Anti-Catholic or Pro Gospel: A Review of Tim Challies’ Article – Part 1
This is part one of a six part series.
Click here for part two.
Click here for part three.
Click here for part four.
Click here for part five.
Click here for Part Six.
For quite some time now, Paul’s Passing Thoughts has been saying that Protestants are the most confused group of people in the world. They are the ones who have no idea what they believe about the gospel. Catholics on the other hand might believe a false gospel, but at least they are honest about what they believe.
I actually think Tim Challies has done us a great service. He wrote an article back in 2014 in which he attempts to show how Catholics disagree with what he believes. But what it ironically ends up being is an indictment against Protenstantism. No one should any longer be able to come to us here at PPT and say we are misrepresenting Protestantism or Reformed theology. Challies has unwittingly made the case for us in his own words. He has provided several points of Catholic orthodoxy for us to consider. But I think it is ironic, because in his effort to show where Catholic orthodoxy rejects what he believes, it has given us an insight into just how much Protestantism actually agrees with Catholicism.
In this post, we will examine the first statement from the article, and other points will be considered in subsequent posts. From the article, point number one:
Catholicism declares –
“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. (Canon 9)”
We understand what is meant by the Roman Catholic Church in this regard. And I have spoken also with Catholic friends (even Eastern Orthodox) who will maintain that indeed this is what is taught by their church: that salvation begins with faith (beginning justification) and is maintained by works throughout their lives (progressive justification). It is by the performing of the sacraments that such maintaining of justification is accomplished (infant baptism, eucharist, confirmation, reconciliation/confession, anointing of the sick, marriage, holy orders[1]).
Now let’s take a look at Challies’ response
“I believe that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required and nothing else needs to be cooperated with, to obtain the grace of justification. Rome understands exactly what I believe here and rejects it. (Rom 3:20-28, Eph 2:8)”
He’s right. Rome understands exactly what he means! The problem is that Protestants don’t understand what he means. At first glance it seems like a reasonable response with which you or I could agree, but his statement is disingenuous at best. Why? Because Challies fails to point out one critical aspect. The Catholic statement on justification clearly suggests progressive justification. Something else (in addition to faith) is needed to be justified. For the Catholic, that “something else” is works through the performance of the sacraments, and these are performed over one’s lifetime. As these works are done, justification is maintained.
Challies neglects to point this out. He simply says it is faith and nothing else. This is very nuanced. In so doing, he allows his reader to assume that he is talking about justification as being a one-time event. He fails to mention that the Reformed doctrine of “faith alone” must be lived out continuously throughout the Christian life. If at any time a person ceases to live by faith alone, if he attempts to perform any works, he puts his salvation in jeopardy. Any works performed would only serve to condemn because this would be an attempt to merit righteousness. This was the major point of contention of the Reformation. Both Luther and Calvin state as much in their writings.
“Still, however, while we walk in the ways of the Lord, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, lest we should become unduly elated and forget ourselves, we have still remains of imperfection which serve to keep us humble: “There is no man who sinneth not,” says the Scripture (1Kgs 8:46). What righteousness can men obtain by their works?” ~ Calvin[2]
“First, I say, that the best thing which can be produced by them is always tainted and corrupted by the impurity of the flesh, and has, as it were, some mixture of dross in it. Let the holy servant of God, I say, select from the whole course of his life the action which he deems most excellent, and let him ponder it in all its parts; he will doubtless find in it something that saviors of the rottenness of the flesh since our alacrity in well-doing is never what it ought to be, but our course is always retarded by much weakness. Although we see that the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.” ~ Calvin[3]
“Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the church (2Cor 5:18,19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, “but by grace are ye saved,” “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8,9).” ~ Calvin[4]
“It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.
“The law wills that man despair of his own ability, for it »leads him into hell« and »makes him a poor man« and shows him that he is a sinner in all his works, as the Apostle does in Rom. 2 and 3:9, where he says, »I have already charged that all men are under the power of sin.« However, he who acts simply in accordance with his ability and believes that he is thereby doing something good does not seem worthless to himself, nor does he despair of his own strength. Indeed, he is so presumptuous that he strives for grace in reliance on his own strength” ~ Luther[5]
“Theologically and more universally all must learn to say, “I am a sinner” and likewise never to stop saying it until Christ’s return makes it no longer true….The fundamental question of the Disputation is how to arrive at that righteousness that will enable us to stand before God” ~ Luther[6]
What Challies actually believes along with the rest of those of the Reformed Protestant tradition, is that a person not only receives salvation by justification by faith alone, but that salvation is maintained by faith alone in sanctification.
Furthermore, notice the use of the term “sinner”. Again, the reader is allowed to assume that a “sinner” is an unsaved person. But there again is the nuance. Both Catholics and Protestants teach that ALL men are sinners, even saved ones! (“Sinners saved by grace.”) In fact, in his introductory remarks at the beginning of the article, Challies states,
“We [Protestants and Catholics] agree on the problem: we are sinful people who have alienated ourselves from God and are thus in need of salvation. But we disagree in very significant ways as to how sinful people can receive that salvation.”
Challies acknowledges that he agrees with Catholics on this point. And there is no distinction made as to who exactly the “sinful people” are here. There is nothing specified as to who the “we” is referring. It is clear that he includes himself and believers in that equation. It stands to reason then that if believers are still “sinners” then they are in constant need of justification. He says so himself in that very statement. Salvation/justification therefore must be ongoing (progressive) in this construct.
I submit that there is ONLY one difference between Catholics and Protestants. Both believe in a progressive justification, but the dispute revolves around what happens afterward, how it is maintained. While Catholics believe it is maintained by works, Protestants believe it is originated AND maintained by “faith alone” as well. In either case, salvation is made to be a process instead of a finished work.
In this regard, Challies is exactly right. Catholics do not believe what he believes and indeed rejects it. But I would wager that if most of his readers and followers, to wit, most of Christianity, were honest with themselves and discovered what Protestantism really teaches about justification, they would reject it as well.
In part two of this series we will examine Challies’ second point from his article.
Andy
[1] http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-7-catholic-sacraments-definition-history-quiz.html
[2] John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion edited by Henry Beveridge, pg 502
[3] ibid Pg 508
[4] ibid, pg 509
[5] The Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 18
Protestantism and ISIS Light
A light version of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria would probably gain little more acceptance than ISIS Lager among most people. Of course, Protestants get a total pass on who they really are while preventing such a pass for other religions. I will give you a thousand bucks for every time you have heard a Protestant say, “Well, not every Buddhist believes what Buddha believed—the fact that he/she is a Buddhist should not automatically disqualify him/her for church membership.” Ya, right. Trust me, I will not be paying.
True, one reason Protestants get a pass on who they really are is because most Protestants don’t even know what a Protestant is. Many people understand Protestantism based on what Protestants tell them which is really, really bad information. In fact, Protestant icons like John MacArthur Jr. don’t even know what a Protestant is. Those of the present-day Neo-Protestant resurgence identify themselves by picking and choosing their identity selectively from Reformation orthodoxy. Yes, yes, the hallowed documents of Reformed orthodoxy; yet, they pick and choose what they want from these documents and pretend the rest is not there. It’s selective proof texting of doctrine and the rewriting of church history.
But when it gets right down to it, tyranny is tyranny. Collectivism is collectivism. And, zero sum life is zero sum life. Indeed, many, many parallels can be drawn between ISIS and Protestantism, but this post is about one. Let’s talk about child brides, arranged marriages, and the idea that the patriarch of a family, viz, the father, retains authority over the children indefinitely based on the 5th commandment, “Honor your father and Mother.” But of course, per everyday Protestantism, “honor” really means “obey daddy.” Right. In all cases, Webster’s Dictionary is only correct if your local Reformed elder says it is. Always vet the meaning of words with your Reformed philosopher king lest you be brought down to hell.
Here are the facts: the Puritans and all of their wacky superstitions, those of the Patriarchy movement, and many more tyrannical groups, are all part of the Reformed tradition and in most cases good ole’ fashioned Calvinists. One stands dumbfounded in considering how the evangelical industrial complex gets away with picking and choosing how they want to be identified from the same body of Mein Kompf-like documents. Certainly this gargantuan scam depends on the fact that most Protestants have never read the founding documents of the Reformation. Certainly, most Calvinists have never read the Calvin Institutes. And likewise, most Germans never read Mein Kompf. I have continually challenged notable Calvinists to come on our radio program and simply comment on readings from the Calvin Institutes. They won’t do it because they know what is in there is a huuuuge problem, or else they know they have never read it while proclaiming to be an authority on Calvinism which speaks to a dilemma that needs little explanation.
So let’s discuss ISIS stuff like child brides and arranged marriages, and patriarchal authority over emancipated children; also Protestant stuff.
A Christian retreat for Quiverfull fathers to marry off their teen daughters has been cancelled after Raw Story readers expressed concerns that the event constitutes human trafficking and contacted the Salvation Army which owns the campground where that retreat was scheduled to be held in Wichita.
Quiverfull patriarch, Vaughn Ohlman, organized a “Get Them Married” retreat for the purpose of providing a weekend where ultra-conservative Christian fathers could network with like-minded families “(and their unmarried young men and women) who are committed to young, fruitful marriage and to help them overcome the barriers which have kept their children unmarried.”
The Raw Story article sparked outrage among readers and many were moved to action, demanding that authorities be notified in order to protect the children who were slated to be married off young for the purpose of procreating lots of babies for Jesus.
Readers discovered that Camp Hiawatha, where the retreat was planned to be held, is owned by the Salvation Army. I contacted a good friend who is a officer at the Salvation Army’s training school in Chicago, and she responded right away to let me know the Wichita corps has already denied access to Ohlman’s group for what would have amounted to a child trafficking “retreat.”
The Salvation Army responded by denying access to the group which is linked to the Duggar cartel. Also, the Quiverfull group has since cancelled the “retreat.” What is interesting is the group’s defense for what they believe right out of the Calvin Institutes. If you go to their website, and this page here, you find an exhaustive argument for their positions, particularly authority over emancipated children, from the writings of John Calvin and other Reformers.
Just saying, the Patriarchy movement is predominantly Reformed and Calvinistic, but mainline Protestants can distance themselves by labeling fruit from the same tree, “ultra conservative.” Listen, the idea that Protestant denominationalism is divisive is a misconception; it actually puts Protestantism in a position of plausible deniability that prevents them from being accountable for anything. The tree can keep growing bigger and bigger while evil fruit is deemed as, “secondary issues.” While the fundamental principles of tyranny march forward, cover is provided for its unlimited evil fruit via “secondary issues” nomenclature. Protestant temples teach whatever serves to control the parishioners while answering objections via “Well, not all of the elders agree on that point.”
Again, everything other-than Protestant is not afforded the same standard by any stretch of the imagination. Mainline Protestant icons can support any group that shares their Reformed goal of ruling over the whole world while claiming denominational differences when such groups get caught with both hands in the cookie jar.
This is why Protestantism gets a pass on everything while bemoaning the unfortunate reality of denominationalism which is wholly disingenuous complaint. In this case (and Protestantism has the market cornered on this), every tree is known by its fruit except Protestantism. Yet, its uncanny similarities to other groups who share the same principles of tyranny are undeniable.
That’s because all come from the same tree with roots grounded in social caste and the authority of men rather than truth.
paul
Christian Living Series Program 16 on Blog Talk Radio
Program 16 of the Christian living series. Due to technical problems the program has been rescheduled for Sunday 5/8/2016 @ 7:30am. NEW LIVE LINK: Sunday, 5/8/2016 @ 7:30am. What’s new at TANC and PPT? …
Source: Christian Living Series Program 16 on Blog Talk Radio
Christian Living Series Program 16 on Blog Talk Radio
Program 16 of the Christian living series.
Due to technical problems the program has been rescheduled for Sunday 5/8/2016 @ 7:30am.
NEW LIVE LINK: Sunday, 5/8/2016 @ 7:30am.
What’s new at TANC and PPT? And, discussion and application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
A Christian Elitist Is In The News Again And It’s Not About Love
The “Christian” elite rarely make headlines for anything good. They either get caught with both hands in the cookie jar or say something stupid. Last week, it was the latter via the mouth of Christian elitist Kirk Cameron. Apparently, this is what caused the uproar: “Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell a husband how he ought to be a better husband.”
Let me propose something. At best, being your wife’s master is a matter of Christian liberty. You can cite Bible verses that make you the master of the house, and your wife may buy into it, but men are never specifically commanded in the Bible to be the lords of their household. Furthermore, if you live in Saudi Arabia or a place like that, that endeavor works really well, but in America, not so much. In America, if your wife chooses to disobey you, there is really nothing you can do about it other than divorce her or other courses of action that are against the law. For example, you grab your wife by the arm and squeeze too hard—you’re going to jail. And frankly, that’s the way it should be. And wife spanking? I know a guy who went to jail for that, and again, rightfully so.
A pity the Holy Spirit didn’t see America coming; now everything is in cultural confusion. So, when you go to the Protestant temple on Sunday to get more salvation and hear a sermon about the lordship of husbands, and your wife ends up in the isle rolling on the floor laughing (ROFL), what to do?
Let’s interpret Scripture with a big picture and in context. First of all, we must be careful because the essence of sin, according to the Bible, is a lust to control others. Like sin, power-hungry people want to control others—they like to be boss. In cultures like America, those who desire control must improvise accordingly because social caste isn’t the law. This is usually done through assassinating self-esteem. The vast majority of marriage counseling is two people with a long list describing the faults of the other mate in order to make a case for control. “My husband should listen to me and do what I say because he is stupid and here is the list that proves it” and vice versa.
Hence, we can see this very dynamic in Cameron’s statement: “Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell a husband how he ought to be a better husband.” See it? The wife’s attempt to control; “not to tell a husband how he ought to be a better husband,” and the husband’s attempt to control: “Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead.” Of course, Cameron’s statement, like all Protestant-speak, is full of the redefinition of words for purposes of Protestant mind control. Leadership is totally unnecessary where there is authority. Cameron could have honestly said, “Wives are to remain silent and obey their husband’s lordship.” Leadership is the art of persuasion and setting an example to follow, not a demand for subservient obedience. This particular issue is a decent example of the Protestant metaphysical shell game through the use of words: “leadership” covers for “authority,” and “follow” covers for “obey.” And “husband” covers for “lord,” and “wife” covers for “You are the women and Eve sinned first so you don’t know your right hand from your left.”
This is my personal testimony: when I caught hold of how the Bible defines all of these words and their use in context, I lost all desire to control people or tell them what to do. Seriously, I have no desire whatsoever to control anybody; not only am I poor at it to begin with, it isn’t fun anymore. It is so freeing to simply set an example and let people decide whether or not they can benefit from your example. After being a pastor in the institutional church for years and suffering through all of the control politics there are no words to explain the freedom and peace that I feel in all of this. I will give an account for my life before Christ and the example that I set for others; nothing more or less. This is the biblical definition of “love.”
Love persuades people for their own benefit and doesn’t keep a list of wrongs because the goal is not control, but cooperative unity. And unfortunately, many marriages are doomed to failure because people do not understand these biblical dynamics going into marriage. This is why Protestantism produces more marriages of slavery than any other mindset. Orthodoxy, because of the way it defines biblical words, picks a fight with common sense and creates a control war between people on many levels. And, couples are not allowed out of the war because you know; divorce is “against the law of gaaawwwd!” Amen. As a former pastor in the institutional church, I never saw more marriages of coexistence in one place.
This also goes hand in hand with the whole…”The church is the bride of Christ” thing, another orthodox refrain often espoused by Cameron. See, wives should obey husbands the way the church obeys Christ. It is a caste pecking order. The church is the wife of Christ, and He is Lord, so obviously, wives should obey their husbands the way the church obeys Christ. Again, notice that “obey” and “submit” cover for what word used specifically in the Scriptures? Right…”LOVE.” Wives are to “respect” their husbands and husbands are to “love” their wives—not lord it over them.
And remember, when it gets right down to it, Christ led, and NEVER invoked His authority. It just never happened. It will happen, but not in this age. So, there is presently an authoritative pecking order in this age? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, heaven isn’t enforcing it. If you want to know what things will look like when that happens, read the book of Revelation.
Christians are to lead quiet lives of love and edification down where we live and not be entangled in the affairs of the world where power over others is the name of the game. Because Protestantism misunderstands the difference between authority and loving leadership, conflict can be observed on every level of life. Like the world, Protestantism clamors to control the lives of people in their homes, and culturally. They believe God’s kingdom is presently on earth, and this necessarily requires authority on every level of life; what they call, “love.” Cameron even said it in the midst of the controversy: “I love all people and I have hatred toward no one. I’m also a man of conviction, and if you press me, I’ll give you my perspective on a social issue if you ask.”
Right, Protestants love everyone; that’s why you should let them rule over you for your own good. Because they love you so much. And society can also benefit from the way Protestants love their wives; that is, those wives who keep their mouths shut and “respect” (being interpreted, “obey”) their husbands.
Want a good example of how this works? Research the history of Protestantism before the American idea came along. That’s their definition of love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment