Comments by a Romanist, "Fred," Responded to

Response to Fred's Comments

Fred, who holds himself out as though he were a Roman Catholic, has posted comments on an earlier post. Since they have relatively little to do with the main point of that post (that Prof. Beckwith's religious views were revealed by Dr. White), and since Fred has chosen to present rather lengthy comments, I've provided a separate post to address them.

Hello again! Fred here.
You say: I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.

Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no bearing on whether you are actually correct about some things (including especially our points of disagreement).

Unfortunately, it appears that we will not have the opportunity to find that out. My vacation ends tonight, and with it will end any serious likelihood of me having time for this stuff (I almost never enter get involved in Internet debates). :-( In retrospect, given the constraints on my time I shouldn't have even replied in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now.

You say:
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism

I'll grant you the first as a definitional statement. But the second is pure assertion. It is by no means the case that to deny sola fide is *necessarily* to affirm salvation by works. For the Pelagian, sure. Not for the Catholic, who says that by His grace God enables us to obey Him: "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." For the Catholic, saved by Christ's work of atonement in sacrificing Himself on the cross, good works are something that he does in response to and as a consequence of the fact that he has been saved. In no way do they supplant Christ's sacrifice. In point of fact, this is not so very different from the Reformed perspective on works.

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

But I must ask you: if you really believe in salvation by faith alone, may an unrepentant adulterer who trusts in Christ get to heaven or not? If you say yes, then you have contradicted Gal. 5:19-21. If you say no (as I hope and expect you do), then immediately it becomes obvious that what we Christians do matters. We cannot live as we wish. We are obliged to obey God.

Most likely you will insist that such a man hasn't really trusted in Christ. To that I would respond: who are you to judge the condition of his faith? I certainly agree with you that he will not be saved unless he repents, but I would never presume to judge his faith. I do not know his heart.

Truly it seems to me that in large measure the quarrel between the Reformed and Catholics comes down to a question of assurance: you must insist upon sola fide because without it, your insistence upon 100% assurance of salvation dries up and blows away.Unfortunately, I don't see how this notion of 100% assurance can be maintained in the light of the following (among other things that might be said):

1) In Deut. 7, God says of Israel that he chose them and loved them: in other words, they were his elect. And yet many of the elect fell. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it seems unreasonable to insist being "elect" in the NT differs so dramatically from being "chosen" in the OT as to reduce the latter to ... something of virtually no force.

2) The parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46), where the two are judged *not* on the basis of the quality of their faith, but on the basis of what they *did*.

3) The Last Judgment (Rev. 20), where men are judged "according to their works."

4) St. Paul writes to the *faithful* believers at Philippi: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php. 2:12; even more interesting is v. 13, which confirms the Catholic doctrine that God enables us to obey him by his grace, so that we have no grounds for boasting). Why, if someone is saved by "faith alone", would he need to "work out" his salvation, and why, if his salvation is 100% assured, would he need to do this with "fear and trembling"???

5) Why would Hebrews sternly warn us, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery" (Heb. 6:4-6)?? It is not credible even to suggest that this is merely hypothetical. It's not credible, either, to pretend that genuine Christians are not the subject of the warning (what pseudo-Christian ever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit??).

You say: Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.

If the cooperation with grace is *itself* enabled by grace, it most certainly is the same thing. If I am unable to cooperate with God's grace until and unless God's grace enables me to do so, then the whole matter is entirely one of God's grace from start to finish.

Truly, it's remarkable that we Catholics can deny up and down that we believe in salvation by works, and we can insist until we're blue in the face that we're saved by grace, and yet you will still have the temerity to deny that we say that, and to insist that we're legalists.

You say: Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth.

Concealing a truth one is obligated to reveal is dishonest, as you know very well. So, of course, you did accuse him of this. And of course, as he has already made clear, he *considered* not making his reversion known: a course he did not ultimately pursue (even before it was made public), as he has written. I would only add that it's not at all clear that honesty obliges one to instantaneous action under the circumstances, so I'm not prepared to condemn him for his hesitation. Most importantly, it is clear that the ETS Board appears (according to its statement) to have no issues with the way that Dr. Beckwith has conducted himself. So what you and I think about the matter is really unimportant.

You write: Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.

Your "rebuttal" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of St. James, particularly the second chapter.

You say: Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.

LOL again!! Let me refresh your memory as to the original question here, since it appears that you have forgotten: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"Such a question requires a "yes" or "no", not a theological discourse on whether God restrains the evil deeds of Reformed Presbyterians and all other men or not, and not a mention (important, but in the present context irrelevant) of the sinlessness of Christ.

Truly, I'm a bit surprised by your handling of this question. It was pretty obviously (for the most part, or so I thought) a rhetorical device, but you seem to be choking on it in your evasions of a simple yes or no. So now I'd really like to know the answer: Do you consider Catholics to be evil no matter what they do or believe? Yes or no?

I respond:

I'll reply on a chunk-by-chunk basis.

Fred wrote:

You say: I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.

Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no bearing on whether you are actually correct about some things (including especially our points of disagreement).

I reply:

I think a fair paraphrase of your comments are: "You could win the debate, but I'm still correct." Suffice to say that few will be persuaded by your bare assertion.

Fred wrote:

Unfortunately, it appears that we will not have the opportunity to find that out. My vacation ends tonight, and with it will end any serious likelihood of me having time for this stuff (I almost never enter get involved in Internet debates). :-( In retrospect, given the constraints on my time I shouldn't have even replied in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now.

I reply:

At least that will bring the discussion to a conclusion. Debates without a thesis tend to go on indefinitely.

Fred wrote:

You say:
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism

I'll grant you the first as a definitional statement. But the second is pure assertion. It is by no means the case that to deny sola fide is *necessarily* to affirm salvation by works. For the Pelagian, sure. Not for the Catholic, who says that by His grace God enables us to obey Him: "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." For the Catholic, saved by Christ's work of atonement in sacrificing Himself on the cross, good works are something that he does in response to and as a consequence of the fact that he has been saved. In no way do they supplant Christ's sacrifice. In point of fact, this is not so very different from the Reformed perspective on works.

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

I respond:

Contrary to your assertion, the Papist view of works is quite different from the Reformed perspective on works, hence the perceived need for Trent's dogmatic definitions.

The crux of your argument above is your assertion that not every denial of Sola Fide entails salvation by works. This is an incorrect assertion on your part.

That it is incorrect can be summarily seen in Galatians, second chapeter. For example:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Faith alone is contrasted with human obedience. The "salvation" Rome offers is conditional on obedience. It is something that has to be earned, despite the protestations of some of its advocates.

And that's only the "salvation" offered to the "faithful" from eternal damnation. Salvation from "temporal punishment," is even more explicitly works-based in Roman Catholicism.

Fred wrote:

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

I reply:
Ah, but it is the only alternative, as per Paul's epistles. Calling the position "pure tommyrot" only shows your dislike of the position.

Fred wrote:

But I must ask you: if you really believe in salvation by faith alone, may an unrepentant adulterer who trusts in Christ get to heaven or not? If you say yes, then you have contradicted Gal. 5:19-21. If you say no (as I hope and expect you do), then immediately it becomes obvious that what we Christians do matters. We cannot live as we wish. We are obliged to obey God.

I reply:

Let's see whether Galatians 5:19-21 says a whisper about unrepentance:

Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

No, it does not say anything about unrepentance, and it has nothing to do with repentance or lack thereof.

And the totally separate answer to your question is that, because salvation is not based on the thoroughness of one's repentance, one may enter the kingdom of God without having repented of a specific particular sin, including an act of adultery. Anyone who has been regenerated will repent of his sins, but he may not catch every last sin, and he won't go to hell just because his repentance was not as thorough as a Roman Catholic would like it to be.

Fred wrote:

Most likely you will insist that such a man hasn't really trusted in Christ. To that I would respond: who are you to judge the condition of his faith? I certainly agree with you that he will not be saved unless he repents, but I would never presume to judge his faith. I do not know his heart.

I reply:

Perhaps then you are surprised at the real answer. But, in any event, judging the heart of a hypothetical person is hardly presumptuous.

Fred wrote:

Truly it seems to me that in large measure the quarrel between the Reformed and Catholics comes down to a question of assurance: you must insist upon sola fide because without it, your insistence upon 100% assurance of salvation dries up and blows away.Unfortunately, I don't see how this notion of 100% assurance can be maintained in the light of the following (among other things that might be said):

I reply:

Before I get into the specific examples, a few general comments are in order. There are many quarrels between Reformed Christians and Roman Catholics. Personally, I think that the biggest quarrel is over the more recent Ecumenical Counsels of Rome, namely Vatican I and Vatican II. Most specifically, Muslims do not worship our God, and if Roman Catholics do (as Vatican II seems to pretty clearly state) then they both worship some other God than we do.

Sola Fide is an important difference between us and Rome, as is sola gratia and sola scriptura. The so-called five sola's define many important points of distinction, and they are all Biblically driven.

Accordingly, your comment about 100% assurance is far off the mark. We leave open the possibility of self-deception, and we call believers to self-examination for that reason. Nevertheless, we have confidence and boldness because of our faith which is not alone. Indeed, because we believe what James and John wrote, we look to our works to provide us with assurance of salvation, and to serve as the basis for our consideration in self-examination.

Fred continued:

1) In Deut. 7, God says of Israel that he chose them and loved them: in other words, they were his elect. And yet many of the elect fell. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it seems unreasonable to insist being "elect" in the NT differs so dramatically from being "chosen" in the OT as to reduce the latter to ... something of virtually no force.

I reply:

You'd have to be either utterly unfamiliar with history of the Old Testament to think that Israel did not receive a special degree of favor that was not accorded to the other nations. Furthermore, Old Testament Israel was chosen as a nation, which pictured the individual election to salvation, of all the sheep of our Shepherd.

Fred continued:

2) The parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46), where the two are judged *not* on the basis of the quality of their faith, but on the basis of what they *did*.

I reply:

You cannot be Roman Catholic and deny that salvation is by faith in view of Trent. To imagine that everyone has faith (such that both the sheep and the goats have faith) is bizarre and unintelligible. There are infidels, and Muslims are among them, as Christians have always believed (the Muslim detail obviously only came to be believed once there were Muslims).

Fred continued:

3) The Last Judgment (Rev. 20), where men are judged "according to their works."

I reply:

I fully agree that men will be judged according to their works, and if their works are anything short of perfect they will merit eternal punishment. The only escape is to be judged according to Christ's works: to have Him as your substitute. It is by the Substitionary Atonement of Christ that we escape judgment for our works.

Fred continued:

4) St. Paul writes to the *faithful* believers at Philippi: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php. 2:12; even more interesting is v. 13, which confirms the Catholic doctrine that God enables us to obey him by his grace, so that we have no grounds for boasting). Why, if someone is saved by "faith alone", would he need to "work out" his salvation, and why, if his salvation is 100% assured, would he need to do this with "fear and trembling"???

I reply:

You to seem imagine that Paul means that they should work in order to be saved, rather than the more natural sense that they should work because they are saved. Verse 13 does not confirm Semi-Pelegianism, it confirms Reformed Theology. It states:

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

And Jerome, in the Vulgate translation confirms this view:

Philippians 2:13 (VUL) Deus est enim qui operatur in vobis et velle et perficere pro bona voluntate

Notice this is "in vobis" not "cum vobis."

God does not work WITH us but IN us to do His pleasure. Thus, when we do good works, that is by His grace, as Augustine taught.

But you ask, (I paraphrase) "Why do that?"

The answer is found in verses 14-16, namely that by our works we provide light to the world.

Fred continued:

5) Why would Hebrews sternly warn us, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery" (Heb. 6:4-6)?? It is not credible even to suggest that this is merely hypothetical. It's not credible, either, to pretend that genuine Christians are not the subject of the warning (what pseudo-Christian ever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit??).

I reply:

I have dealt with that passage on other occassions, and there is no need to do so again here. It is sufficient to point out that whatever this is, it is not the saved again-lost again-saved again doctrine of works salvation accompanied by auricular confession and penance. For it is written of such people "it is impossible ... to be renewed again to repentance."

Fred continued:

You say: Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.

If the cooperation with grace is *itself* enabled by grace, it most certainly is the same thing. If I am unable to cooperate with God's grace until and unless God's grace enables me to do so, then the whole matter is entirely one of God's grace from start to finish.

I reply:

And does the cooperation-enabling grace require cooperation, or is it only the later grace that requires cooperation? It's a rhetorical question, because the concept of two stages of grace is unscriptural balderdash. In any event, however, since that cooperation-enabling grace does not save, it ought not to be counted when we are speaking of being "saved by grace," and consequently cannot be appealled to in order to bolster a claim to salvation by grace. No, salvation by cooperation with grace is no more salvation by grace than cooperating with the water (swimming) can be characterized as salvation from drowning by lake. The lake didn't save such a man, he saved himself by his cooperation with the lake.

Fred continued:

Truly, it's remarkable that we Catholics can deny up and down that we believe in salvation by works, and we can insist until we're blue in the face that we're saved by grace, and yet you will still have the temerity to deny that we say that, and to insist that we're legalists.

I reply:

We say what we say because it is the truth. Rome denies salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, because it denies the supreme authority of Scripture alone. Thus, Rome can make whatever conflicting claims it likes. It still teaches a legalistic salvation of adherence to the law as the path to heaven. It still denies that grace saves us, instead asserting (like the Protestant Arminians) that grace merely makes salvation a possibility. And consequently, the accusations of legalism and salvation by works (though not by works alone) sticks.

Fred continued:

You say: Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth.

Concealing a truth one is obligated to reveal is dishonest, as you know very well. So, of course, you did accuse him of this. And of course, as he has already made clear, he *considered* not making his reversion known: a course he did not ultimately pursue (even before it was made public), as he has written. I would only add that it's not at all clear that honesty obliges one to instantaneous action under the circumstances, so I'm not prepared to condemn him for his hesitation. Most importantly, it is clear that the ETS Board appears (according to its statement) to have no issues with the way that Dr. Beckwith has conducted himself. So what you and I think about the matter is really unimportant.

I reply:

I think you have essentially acknowledged that I did not directly accuse him of dishonesty. Did I claim that this was a situation in which Dr. Beckwith was under a moral obligation to reveal the the truth? Of course, again, the answer is no.

I hardly think that the ETS Board's judgment affects the situation. He also did not notify them until after the fact.

You wrote: "a course he did not ultimately pursue," but of course he did not have the option of persuing it becasue he was asked to serve in a role that he could only serve in as an open Roman Catholic. Even then, it is not clear that he intended his changed views to become public any time soon.

Fred continued:

You write: Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.

Your "rebuttal" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of St. James, particularly the second chapter.

I reply:

James does not contradict Paul. James speaks of how we are justified in the eyes of men, and Paul in the eyes of God.

Fred continued:

You say: Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.

LOL again!! Let me refresh your memory as to the original question here, since it appears that you have forgotten: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"Such a question requires a "yes" or "no", not a theological discourse on whether God restrains the evil deeds of Reformed Presbyterians and all other men or not, and not a mention (important, but in the present context irrelevant) of the sinlessness of Christ.

I reply:

Actually, a grandstanding, rhetorical question like that, does not require any answer. Nevertheless, clarification has been provided, and if the answer is still obscure, it is not the fault of the present author.

Fred continued:

Truly, I'm a bit surprised by your handling of this question. It was pretty obviously (for the most part, or so I thought) a rhetorical device, but you seem to be choking on it in your evasions of a simple yes or no. So now I'd really like to know the answer: Do you consider Catholics to be evil no matter what they do or believe? Yes or no?

I reply:

See above, but if you feel it has not been answered, please explain what you mean by "evil." Do you mean that they sin like everyone else? Or do you mean that they commit genocide like Hitler with the Gypsies and Jews?

Explain yourself, Fred.

-Turretinfan