It seems that just about every week a new book comes out on the subject of how we are getting the Gospel wrong. I am getting tired of it. Once I read a book and adjust my thinking to getting the Gospel right, I find out in the next book I read that I got it wrong again! Is the Gospel that difficult? Does every generation get the Gospel wrong, thus requiring the next enlightened generation to get them back on course?
Last week, I wrote a post about whether or not Roman Catholics are saved. I chose this topic because, within the past couple of weeks, I had been asked this question (or some variation of it) four times. It is an important question, which caused quite a conversation. I had to close the comments down on this blog topic within 24 hours of posting it! The reason for closing the comments was not so much the belligerence of Roman Catholics who did not agree with what I had written, but because of some very (ahem…) committed Protestants who were being less than gracious. James White did a thoughtful Dividing Line broadcast, where he strongly disagreed with me. Over the last week, the most common objection I received about what I had written was that I had been asking the wrong question. What is the right question? Well, the consensus seemed to be this: “Does the Roman Catholic Church have the right Gospel?”, not, “are Roman Catholics Saved?” There are myriad ways I could have phrased it:
“Are Roman Catholics saved?”
“Can Roman Catholics be saved?”
“Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save?”
“Does Roman Catholicism have the right Gospel?”
All of these require a slight variation in response. Most of my Protestant friends are more than willing to admit that Catholics could be saved, and that some are saved. However, they are quick to point out that “Rome’s Gospel does not save.” Of course, in order to make such a comment, the assumption is that we already have the “right” Gospel, which begs the question: “How much of the Gospel do we have to get right?” Another way to put it: “How much of the Gospel can we get wrong and still have the right Gospel?”
Head hurt? Mine too. But stay with me.
The Gospel is simply the “good news” of God. However, there is so much to it. We can boil the Gospel down to its basic essentials, or we can expand it to include all of its implications and benefits. If we take the former, then it is absolutely necessary to have the right Gospel. However, if we take the latter, how can we ever expect to have the “right” Gospel? I don’t have everything right. I don’t necessarily know what I have wrong, but I like to think that I am open to change, and am willing to nuance my views as I learn. In other words, “Do we have the right Gospel?” is not as black and white an issue as we may be inclined to assume. There is so much of the Gospel in which all of us can improve our understanding. In other words, I think we could all have a “righter” Gospel today than we did yesterday.
Paul speaks of the Gospel in two ways. His letter to the Romans, the entire book, is the Gospel (Rom. 1:15-17). Romans 1:17 makes it clear that, in this context, the vindication of God’s righteousness (which is, I believe, the essence of chapters 1-11) is part of the Gospel message. Here, sin (Rom. 3:23), justification by faith alone (Rom. 3:21), imputation of sin (Rom. 5:18), imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5; Rom. 5:18), the vindication of creation (Rom. 8:16), the freedom from bondage (Rom. 7), the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8), the security of the believer in Christ (Rom. 8:28-39), and, I believe, the eternal elective decree of salvation which vindicates God’s faithfulness (Rom. 9-11) are all part of the Gospel message. However, in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, Paul seems to suggest that there are issues within the Gospel that are of “first importance.” These issues surround Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Was Paul saying that these were the only issues which were of “first importance”? Here, he does not mention (much less emphasize) faith, grace, imputation, Christ’s humanity and deity, or Christ second coming. All of these, we would say, are integral parts of the “good news.” All of us would say that getting the Gospel “right” needs to include these things.
We could also do a study based on the sermons in Acts. I count thirteen evangelistic sermons in Acts (meaning they were speeches given to those who were unbelievers). Most likely, Luke summarized these sermons, frequently giving just the essence of what the Apostle taught (Acts 9:20; Acts 10:42; Acts 20:21). Therefore, it is difficult to make too many theological conclusions, or even draw out a definite kyrugma (essential preaching). Similarly, these sermons were highly contextualized, often being given exclusively to Jews, Gentiles, philosophers, or kings. For example, I can only identify one place where freedom from the law is explicitly mentioned (Acts 13:39). In a similar sense, I don’t find substitutionary atonement explicitly mentioned in any sermons recorded in Acts. In addition, it is interesting that the deity of Christ, in the strictest sense of the term, is mentioned on just one occasion (Acts 9:20). In all but two sermons, I find the subject of the death and resurrection of Christ addressed. In about half of the sermons, I find repentance and forgiveness being part of the focus. And in many messages (especially to the Jews), Christ’s messiahship (kingship) is mentioned. It is of further interest to note what aspects of the Gospel are included, but it is just as interesting to see which are left out.
What does all of this mean? How do we know when we have the right Gospel? Are we supposed to find the least common denominator and then focus exclusively on that? Or are we supposed to see letters, like Romans, as the most developed and comprehensive of all, and use them as models?
When we ask questions like, “Does Rome have the right Gospel?”, I am not sure what is being implied. “Do they have a right enough Gospel?” Right enough for what? Normally, we mean “right enough to save.” Which aspects of the Gospel are we questioning? Are we getting the essence of the Gospel from Acts? If so, then yes, Catholics seem to be OK. Are we getting it from Paul in Romans? If so, I would say comme si, comme ca. However, if that is the case, one could just as easily assert that Arminians receive the wrong Gospel, since they fail to see (generally speaking) the “good news” of security and/or the “good news” of sovereign election. Furthermore, is a Gospel that does not support the doctrine of the security of the believer really a Gospel at all? Well, yes and no. It could be “more right”. It could be “better news.” Finally, to those who deny these aspects of the Gospel (security and eternal election), using the standard above, one could call upon them to experience a “righter” Gospel.
When it comes to the Gospel, I believe Calvinist Evangelical Protestants have the “rightest” points of view, but I think there are certain aspects of the Gospel we can overemphasize to such a degree that we lose focus on more central components. Moreover, I think we can also lose sight of important (not central) components that other traditions are more faithful to preserve. For example, I believe that substitutionary atonement is the essence of the “for” in Christ, who gave himself up “for me” (Gal. 2:20) as payment for sin. Protestants and Catholics do well to see this doctrine, while the Eastern Orthodox church outright deny this substitutionary aspect of the Gospel in particular. Do they have the wrong Gospel? In one sense, yes. However, in another sense, I think they have a “righter” Gospel in that they call upon people to see the “recapitulation” aspect of Christ’s life. Protestant and Catholics, in my opinion, are very deficient in understanding how Christ qualified to be our substitute. Therefore, Eastern Orthodox traditionally have “better news” with regard to the humanity of Christ.
What is the solution? Well, I don’t like the least common denominator approach, since it suggests that having the entire Gospel is not that important, i.e., only those things to which we can boil it all down (i.e. sin, messiahship, death, burial, resurrection, faith). The entire message is the Gospel. Therefore, “getting the Gospel wrong” is not an option. Yet, it has to be. Catholics miss grace and, in this sense, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter”, and this causes serious concern. Preterists, who deny Christ’s future coming, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter” and their position should be considered serious. Universalists, who deny the reality of an eternal punishment, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter” and its ramifications are similarly serious. Arminians, who deny sovereign election, have a different Gospel. Their Gospel needs to be “righter”, and it is (Are you getting my point?) serious. From a charismatic perspective, cessationists, who do not believe in the continuation of certain gifts of the Spirit, have a different Gospel. Maybe our Gospel needs to be “righter.” Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox all have different Gospels in some respects. All of these traditions emphasize different aspects of the Gospel and need to be anathematized in some ways.
So, “Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save?” is such a loaded question for me. People can antagonistically ask everyone all of these questions: “Does the Calvinist Gospel save?” “Does the Arminian Gospel save?” “Does the fundamentalist Gospel save?” “Does the Church of Christ Gospel save?” “Does the Eastern Orthodox Gospel save?” “Does the Universalist Gospel save?” I don’t even know what the Roman Catholic Gospel is these days. It has quite a bit of dynamic progression throughout history. Is there one sentence you could write which would clearly articulate the essence of their Gospel? I doubt it. And if you did, the next Roman Catholic apologist would write it down differently. “Does Rome have the wrong Gospel?” Certain aspects of their doctrines are wrong, yes. However, in the real world, people are not asking these questions. They are asking something more specific. Concerning Calvinism, what one is really saying is, “Can one deny libertarian free will and be saved?” Concerning Arminianism, “Can one believe that salvation can be lost, yet still be saved?” Concerning fundamentalism, “Can one who is a separationist be saved?” Concerning the Church of Christ, “Can one believe in baptismal regeneration and still be saved?” Concerning Eastern Orthodoxy, “Can one believe in deification and be saved?” Concerning Universalism (of the Christian variety), “Can one deny hell and be saved?” And concerning Roman Catholics, “Can one who believes that works contribute to their justification be saved?” That is what people are really asking.
The broader question is always: “Can one have bad doctrine and be saved?” All but the most ardent maximalists would say “yes.” But where do we cross the line? And I don’t really like the false dichotomy which says, “doctrine does not save . . . God does.” That misses the point of the conversation, as it discredits the necessity of faith in God altogether. If faith is necessary in any sense, that faith must have content. And it is that very content on which this discussion centers. In other words, if faith is important, then content is, as well.
There is definitely a line that can be crossed. I can’t always tell you where that line is, exactly. I know that the center of the Gospel is the person and work of Christ. In addition, I would contend that one must accept who Christ is (the God-man), and what he did (died for our sins and rose from the grave). Acceptance of these requires, I believe, the presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). I believe that it is a “wronger” Gospel when works are added as a factor to justification. I believe that Protestant Evangelicals have the “rightest” Gospel. I think that Evangelical Protestants have a better answer for the history of the church, the development of doctrine, and the systematic nature of canonical truth. That said, I also know that we can all have a “righter” Gospel. Indeed, one day we will all stand before God and see this “righter” Gospel more clearly. Does the Roman Catholic Gospel save? To the degree that the individual Catholic is trusting in the God-man who takes away the sins of the world, it can. All of us (Protestant and Catholic) can and should trust Christ more, but Catholics need to get the Gospel “righter” by abandoning their denial of justification by faith alone. Their application of the Gospel is not very good news.
Grace is incredibly mind blowing.
224 replies to "Does the Roman Catholic Gospel Save? or “Getting the Gospel ‘Righter'”"
Attached to Christ on what basis?
Can somebody be under the curse of the Law and still be in Christ?
In Christ,
– Shane
Let’s deal with Galatians.
I’m really appreciating this conversation. Yet I’m very aware that when I read and seriously examine Galatians, I appear to walk away with a different understanding of its implications than commenters Jugulum & Shane Dodson, for example, or certain pastors whom I respect.
I could be wrong – maybe CMP and I are just uncomfortable with the message of Galatians and are inventing ways to avoid its implications for people who don’t think as we do theologically.
But maybe not. Maybe we aren’t ignoring Galatians. Maybe Paul wants the Galatian church – those truly connected to Christ – to see how very useless it is to try to add to what Christ has done – that their motivation for right living should be gratitude, not earning. That to try to walk in their own good works is to refuse to walk in what Christ has done. He’s not saying that circumcision kills in itself (he circumcised Timothy, though the circumstances were different); he’s saying that believing / trusting in circumcision – in the law – is to act like Christ’s work is incomplete. And that means we are not fully living in the grace we’ve received.
Paul doesn’t want the church to be foolish but to live in the full benefits of their union with Christ – and to reject false teaching that would have them do otherwise.
I don’t have time to elaborate on that right now… but we must discuss – and rightly exegete – Galatians on this topic…
@Ken: I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Ireland and got my first degree from a Roman Catholic College, so I quite understand the RCC. MY statement about the “Catholic Church” includes all in the proper historic Church! I have quoted this by Philip Schaff before: “The Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church.”
I like MacArthur oftentimes, but indeed many times his zeal outruns the reality of the historical and theological truth. And as Michael correctly says, God’s salvation and saving grace of Christ, were quite alive before the Reformation! WE all of us must remember that CHIRST Himself is the Salvation of God itself, and not our best or worse understanding of it, but of course we must KNOW the biblical revelation of Christ – Savior, Lord and God & Man! And of course many Roman Catholics have and are the redeemed of the Lord! Based again, upon Christ Jesus Himself…His Person & Work!
Paul referred to the Galatians as brethren, sons of God, being adopted by God, brought into his grace.. He uses ‘us’ including them as those saved. He just can’t believe they want to go back and is sickened by the perverting of the truth. He does stand in doubt and worries he labored in vain on them. I don’t know how he could warn them of being severed unless he thougt there was a possibility they were in. And then what would that severing mean, certainly not loss of salvation. I don’t think Paul knew their standing for sure but he treated them as brethren and pleaded with them as brethren. Yep, Galatians is the same topic and discussion, nothing new under the sun.
Shane, I realize that Paul is referring to “Judaizers”. However, what I’m saying is that he’s not exactly real detailed in how he describes their doctrine. The problem with understanding heretical doctrines in the early church is that often our only reference to them are from people who oppose them. That doesn’t necessarily lead to a fair summary or a right understanding. Is it possible that those who Paul would have cursed would have understood their doctrine differently?
Read between the lines and it is clear that the apostles and Paul did not exactly see eye to eye, and in fact Paul’s actions toward them may very well be what led Barnabas to leave him. It doesn’t seem coincidental then, that Paul actually seems to be distancing himself from the apostles by saying his gospel does come from man. Seems reasonable to suppose, then, that his ideological opponents were claiming authority from the apostles.
So if there was disagreement that early on, it is perhaps not surprising that we can pit scripture against scripture. Because it certainly seems no coincidence that James & Paul use the same example (Abraham), but emphasize opposite sides of the coin.
And let’s be clear: the Judaizers Paul is ranting against were (according to him) claiming that one was justified according to the Law (meaning Torah). This is hardly what Roman Catholics claim.
JB Chappell,
Are you not familiar with Acts 15? It discusses both (1) Paul and the other apostles’ unity in addressing whether circumcision is necessary, and (2) the circumstances of Paul & Barnabas’s separation (15:37-38).
Or are you familiar with it, but you think Acts 15 gets it wrong?
Or is there something I’m missing?
In Galatians the Apostle Paul is speaking and dealing with the Mosaic Law and the rite of Jewish circumcision, it is this addition, and again the Jewish Mosaic Law itself being kept, that Paul presses to the Galatians, and the so-called “false brethren”, who were really Jews alone, and thus not really Christians, who had met Christ and the liberty of the Gospel of Christ Himself! (Gal. 2:4) But, St. Paul also knew that any “works” without Christ was the Gospel principle that was at stake. So indeed we must look at the Judaizing ideas that the RCC has oftentimes presented, and here I believe was and is the essence of the Reformation. Note, Galatians chapter 3 and 4, and certainly Gal. 5: 1, etc.
Um, I hate to point out the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but appealing to Galatians to solve the Protestant vs. Rome dispute is pretty naive, for several reasons.
1. Paul rebuked Peter for contradicting “the truth of the gospel” by his refusal to eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:14). Does that mean he did not regard Peter as a brother?
2. Paul continually addresses the Galatians as fellow Christians who had received the Spirit (Gal. 3:1-2), even though he rebuked them for turning to a “different gospel” (1:6).
3. Evidently it is possible to contradict the gospel (both in doctrine and behavior) and yet still be addressed as a Christian in some meaningful sense.
4. Galatians 5:4 does not mean that the Galatian Christians are necessarily damned to hell. In context, his point is that Christ has freed them from slavery to the Law. If they put themselves back under the Law, then they are cutting themselves off from receiving the benefits of that freedom from the Law Christ had secured for them. You sort of have to read the whole context (Gal. 5:1-13).
5. The theological situation in Galatians is not the same as the debate with Rome. Defining justification differently is not the same as denying that Christ is the fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Law. The issue in Galatians is grace vs. Law (2:21), not justification by faith alone.
P.S. For those who don’t look up Acts 15:37-38, it says that they separated over whether to take Mark along with them again. (He had been with them before, Acts 13:25, and then dropped out.) Paul didn’t think they should take Mark with them, and Barnabas did.
So, what Acts describes about Paul & Barnabas’ separation is not what JB is reading between the lines.
What Paul said.
Jugulum,
Yes, I am aware of Acts 15. I won’t go so far as to say that you’re “missing something”, but it seems to me that Paul and the apostles may not have been as united as you think. But maybe it is I that am missing something.
No question that they agreed that circumcision was not necessary for *Gentiles*. However, this was merely I keeping with, well, Jewish law at the time. So, what do you think James & Peter’s opinion would have been of whether or not Jews needed to keep the law?
It is there that it seems Paul and the apostles may have been divided. In Acts 15, James explicitly condemns eating the meat that Paul later says is OK… as long as you watch out for “weaker brethren”… Which apparently James (and other apostles, presumably) qualify as.
Furthermore, read about the Barnabas incident in Galatians 2 to get more perspective. In both Acts and Galatians, Barnabas leaves shortly after the Jerusalem Council, but Paul provides a bit more insight.
To keep this more relevant to the post: if Paul and the apostles could not agree on some issues, then we are not pitting “scripture against scripture” by turning to sermons in Acts or the book of James to gain perspective. And if we gain perspective reading those aside from Paul, then perhaps we should reconsider the notion of the gospel being *only* what Paul preached, which is what many appear to be thinking.
Indeed, Paul Owen just stated far more articulately what I was trying to communicate (at least in part). I will say, though, the part that makes this reading of Galatians difficult (however sensible it may seem otherwise) is the anathema in Ch. 1. Referring to his point #2 above, it seems to me that he didn’t just rebuke them for turning to another gospel, but actually cursed those that taught it to them.
Fr. Robert, does it not seem to you that by teaching that *Jews* did not actually have to adhere to the Law of Moses, or by teaching that they “severed from Christ”, that he is deviating significantly from what was agreed upon at the Jerusalem Council? They agreed that Paul to minister to gentiles and that Gentiles needn’t be circumcised – not that Paul was to curse other Jews for still keeping the Law of Moses.
Btw, It is also a false dichotomy to pit the interior life against the outward Christian life! How can I know that I have really met and love Christ, if not in some measure, I am obedient to Him! (“The fruit of the Spirit” Gal. 5:22-24, etc.)
Paul Owen’s 5 points, and particularly his 3rd summary statement are exactly in line with my own reading of Galatians. This is why I cannot embrace the notion that the Judaizers can be directly corresponded to the RC church. Simply I believe that Paul is remonstrating with those he regards as fellow believers, even as he is correcting them for errant doctrine. Thus, Paul can have strong words for the Galatian church because he wants them to experience the full benefit of their union with Christ, not because he counts them as unbelievers.
@JB Chappell: Indeed St. Paul’s revelation of the “liberty” ‘In Christ’, pressed him to see that the Gospel of Christ was for both Jew & Gentile! We can see this in the further NT writings and Letters of Paul…Eph. 2:14-15…’creating the two into one new man’! As too, in Gal. 3:26-29, especially verse 28! 🙂 This is simply High Ground theologically, and in the NT Covenant!
“This is why I cannot embrace the notion that the Judaizers can be directly corresponded to the RC church. Simply I believe that Paul is remonstrating with those he regards as fellow believers, even as he is correcting them for errant doctrine.”
How can I consider someone who is “severed from Christ” as my “brother IN Christ?”
Those who shunned Paul’s warnings about adding works to grace revealed their true nature: unregenerate. Apart from Christ.
We’re not talking about true believers who err in secondary doctrine but are continually open to correction. We are talking about believing that one is righteous APART from the finished work of Christ. That is error with eternal consequences, and if one is not open to correction on that particular point…that reveals a hardness of heart with eternal consequences (unless, of course, God grants this person true repentance and faith).
In Christ,
– Shane
(: Someone tell the poor old Catholic….what’s that word again–perspicuity? (:
J. B. Chappell,
You raise a good point. I would simply say that Paul does not give a one size fits all solution. Some people actually do preach a different gospel (cf. 2:4), whereas others simply do not adequately understand the implications of the gospel, or give in to pressure to compromise its message, and thus add to, take from, or otherwise contradict the gospel. Paul would apparently put Peter and the Galatian church in the latter category; the Judaizers from Jerusalem (cf. 2:12) in the former.
Furthermore, not every theological error qualifies as adopting a different gospel. There is no debate in Galatians about the definition of justification (as there is in the dispute with Rome). The debate is whether Christ’s death fulfills the Law on our behalf and thus brings it to an end (Gal. 3:10-29), or whether the people of God are still obligated to it. Paul sees an affirmation of the latter as a denial of the very reason for Christ’s death (to fulfill the typology of the Law), and thus an essential denial of the very heart of the Christian message (2:21).
Shane, your point is about the severity of Paul’s rebuke is important. An “anathema”, to me, does not imply continued brotherhood. Nevertheless, Paul’s warnings were not against those who would add “works to grace”. His warning seems to be against those who were eliminating grace altogether, and placed themselves fully under the Law of Moses (in his mind) needlessly.
Furthermore, if – as you say – “we are talking about believing that one is righteous APART from the finished work of Christ”, then I think Roman Catholics are on solid ground here. I don’t know any RC who would claim that the work of Christ is unnecessary.
CMP,
I substantially agree with Paul Owen’s points–I think 1-3 are completely valid observations, and while I’m more hesitant about 4 & 5, they at least deserve discussion. (I’ve wondered about 5, too. It may be that an important aspect of the Judaizer situation is that circumcision in particular involved going back to the Old Covenant. I think it’s an obvious weakness in Dr. White’s case, that he spoke of circumcision simply as “a work”, disconnected from its Old Covenant context.)
This is what I expected you to bring up when I asked you to delve into Galatians. I’d also expect someone to point out that Paul says, “I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain”.
It’s clear Paul hasn’t written them off as unregenerate. Yet it’s also clear that Paul does fear he may have labored over them in vain. He didn’t call them false brothers, but the category of “false brothers” was relevant. That’s something you haven’t acknowledged, and it puzzles me.
The issue with circumcision wasn’t enough for Paul to immediately write them off–perhaps his audience wasn’t thinking things through, and in their hearts they weren’t seeking to be justified by the law. But he was at least concerned that they might be–they could be stumbling like those in Romans 9:32.
This is the only way I can make sense of all that Galatians says, without minimizing the language Paul uses. I had this in mind in my second comment…
In 1 Cor. 3:12, there is the allegory of building on a foundation: if you build with stubble, your works will not stand the fiery test, even so, you will be “saved”. Salvation does not apparently guarantee an unconditional nod of approval for what you do or believe in your life. Perhaps this is a line of discernment to be addressed in the future.
The deity, humanity, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus appear to be paramount regarding knowledge of Him in the Gospel. After all, Jesus Himself said that it is those who, “. . . believe in me . . .”, who are saved, and those who reject Him are judged by the words He spoke. So, if you can define what is a de facto rejection of Christ, then perhaps you can answer the banner question, also.
Paul, I agree with just about everything you said. It’s just not as clear to me that Paul would place those who would have “lapsed” back into the law into a different category than those who taught them such. After all, those who were teaching them these things may have simply been making an honest mistake as well. I definitely agree that there is no “one size fits all” solution, however.
It got cut off again. That was supposed to be “my second comment yesterday.” That means comment #9, posted 3:54pm, April 4.
I’ll add: I don’t see how it does justice to Paul’s language to suppose that Paul simply wants them “to experience the full benefit of their union with Christ”.
On theological principle I agree with Shane! But, of course there must come the individual place and walk of each hopefully real Christian! And of course we cannot see this in Galatians. But we can, and should see the Biblical and Theological positions here: “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation or creature.” (Gal. 6:15) And it is here too, that we should see or judge the RCC. It is creating and teaching this biblical and theological position and reality? I would say, not equally so, but it is a “pilgrim” church, itself.. that ebbs and flows, but teaches the great Nicene “homoousios”! And yet, has also to still “reform” itself, in many places! As has too the Reformational and Reformed Churches! But, we must note, that the Reformed Doctrine/s are not a “Church”, but a theology itself. As I am myself an Anglican churchman, who is “Reformed” in doctrine, but I hope and pray is also a “Catholic” Christian! This is btw, the essence of the Anglican Communion, both “catholic” and “reformed”. 🙂
My question is always, will the papacy ever really “reform” itself? By this question I mean the “papal” office itself? I have never seen this, ever! This was Luther’s great charge!
Fr. Robert,
I don’t want to get too far off-topic here, but you didn’t quite answer my question. I understand what Paul came to believe. My question refers what he and the “Pillars” supposedly came to agree on. Presumably, everyone would have known what Paul’s doctrine was and it would have been discussed (that’s not known for sure, though). Yet, at the Council of Jerusalem, they did *not* agree that Jews had this liberty, only Gentiles. Furthermore, it would appear that Paul was directed to preach only to gentiles. One can’t help but wonder if that’s not because they did not want Paul preaching his doctrine to Jews, which of course he did anyway, just as he told Gentiles it’s OK to consume the meat that James forbade (unless “weaker brethren” were present). It just seems to me that even as Paul acknowledges the “Pillars” as leaders of the Church, he then turns his back and undermines Peter as a leader for very spurious reasons (which Barnabas would seemingly agree with).
Now, i’m not one to uphold figureheads as infallible authority. But for the purposes of our discussion here, it just seems to be me very relevant for those who rely *completely* on Paul to at least consider the fact that others – those who we would not consider heretics – of influence in the Church appeared to disagree with Paul.
J. B. Chappell,
I agree there is a tension here. Paul is for sure concerned about the spiritual welfare of the Galatian Christians. Paul’s language in 2:2 and 4:19 definitely indicates that the sound faith of this church has been undermined by the heresies of false teachers. I’m not denying that. And if the foundations of a building are damaged, it is certainly possible for the whole structure to fall down. Nonetheless, Paul does not yet appear to withdraw or deny to the Galatians some sense of meaningful Christian identity. Otherwise 3:1-5; 3:23-29; 4:9, 12; 5:10-11 make no sense whatsoever.
“Paul’s warnings were not against those who would add “works to grace”. His warning seems to be against those who were eliminating grace altogether, and placed themselves fully under the Law of Moses (in his mind) needlessly. ”
Adding works to grace IS eliminating grace altogether.
“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
“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” Romans 4:4-5
“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” Galatians 2:21
Also…you mention people placing themselves under the law “needlessly.”
Under what circumstance would a person NEED to place oneself under the law at all?
In Christ,
– Shane
JB Chappell: I am not sure we can answer this question in a definitive manner? Since St. Paul certainly always went and did what both his conscience and what he believed the Spirit of God was leading him to do. And certainly too here no doubt Paul saw his ministry as that of the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” But, we can note I believe that Saul/Paul was always a Christian-Jew! (Rom.1:16) Note, I am Historic (Covenant) Pre-Mill.
Fr. Robert: I can appreciate that response. Not knowing that for sure, I would urge caution to those in using only ONE person for determining absolute “gospel”. You obviously adhere to a certain position, but you seem to be open to others as well, and I appreciate that.
JB…I am a certain Pauline Christian overall. 😉 But even Paul was no Pope! And yet I am as I believe, the NT teaches, one that sees the progressive nature of the Salvation History of God.
Doesn’t Law vs. grace essentially have to do with how one is justified before God? Seems like Paul’s point #5 makes a distinction, and I don’t see how one would be warranted…
Btw, just a side note, but behind Paul’s doctrine lies the OT conception of “righteousness”, note the LXX or Sept., This cardinal idea defines the Hebrew faith, and here is more than justice or holiness, but the “righteousness” of Faith! This is Paul, and “revelation” itself!
I have just read a couple of these, but I think Kim and EM are both expressing the essence of the way I see things.
I also think that we need to be sympathic and bring in James. James is very interesting. Of course we don’t believe he is teaching what he SEEMS at first glance to be teaching (justification is not by faith alone), but he does explicitly say such. In context, I know where his rhetoric is going. However, let us be sympathetic to see that those who look at James and see him teaching something akin to Roman Catholicism have reasons and it is not necessarily because they are denying the authority of Scripture.
We see James through the filter of Paul and I think we are justified in doing so. Paul is the theologian of the NT, James is not. James is a pastor trying to deal with his congragants who are taking this faith alone stuff too an unhealthy place. James responds with strong and (often) sarcastic rhetoric. Unfortunately, many people just see this on face value. However, we need to understand why someone might believe that works contribute even in light of Gal. What seems clear to us in Gal SEEMS just as clear to others in James.
Shane: Adding works to grace is not eliminating grace. Just ask James. Or, you know, Jesus. Does it not concern you that there is only one person that you can cite to support your position?
There is a difference in saying that works are important, even needed, and saying that works are what constitutes the “gospel” or what gets you saved. I don’t understand the all grace-or-no grace position here.
In all your passages, Paul is referring to those who would work exclusively through the Law, or works. I don’t know of any Roman Catholic who would claim that you can earn your salvation apart from the grace of God.
Even Paul, though he seems to want to semantically separate them, believes that proper faith is connected to proper works. They are inextricable.
As for a need to be under the law… well, that seems to be the whole question being raised in the Council of Jerusalem. It would seem that they agreed that Gentiles did not need to. Only Paul is on records as saying that Jews do not need to, and we know that there are those “from Jerusalem” who disagreed with him.
So it would seem to depend on who you were to have asked. Some, apparently, would have said everyone has this need. Others would have said only Jews. But, as far as I can tell, only Paul says no one does. But we have a good indication in Acts that, at the very least, Peter continued to be a practicing Jew. Whether he felt this was “needed” is an unanswerable question, probably.
Indeed when one sees Paul’s grid over James (as I think we must!), James really teaches the same “righteousness”! (See, James 1: 17-21, etc.)
Jug, its a good statement about questioning whether Catholics are/were committing the Gal error. I think they probably are, so my case would not be to draw a distinction between where they went wrong and where Rome goes wrong. If one is adding things to Christ, it is anathema, whether (and here I go…) it is trying to keep one’s salvation through abstinence from certain sins, keep the love of God through abstinence, gain salvation through even ONE act of baptism, or earn the love of God through giving money to the church. This is all anathema and severing from the grace of God through Christ.
Now, the permanence which the Gal were doing this may come into play as they were returning to a dead system.
As well, the rhetoric of Paul is extreme (not in a bad sense…just extreme). He is very angry and can’t believe what they are doing. One can see this immediately as, I think, Gal is the only one of his letters without any introduction. He just jumps right into it.
I think Paul felt like these were true children of God (for the most part at least) but they were abandoning grace. He could not believe they would want to do such a thing. He tells them that Christ is no benefit to those who do such. And I think this is still true. If I were to pick back up a system of works righteousness, I am not living by grace and mercy. If I am not living by grace and mercy, in this context (Christian life), I am severing myself from Christ and he is of no benefit (since it is all of grace or all of law…no in between). But this would not mean I am not saved. It would mean that I need to be discipled so that I could live within the sphere of grace (the only option for Christian living).
So, my basic thesis here I think is that Christians can be “severed from Christ” yet still be saved by grace.
BTW: I think that James is such an interesting study. It is the earliest book of the NT and his people are abusing what? The doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is a clear indication not only that this doctrine was taught before 49 A.D. but that it was articulated as “justification by faith alone.” Otherwise, James makes no sense. And this is in the Jewish community, not Paul’s! Increadible!
“So, my basic thesis here I think is that Christians can be “severed from Christ” yet still be saved by grace.”
How can someone not be “in Christ” and yet–at the same time–be “in Christ?”
The justified cannot be separated from Christ. Why? Not because we’re able to keep ourselves “in Christ,” but because He alone is able to keep us.
In light of this text, please explain how someone separated from Christ can still be justified.
“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died–more than that, who was raised–who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
(Romans 8:33-39)
CMP: I agree, that it is possible that one can be, flawed and apart from the “positional” doctrine/doctrines of grace, and yet still be saved by grace! There are many Christians in this place really. Again, I think the real issue comes back to the great Person of Christ Himself: “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (Gal. 2: 19-20) Here simply is Paul’s Gospel! And without doubt the high-water mark of the Gospel of God In Christ! But for Paul both Christ and His work are found together! Though again, I may not understand the work of Christ properly or fully, but I surely must know and love Christ Himself, i.e. the Savior-the Lord!
*Note, one cannot have the grace of God in Christ, without the Person of Christ! As John can say, in 1 John 5:12, “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”
With texts like this, I think we can see how we can discern where the People of God lie, as Paul can also write: “For to me, to live is Christ..” (Phil. 1:21).
And note too, I am a Calvinist, but surely heaven will hold many who understand not this great doctrine, but who love Christ! I am thinking right now of John and Charles Wesley! 🙂
Shane, I think it is all theological context and we cannot be too ridged. How can someone be dead to sin and still sin?
How can someone have the Spirit dwelling in them and still live according to the flesh.
The question is severed in what way? You are assuming that it is in adoption. Remember, every vine that does not produce is cut off … Cut off from what and how. It is all in context.
BTW: If you take this as being in Christ in the sense of salvation, to be severed necessitates that one be connected. In what sense were they connected before they were severed. If it was they were justified then they lost their justification. Oh the difficulty as we now have a situation where someone lost their justification because they believed they had to do something! Irony…
But if one cannot lose their justification then the severing must mean something else. Which is where I go.
Fr. Amen.
What did the publican go away believing? Not much. He just asked God to have mercy on him.
CMP,
I think we may be in 90% agreement. The clincher is whether Paul is saying that the issues he’s discussing could impact whether or not someone is saved. I think he does, you don’t.
I have a hard time seeing how “severed from Christ” can mean what you suggest, but I can at least marginally see some room for the possibility. I’m open to the notion that I’m making false assumptions about it, though it’s pretty hard for me to see.
However, I don’t yet see any way around Paul’s reference to “false brothers”, and “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you”. He did hold back from saying “You are false brothers”, but the category was relevant. The danger was present.
We have to harmonize the strong language with the language that still treats his audience as brothers. Even the strongest language makes sense, if the idea is that someone who actually is truly trusting in Christ can get confused or mistaken or led astray by a false teaching, without it reflecting an actual change in what they’re trusting in. There’s a difference between (1) being able to accurately articulate what you trust in (or having a developed understanding of the gospel), and (2) actually trusting/depending on Christ.
If “severed from Christ” doesn’t really mean severed from Christ in context, I wonder if “emasculate themselves” really means what it appears to in Galatians 5:12? hmmm. Perhaps context dictates otherwise.
Jug. I just about agree with everything you said too! I don’t think even think we have to assume Paul thought that they were all believers. I think he might have been implicitly questioning their justification in some cases. I just think the result is the same either way in his mind: pick up works and you are severed from grace through Christ.
We should also point out the similarity to the passages elsewhere in the New Testament where there are warnings against falling away. The harmonization issues seem similar in the two cases.
Anyway, if the problems in Galatians apply to official Catholic doctrine after the Council of Trent, then we’re getting very close to what Dr. White said–Catholics being saved “in spite of Catholic teaching, not because of it”. I’m really interested in bridging the gap between what he said and what you said, to whatever extent possible. And to the extent that it can’t be bridged, I want to have a very clear understanding of where the difference lies.
Interesting discussion to which I would like to interject two quick points:
1. What do we do with the creeds? That is, historical Christianity. If the Nicene Creed is the creed by which the Church has declared since the 4th century, is this not to be understood as the core beliefs that is needed for salvation? Or did the fathers leave out something essential to salvation – i.e., justification, etc.? I, personally, am uncomfortable with assuming or arguing that the fathers made a mistake.
2. To me, and as an errant human being I may be wrong, the “gospel” ought to be understood as a trajectory, not so much as by proof texting. If we are going to be honest with the text, one has a difficult time reconciling much of what Saint James says with what Saint Paul says; the same could be said for the gospels (pull out your Aland Synopsis and break out your markers). Perhaps any question concerning the “gospel” must first be prefaced with a degree of contextualization; that is to say, the particular particularities by which one’s thinking is constrained.
While I have my fair share of qualms with the Roman Catholic Church, I do appreciate, however, the fact that everyone in the church is rather clear about the rules. I find their practices remarkable because they are engineered, through the centuries, to usher the faithful into heaven.
Happy Maundy Thursday, the darkest day of the year.
Mr. Patton, I would answer your questions by pointing out “Examination of the Council of Trent” by Martin Chemnitz or the Book of Concord (bookofconcord.org). I’m a Christian and a Baptist – of course the very elect of God don’t lose salvation and infant baptism is no baptism at all. But looking at confessional Lutheranism (or confessional Reformed), the Gospel of peace is preached and believed. Book of Concord “Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is (this very thing], that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold of Christ, and thus in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God, for whose sake this faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5.
6] 4. We believe, teach, and confess that this faith is not a bare knowledge of the history of Christ, but such a gift of God by which we come to the right knowledge of Christ as our Redeemer in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him that for the sake of His obedience alone we have, by grace, the forgiveness of sins, are regarded as holy and righteous before God the Father, and eternally saved.”
In regards to those who try to pit the Apostles of Christ against each you should remember that these eyewitnesses of Christ’s Resurrection where chosen and sent by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. We do not depend on only one Apostle. Even a RC cannot do this – we all agree that the Church is Apostolic (or biblical).
Shane, you made some important points on severed from Christ.
Mr. Patton, questions on your post 1) can Paul be speaking to different individuals/groups in the letter to the Galations or does the text force you to think he is talking about the same person(s)? 2) 1 Cor 15 does talk about the preached word, grace, faith and salvation, doesn’t it? (Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.) ver 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.)? 3) When you read 1 Cor 15, when it says ‘Christ’ don’t you put orthodox content of who the Messiah is, so why not “died for our sins according to the scriptures’?
4) Christ told us to make disciples of all nations. Should we preach the Gospel to our Roman Catholic neighbors, coworkers, family members? Should churches support missionaries to preach the Gospel to to Poland, Italy, Mexico?