"The gift of God's love is ours for the taking. I am a Roman Catholic. But the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German Lutheran bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his little gem of an essay by that name.
Let us be careful to approach the point in the right way. I think most misunderstandings begin at this very first step. Let's begin with a solid certainty: God is love. God is a lover, not a manager, businessman, accountant, owner, or puppet-master. What He wants from us first of all is not a technically correct performance but our heart. Protestants and Catholics alike need to relearn or reemphasize that simple, liberating truth... it liberated me just as it had the Catholic Augustinian monk Luther 450 years earlier. The crucial sentence for me was: "We may think God wants actions of a certain kind, but God wants people of a certain sort." (Mere Christianity)
The point is amazingly simple, which is why so many of us just don't get it. Heaven is free because love is free. It is ours for the taking. The taking is faith. "If you believe, you will be saved." It is really that simple. If I offer you a gift, you have it if and only if you have the faith to take it.
The primacy of faith does not discount or denigrate works but liberates them. Our good works can now also be free - free from the worry and slavery and performance anxiety of having to buy Heaven with them. Our good works can now flow from genuine love of neighbor, not fear of Hell. Nobody wants to be loved merely as a means to build up the lover's merit pile. That attempt is ridiculous logically as well as psychologically. How much does Heaven cost? A thousand good works? Would 999 not do, then? The very question shows its own absurdity. That absurdity comes from forgetting that God is love.
...
The whole point of justification by faith is God's scandalous, crazy, and wonderful gift of love." - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23-25
Not exactly an analytical take on the issue, but a good read nonetheless.
The Roman Catholic condemnations seem to be on the issue of faith being the sole basis of our justification. This leaves works at least some spot for our trust and assurance of salvation. BUT what Kreeft and others have done, for the sake of sanity, is really said that faith plus the habitus or innate regenerated inclination towards love are the ground of our justification. So as long as you can say 'I love God' and in some way whatsoever mean it, you can have a grounding in your faith, because it is faith formed by love. Thus the anathemas of Trent are just barely dodged, and one can be a Catholic of the Pascalian/Jansenist flavour and remain orthodox.
According to J.V. Fesko, this also has a similitude to some outliers in the Reformed Tradition, such as Jonathon Edwards, Albert Ritschl, and others in the early 20th century who emphasized mystical union and the Fatherly judgments of God / Congruent merit, rather than the juridicial / imputation doctrines. Or in other words, if you heap up the Congruent merit, and believe that every time God judges a believers work he is polishing the spots from it (to use Calvin's analogy), and you believe that he imputes perfection to the person's infused faith, hope and love, THEN you can have some sort of assurance. But again, this is just barely dodging Trent, and probably outside the mainstream of Roman Catholic theology.
Showing posts with label Peter Kreeft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Kreeft. Show all posts
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Orthodox Catholic Theologians: Do They Exist?
-Karl Rahner (SJ) has been called a post-modern modalist.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Peter Kreeft: Oh How The Mighty Have Fallen
As I read more and more Catholic theology on non-Protestant issues like the Sacrifice of the Mass, Penance, and Sacramentology I think more and more that Dr. Peter Kreeft is outside the realm of Catholic orthodoxy and that he is either unknowingly an Arminian Protestant or a Jansenist. He teaches Penal Subsitution as a Catholic atonement model, and refuses to mention the necessity of the sacraments when writing a book on God's love. In his commentary on the Catechism, "Catholic Christianity" he seems to accept Mortal Sin, but tends to say that as long as you're sorry, then you aren't condemned. I don't mean to single Kreeft out too much, because most modern Catholics will say similar things, but the problem is that Trent - the byword of all Christendom - is still Magesterial teaching. So in the spirit of Catholic Traditionalism and ungrace, I'll roll out some statements Kreeft makes and then quote Trent so that you, the reader, can decide.
Salvation without the Sacraments, or even desire of them:
"The only thing that can keep us out of Heaven is not sin but refusal to accept God's cure...God does it all, in Christ; we only have to accept it...Faith saves us, but good works follow" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 156-7
"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism... is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."
Assurance of Salvation:
This one I admit isn't as clear and he could be using that prized Catholic doublespeak we all enjoy, because Aquinas teaches we can have assurance, but only in God's goodness and only in hope not certainty of receiving grace.
"...[Jesus'] Spirit will give me that absolute certainty personally [of salvation] if I ask Him...just as Jesus promised He would for all who ask" Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 195
"CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
The Reformation
He then trivializes the Reformation to a point I think ridiculous, though with the way our Pontiffs have been speaking these days, you'd think Bellarmine didn't understand Calvin or that it was all an honest mistake. They knew, they disagreed, they condemned and killed each other over the differences.
"...the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his gem of an essay by that name" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23
"CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free...let him be anathema"
Kreeft has probably twisted the words of JPII (I can't check as he has no citation), and it is Catholic doublespeak in that he doesn't say "justification by faith ALONE" just like all the Catholics are doing today, and I think it's dishonest.
Conclusion
The Protestant gospel is centred on this truth: the only thing necessary for salvation is fiducia (trusting faith without love) in Christ and that God will forgive you because of Christ. This is salvation by grace (not God's help or work within the soul, but his loving disposition) alone for them.
This is where Catholics and Protestants have disagreed 'yesterday, today, and forever'. This is the same deceit we see in the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. What is faith? What is grace? What is justification? Even a preliminary inquiry into the differences we have here will tell you that we do not agree.
If JPII and Catholicism throughout the ages believe in sola fide and sola gratia IN THE SENSE THAT THE REFORMERS DID (as we have our own teaching on faith alone and grace alone but in Catholic language), the obvious question is: why do we still have the penitential system, purgatory, doctrine of merit, canonized saints, mariology, etc. The reason we still have those, is because we do not believe that a man is justified by faith alone without baptism or the desire of baptism.
Tolkien said rightly in a letter to his son: "It was against this [transubstantiation] that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring."
Now he is speaking specifically here about the Eucharist, which makes the point debatable, but it is a traditional Catholic view that the Reformation was a revolt against the sacramental system. In fact, many Protestants would probably agree. I think this is why Kreeft is wrong.
I feel bad if I've mistreated Peter Kreeft who was so influential in my conversion, but I genuinely think he's giving people a false view of Catholicism and the Sacraments. God is not limited to them, but he ordinarily works through them.
Salvation without the Sacraments, or even desire of them:
"The only thing that can keep us out of Heaven is not sin but refusal to accept God's cure...God does it all, in Christ; we only have to accept it...Faith saves us, but good works follow" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 156-7
"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism... is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."
Assurance of Salvation:
This one I admit isn't as clear and he could be using that prized Catholic doublespeak we all enjoy, because Aquinas teaches we can have assurance, but only in God's goodness and only in hope not certainty of receiving grace.
"...[Jesus'] Spirit will give me that absolute certainty personally [of salvation] if I ask Him...just as Jesus promised He would for all who ask" Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 195
"CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."
The Reformation
He then trivializes the Reformation to a point I think ridiculous, though with the way our Pontiffs have been speaking these days, you'd think Bellarmine didn't understand Calvin or that it was all an honest mistake. They knew, they disagreed, they condemned and killed each other over the differences.
"...the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his gem of an essay by that name" - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23
"CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free...let him be anathema"
Kreeft has probably twisted the words of JPII (I can't check as he has no citation), and it is Catholic doublespeak in that he doesn't say "justification by faith ALONE" just like all the Catholics are doing today, and I think it's dishonest.
Conclusion
The Protestant gospel is centred on this truth: the only thing necessary for salvation is fiducia (trusting faith without love) in Christ and that God will forgive you because of Christ. This is salvation by grace (not God's help or work within the soul, but his loving disposition) alone for them.
This is where Catholics and Protestants have disagreed 'yesterday, today, and forever'. This is the same deceit we see in the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. What is faith? What is grace? What is justification? Even a preliminary inquiry into the differences we have here will tell you that we do not agree.
If JPII and Catholicism throughout the ages believe in sola fide and sola gratia IN THE SENSE THAT THE REFORMERS DID (as we have our own teaching on faith alone and grace alone but in Catholic language), the obvious question is: why do we still have the penitential system, purgatory, doctrine of merit, canonized saints, mariology, etc. The reason we still have those, is because we do not believe that a man is justified by faith alone without baptism or the desire of baptism.
Tolkien said rightly in a letter to his son: "It was against this [transubstantiation] that the W. European revolt (or Reformation) was really launched – 'the blasphemous fable of the Mass' – and faith/works a mere red herring."
Now he is speaking specifically here about the Eucharist, which makes the point debatable, but it is a traditional Catholic view that the Reformation was a revolt against the sacramental system. In fact, many Protestants would probably agree. I think this is why Kreeft is wrong.
I feel bad if I've mistreated Peter Kreeft who was so influential in my conversion, but I genuinely think he's giving people a false view of Catholicism and the Sacraments. God is not limited to them, but he ordinarily works through them.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Peter Kreeft and Jansenism
In thinking about Peter Kreeft, a convert (50 years ago this year), who is considered by some to be the best Catholic philosopher in America (I read that somewhere but it sounds dubious), I come to questions of his orthodoxy (Roman) and whether he is a secret Jansenist. Just reading this:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/kreeft_pascal_feb08.html
it seems like Kreeft is very much against calling Pascal a Jansenist, and seems to construct a Jansenist emphasis in soteriology while remaining faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. Being in a position where I refuse to contradict the teaching of the Church and wish to be a faithful Catholic, but also love St. Augustine, I find that Kreeft is a safe bet.
I know I always drone on about it, but I think theology is 90% emphasis. For example, Catholicism still teaches the doctrine of purgatory it taught in the middle ages, but now it is only 4 pages within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Emphasis can change alot, and I like Kreeft's emphasis.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/kreeft_pascal_feb08.html
it seems like Kreeft is very much against calling Pascal a Jansenist, and seems to construct a Jansenist emphasis in soteriology while remaining faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. Being in a position where I refuse to contradict the teaching of the Church and wish to be a faithful Catholic, but also love St. Augustine, I find that Kreeft is a safe bet.
I know I always drone on about it, but I think theology is 90% emphasis. For example, Catholicism still teaches the doctrine of purgatory it taught in the middle ages, but now it is only 4 pages within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Emphasis can change alot, and I like Kreeft's emphasis.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Final Books of the Summer: Peter Kreeft and Rowan Williams
I ordered 2 more books yesterday to be my last for the summer.
I'm still reading through Fr. Henri Nouwen which is good spiritual water for my dry soul, but I have such a long list of books I "need to read" that I have to keep going.
Right now I've finished Jaroslav Pelikan's third volume of the Christian Tradition (Medieval West) and am on page 55 of Jaroslav Pelikan's 4th volume about the Reformation. So in the hopes of finishing his Reformation history in my two days off this week, I've ordered 2 books.
Book 1: Peter Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You"
The first is Peter Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You: Love Divine All Loves Excelling". My favourite and most respected Reformed Theologian wrote this about the book:
"But Kreeft's book “The God Who Loves You” convinced me that there were good evangelical Catholics out there. But good evangelical Catholics are often bad Catholics, and Kreeft can probably be accused of such by many hardline Catholics with what Kreeft says in appreciation of Luther in that book. Kreeft is also indebted to Pascal for his worldview, and I think he has some wonderful Jansenist tendencies (which Kreeft would deny)" - Jared (http://deadtheologians.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-secret-catholic-shelf.html)
I don't know about Kreeft being a Jansenist, he does love Pascal ALOT and calls him a Catholic constantly. Jared is alot smarter than me so he is probably right, but other "hardline" (I don't know what this means as the Roman church is far from monolithic) Catholics seem to like him, Karl Keating always gives him great reviews and speaks about his orthodoxy. In any case, I've been thinking about God's love alot as it is central to Catholic theology and I love reading Kreeft (but I too probably have Jansenist tendencies in that I love Pascal and Augustine and hate Molinism and some of the Jesuit Molinists of the 18th century).
But then again as Catholicism (and Protestantism for that matter) move onward, I think they are noticing more in each other to appreciate than they have in the last 5 centuries. After all Pope Benedict XVI while not saying Luther was correct, did actually admit this year that justification is by faith alone if this faith is not opposed to love. And then clarified his position as justification by love alone. this is basically where Kreeft lives, so technically he is an orthodox Catholic.
Book 2: "A Ray Of Darkness" by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
It is doubtful that my love for this man's theology, and pastoral writing will ever die. It was almost sufficient to make me Anglican. My continual love of Anglo-Catholicism and my own faith which is usually: the closest views I can hold to Anglicanism within Roman Catholic teaching, make it a predictable book choice.
This book is a compilation of his sermons. Williams is -like Nouwen- one of the most pastoral priests I've ever read. I picked up his book on the Lord's Prayer yesterday at Chapters and started skimming and his thoughts were completely in line with the Catholic nun he co-authored it with and so I figured a kindly Anglo-Catholic like Williams isn't really a danger to me (this claim could easily be contested, but I like to think of myself as an Anglo-Catholic who accepted Papal Infallibility and thus joined the (Roman) Catholic Church)
I'm still reading through Fr. Henri Nouwen which is good spiritual water for my dry soul, but I have such a long list of books I "need to read" that I have to keep going.
Right now I've finished Jaroslav Pelikan's third volume of the Christian Tradition (Medieval West) and am on page 55 of Jaroslav Pelikan's 4th volume about the Reformation. So in the hopes of finishing his Reformation history in my two days off this week, I've ordered 2 books.
Book 1: Peter Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You"
The first is Peter Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You: Love Divine All Loves Excelling". My favourite and most respected Reformed Theologian wrote this about the book:
"But Kreeft's book “The God Who Loves You” convinced me that there were good evangelical Catholics out there. But good evangelical Catholics are often bad Catholics, and Kreeft can probably be accused of such by many hardline Catholics with what Kreeft says in appreciation of Luther in that book. Kreeft is also indebted to Pascal for his worldview, and I think he has some wonderful Jansenist tendencies (which Kreeft would deny)" - Jared (http://deadtheologians.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-secret-catholic-shelf.html)
I don't know about Kreeft being a Jansenist, he does love Pascal ALOT and calls him a Catholic constantly. Jared is alot smarter than me so he is probably right, but other "hardline" (I don't know what this means as the Roman church is far from monolithic) Catholics seem to like him, Karl Keating always gives him great reviews and speaks about his orthodoxy. In any case, I've been thinking about God's love alot as it is central to Catholic theology and I love reading Kreeft (but I too probably have Jansenist tendencies in that I love Pascal and Augustine and hate Molinism and some of the Jesuit Molinists of the 18th century).
But then again as Catholicism (and Protestantism for that matter) move onward, I think they are noticing more in each other to appreciate than they have in the last 5 centuries. After all Pope Benedict XVI while not saying Luther was correct, did actually admit this year that justification is by faith alone if this faith is not opposed to love. And then clarified his position as justification by love alone. this is basically where Kreeft lives, so technically he is an orthodox Catholic.
Book 2: "A Ray Of Darkness" by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
It is doubtful that my love for this man's theology, and pastoral writing will ever die. It was almost sufficient to make me Anglican. My continual love of Anglo-Catholicism and my own faith which is usually: the closest views I can hold to Anglicanism within Roman Catholic teaching, make it a predictable book choice.
This book is a compilation of his sermons. Williams is -like Nouwen- one of the most pastoral priests I've ever read. I picked up his book on the Lord's Prayer yesterday at Chapters and started skimming and his thoughts were completely in line with the Catholic nun he co-authored it with and so I figured a kindly Anglo-Catholic like Williams isn't really a danger to me (this claim could easily be contested, but I like to think of myself as an Anglo-Catholic who accepted Papal Infallibility and thus joined the (Roman) Catholic Church)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Day I Checked My Inbox And Saw Peter Kreeft's Reply
So today I was reading Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft and it by far is the most valuable tool I've found at explaining the faith to Protestants, and understanding "Catholic distinctives" for myself. I've also read pretty much everything on his website, and his lecture on ecumenism is enough to make anyone convert. So I thought about it and realized that I should really email him and thank him for all that he's helped me with. I've thought about emailing McGrath as well, but I figured it'd be weird to thank McGrath for teaching me the Reformation so that I could distance myself from it.... But I'm too happy to be cynical, so anyway I finally found his school email and sent it there assuming that there was a good chance he'd never reply. But I still emailed him a very brief and probably strange story of my conversion in a nutshell and how he helped in it and thanked him. Within only hours, Dr. Kreeft sent me a reply:
"Andrew,
Thank you for your thank you. We are all links in a long chain. The place at the banquet table has long been set for you. Welcome home.
PK"
It's 4 sentences, I know I'm being ridiculous. But it makes me really happy that in some way I got to connect with one of my theological/philosophical heroes. It's like when I talked with Frank Schaeffer....but this is about 10 times cooler.
Thank you Lord.
"Andrew,
Thank you for your thank you. We are all links in a long chain. The place at the banquet table has long been set for you. Welcome home.
PK"
It's 4 sentences, I know I'm being ridiculous. But it makes me really happy that in some way I got to connect with one of my theological/philosophical heroes. It's like when I talked with Frank Schaeffer....but this is about 10 times cooler.
Thank you Lord.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
GRACE ALONE => THE ONLY WAY
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." - Romans 3:23-28
I love this passage. I was reading the Qu'ran the other day for World Religions and I was reminded of John Stott's quote about why he could never be any religion other than Christian, he says that it is the Cross, and that it stands at the centre of our faith, history, and the divine drama that we find ourselves in, it is on that Cross that Jesus made it possible for all men to come to faith (though Stott would disagree with the last part), and it is a redemption by GRACE, in fact it is a redemption by GRACE, ALONE!!!!
I was sitting in my heretical RCIA class today listening to the teacher exhort us in a Pelagian fashion that if we are nice to people and talk to them, even if we still hate them, this is Christian love and God will then let us into heaven if we do it.
"But if it is BY GRACE, it is NO LONGER ON THE BASIS OF WORKS; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." -Romans 11:6
This annoys me to no end. I'm definately not advocating justification by faith ALONE, but I am advocation salvation by Grace Alone, and Justification by faith first. (which is actually what the Catholic Church teaches, if you didn't know)
I read this passage from Peter Kreeft the other day who says that we cannot buy our way into Heaven by good works, and that we do not do good works to get to Heaven, we do good works because Heaven has gotten into us.
Kreeft also writes:
For the love of God, I hope everyone who knows me, knows firmly that Salvation is not by good intentions, nice things, or going to Church, it is about the gracious salvation that Jesus Christ is offering to you, you choose whether to accept it or not. I guess I'm still an Evangelical at heart, and pray that I always will be. I'll leave you with this line from an amazing hymn (which I happened to make an entire post ridiculing, but nonetheless it's good)
"For on that Cross where Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied, for every sin, on Him was laid, here in the death of Christ, I live" - Hymn "In Christ Alone"
I love this passage. I was reading the Qu'ran the other day for World Religions and I was reminded of John Stott's quote about why he could never be any religion other than Christian, he says that it is the Cross, and that it stands at the centre of our faith, history, and the divine drama that we find ourselves in, it is on that Cross that Jesus made it possible for all men to come to faith (though Stott would disagree with the last part), and it is a redemption by GRACE, in fact it is a redemption by GRACE, ALONE!!!!
I was sitting in my heretical RCIA class today listening to the teacher exhort us in a Pelagian fashion that if we are nice to people and talk to them, even if we still hate them, this is Christian love and God will then let us into heaven if we do it.
"But if it is BY GRACE, it is NO LONGER ON THE BASIS OF WORKS; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." -Romans 11:6
This annoys me to no end. I'm definately not advocating justification by faith ALONE, but I am advocation salvation by Grace Alone, and Justification by faith first. (which is actually what the Catholic Church teaches, if you didn't know)
I read this passage from Peter Kreeft the other day who says that we cannot buy our way into Heaven by good works, and that we do not do good works to get to Heaven, we do good works because Heaven has gotten into us.
Kreeft also writes:
"The plant of our new life in Christ is one; the life of God comes into us by faith, through us by hope, and out of us by works of love. That is clearly the biblical view, and when Protestants and Catholics who know and believe the Bible discuss the issue sincerely, it is amazing how quickly and easily they come to understand and agree with each other on this, the fundamental divisive issue . . ."
But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and
biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds . . .
"I remember vividly the thrill of discovery when, as a young Protestant at Calvin College, I read Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on justification. I did not find what I had been told I would find, `another gospel' of do-it-yourself salvation by works, but a clear and forceful statement that we can do nothing without God's grace, and that this grace, accepted by faith, is what saves us."
For the love of God, I hope everyone who knows me, knows firmly that Salvation is not by good intentions, nice things, or going to Church, it is about the gracious salvation that Jesus Christ is offering to you, you choose whether to accept it or not. I guess I'm still an Evangelical at heart, and pray that I always will be. I'll leave you with this line from an amazing hymn (which I happened to make an entire post ridiculing, but nonetheless it's good)
"For on that Cross where Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied, for every sin, on Him was laid, here in the death of Christ, I live" - Hymn "In Christ Alone"
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Interesting Passage From Peter Kreeft on Justification/Salvation
"Protestants and Catholics agree that faith is necessary for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that it is. Good works alone do not merit salvation. No one can "buy" heaven with enough good works, or good enough motives. The ticket to heaven is not being nice or sincere or good enough; the ticket to heaven is the Blood of Christ, and faith is the acceptance of that free gift. But the Church insists that good works are necessary too. This means the works of love. Good works are not mere external deeds, but the works of love. And love is not mere feelings, but the works of love (charity, agape). That is why Christ can command them; feelings cannot be commanded.St. James clearly teaches that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas 2:17). And some of Christ's parables teach that our salvation depends on our charity (Mt 25:40: "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"). St. John of the Cross wrote: "At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love".It is not that we purchase heaven with our good works; Christ has already purchased heaven for us with his work of love on the Cross. We do not do good works to get to heaven, but we do good works because heaven has gotten to us. If we do not do good works, that shows that heaven has not gotten to us. For "you will know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:20)...Luther thought forgiveness was only external and legal ("forensic"). Catholic theology teaches that it actually changes our souls." - Catholic Christianity p.126
Very different from the Protestant idea, but I think Kreeft has a way of making Roman Theology sound appealing whereas many others make it sound repulsive.
Very different from the Protestant idea, but I think Kreeft has a way of making Roman Theology sound appealing whereas many others make it sound repulsive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)