The False Gospel of Protestantism

This article marks the close of my bi-weekly writing at Conciliar Post. It has been a joy to contribute and discuss the faith here. I hope I have produced a coherent framework in these articles for viewing all five branches of Christianity as one common faith to be embraced and learned from across denominations and lines of tradition. In my final regular article, I have no intent to malign Protestantism since I myself continue to congregate and worship with Protestants. Yet I do hope to clarify how the gospel which evangelical Protestants generally preach is not only a false gospel, but is especially dangerous when coupled with the Protestant battle cry of Sola Fide, “faith alone.” I look forward to dialoguing in the comments with those who may disagree.

In 1520, Martin Luther published “A Treatise on the New Testament That is the Holy Mass.” In it, Luther penned an idea which had never before been uttered in all of Christian history. He claimed that the gospel is the message of the atoning death of Jesus:

For the whole Gospel is nothing but a proclamation of God’s grace and of the forgiveness of all sins, granted us through the sufferings of Christ, as St. Paul proves in Romans x [Rom. 10:9, 11, 13]; and Christ in Luke xxiv [Luke 24:46, 47].¹

The bracketed references above are from the quoted text, yet the referenced passages do not employ the word “gospel” at all. Jesus defined the gospel in Mark 1:14-15 which reads, “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.’ ” Where the NKJV and others read in this passage “is at hand,” the Greek is the past tense of the verb “approach” or “arrive.” The gospel is the good news that the kingdom of God has come near in the person of King Jesus to destroy the authority of sin and of the evil one. See Matthew 12:28, John 12:31, Acts 26:18, Colossians 1:13, and 1John 3:8.

Jesus preached God’s kingdom and called it the gospel for three years. He commanded His disciples to preach the same gospel (Luk 10:9-11; Mat 24:14). When He rose from the dead, Acts 1:3 says He says that He taught the disciples for forty days “the things of pertaining to the kingdom of God.” When He had ascended, the disciples preached the kingdom of God throughout the book of Acts (Act 8:12; Act 28:30-31). In fact every time the apostles ascribed the title “Christ” to Jesus, they were referencing Psalm 2 which presented Jesus as the “Anointed” King whom God appointed to rule the earth and defeat every worldly authority.

SOLA SCRIPTURA

Luther’s diversion from fifteen hundred years of Christianity illustrates why Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox members of Conciliar Post find it necessary to disagree with articles espousing Sola Scriptura. In order to teach false doctrine, one must misuse Scripture. In order to misuse Scripture, one must ignore Christian Tradition. Had Luther leaned upon Tradition, he might have defined the gospel by the words of Clement of Rome, a direct disciple of Peter, who wrote at the end of the first century:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming the kingdom of God was at hand.²

Luther could have followed the trail of gospel definitions from the lips of Jesus in Scripture all the way down to Thomas Aquinas who wrote in the thirteenth century:

Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom.³

THE DANGEROUS GOSPEL

It may appear to some that I am only splitting hairs, since the idea which Luther called “gospel” is valid in and of itself. That is to say that although the arrival of God’s kingdom is the gospel, it remains true that God does offer (just as Luther stated) “grace and of the forgiveness of all sins, granted us through the sufferings of Christ.” Yet for five hundred years, Protestants have promised people that they will be saved — if they only believe (Sola Fide) this gospel of the atoning work of Jesus. Scriptura never offers salvation to those who believe that Jesus died for them. To the contrary, scripture demands that we believe that Jesus is the “Christ,” a Psalm 2 term for the King of all the earth. It also demands that we believe that He is the “Son of God,” a Psalm 2 term for the King of all the earth. For example:

“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:31

“that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9

“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” 1John 5:1

Scripture demands that we believe the gospel of the kingdom, not in the atonement in order to gain life. While the atonement is true, Scriptura never hinges eternal life or salvation on the condition of Sola Fide in the atonement of Jesus.

SOLA FIDE

Consequently, we should grapple with the fact that it is Luther’s false gospel which makes the notion of sola fide possible. If the gospel really were the atonement of Jesus, then one can imagine believing in his atonement without exhibiting good works. A Christian could be sincerely grateful for the death of Jesus, yet be wholly incapable of obeying Him.

Once we give proper credence however, to the gospel of Christian tradition, then we find it impossible to claim sola fide. For anyone and everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ — the Psalm 2 Son of God and the Lord of all the earth — will necessarily exhibit works of obedience. For the ultimate contradiction would be to claim that Jesus is our Master and King, all the while disobeying everything that He commanded. If I do not do what Jesus commanded, then I obviously do not believe that He is the Christ. Am I saved then by works, or am I saved by faith? The answer is “Yes,” for the two cannot be separated once the gospel of Scriptura and Tradition is identified.

For 500 years, many Protestants have promised that everyone gains eternal life who believes Sola Fide that Jesus died for them. For example, consider the gospel according R.C. Sproul or the gospel according to John Piper. As a result, we have countless false assurances. Here in the buckle of the Southern Bible Belt where I live, it is rather difficult to find anyone who does not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Far less often however, do we find people who devote themselves to obeying Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and Lord of all the earth. I do not say lightly that I sincerely fear that many Protestant preachers are causing the little ones to stumble and placing themselves in danger of the millstone. If Jesus is not your King, He is not your Savior.

SOLA GRATIA

I close by addressing what seems to me the most obvious objection to these thoughts. If the twin authorities of Scriptura and Christian Tradition demand that we believe in the kingship of Jesus, and if such belief necessarily entails obedient works, then have we perhaps upended Sola Gratia and demanded that believers earn eternal life by laboring for God’s approval?

Nothing could be further from the case. The Protestant concern about works-versus-grace stems from the Protestant idea atonement, which ignores the first 1,000 years of Christian tradition. As explained in this article, the atonement of Scriptura and of Tradition is an atonement of recapitulation and transformation, not of substitutionary punishment. Those who have been atoned will exhibit works of obedience because we have been transformed from rebels into obeyers. Obedient works are as natural to those born of the Spirit as sin is natural to those born of Adam. When one understands atonement as transformation, the question of works-versus-grace dissolves entirely. We do not work obedience to earn anything. We work obedience because we have been transformed into workers of obedience.

CONCLUSION

To the Protestant reader, I may appear to have fired too many arrows at one branch of Christianity. How can one respond if the very gospel of Protestantism has been questioned along with doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and in other articles even the Protestant Canon? Conciliar Post offers diverse examples of Journeys of Faith in which Protestants shifted to other branches of Christianity. Yet it has been my preference (thus far at least) to remain connected with a Protestant congregation even after wrestling with the shortcomings of Protestantism. I remain where I am primarily because I do not believe that any of the five branches of Christianity offers a perfect version of the faith in isolation. Rather, our faith seems best understood when peering across all five traditions. I choose to embrace and to continue learning from all five branches. I believe for example, that Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have much to learn from the Protestant fervor for scripture translation and personal study of scripture. I also believe that all three Western branches can learn from Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I am blessed to connect with a Protestant congregation which allows the theological freedom to disagree without dividing from one another. Whatever the Protestant reader does with the challenges that I have presented above, I pray you will learn much more about the wealth of our two thousand year old Christian Tradition rather than being limited to just one very modern slice of the faith. Conciliar Post is a great place to begin doing exactly that.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

Luther, Martin. “Works of Martin Luther” (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915) 321.
Clement of Rome. “1st Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,” ch XVII.
Aquinas, Thomas. “Theologica,” Question #106, Reply to Objection #4.

[/wpex]

25 responses to “The False Gospel of Protestantism”

Fro Lion

December 3, 2015

I would consider joining the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. God bless.

Jody Byrkett

December 3, 2015

Matthew, I am sorry to hear that this is your final piece for us here at CP. I do hope you’ll still be around in discussions here.

To be honest, being raised a protestant (and being Anglican, which I consider being protestant), I was in agreement with your piece right up to near the end when you threw in Irenaeus’ theory of recapitulation. I assume you have read the Old Testament many times and well, so I am troubled by this “recapitulation not substitutionary punishment” line.

Let me first go back and grant that my view of the Gospel has expanded in the last ten years, thanks to the likes of N T Wright and John Stonestreet. The Gospel is the pronouncement of the Kingdom come and of Jesus being the King. This is evident from the OT running into the NT by mere etymology of the word ‘gospel’ and its derivatives in the OT. Historically, this word meant a proclamation that a king or emperor had come to his throne or sent out a decree—not that Jesus died on the cross and rose again (though that news about Him and His power did spread like wildfire after said event).

However, I swing back around to this idea of recapitulation—that Jesus is the summary statement of God’s story, undoing the Fall and making us obeyers. I have a major problem with this since in the Genesis 3 protoevangelium, God says that He will send a serpent/sin-crusher and Redeemer, one who buys back (not who undoes a wrong by doing things right, mind you). The redeemer motif is found all through the OT (as in the idea of a kinsman redeemer for Ruth in her relative Boaz; with Hosea and Gomer, etc.), and is realised in Jesus in the NT. Simultaneously, the entire sacrificial system of the Israelites, the covenant ceremony between God and Abraham (with the smoking furnace/oven), all point to a perfect Sacrifice to come.

The King came, and in an unexpected turn of events, He was the sinless Lamb-sacrifice—when His people broke the covenant, rather than them paying the price, He did. He became the ultimate Redeemer of those who had become enslaved to sin.

The Gospel is bigger than most protestants paint it, yes. But it is *not* something not found directly/explicitly in Scripture (recapitulation). It is the pronouncement of the King and the Kingdom, but it is also of the substitutionary atonement—God Himself paying a price no man could ever hope to pay, could never be *able* to pay… It is us breaking the covenant and God taking the punishment that should be ours, in order to completely bridge the gap between God and man… A gap our fallen humanity would never allow us to bridge in/through our own efforts.

And all this was not to make us obeyers, but to make us *lovers*.

Doesn’t love move us to do things we never dreamed of doing—never thought we were capable of doing? Doesn’t the love of and for your wife make you a better human? (After all, we were made to be human, we should be always become better and better at being human the more we are transformed…) It is God’s *kindness* (not His justice or sternness) that leads us to repentance (Rom 2); it is the love of God that motivates our obedience—both His love toward us that transforms us, and our love returned to Him in acts of obedience.

I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.

Matthew Bryan

December 4, 2015

Excellent response, Jody. We are in complete agreement that Jesus is the spotless Lamb and substitutionary sacrifice. I failed to make that clear in my writing. The questions which remain are two-fold. What did His substitutionary sacrifice resolve? And on what basis do we choose to believe that this is what His substitutionary sacrifice resolved? One need not pick exclusively from this list, since more than one problem can be resolved at the same time, but here are the primary Christian responses to the first question as best I understand them:

1. He resolved the problem of humanity’s rebellious nature (Recapitulation)
2. He resolved the problem of humanity’s bondage (Ransom)
3. He resolved the problem of humanity’s dishonoring God (Anselm’s Satisfaction)
4. He resolved the problem of God’s justice (Roman Catholic Penal Substitution)
5. He resolved the problem of God’s wrath (Protestant Penal Substitution)

I understand the first two as being clearly taught in Scripture and in every century of Christian Tradition. I do not personally find the latter three to be completely consistent with Scripture, and they appear to me to be innovations which veered from the first 1,000 years of Christian Tradition in error. No insult is intended by that remark.

Recapitulation is most clearly found in Romans 5:12-21 with verse 19 as the climax and summary of the passage. To be given a new nature which is prone to obedience is one of the effects of being born again, is it not? Recapitulation seems to me to be the aspect of atonement which takes John 3:3-5 most seriously.

If you choose #5 from the list above, do you include any of the others, and on what basis do you believe them to be true? If recapitulation still seems incorrect, how do you understand the term “Last Adam,” please?
Thank you sincerely,
Matthew

Loading…

Reply
1. Jody Byrkett
  
  December 5, 2015
  
  Matthew,
  
  Thanks for clarifying this a bit more. I’m glad to know that we agree on the point of Jesus being the final Passover Lamb—literally, not allegorically or some other way.
  
  Interestingly, I would pick #2 (see Genesis 3 and Romans 8) and #4 (seen in Genesis 15:17) off your list before picking #5 (though Romans 5:9 outweighs Tradition about wrath: “And since by his blood he did all this for us as sinners, how much more will he do for us now that he has declared us not guilty? Now he will save us from all of God’s wrath to come.”).
  
  Perhaps it is the translation I am reading, but the obedience in Rom 5:19 isn’t the main point (nor is it ours, but Christ’s that is discussed): “Adam caused many to be sinners because he disobeyed God, and Christ caused many to be made acceptable to God because he obeyed.” The main point seems to be that we have been /made acceptable to God/ because of Jesus’ obedience.
  
  To answer your question about the last Adam, I see Romans 5 saying that Jesus came to redeem, to put on its head, all the fragmentation and death (consequences) that Adam opened the door for in his sin. God already “had” all of mankind in the garden, but when the Fall occurred, man was separated from God. Jesus came to buy men back, using His own life as the purchase price, because it was the only thing valuable enough to pay the price God’s holiness and justice required. So, the last Adam is the one who “undoes” the Fall, not returning us to our pre-fallen state, but sanctifying us to make us better than we were (pre-fall). Does that answer your question, or should we try again?
  
  Loading…
2. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 5, 2015
  
  Excellent. Then we agree that by His sacrifice, He ransomed/redeemed us from bondage. Would you also agree that our bondage was to the overlords of Satan and sin? If not, then who or what held us captive?
  
  Regarding recapitulation, how may I ask, do you understand our King’s mandate that we be born again? Does it not mean that our birth from the first Adam is our fundamental problem, a problem which goes so deep that one must be born a second time in order to undo the effects of the first birth? If you agree, then how do you believe the second birth affected us? I suspect you already believe in recapitulation, but have simply never heard it termed that way. In the West, we do not tend to connect the second birth to the atonement.
  
  I am not as comfortable as you with penal substitution since it depends on the premise that 12 centuries of Spirit-led Christianity all over the world failed to hand down from the apostles what Thomas Aquinas alone discovered in Scripture and the Reformers subsequently corrected. Roman Catholic penal substitutionary atonement depends on curiously inconsistent translations of dikaio and its many variations in Romans to form verbiage of legal justice. Your translation of Romans 5:9 for example, handles dikaiothentes very loosely. For what its worth, I heartily recommend everyone toward taking up Koine Greek. Bill Mounce’s book and workbook are a great starting point.
  
  Last, the Protestant penal substitutionary atonement depends on an idea Scripture never states, the notion that our King bore His Father’s wrath. Do you know of any Scripture which actually says that God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus? And how, I respectfully ask, could 15 centuries of Spirit-led Christianity have failed to hand this down from the apostles or notice it in Scripture?
  
  Thank you sincerely for discussing.
  -Matthew
  
  Loading…

Drew McIntyre

December 4, 2015

The distance between Lutherans and Catholics (and we Methodists, who also signed on) doesn’t seem to be as strong at the official level as this post presumes.

From the Join Statement on Justification:

“In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

This also seems to paint Protestantism with far too broad a brush. A lot of Luther and Calvin, and especially modern Calvinists, but not a lot of Anglicans and Wesleyans – some of whom, by the way – do draw quite deeply from the well of ancient Christianity, including affirming the early creeds and ecumenical councils.
Lastly, I am not sure what a “Post-Protestant” is, but my impression based on this piece is that it allows someone to claim favorite nuggets of various traditions without having to stand in any particular community. It’s a bit like saying Hondas and Toyotas are better than Fords when one doesn’t even have a driver’s license. Better to own an imperfect tradition than to invent your own.

Matthew Bryan

December 4, 2015

Hopefully I am mistaken, but your replies seem to me intended to degrade rather than discuss. If I have painted too broadly, please let me know which specific line my brush has crossed so that I can right the wrong which I have committed.

“Post Protestant” is my repentance from factionalism. You are not the first to rebuke me for my refraining from factionalism. Yet I am not of Paul, nor of Apollos, nor of Cephas. I am a Christian. Protestantism did not die for me, nor was I baptized in the name of Protestantism. I am Christian, “of Christ” as Paul taught in Galations chapter one when he rebuked factionalism.

Loading…

Reply
1. Drew McIntyre
  
  December 4, 2015
  
  As i said above, your vision of Protestantism is limited to Luther, Calvin, and some modern Calvinists (Protestantism has many more branches than this). You also did not respond to the convergence on sola fide and sola gratia that Rome itself has signed off on.
  
  There is no such thing as a generic Christian today. Inventing one’s own fantasy tradition from which to critique all other traditions is hardly post-Protestant, it is Protestantism in the extreme. Heresy and Doctrine are communal matters; to say Protestantism is a false gospel while claiming no authority save your own is non-sense.
  
  Loading…
2. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 4, 2015
  
  At this point, you appear to me to be simply trolling the article, but I will give this one last try. The thrust of my article was given at the opening, “the gospel which evangelical Protestants generally preach is not only a false gospel, but is especially dangerous when…” I used a broad brush, but I also qualified it with words like “evangelical” and “generally.” If you disagree, please inform me which branch of Protestantism you are defending and what it is that this branch preaches as “the gospel.”
  
  I did not claim that there is a distance between Lutherans and Catholics on justification, so I have no idea why you felt the need to paste a copy of that joint statement, much less why I should respond or how I should respond to your pasting of such a joint statement.
  
  I am not ashamed to embrace ecumenism, nor do I feel the need to defend Christianity as a singular tradition. I did not invent Christianity, much less have I created a separate “fantasy” tradition. If your desire is merely to troll, feel free to reply with a third insult, and I will bid you “good day.” If on the other hand, you want to communicate constructively, please clarify your position in regard to at least the main point of the article.
  Sincerely,
  Matthew
  
  Loading…
3. Jody Byrkett
  
  December 5, 2015
  
  Matthew, I have also used the reasoning you offered above against factionalism (I am a /Christian/)—and I often feel odd ‘identifying’ as Anglican here at CP, because aren’t we all Christians trying to figure out Scripture and who God is and what He has called us to? Hopefully, yes. I am a firm believer in ‘mere Christianity’—I know many of my fellow CP writers and editors are not sold on that idea, but we still manage to be pals. 😉 Anyway, we may not agree on some points, but I heartily agree with you on that one!
  
  Drew, I’m not sure if you are remembering your history here… The Church did not begin in the 1700s with the Wesleys. At some point someone probably pointed at them and said, “Stop trying to make up your own fantasy view of the Bible”, too. The sad fact is, there are many fragmentations of Christianity. And many of those traditions came much later than the early church, or even the Roman Catholic church, and we still give those later denominations credence. Give Matthew a chance to live merely Christianly. No one tradition has it all right, because they are all founded (or corrupted) by fallen humans.
  
  To you both I might add that we can learn a lot from one another about how to understand Scripture, but it is rather off-putting to want learn from someone who is going to shoot off ad hominem attacks. 🙂
  
  Loading…

Jeff Hart

December 6, 2015

Thanks for this piece Matthew. I think you make some helpful points, but, of course, there are some points where I disagree as well.

First, the helpful. I think you’re right to point out the tendency to locate the entirety of the gospel in the atonement. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call that a false gospel, I think it can be narrow and reductionistic. The gospel message is indeed the proclamation that the kingdom of God is at hand, and that’s good news because it is with the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom that we are offered redemption through his blood. So I can agree with the thrust of your first section.

But moving on to the next section, I need to disagree. Specifically, I’d like to focus on the statement that “in order to misuse Scripture, one must ignore Christian Tradition. Had Luther leaned upon Tradition….” As I’ve taken pains to demonstrate in my last article and in comments recently, the reformers had great respect for tradition. The difference is that they did not consider tradition infallible or authoritative in the same way as scripture. I find it interesting that you would disagree on this point since you don’t seem to consider tradition authoritative (at least, not in an ultimate sense) either, or else you would be Roman Catholic. As far as I can tell, in taking up the mantle of “post-protestant” you’re doing exactly what the reformers (and those in the Reformed tradition down to the present day) wanted to do–reject doctrine that diverged from scripture (regardless of what tradition it came from) and accept and build upon doctrine supported by scripture. The difference is that you’re protesting Protestantism as well.

In the next section, I again think that you’re right to point out that we’re not saved by believing in the atoning work of Jesus. I think it’s unfortunate that people have often been given that impression.

But once more, I must disagree with the next section. It’s not Luther’s “false” gospel that gives birth to the idea of sola fide, but Ephesians 2:8-9. And to insinuate that sola fide undermines the necessity of good works is a mischaracterization. It might apply to some prosperity gospel preachers or megachurch pastors, but it’s certainly not true of Protestantism in general. Just look at the Puritans, or John Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin.” The Protestant idea of sola fide is this: we are saved through faith alone, but saving faith is never alone (see James). So yes, faith and works can never be separated, but that does not mean that they both contribute in the same way to our salvation.

And I hasten to add, I absolutely love your turn of phrase, “if Jesus is not your King, He is not your Savior.” I think that’s absolutely correct.

As far as your sola gratia section is concerned, I think your conversation with Jody has that pretty well hashed out. I would only like to say, once again, that I agree with your thrust in critiquing a one-dimensional view of the atonement. The penal substitution model is but one facet of Christ’s incomprehensible work in his life, death, and resurrection. Again, insofar as protestant denominations have obscured this point, I believe they are at fault. But I do think that the PSA model captures some crucial aspects of Christ’s work. This article by Derek Rishmawy addresses some of the popular critiques (including your critique that PSA is not found in he Fathers–see #17), so I’ll just refer you to that on this point: http://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/10/23/the-beauty-of-the-cross-19-objections-and-answers-on-penal-substitutionary-atonement-500th-post/

Benjamin Winter

December 7, 2015

As an aside that came to my mind, I think there’s this idea out there that because Catholics have a threefold balance of authorities (Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium), this means that we believe Tradition to be Sacred in the same way that Scripture is. If a Catholic were to say that Tradition is “Sacred,” it would have to be in a very qualified sense. For instance, the Scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages looked back on the writings of the Church Fathers and quickly realized that there are all sorts of contradictions among these fallible human beings about various theological issues. Scripture, by way of contrast, never contradicts itself theologically. So the Scholastics set about trying to harmonize the variety of accounts that they found in Tradition, doing so in order to better interpret the Scriptures.

If you disagree with any of that please let me know, and I’d like to understand why!

[[Note that my point is not that, from the Catholic perspective, Tradition is *less* valuable to the Church than Scripture]]

Loading…

Reply
Matthew Bryan

December 8, 2015

Thank you, Jeff! I’m grateful for your agreement in some crucial areas. Taking your second disagreement first, I don’t believe I actually claimed that Luther’s gospel “gave birth” to to Sola Fide. What I actually stated (or tried to state) was that only with Luther’s false claim that the *the atonement is the gospel* could one claim to be saved by faith alone. I quoted him word for word in proper context on that falsehood. As you correctly point out however, “saving faith is never alone.” Yet many Protestants preachers offer salvation apart from demanding faith in the Scriptural gospel (the kingship of Jesus), thereby creating a false Sola Fide soteriology. Bear me with me please in carefully considering that distinction. The *subject* of one’s faith is crucial to Ephesians 2:8-9. If the faith of Ephesians 2:8-9 is preached in context of the Scriptural gospel, then the respondant knows that he or she will have to obey Jesus as king. Therefore Ephesians 2:8-9 enables salvation by faith apart from works, but a faith which is never alone because our Lord’s kingship rather than His atonement is the subject of faith. Does that make sense? Sola Fide (faith alone) is not in Ephesians 2:8-9. The only place “faith alone” occurs in Scripture is James 2:24 which explicitly states that a man is justified by works and “not by faith alone.”

On your first disagreement, I take a lot of lumps for repenting from factionalism, but repentance from factionalism does not contradict embracing the authority of Tradition. You said I would be Roman Catholic if I considered Tradition authoritative. To the contrary, Christianity from the very first century spread far outside of Rome’s influence including Ethiopia, modern Morocco, the Persian Empire, and modern India. Many of those areas maintained a strong Christian culture devoid of Roman authority, most notably India. I don’t have room here to debate the authority of Rome in the early centuries, but you would enjoy learning more about Persian and Alexandrian Christianity in particular. Samuel Moffatt’s “A History of Christianity in Asia” is a magnificent resource if you’re interested. To be factionless, one views the unified voice of all Christian Tradition as authoritative. The harmony of the first 1,000 years of global Christian Tradition (including non-Roman) is why I reject PSA and Luther’s gospel. Apparent PSA quotes of the Fathers are quotes which (in my past research) are taken out of context. If you have one father to recommend to me who appears to you to support PSA in full context, please highlight that particular example so that I can reconsider. I promise I will do so.
Sincerely,
Matthew

Loading…

Reply

Charles Quazar Banks

December 8, 2015

I agree wholeheartedly with all main points made in this post, being myself an ardent Protestant! (albeit one that enjoys the Catholic aesthetic, tradition and sacrament as well.) Indeed, I find that I myself enjoy throwing the proverbial “arrow” at probably the exact same Protestant stream as you had in mind. I rejoice at your comments on the interpretation of the Gospel being mainly the Gospel of the Kingdom, as well as your denouncement of the type of “faith” and “grace” that might allow dead faith (being without works.) The only thing that I as a Protestant may shrink from a little bit when reading, is your point that Tradition is what keeps us from misinterpreting the Gospel, because in the Protestant mind, the orthodox traditions of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves may also misinterpret the very teachings they were given by the first apostles, necessitating the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura. I do however agree with you that paying more attention to the traditional teachings of the Church would help keep us from misinterpreting the Gospel, and I myself see Luther’s actions as a bit extreme and overreactive. Any Christian reformation that ends in bloody war is ill executed indeed.

Benjamin Winter

December 8, 2015

What is it that you mean by enjoying Catholic sacrament? I’m getting a mental picture of you going into a parish and receiving the Eucharist, but somehow I imagine that isn’t hitting the mark! 🙂

Loading…

Reply
1. Charles Quazar Banks
  
  December 20, 2015
  
  Nay, you hit it! I do indeed go to a Catholic church every once in a while and receive the Eucharist, Not regularly, but I enjoy doing so.
  
  Loading…
2. Benjamin Winter
  
  December 20, 2015
  
  For Catholics the institution and reception of the Eucharist are inextricably intertwined–communion is what it is because of the Apostolic authority of the Church. Without sounding uncharitable, I would question the judgment of someone who has not subscribed to that authority, and yet receives the Church’s gifts in this specific ritual setting. There’s also an element of duplicity in doing since, since by receiving Eucharist at mass one purports be a member of an apostolically-founded Church (i.e. Catholic, Eastern Rite, or Orthodox).
  
  Loading…
3. Charles Quazar Banks
  
  January 5, 2016
  
  I’d agree that there is a duplicity in my participation of the Eucharist, since I have a duplicity of thought and feeling for the Catholic, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox Churches; I see them as valuable and definite parts of the Body of Christ upon who’s traditions and doctrine my knowledge of God is founded and to who’s legacy I belong, yet I also see the importance of my freedom to discern the Word of God for myself as rising superior to the authority of the institutional Church. I feel as much (if not more) of a deep connection to the Catholic Church as I do the Protestant. I hope it to be true that a person’s unity of heart with that of the Catholic Church and their sacraments to be more of the point as to whether or not one may participate… The reason I think this, is that I had also spoken with a couple of Catholic ministers which encouraged me to take the Eucharist in the past, though they knew me to be a “protestant,” and so I suppose it is upon their authority that I have felt free to do so. . .
  
  Loading…
4. Andrew Patton
  
  August 28, 2022
  
  How can you go to a Catholic Church only once in a while and receive the Eucharist? Do you not know that we who eat of the Eucharist are one body? How can you be one body with us if you do not share our doctrine? Do you not know that the Eucharist is how Christ gives Himself to His Bride? Do you not know that whoever eats or drinks without discerning the Body eat and drinks damnation upon himself? And if you know all these things and believe our doctrine, how can you attend only once in a while and think you are doing right by Jesus? Do you think making love to your spouse “once in a while” is sufficient? As it is between husband and wife, so it is between Christ and the Church. Those who forsake our gathering together also forsake Christ. Now, there are legitimate reasons for not attending Mass on Sunday: illness, lack of transportation, being prevented from leaving a place, lifesaving work, and the like, but those who do not attend Mass for trivial reasons are not being faithful to Christ. How then, can they partake of the Eucharist?
  
  Loading…
Matthew Bryan

December 9, 2015

Thank you Charles. I believe we perhaps agree on Tradition. We do not see everything in Tradition as perfect if it arises in one tradition alone. Purgatory would be an example, having arisen in just the RCC.

Yet those things which arose uniformly across all traditions should not be scoffed at. The points of agreement across all four lines of apostolic tradition prior to the Reformation are points on which we should suspect Protestants erred when they veered from the miracle ecclesiastical agreement.

Loading…

Reply

Screen Man

July 10, 2017

I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand the “sola scriptura” section, can someone explain that more?

Theodore A. Jones

July 29, 2017

“Sola Scriptura” means only in regard to what has been stated in the Scriptures, i.e. Bible. However the soteriological doctrine of Protestantism is constructed from an antithetical soteriological assumption which is inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and the Bible. An example of Protestantism’s soteriological teaching digressing from Sola Scriptura is Jesus statement in Jn. 16:8 NIV, “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin”. The foundation of the soteriological proposal of Protestantism’s belief, however, is that there is not any residual issue of guilt relative to sin post of Jesus’ murder by crucifixion.

Loading…

Reply
1. Screen Man
  
  July 31, 2017
  
  Thank you.
  
  Loading…
2. Theodore A. Jones
  
  July 31, 2017
  
  You are welcome. Any thing else?
  
  Loading…
3. Screen Man
  
  July 31, 2017
  
  No. I was just trying to understand where the author was trying to go with that section, and I have a much better grasp now, so thank you and no, there’s nothing else.
  
  Loading…

Fro Lion

December 3, 2015

I would consider joining the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. God bless.

Loading…

Jody Byrkett

December 3, 2015

Matthew, I am sorry to hear that this is your final piece for us here at CP. I do hope you’ll still be around in discussions here.

To be honest, being raised a protestant (and being Anglican, which I consider being protestant), I was in agreement with your piece right up to near the end when you threw in Irenaeus’ theory of recapitulation. I assume you have read the Old Testament many times and well, so I am troubled by this “recapitulation not substitutionary punishment” line.

Let me first go back and grant that my view of the Gospel has expanded in the last ten years, thanks to the likes of N T Wright and John Stonestreet. The Gospel is the pronouncement of the Kingdom come and of Jesus being the King. This is evident from the OT running into the NT by mere etymology of the word ‘gospel’ and its derivatives in the OT. Historically, this word meant a proclamation that a king or emperor had come to his throne or sent out a decree—not that Jesus died on the cross and rose again (though that news about Him and His power did spread like wildfire after said event).

However, I swing back around to this idea of recapitulation—that Jesus is the summary statement of God’s story, undoing the Fall and making us obeyers. I have a major problem with this since in the Genesis 3 protoevangelium, God says that He will send a serpent/sin-crusher and Redeemer, one who buys back (not who undoes a wrong by doing things right, mind you). The redeemer motif is found all through the OT (as in the idea of a kinsman redeemer for Ruth in her relative Boaz; with Hosea and Gomer, etc.), and is realised in Jesus in the NT. Simultaneously, the entire sacrificial system of the Israelites, the covenant ceremony between God and Abraham (with the smoking furnace/oven), all point to a perfect Sacrifice to come.

The King came, and in an unexpected turn of events, He was the sinless Lamb-sacrifice—when His people broke the covenant, rather than them paying the price, He did. He became the ultimate Redeemer of those who had become enslaved to sin.

The Gospel is bigger than most protestants paint it, yes. But it is *not* something not found directly/explicitly in Scripture (recapitulation). It is the pronouncement of the King and the Kingdom, but it is also of the substitutionary atonement—God Himself paying a price no man could ever hope to pay, could never be *able* to pay… It is us breaking the covenant and God taking the punishment that should be ours, in order to completely bridge the gap between God and man… A gap our fallen humanity would never allow us to bridge in/through our own efforts.

And all this was not to make us obeyers, but to make us *lovers*.

Doesn’t love move us to do things we never dreamed of doing—never thought we were capable of doing? Doesn’t the love of and for your wife make you a better human? (After all, we were made to be human, we should be always become better and better at being human the more we are transformed…) It is God’s *kindness* (not His justice or sternness) that leads us to repentance (Rom 2); it is the love of God that motivates our obedience—both His love toward us that transforms us, and our love returned to Him in acts of obedience.

I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.

Loading…

1. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 4, 2015
  
  Excellent response, Jody. We are in complete agreement that Jesus is the spotless Lamb and substitutionary sacrifice. I failed to make that clear in my writing. The questions which remain are two-fold. What did His substitutionary sacrifice resolve? And on what basis do we choose to believe that this is what His substitutionary sacrifice resolved? One need not pick exclusively from this list, since more than one problem can be resolved at the same time, but here are the primary Christian responses to the first question as best I understand them:
  
  1. He resolved the problem of humanity’s rebellious nature (Recapitulation)
  2. He resolved the problem of humanity’s bondage (Ransom)
  3. He resolved the problem of humanity’s dishonoring God (Anselm’s Satisfaction)
  4. He resolved the problem of God’s justice (Roman Catholic Penal Substitution)
  5. He resolved the problem of God’s wrath (Protestant Penal Substitution)
  
  I understand the first two as being clearly taught in Scripture and in every century of Christian Tradition. I do not personally find the latter three to be completely consistent with Scripture, and they appear to me to be innovations which veered from the first 1,000 years of Christian Tradition in error. No insult is intended by that remark.
  
  Recapitulation is most clearly found in Romans 5:12-21 with verse 19 as the climax and summary of the passage. To be given a new nature which is prone to obedience is one of the effects of being born again, is it not? Recapitulation seems to me to be the aspect of atonement which takes John 3:3-5 most seriously.
  
  If you choose #5 from the list above, do you include any of the others, and on what basis do you believe them to be true? If recapitulation still seems incorrect, how do you understand the term “Last Adam,” please?
  Thank you sincerely,
  Matthew
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Jody Byrkett
    
    December 5, 2015
    
    Matthew,
    
    Thanks for clarifying this a bit more. I’m glad to know that we agree on the point of Jesus being the final Passover Lamb—literally, not allegorically or some other way.
    
    Interestingly, I would pick #2 (see Genesis 3 and Romans 8) and #4 (seen in Genesis 15:17) off your list before picking #5 (though Romans 5:9 outweighs Tradition about wrath: “And since by his blood he did all this for us as sinners, how much more will he do for us now that he has declared us not guilty? Now he will save us from all of God’s wrath to come.”).
    
    Perhaps it is the translation I am reading, but the obedience in Rom 5:19 isn’t the main point (nor is it ours, but Christ’s that is discussed): “Adam caused many to be sinners because he disobeyed God, and Christ caused many to be made acceptable to God because he obeyed.” The main point seems to be that we have been /made acceptable to God/ because of Jesus’ obedience.
    
    To answer your question about the last Adam, I see Romans 5 saying that Jesus came to redeem, to put on its head, all the fragmentation and death (consequences) that Adam opened the door for in his sin. God already “had” all of mankind in the garden, but when the Fall occurred, man was separated from God. Jesus came to buy men back, using His own life as the purchase price, because it was the only thing valuable enough to pay the price God’s holiness and justice required. So, the last Adam is the one who “undoes” the Fall, not returning us to our pre-fallen state, but sanctifying us to make us better than we were (pre-fall). Does that answer your question, or should we try again?
    
    Loading…
  2. Matthew Bryan
    
    December 5, 2015
    
    Excellent. Then we agree that by His sacrifice, He ransomed/redeemed us from bondage. Would you also agree that our bondage was to the overlords of Satan and sin? If not, then who or what held us captive?
    
    Regarding recapitulation, how may I ask, do you understand our King’s mandate that we be born again? Does it not mean that our birth from the first Adam is our fundamental problem, a problem which goes so deep that one must be born a second time in order to undo the effects of the first birth? If you agree, then how do you believe the second birth affected us? I suspect you already believe in recapitulation, but have simply never heard it termed that way. In the West, we do not tend to connect the second birth to the atonement.
    
    I am not as comfortable as you with penal substitution since it depends on the premise that 12 centuries of Spirit-led Christianity all over the world failed to hand down from the apostles what Thomas Aquinas alone discovered in Scripture and the Reformers subsequently corrected. Roman Catholic penal substitutionary atonement depends on curiously inconsistent translations of dikaio and its many variations in Romans to form verbiage of legal justice. Your translation of Romans 5:9 for example, handles dikaiothentes very loosely. For what its worth, I heartily recommend everyone toward taking up Koine Greek. Bill Mounce’s book and workbook are a great starting point.
    
    Last, the Protestant penal substitutionary atonement depends on an idea Scripture never states, the notion that our King bore His Father’s wrath. Do you know of any Scripture which actually says that God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus? And how, I respectfully ask, could 15 centuries of Spirit-led Christianity have failed to hand this down from the apostles or notice it in Scripture?
    
    Thank you sincerely for discussing.
    -Matthew
    
    Loading…
Drew McIntyre

December 4, 2015

The distance between Lutherans and Catholics (and we Methodists, who also signed on) doesn’t seem to be as strong at the official level as this post presumes.

From the Join Statement on Justification:

“In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

This also seems to paint Protestantism with far too broad a brush. A lot of Luther and Calvin, and especially modern Calvinists, but not a lot of Anglicans and Wesleyans – some of whom, by the way – do draw quite deeply from the well of ancient Christianity, including affirming the early creeds and ecumenical councils.
Lastly, I am not sure what a “Post-Protestant” is, but my impression based on this piece is that it allows someone to claim favorite nuggets of various traditions without having to stand in any particular community. It’s a bit like saying Hondas and Toyotas are better than Fords when one doesn’t even have a driver’s license. Better to own an imperfect tradition than to invent your own.

Loading…

1. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 4, 2015
  
  Hopefully I am mistaken, but your replies seem to me intended to degrade rather than discuss. If I have painted too broadly, please let me know which specific line my brush has crossed so that I can right the wrong which I have committed.
  
  “Post Protestant” is my repentance from factionalism. You are not the first to rebuke me for my refraining from factionalism. Yet I am not of Paul, nor of Apollos, nor of Cephas. I am a Christian. Protestantism did not die for me, nor was I baptized in the name of Protestantism. I am Christian, “of Christ” as Paul taught in Galations chapter one when he rebuked factionalism.
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Drew McIntyre
    
    December 4, 2015
    
    As i said above, your vision of Protestantism is limited to Luther, Calvin, and some modern Calvinists (Protestantism has many more branches than this). You also did not respond to the convergence on sola fide and sola gratia that Rome itself has signed off on.
    
    There is no such thing as a generic Christian today. Inventing one’s own fantasy tradition from which to critique all other traditions is hardly post-Protestant, it is Protestantism in the extreme. Heresy and Doctrine are communal matters; to say Protestantism is a false gospel while claiming no authority save your own is non-sense.
    
    Loading…
  2. Matthew Bryan
    
    December 4, 2015
    
    At this point, you appear to me to be simply trolling the article, but I will give this one last try. The thrust of my article was given at the opening, “the gospel which evangelical Protestants generally preach is not only a false gospel, but is especially dangerous when…” I used a broad brush, but I also qualified it with words like “evangelical” and “generally.” If you disagree, please inform me which branch of Protestantism you are defending and what it is that this branch preaches as “the gospel.”
    
    I did not claim that there is a distance between Lutherans and Catholics on justification, so I have no idea why you felt the need to paste a copy of that joint statement, much less why I should respond or how I should respond to your pasting of such a joint statement.
    
    I am not ashamed to embrace ecumenism, nor do I feel the need to defend Christianity as a singular tradition. I did not invent Christianity, much less have I created a separate “fantasy” tradition. If your desire is merely to troll, feel free to reply with a third insult, and I will bid you “good day.” If on the other hand, you want to communicate constructively, please clarify your position in regard to at least the main point of the article.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew
    
    Loading…
  3. Jody Byrkett
    
    December 5, 2015
    
    Matthew, I have also used the reasoning you offered above against factionalism (I am a /Christian/)—and I often feel odd ‘identifying’ as Anglican here at CP, because aren’t we all Christians trying to figure out Scripture and who God is and what He has called us to? Hopefully, yes. I am a firm believer in ‘mere Christianity’—I know many of my fellow CP writers and editors are not sold on that idea, but we still manage to be pals. 😉 Anyway, we may not agree on some points, but I heartily agree with you on that one!
    
    Drew, I’m not sure if you are remembering your history here… The Church did not begin in the 1700s with the Wesleys. At some point someone probably pointed at them and said, “Stop trying to make up your own fantasy view of the Bible”, too. The sad fact is, there are many fragmentations of Christianity. And many of those traditions came much later than the early church, or even the Roman Catholic church, and we still give those later denominations credence. Give Matthew a chance to live merely Christianly. No one tradition has it all right, because they are all founded (or corrupted) by fallen humans.
    
    To you both I might add that we can learn a lot from one another about how to understand Scripture, but it is rather off-putting to want learn from someone who is going to shoot off ad hominem attacks. 🙂
    
    Loading…
Jeff Hart

December 6, 2015

Thanks for this piece Matthew. I think you make some helpful points, but, of course, there are some points where I disagree as well.

First, the helpful. I think you’re right to point out the tendency to locate the entirety of the gospel in the atonement. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call that a false gospel, I think it can be narrow and reductionistic. The gospel message is indeed the proclamation that the kingdom of God is at hand, and that’s good news because it is with the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom that we are offered redemption through his blood. So I can agree with the thrust of your first section.

But moving on to the next section, I need to disagree. Specifically, I’d like to focus on the statement that “in order to misuse Scripture, one must ignore Christian Tradition. Had Luther leaned upon Tradition….” As I’ve taken pains to demonstrate in my last article and in comments recently, the reformers had great respect for tradition. The difference is that they did not consider tradition infallible or authoritative in the same way as scripture. I find it interesting that you would disagree on this point since you don’t seem to consider tradition authoritative (at least, not in an ultimate sense) either, or else you would be Roman Catholic. As far as I can tell, in taking up the mantle of “post-protestant” you’re doing exactly what the reformers (and those in the Reformed tradition down to the present day) wanted to do–reject doctrine that diverged from scripture (regardless of what tradition it came from) and accept and build upon doctrine supported by scripture. The difference is that you’re protesting Protestantism as well.

In the next section, I again think that you’re right to point out that we’re not saved by believing in the atoning work of Jesus. I think it’s unfortunate that people have often been given that impression.

But once more, I must disagree with the next section. It’s not Luther’s “false” gospel that gives birth to the idea of sola fide, but Ephesians 2:8-9. And to insinuate that sola fide undermines the necessity of good works is a mischaracterization. It might apply to some prosperity gospel preachers or megachurch pastors, but it’s certainly not true of Protestantism in general. Just look at the Puritans, or John Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin.” The Protestant idea of sola fide is this: we are saved through faith alone, but saving faith is never alone (see James). So yes, faith and works can never be separated, but that does not mean that they both contribute in the same way to our salvation.

And I hasten to add, I absolutely love your turn of phrase, “if Jesus is not your King, He is not your Savior.” I think that’s absolutely correct.

As far as your sola gratia section is concerned, I think your conversation with Jody has that pretty well hashed out. I would only like to say, once again, that I agree with your thrust in critiquing a one-dimensional view of the atonement. The penal substitution model is but one facet of Christ’s incomprehensible work in his life, death, and resurrection. Again, insofar as protestant denominations have obscured this point, I believe they are at fault. But I do think that the PSA model captures some crucial aspects of Christ’s work. This article by Derek Rishmawy addresses some of the popular critiques (including your critique that PSA is not found in he Fathers–see #17), so I’ll just refer you to that on this point: http://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/10/23/the-beauty-of-the-cross-19-objections-and-answers-on-penal-substitutionary-atonement-500th-post/

Loading…

1. Benjamin Winter
  
  December 7, 2015
  
  As an aside that came to my mind, I think there’s this idea out there that because Catholics have a threefold balance of authorities (Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium), this means that we believe Tradition to be Sacred in the same way that Scripture is. If a Catholic were to say that Tradition is “Sacred,” it would have to be in a very qualified sense. For instance, the Scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages looked back on the writings of the Church Fathers and quickly realized that there are all sorts of contradictions among these fallible human beings about various theological issues. Scripture, by way of contrast, never contradicts itself theologically. So the Scholastics set about trying to harmonize the variety of accounts that they found in Tradition, doing so in order to better interpret the Scriptures.
  
  If you disagree with any of that please let me know, and I’d like to understand why!
  
  [[Note that my point is not that, from the Catholic perspective, Tradition is *less* valuable to the Church than Scripture]]
  
  Loading…
  
2. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 8, 2015
  
  Thank you, Jeff! I’m grateful for your agreement in some crucial areas. Taking your second disagreement first, I don’t believe I actually claimed that Luther’s gospel “gave birth” to to Sola Fide. What I actually stated (or tried to state) was that only with Luther’s false claim that the *the atonement is the gospel* could one claim to be saved by faith alone. I quoted him word for word in proper context on that falsehood. As you correctly point out however, “saving faith is never alone.” Yet many Protestants preachers offer salvation apart from demanding faith in the Scriptural gospel (the kingship of Jesus), thereby creating a false Sola Fide soteriology. Bear me with me please in carefully considering that distinction. The *subject* of one’s faith is crucial to Ephesians 2:8-9. If the faith of Ephesians 2:8-9 is preached in context of the Scriptural gospel, then the respondant knows that he or she will have to obey Jesus as king. Therefore Ephesians 2:8-9 enables salvation by faith apart from works, but a faith which is never alone because our Lord’s kingship rather than His atonement is the subject of faith. Does that make sense? Sola Fide (faith alone) is not in Ephesians 2:8-9. The only place “faith alone” occurs in Scripture is James 2:24 which explicitly states that a man is justified by works and “not by faith alone.”
  
  On your first disagreement, I take a lot of lumps for repenting from factionalism, but repentance from factionalism does not contradict embracing the authority of Tradition. You said I would be Roman Catholic if I considered Tradition authoritative. To the contrary, Christianity from the very first century spread far outside of Rome’s influence including Ethiopia, modern Morocco, the Persian Empire, and modern India. Many of those areas maintained a strong Christian culture devoid of Roman authority, most notably India. I don’t have room here to debate the authority of Rome in the early centuries, but you would enjoy learning more about Persian and Alexandrian Christianity in particular. Samuel Moffatt’s “A History of Christianity in Asia” is a magnificent resource if you’re interested. To be factionless, one views the unified voice of all Christian Tradition as authoritative. The harmony of the first 1,000 years of global Christian Tradition (including non-Roman) is why I reject PSA and Luther’s gospel. Apparent PSA quotes of the Fathers are quotes which (in my past research) are taken out of context. If you have one father to recommend to me who appears to you to support PSA in full context, please highlight that particular example so that I can reconsider. I promise I will do so.
  Sincerely,
  Matthew
  
  Loading…
  
Charles Quazar Banks

December 8, 2015

I agree wholeheartedly with all main points made in this post, being myself an ardent Protestant! (albeit one that enjoys the Catholic aesthetic, tradition and sacrament as well.) Indeed, I find that I myself enjoy throwing the proverbial “arrow” at probably the exact same Protestant stream as you had in mind. I rejoice at your comments on the interpretation of the Gospel being mainly the Gospel of the Kingdom, as well as your denouncement of the type of “faith” and “grace” that might allow dead faith (being without works.) The only thing that I as a Protestant may shrink from a little bit when reading, is your point that Tradition is what keeps us from misinterpreting the Gospel, because in the Protestant mind, the orthodox traditions of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves may also misinterpret the very teachings they were given by the first apostles, necessitating the Protestant reliance on Sola Scriptura. I do however agree with you that paying more attention to the traditional teachings of the Church would help keep us from misinterpreting the Gospel, and I myself see Luther’s actions as a bit extreme and overreactive. Any Christian reformation that ends in bloody war is ill executed indeed.

Loading…

1. Benjamin Winter
  
  December 8, 2015
  
  What is it that you mean by enjoying Catholic sacrament? I’m getting a mental picture of you going into a parish and receiving the Eucharist, but somehow I imagine that isn’t hitting the mark! 🙂
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Charles Quazar Banks
    
    December 20, 2015
    
    Nay, you hit it! I do indeed go to a Catholic church every once in a while and receive the Eucharist, Not regularly, but I enjoy doing so.
    
    Loading…
  2. Benjamin Winter
    
    December 20, 2015
    
    For Catholics the institution and reception of the Eucharist are inextricably intertwined–communion is what it is because of the Apostolic authority of the Church. Without sounding uncharitable, I would question the judgment of someone who has not subscribed to that authority, and yet receives the Church’s gifts in this specific ritual setting. There’s also an element of duplicity in doing since, since by receiving Eucharist at mass one purports be a member of an apostolically-founded Church (i.e. Catholic, Eastern Rite, or Orthodox).
    
    Loading…
  3. Charles Quazar Banks
    
    January 5, 2016
    
    I’d agree that there is a duplicity in my participation of the Eucharist, since I have a duplicity of thought and feeling for the Catholic, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox Churches; I see them as valuable and definite parts of the Body of Christ upon who’s traditions and doctrine my knowledge of God is founded and to who’s legacy I belong, yet I also see the importance of my freedom to discern the Word of God for myself as rising superior to the authority of the institutional Church. I feel as much (if not more) of a deep connection to the Catholic Church as I do the Protestant. I hope it to be true that a person’s unity of heart with that of the Catholic Church and their sacraments to be more of the point as to whether or not one may participate… The reason I think this, is that I had also spoken with a couple of Catholic ministers which encouraged me to take the Eucharist in the past, though they knew me to be a “protestant,” and so I suppose it is upon their authority that I have felt free to do so. . .
    
    Loading…
  4. Andrew Patton
    
    August 28, 2022
    
    How can you go to a Catholic Church only once in a while and receive the Eucharist? Do you not know that we who eat of the Eucharist are one body? How can you be one body with us if you do not share our doctrine? Do you not know that the Eucharist is how Christ gives Himself to His Bride? Do you not know that whoever eats or drinks without discerning the Body eat and drinks damnation upon himself? And if you know all these things and believe our doctrine, how can you attend only once in a while and think you are doing right by Jesus? Do you think making love to your spouse “once in a while” is sufficient? As it is between husband and wife, so it is between Christ and the Church. Those who forsake our gathering together also forsake Christ. Now, there are legitimate reasons for not attending Mass on Sunday: illness, lack of transportation, being prevented from leaving a place, lifesaving work, and the like, but those who do not attend Mass for trivial reasons are not being faithful to Christ. How then, can they partake of the Eucharist?
    
    Loading…
2. Matthew Bryan
  
  December 9, 2015
  
  Thank you Charles. I believe we perhaps agree on Tradition. We do not see everything in Tradition as perfect if it arises in one tradition alone. Purgatory would be an example, having arisen in just the RCC.
  
  Yet those things which arose uniformly across all traditions should not be scoffed at. The points of agreement across all four lines of apostolic tradition prior to the Reformation are points on which we should suspect Protestants erred when they veered from the miracle ecclesiastical agreement.
  
  Loading…
  
Screen Man

July 10, 2017

I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand the “sola scriptura” section, can someone explain that more?

Loading…

1. Theodore A. Jones
  
  July 29, 2017
  
  “Sola Scriptura” means only in regard to what has been stated in the Scriptures, i.e. Bible. However the soteriological doctrine of Protestantism is constructed from an antithetical soteriological assumption which is inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and the Bible. An example of Protestantism’s soteriological teaching digressing from Sola Scriptura is Jesus statement in Jn. 16:8 NIV, “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin”. The foundation of the soteriological proposal of Protestantism’s belief, however, is that there is not any residual issue of guilt relative to sin post of Jesus’ murder by crucifixion.
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Screen Man
    
    July 31, 2017
    
    Thank you.
    
    Loading…
  2. Theodore A. Jones
    
    July 31, 2017
    
    You are welcome. Any thing else?
    
    Loading…
  3. Screen Man
    
    July 31, 2017
    
    No. I was just trying to understand where the author was trying to go with that section, and I have a much better grasp now, so thank you and no, there’s nothing else.
    
    Loading…

Conciliar Post