be expected to see certain things, to grasp certain arguments.  But there is a point beyond which it will be too hard to see clearly enough to come to reliable and clear conclusions.  This will especially be the case when we are dealing not with relatively straightforward logical arguments, but with intricate and very nuanced details of biblical exegesis and history, particularly where plausible readings are very close and much hinges on a sentence, a meaning of a word (especially if the word is in Greek or Hebrew), subtle hints of language, and inferences trying to bring things out that are only very obscure in the text itself.  Some things the Bible says pretty clearly and obviously, and people can be expected to grasp those things.

2. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church.  The new tenants will succeed at producing good fruit where the old tenants failed (the implication being that the new tenants will never have to have their tenancy taken away from them).  The Holy Spirit is given in a new way, and will guide us into all truth.  We had revelation through all history in the past, so now will we have no living revelation (or does Christ speak through his Spirit in the church)?  (On the other hand, miracles seemed to go along with revelation, and haven't they ceased?  Isn't there a difference between apostolic times and now?  Hasn't revelation ceased?  So shouldn't we expect this difference?)

3. Could it be that I am dealing with intricacies in exegesis, etc., that are so difficult, that certain conclusions may appear slightly more objectively plausible to me, and even often consistently, without that being because they really are objective better but because of my personality and mental states?  In this case, it would explain the odd situation that I am able to come to conclusions (though, admittedly, only with great difficulty and with lack of self-confidence) much of the time, with much consistency, and yet the conclusions I come to in some areas are ones no one else has reached, or rather the combination of conclusions is one shared by almost no one else, leading to a situation where my family is isolated from most or possible even all currently existing denominations for one thing or another?  Wouldn't we expect, if sola scriptura is true, that there would be at least a significant minority of people in the world, and among professing Christians, who would be able to do what I have done and come to the same conclusions, more than (literally!) a handful?  This seems really odd on the assumption that people in general can do this.  But if my conclusions are partly a product of my own personality, as seems plausible given the intricacy of literary and historical interpretation and subtle inferences based on a complex literary text, then it would explain why I can come to conclusions often but my overall set of conclusions is shared by so few--other people might be trying to do the same thing, but they are coming to somewhat different conclusions on a few things because they have different personalities, reading styles, cultural backgrounds, etc., and so see the text slightly differently.

4. Could my lack of self-confidence and my dismal feelings be coming not from simply discontent, but from a nagging sense that I don't really have a firm foundation for my positions?  When I can see clearly that something is true, I tend to be confident and content in disagreement.  It could be that I am simply feeling a lack of confidence because am out of tune with majority opinion, but it could also be that some of it is coming from a lack of intellectual confidence in my biblical conclusions (because I recognize how tentative they are, being so close to other plausible conclusions, being so difficult to determine).

5. There does seem to be some difference between a logical analysis and an empirical literary and historical analysis.  The one is more straightforward than the other, and an ability to do one well does not necessarily imply an ability to do the other well.  This is especially the case when the empirical analyses involve very complex and nuanced literary and/or historical data and inferences from obscure data.

6. What can people in general be expected to accomplish in thinking through arguments and data?  This is a very difficult question to answer, for there are so many factors to consider, including questions about how much people might be trying (either through laziness or lack of noticing what to try, etc.).  It might be that many people are not good at sorting through theological and philosophical and literary and historical arguments and some are better than others.  Some might be good at some forms and not others.  With logical analysis, there is the possibility of instinct--an intuitional grasp of truth that cannot be articulated and which does not involve an ability to do very well at difficult and confusing arguments from opposing positions (and yet is justified, because the limitations are recognized and the intuitions can be seen to really be tracking something even if one can't articulate exactly how).  With empirical sorts of analyses, it would seem these intuitions wouldn't exist to the same degree.  Well, they might exist somewhat--someone, for example, might be good at intuiting meaning in literary texts.  But, on the whole, since the data is far more empirical and less logical and so dependent on factors not as generally available to minds, Instinct will no doubt be less able  here.  For example, we can assume that arguments for the existence of God can be grasped intuitively, for they deal with perceptions that all people have (even if they don't consciously dwell on it or articulate it).  But an argument that infant baptism is implied by biblical data, or that the Revolution Settlement was justified, or that exclusive psalmody is the best inference (at least slightly) from the biblical data, is probably not going to be subject to the same instincts or perhaps general instincts at all.

12:39 PM:

1. God has not given a revelation to all men, meaning every individual.  The gospel has not gone to all.  Some people are mentally retarded, or only newborn babies, etc.  But God has given a revelation to men in general--meaning that God's revelation has gone out into the world, is not restricted from certain classes of ordinary, adult people (like certain races, or certain personality types, etc.), and so it is possible that ordinary people in general can find the revelation and understand and follow it.  It is available to be found and followed.  Some people might not know that because they haven't encountered it yet, or they might not recognize it for some reason, or they might be confused, etc., but the revelation is out there, and it is possible in the ordinary circumstances of this world for ordinary people in general to find out about it and understand and follow it.  Besides something like mental retardation that makes a person incapable of being aware of the world around them, people of ordinary intelligence can do this.  That is, one need not be a genius, or really good at something or other (like apologetics, or literary analysis, etc.).  Since the church is commanded not only to follow God's revelation but be unified over it, people in general should be able to do this well enough to come to correct conclusions enough for the church in general to be unified.

4:04 PM:

OK, so we have two options. Assuming equality in data, we have two equal options: 1. Sola scriptura. 2. Infallible teaching authority. Which one is the default? The argument for the latter is that we are given teachers with gifts to teach and guide in to truth, and we are commanded to stay in unity, so we should default to our ordinary teachers and so stay in unity with them. Therefore, if we don't know whether 1 or 2 is true, we should default to 2. The response from 1 would be that we cannot defer to our teachers and to unity with them so far as to trust them implicitly without cause. If we don't know if they are infallible or not, it could go either way, then we must ask for evidence of their infallibility before trusting them implicitly. 2 might respond that putting an implicit trust in sola scriptura is also a risk. It is true that both 1 and 2 accept Scripture as a valid reliable authority, so we know that, but this is not the same as position 1. Assuming position 1 entails trusting that relying on Scripture alone without deferring to an infallible teaching authority beyond it will bring us to doctrinal truth, but if 1 is false it will likely lead us to error, confusion, and disunity. Trusting in 2 assumes that deferring to teachers' views will lead to truth, but if this is wrong it is also likely to lead to error, confusion, and disunity. Both, then, are risks. Which is a worse risk? Well, trusting in 2 is not absolute, in that we still have Scripture and it does speak clearly on some things, and we still have reason and logic, so there are correctives there to a significant degree. Position 1 is not absolute either, for, again, we have reason and logic, and Scripture is, again, clear to all on some things, perhaps many things. So where are we now? Which one do we default to? Position 1's argument that we obviously default to 1 because we already know that Scripture is reliable seems erroneous, because, again, it confuses knowing that Scripture is reliable with sola scriptura, but these are very different. Scripture may be reliable, but if we are also to have an infallible church, again, trying to rely on it in a way in which it was not intended will likely lead to error, perhaps very significant error. So position 1 is not as obvious as it might seem on the surface. I was thinking before that "we know Scripture, but we don't know anything else, so we simply go with Scripture, and require additional evidence for anything else." My argument went like this: "We know Scripture. Scripture works by itself (that is, it is possible to rely on it alone because we can say the best reading is the right reading and so come to definite conclusions). We don't know anything else independently. Therefore, obviously, we go with sola scriptura." The flaw, though, is that we actually don't know if Scripture by itself works. We know how it could work if we assume there is no infallible church, but we don't actually know if it in fact does work in this way. The idea of "the best reading is the right reading" adds an element to reading the literature of Scripture which is not inherently present within it. The fact that we have to articulate such an idea suggests that Scripture is not clear enough by itself to tell us many things we need to know. For example, Scripture does not tell us clearly in itself whether or not women should wear head coverings in public worship. Simply literarily speaking, it is not clear what Paul intended to communicate there. There is nothing in the text that requires us to take the "cloth covering" approach. It seems like we can say that is the most likely reading, but not by a great deal, and not at all for sure. So we really don't know what Paul was trying to teach there. But we have to either have women wear a cloth covering or not, so we have to know. So we add the assumption that "the best reading is the right reading," which then allows us to get from "this seems to be the better reading overall, even if not by much" to "this is definitely the right reading; we know what Paul intended." Perhaps this works fine, but it must be noted that it only works by adding this assumption to the text itself. This assumption is not taught by the text; it is a logical requirement for sola scriptura to work. But, on the opening supposition, we don't actually know if sola scriptura works. That's why we are asking this question about which side we default on. So we don't actually know that "the best reading is the right reading" is correct. All we know is that sola scriptura can work if we add that assumption (assuming there are no other issues with it). So, since we don't know if Scripture is sufficient by itself, we are taking a risk either way with position 1 or 2. Position 1 is a significant risk, for we can end up coming to all kinds of false and dangerous conclusions if we try to use it and it is not true. We can end up doing immoral things, worshipping God wrongly, missing important elements of the faith, imposing on the consciences of others, etc., etc. Position 2 also entails significant risks. Believing a teacher is infallible when he is not can result in doing immoral things, worshipping God wrongly, messing up parts of the faith or missing parts of it, imposing on consciences, etc., etc. Is there a greater risk one way than another? It is hard to say there is. Are we assuming more without evidence in one case than another? It would seem not, because in both cases it is not just Scripture we are assuming but some added infallible interpretive aid. One difference is that position 2 asks us to defer to an institution that is actually in place that we know about and which we already know we should defer to, whereas position 1 asks us to defer to a theory which we have no grounds at all to defer to or think true outside of it being a logical necessity granting the (unproven) assumption of sola scriptura.

It would be helpful here, probably to bring in Scriptural arguments, such as Jesus's conversation with the Pharisees, the role of revelation in the ongoing life of God's people in the New Testament, the promise of the Holy Spirit and its guidance, the promise about the gates of hell not prevailing and the parable of the tenants. Do we have reason from within Scripture to prefer sola scriptura vs. an infallible teaching authority? There is nothing clearly stated (without "the best reading is the right reading" assumed). There are hints that might go in both directions. And we can add to this discussion also the question of whether sola scriptura really works, and here we have the incredible splits of Protestantism, the incredible difficulty of figuring out all the doctrines, the feeling of hopelessness from trying to do this, the strange fact that my conclusions seem to lead me to have trouble being fully unified with anyone outside my own family, etc. On the other hand, perhaps we have the difficulty of distinguishing between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches.

5:47 PM:

So where are we now? What is our default--option 1 or option 2? As we've seen, neither of them are without assumption, both have risks. We cannot simply default to 1 because it has Scripture alone, for knowing that Scripture is reliable is not the same as knowing it is reliable by itself without the context of an infallible teaching authority. Right now we're assuming there is no biblical or other data pushing us one way or another. Where would we default? It seems to me that in this case, we since we have been given teachers and we are commanded to obey them and be guided by them and to keep unity with them (at least when possible), our practical default to going with them would imply that we ought to go with them here. If we were to defy them and split from the unity of the catholic body in this case, we would have no good reason to do so, and so surely it would be wrong. So we should, it seems, defer to them. This changes the dynamic a bit. It means that if there is no good, clear reason to embrace sola scriptura, we should assume a reliable catholic church and so defer to catholic tradition and interpret Scripture in light of the assumptions of catholic tradition.

Published on the feast of  St. Louis IX of France and St. Joseph Calasanctius

10 comments:

  1. I don’t recall that Trent really gets into the congruent vs. condign merit issue. It says, as you noted, that nothing that precedes justification merits it, and it says that works done in grace after justification, if combined with final perseverance, merit eternal life. In Catholic theological terminology, I believe the word “condign” would be used for the latter

    Mark, earlier in your reply to Joey Henry, you said:

    I’m sure you are familiar with the Second Council of Orange. The Canons of Orange represent official, authoritative Catholic teaching. Just recently, Pope Francis put out an Apostolic Exhortation where he made the same point:

    The Second Synod of Orange taught with firm authority that nothing human can demand, merit or buy the gift of divine grace, and that all cooperation with it is a prior gift of that same grace

    In Pope Francis’s words from this Exhortation, this is the “dogmatic” teaching of the Catholic Church.

    This is a contradiction: Trent says, according to you, that works done in grace after justification, if combined with final perseverance, merit eternal life. You also qualify this merit as condign, meaning that God is both obligated to reward and owes this reward to the one who perseveres. But Pope Francis says all cooperation with grace is a gift. How can one merit something which is a gift? Either Trent is wrong, or Pope Francis and Synod of Orange is wrong, or Pope Francis is wrong in having misunderstood the Synod of Orange. Which is it?

    This is eminently related to the OP and your exchange with Joey Henry.

    Thanks, SS (from C2C)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi SS! Thanks for your comments and questions.

    All cooperation with grace is a gift of grace, so all our works are gifts of grace. Those works, done in grace, if combined with final perseverance, merit eternal life. That is, God is pleased with these works, his own work in us, and regards them as fitting to receive the reward of eternal life.

    Our works, done in grace, merit God's favor, but those works are themselves a gift of grace, so we cannot boast with regard to them or claim that we have earned something from God ourselves. We can say that we can merit God's favor in that the work God does in us merits that favor, but we cannot say that we, personally, considered in ourselves or considering our own contributions ultimately from ourselves, can earn anything from God--because, as you said, all our works are gifts of grace.

    Does that make sense? When I stand before God in heaven, assuming I die in a state of grace, God will have regard to what I have become through his grace and deem me fitting to reward with eternal life. But I will know that what I have become is not something I have contributed from myself, but is entirely a gift of God, and so I will not boast as though I had earned God's favor myself, but I will be humbly grateful that God has given me his own righteousness in place of my lack so that I can be acceptable to him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Mark, thank for the reply. I think the argument you make above contains an unsurmountable inherent contrariety. Merit and gift are two separate concepts that should have never been intertwined... Christ Himself taught His disciples that when they have done all that they were commanded to do they should say we are "unworthy" servants, not we have "merited" our reward...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Certainly "merit" and "grace" or "gift" are mutually contradictory ideas, just as are "white" and "black". But a thing can be both white and black in different respects. Take a skunk, for instance.

    On the one hand, eternal life is a gift of grace, because the righteousness by which we attain to it is a gift of grace. It is not our own righteousness that gains us eternal life; it is the righteousness of Christ given us by God, made ours by a sheer act of grace. On the other hand, eternal life is a reward rendered to good works - the good works that flow out of the righteousness given to us by God. To "merit" something is to be fit to receive a certain response. To say that eternal life is the reward of works is to say that works merit eternal life. That is, they are such that they are fitting to receive that reward, or they warrant that reward.

    So eternal life is both grace and merit, in different respects. It is a reward for our righteousness, but our righteousness is a gift of grace and so the reward given to it is also a gift of grace. If someone gives me money as a gift, and I use that money to buy something, the thing I buy is also a gift, although at the same time it was purchased by the money. But we would not consider ourselves to have earned the thing we bought. We would humbly consider it a gift. In the same way, I know that when I get to eternal life, God will reward the work he has done in me. But it will always be his work, not something I have produced from myself by my own power. It will be a fruit of God's grace. And so I will receive the reward of eternal life with humility, as an undeserved gift of grace.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is St. Augustine making this same point (I have to put this quotation in multiple posts, since the system won't let me put too many words in):

    "And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: "Then He shall reward every man according to his works:" [3055] how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;" [3056] and again: "There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace;" with these words immediately subjoined: "And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace"? [3057] How, then, is eternal life by grace, when it is received from works? Does the apostle perchance not say that eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, "The wages of sin is death," he at once added, "The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." [3058] . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: "Without me ye can do nothing." [3059] And the apostle himself, after saying, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;" [3060] saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men's boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." [3061] What is the purport of his saying, "Not of works, lest any man should boast," while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works"? Why, therefore, does it run, "Not of works, lest any man should boast"? Now, hear and understand. "Not of works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, "Create in me a clean heart, O God;" [3062] concerning which also the apostle says, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God." [3063] We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, "in the good works which" we have not ourselves prepared, but "God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God's grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;--grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according to his works." [3064] (St. Augustine, "Treatise on Grace and Free will," chapters 19-20)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is the Council of Trent:

    "Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner,-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost,-are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto [Page 43] the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all [Page 44] men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. And forasmuch as in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes, as well the severity and judgment, as the mercy and goodness (of God); neither ought any one to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works. (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, found at https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Mark, I apologize for the late reply. Thank you for your thoughts and the relevant quotes:

    You are conflating 2 pairs of concepts in your Oct 8, 2.49 pm post. These 2 pairs are (grace, reward) and (grace, merit). Scripture upholds the first, and I have no issue with that first pair: it is wholly true that we are brought into covenant by grace and that we will be judged according to how we have responded to that grace, i.e, by our works of faith or lack thereof.

    But the merit aspect of the second pair (grace, merit) is not found in Scripture. Your definition of merit as being 'fitting' to receive is precisely what Jesus opposed. He said call/consider yourselves 'unworthy' servants. One could easily substitute 'worthy' for 'fitting'. And the Lord Himself says eschew that in favor of the opposite as if to say: "you have no merit in any of your well doing"

    I have no issues with the quotation from Augustine. He is simply saying that eternal life as reward is ultimately gracious by virtue of having its origin in grace and the work of the Spirit.

    But re the Council of Trent: the flaw there is in the concept of the merit of Christ. Christ did not operate out of a merit-based paradigm, but rather out of love for and faith in the Father. He did not have to earn the Father's approval, He already had it as the pre-existent Son. When the Scripture says He grew in favor with men and in the sight of God, it is a non-sequitur to read merit into that statement. The key is that the obedience He produced was borne out of FAITH and not a need to earn approval/ a treasury of merit. The latter is a medieval and unscriptural idea that finds its origin in Ambrosiaster and Tertullian. Simply put, Scripture nowhere speaks of the concept of merit. It is foreign to the Gospel and both Catholic and Reformed alike have erred in its application, be it in the proposed merit of believers or that of Christ.

    Best,
    SS

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps the first thing we should do is establish the foundation of authority. With regard to biblical interpretation, who/what is our authority? Do I have the authority, as a private individual, to interpret the Bible for myself? Or has God appointed the role of authentic interpreter of Scripture to the bishops of the Church? This may make a significant difference in this discussion.

    The Bible speaks over and over again (see, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:9-10; Romans 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:6,21; Ephesians 5:5; James 2:14-26; Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 10:25-28; Revelation 20:13; Revelation 22:12; Matthew 16:27; John 5:28-29; Galatians 6:7-9; and Matthew 25:46) of our being judged according to our works and rewarded with eternal life or condemned to eternal damnation on the basis of this judgment. It seems evident to me that this implies that the judgment is a test where our works will be weighed, and then they will be given what is fitting. In Romans 6 and 9, Paul talks about our good or evil works as leading either to eternal life or death. This theme is throughout the Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament. In the history of the Church, the term "merit" has been used to describe this.

    As Augustine points out, and as Trent points out, and as the Bible points out, although we will be judged according to our works, it remains true that we are and will always be "unworthy servants," for even the holiness of sanctification that pleases God (which is imperfect in us now and will be perfected at the end of our lives) is a gift of God's grace, an application to us of the merit (the righteousness, the worthiness) of Christ by the Holy Spirit. At our best, we will only ever give God what is his own, and so we cannot claim anything from God as if we had put him in our debt. We will always be saved by grace alone through Christ alone.

    Again, this all seems to me to be evidently Scriptural. But if you are not convinced, we can go back to the question of authority. Who has authority to interpret Scripture? When there are disputed interpretations, who has the authority to decide the dispute? The Catholic view is that it is the Catholic Church which has that authority, not the private individual. So the Catholic reading of Scripture on the subject of merit is the official, authoritative one.

    This article makes a larger biblical case for the Catholic, Augustinian view of justification - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-augustinian-and-protestant.html

    I would argue that the concept of "merit" makes sense rationally as well. "Fittingness" is a natural and unavoidable concept. Why doesn't God reward people for doing wrong things? Because it wouldn't be fitting. Why is God pleased with holiness? Because it is fitting for him to be pleased with that which is truly beautiful. If God is going to share his divine life and blessedness with us, it would be unfitting for him to do this until he changes us to make us fit for such a blessing. He clothes us in the righteousness and sonship of Christ, adopting us and making us holy. Only then is it fitting for him to give eternal life to us. Likewise, for those who remain in their sins, rejecting Christ, the fitting end of this condition, left forever unrepentant, is eternal damnation. The very concept of morality is bound up with the idea of "fittingness". The very idea of morality is that we ought to treat people and things as they ought to be treated. What is this "ought"? It is fittingness. We ought to treat human beings with respect, because that is fitting for beings made in the image of God. We ought to deplore murder, because it is fitting for us to hate that which is destroys life which is valuable. And so on.

    Anyway, what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re authority: a good place to start would be with John the Baptist. By whose authority did he preach, baptize and and speak against the leadership of his day?

    Re your 2nd paragraph: the verses you reference all point to a judgment according to works, which I agree with, as stated above. However, none of them speak of merit, and you have not addressed Luke 17:10 either, also mentioned earlier...

    Yes, Trent and Augustine both "merit" as a gift from God and later on Aquinas would also do a 180 in his understanding and eventually deem all merit as 'improper', denying congruous merit before one's initial justification, a point which was never conceded, not even by Scotus and the later Franciscans. However the use of the term itself is highly misleading, has zero Scriptural basis, and as such ought not to be used. Also, the theological concept of the merit of Christ Himself is also without Scriptural warrant as noted above; it birthed the idea of the treasury of the church which extends to the saints, whose merit for centuries was said to apply to believers who 'credited' such merit to their account via the purchase of indulgences, famously in Luther's day which led to the latter's protest.

    You say that merit makes sense. Again, if Christ Himself were standing before you, telling you that you have no merit, even while recognizing the good that you have done and rewarding you for it with nothing short of eternal life, would you argue the point with him and say, "But no, I am a worthy servant..." ?

    Peace,

    SS




    ReplyDelete