Catholic Evangelical or Vice Versa
Peter Kreeft, who I believe is a convert from the Evangelical ranks to the Roman Catholic Church, describes himself as an evangelical Roman Catholic. I was raised in the high church -- father Catholic and mother Episcopalian -- and, though never "properly catechized" in either tradition, feel an ancestral attraction to them. And yet my heart belongs to the tradition in which I found freedom from bondage, justification before God and salvation. I'm comfortable flopped on the couch in the messy house of the evangelicals, but I love to visit the tidy, posh, and lavishly decorated home of my neighbors, the Catholics.
I guess I could take a suggestion from Mr. Kreeft and call myself a Catholic evangelical, but the Catholic brand is so dominant that it tends to overwhelm. Overwhelmingness is a strength of the RC church. Flexibility is a strength of the Evangelicals.
Once again, work and home life have subsumed me and I owe Binx an answer or two. In his honor I've actually been studying a bit of history, so he doesn't get so flustered with me just popping ideas off the top of my head. Answers are in the works, but I wanted to share something I read from the notable Mr. (Dr.?) Kreeft. (Who works within an hour’s drive of me. I must plan to visit him one of these days.)
In "Fundamentals of the Faith" he writes: "How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right: and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed -- indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children."
He goes on to say that much of Catholicism has not caught up with Luther and much of Protestantism has regressed from him.
In my humble opinion, it is human pride that has created this problem on both sides. When pride contaminates the Protestant churches you get more schisms. When pride contaminates the Catholic Church you get the Protestant Church (and the inquisition, etc.). I'm not a Lutheran, but I believe he was an agent of God to reform his church. The fact that the reformation is still under way should not be a surprise coming from a God for whom a single day is like a millennia and vice versa.
I guess I could take a suggestion from Mr. Kreeft and call myself a Catholic evangelical, but the Catholic brand is so dominant that it tends to overwhelm. Overwhelmingness is a strength of the RC church. Flexibility is a strength of the Evangelicals.
Once again, work and home life have subsumed me and I owe Binx an answer or two. In his honor I've actually been studying a bit of history, so he doesn't get so flustered with me just popping ideas off the top of my head. Answers are in the works, but I wanted to share something I read from the notable Mr. (Dr.?) Kreeft. (Who works within an hour’s drive of me. I must plan to visit him one of these days.)
In "Fundamentals of the Faith" he writes: "How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right: and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed -- indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children."
He goes on to say that much of Catholicism has not caught up with Luther and much of Protestantism has regressed from him.
In my humble opinion, it is human pride that has created this problem on both sides. When pride contaminates the Protestant churches you get more schisms. When pride contaminates the Catholic Church you get the Protestant Church (and the inquisition, etc.). I'm not a Lutheran, but I believe he was an agent of God to reform his church. The fact that the reformation is still under way should not be a surprise coming from a God for whom a single day is like a millennia and vice versa.
posted by Rick Broussard at 8:13 AM
13 Comments:
I think it's critical to remember that in Dr. Kreeft's understanding, Luther's statement on salvation was a re-statement of the Catholic belief, in response to a very deteriorated explanation of that belief by the Catholic hierarchy of that time. Hence the Lutheran-Catholic agreement on justification, which required neither side to change it's views.
It's still faith and works. Faith without works is dead, and if you say faith but don't do works you're a liar, and works make us grow in holiness and can "cover a multitude of sins." If we do evil works instead of good works we will be lined up with the goats. But works without faith is worthless, and there is no "brownie points" system into Heaven. BOTH faith and works are a gift of God's grace. So it's really all from grace!
Dr. Kreeft was Dutch Reformed before he became a Catholic, I believe.
Dev, thanks for the comments. Here's my bumper sticker take on the faith/works conundrum.
Faith can inspire works.
Works can replace faith.
Both exist in the believer but one flows naturally from the other. Works that are not the "result" of faith are dead. Grace is what it takes to get the cycle going in the first place. This is not that much at odds with what you've written.
Amazing grace gave me the faith to perform the act (or work) of giving my life to Christ. Since then, Christ has given me faith to do many works in his name. When I step outside that faith, I might as well stay in bed.
The problem here, as in much of what has happened since Luther, is that salvation simply cannot be reduced to a simple formula. Salvation is what it is.
In Evangelicalism (not really Lutheranism or Anglicanism) salvation is understood as an Event, whereas in Catholicism/Orthodoxy it is held to be an Event and a Process.
Luther made justification (as portrayed in Galatians and Romans) the axis of the Gospel. But in so doing he fails to recognize the Catholicism of history and he fails to maintain the proper balance held by Jesus and the Apostles. Justification is not the axis; Love is the axis. Luther was inordinately obsessed with the assurance of his own salvation, he was tormented by it all of his life, and he projected that mania into his understanding of the gospel.
And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Rick said: "I'm not a Lutheran, but I believe he was an agent of God to reform his church. The fact that the reformation is still under way should not be a surprise coming from a God for whom a single day is like a millennia and vice versa."
You must understand, there was no so-called Reformation, there was a Revolution. Luther did not stand in solidarity with the Church but in stark opposition to her. He was not excommunicated for the things he said that we all recognize were right but for the things he did that were obviously intolerable. If Luther had wanted to cry out for justice and fight for the Church to live up to her high calling he could have made much progress and would today probably be considered a Saint. But Luther had absolutely no interest in renewal, which is what the church really needed, he wanted to destroy the one Church (the 'whore of Babylon' led by the Anti-Christ).
Luther did not merely stand opposed to corruption; he stood opposed to the Church. Through his own private judgement, he abandonded what the Church had always understood herself to be. He set himself up as the sole arbiter of truth, the sole interpreter of Scripture, in opposition to the whole history of the Church and her great theologians (from Iranaeus to Aquinas). He separated from Her and founded a parallel church in opposition to the historical Church.
No, the Reformation is not 'still under way', the Revolt is. The Church would be in far better shape if Luther had sat down and shut up when Johan Eck thoroughly exposed him at the Disputation of Leipzig. Eck knew what Catholicism was, Luther didn't.
The ways in which Luther was right pale in comparison to what he did that was wrong. He was a man full of rage, bound by a nominalist philosophy that infected all of his theology and led to the tragic dialectic of the kingdoms. It is no accident that Luther used his reason to condemn Reason.
The Protestant Movement is manifestly in a state of ever increasing doctrinal anarchy, how is that reform?
I understand Protestantism, I converted as an adult without ever having lived in any religous tradition, and then lived in a vibrant Evangelicalism for twenty years before I was confronted with the issues at hand. I am not defending my tradition, but the Church's Tradition. I want to know the Truth, and have manifestly demonstrated my willingness to recognize my own ignorance and change my thinking and follow Christ where the truth leads. If I remain ignorant I stand to be corrected. Aren't we all called to lay down our lives every day? To follow Christ regardless of the cost? To not let our own comfort deafen us to the loving and inexorable call of Christ to follow? Isn't that what it means to be a pilgrim?
If I could I would like to suggest two books of the highest order:
Hilaire Belloc's How the Reformation Happened
and
Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism
Regards
Whether Luther rebelled, revolted, or reformed, I do not know. What I am sure of, however, is we Pentecostals have certainly stretched "faith" until it's more like "poppycock". When "grace" becomes Who God is and not just something we define in terms of forgiveness, we might all return to the idea of "faith" being only as good as that in which you invest it and "works" no more than a measurement of your obedience unto He Who lives within.........
I like Rick's bumper sticker statement: 'Faith can inspire works. Works can replace faith.' That's pretty much gets to the heart of the matter for me.
Funny, I don't get it exactly ...
"Faith can inspire works.
Works can replace faith."
Is there a typo in there? Did you guys both mean "Works can't replace faith."?
Either way, I think it needs a little sharpening...
Faith must (of its nature) inspire works.
Works must not be instead of faith, but springing from faith can lead to a deeper faith.
Oh drat, I've already strayed well out of bumper sticker simplicity range. And the more I think of ways I'd qualify what I just wrote, I realize I could add thousands of words...
I let my bumper sticker stand (or stick).
Faith can inspire works
(the invisible can motivate the visible in our lives)
Works can replace faith
(the visible can take the place of the invisible in our lives)
If you choose to make works the primary thing, it will diminish your reliance upon faith. If you choose to make faith the primary thing it can inspire great works.
Okay, but here's where my confusion came in. The first half of your statement was positive:
"Faith can inspire works."
Then you make a second positively phrased statement that you actually mean (I think) in a negative or cautionary way:
"Works can replace faith"
You're not really trying to say works "should" replace faith (I don't think), but it could be read that way because of the structural parallel with the statement preceding ...
Ernesto, I think your confusion is the result of your Catholic predisposition to think favorably upon works as a adjunct means to salvation. In the evangelical camp, the word "works" carries its own negative load. Regardless, the eight words are correct, regardless of the Rorschach effect that presents itself to different readers.
"...Catholic predisposition to think favorably upon works as a adjunct means to salvation."
Not quite how I think of it. Works are expressions of faith. And faith, as necessarily an act of will, is itself is a work. Just as the free acceptance of grace is. There's no getting around the fact that by giving us free will, God set up the system so as to require us to make choices, to give our love to him freely, etc., all of which are works of some sort.
I think in some ways, as regards this discussion and purgatory, non-Catholics are more hung up on problematic practices with indulgences from past centuries (in some cases real and subsequently reformed, and in some cases invented) than with what the Catholic Church formally teaches on these issues or what most Catholics believe.
OK, so maybe I was a little hasty. I can hear Ernesto sharpening his pencils in the distance to point out that the Spirit of God is not the spirit of confusion.
How about exchanging the word "replace" with the word "supplant"?
I think that the idea that "faith" is a "work" is the kind of semantic muddle that we are trying to avoid. We can work within faith or without it. Dev points out correctly that both faith and works are gifts of God. We were created to do works which God prepared in advance for us to do, God also gives us the life and strength to do the works. We still are responsible to do them. "Be ye not hearers only but doers of the word." Faith on the other hand, comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith is received, work is offered, but not every work is pleasing to God, even when presented to God. Consider Cain and Abel.
Post a Comment
<< Home