|
ARE YOU SAVED?
“Little
children, let no one deceive you, he who does right is righteous
as he is righteous.”
1 John 3:7
Ever since the
Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the
doctrine “Sola Fide,” or ‘”by Faith
Alone,” has been one of the most hotly contested issues
between Catholics and Protestants. With “sola Scriptura”
it formed the two pillars of the Reformation. It was the rallying
cry of the Reformers against the ‘Papists’ who, they
thought, were preaching a “works-based” salvation. In
their view, this was contrary to Scripture and had to be
eliminated. Were they correct in their understanding of what
the Catholic Church taught regarding Salvation? If they were
correct, did they respond properly?
This chapter will
delve into the issue of justification and the Protestant concept
called “Sola Fide” or “justification by faith
alone.” We will develop the following points; 1.) The
great difference in our understanding of justification (is it a
one time event or not); 2.) The doctrines of infusion or
imputation; 3.) The eternal security debate, does man have an
absolute assurance of salvation. The book we will use for the
Protestant-Evangelical side is Faith Alone, The Evangelical
Doctrine of Justification written by R. C. Sproul. Dr. Sproul
is a marvelous speaker and writer. He is a proclaimed
theologian, minister, and teacher, and is a graduate of
Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free
University of Amsterdam. He is currently professor of
systematic theology and apologetics at Reformed Theological
Seminary in Orlando Florida. He is well qualified to speak on
behalf of the Evangelical community. The rest of this chapter will
test Dr. Sproul’s arguments to see if they stand the test of
greater scrutiny.
Luther and the
Reformation
In the first
chapter of his book, Dr. Sproul deals with Luther and the
Reformation, the how and why of it. “We know how Martin
Luther felt about the controversy. Luther called justification by
faith alone ‘the article on which the church stands or
falls’ (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclessiae). . .
.The issue of how justification and salvation are received became
the paramount point of debate. . . . The Reformers concluded that
when Rome rejected and condemned sola fide, it condemned
itself, in effect, it ceased to be a true church.”
Sproul goes on to note: “The logic followed by the Reformers
is this:
1. Justification
by faith alone is essential to the gospel.
2. The gospel is
essential to Christianity.
3. The gospel is
essential to a church’s being a church.
4. To reject
justification by faith alone is to reject the gospel and to fall
as a church.”
To the Catholic the
Reformers’ logic was wrong. That is, the list is in
the wrong order. They’ve basically put the cart before
the horse by placing ‘justification by faith alone’
(#1) ahead of the Gospel as being necessary for Christianity
(#2). The Gospel as being essential to Christianity should
be first, and everything else should flow from that. The Catholic
views the “big picture,” that is, the Gospel as one
whole. From this “whole” then, the Catholic gets his
understanding of justification and all other doctrines pertaining
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While here the Protestant
view seemingly stems first from “sola fide’, then to
the Gospel.
On the same page,
Sproul notes that the Reformers “rescue(d) the gospel from
the impending danger of total eclipse. The eclipse metaphor
is helpful. An eclipse of the sun does not destroy the sun.
An eclipse obscures the light of the sun . . . The Reformation
sought to remove the eclipse so that the light of the gospel could
once again shine in its full brilliance, being perceived with
clarity.”
The problem the
Catholic has with this passage is the idea of “sola fide”
is nowhere to be found in early Christian writings. One has
to assume that if “sola fide” were the Biblical
teaching proclaimed by the Apostle’s, then the first and
second century Christians would certainly have been practicing and
preaching it. But we find neither.
Justin Martyr
writing in the second century says: “And we have been
taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those
only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance,
and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar
to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught
that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake,
create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their
works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed
worthy, and so we have received--of reigning in company with Him,
being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the
beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that,
in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on
account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of
fellowship with Him.” Justin states succinctly that
man must DO something to inherit the Kingdom, his faith being
taken for granted.
We also see St.
Clement of Rome, writing in the year 95 preaching the same gospel
message. “Let us therefore join with those to whom
grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord,
being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all
backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words
. . . Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of
his deeds of justice wrought in faith?”
St. Clement of
Alexandria in Miscellanies (202 ad) writes: “when we hear,
‘your faith has saved you,’ we do not understand (the
Lord) to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in
whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin
with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had
lived in accord with the law and blamelessly, and who had lacked
only faith in the Lord.”
Origen adds:
“Whoever dies in his sins, even if he professes to believe
in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and that even if that
which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in
itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James”
(Commentaries on John, 19:6 AD 226-232).
And this from St.
John Chrysostom : “’He that believes in the Son has
everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to
believe on the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order
to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen
to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone
who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter the kingdom
of heaven’: and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone
sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of
a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father
and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly,
his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation.”
These are
some of the many instances we could provide from the early church
that show ‘justification by faith alone’ was not
part and parcel of the early Christian faith.
Dr. Sproul goes
on to say “the life of the Protestant church in the
sixteenth century was not perfect, but the revival of godliness in
that era is a matter of record that attests to the power of the
gospel when viewed in full light. I don’t deny that
godliness was evident in that era, but I would argue it was almost
all on the Catholic side. I would show the lives of the great
saints, like St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis De Sales, St.
Phillip Neri, St. Charles Borremeo, among others. These are
giants of the faith who not only preached the Gospel message amid
much persecution, but who also lived and worked in holiness of
character and spirit.
The
Lordship Controversy
Sproul next
notes what is known as “The Lordship Controversy.”
This is not crucial to the “sola fide” controversy
between Catholics and Evangelicals, but it bears a looking at
here. “The chief question in dispute was whether a person
can be saved by embracing Jesus as Savior, but not as Lord. . . .
At the heart of the question: does saving faith necessarily
produce works of obedience? MacArthur insists that true saving
faith must necessarily and inevitably yield works of obedience.
Ryrie and Hodges maintain that though faith should immediately
produce works of obedience, it does not always do so.”
Both Evangelical camps say, “the Bible alone is our
sole rule of faith and everything we need to know pertaining to
salvation can be found there,” yet they are now squabbling
over the most important issue of all: how are we saved? Can
one separate the Lordship of Jesus from his role as Savior of
mankind? “For to you is born this day in the city of
David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” “So there
will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal
kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Scripture is
very clear that Jesus is both Lord AND Savior; you cannot separate
the two.
“Lurking
behind the scenes of this debate is a crucial difference in what
happens in regeneration. Is the person who exercises saving
faith a changed person or not? . . . Reformed theology views
regeneration as the immediate supernatural work of the Holy Spirit
that effects the change of the soul’s disposition.
Before regeneration the sinner is in the grips of original sin, by
which he is totally disinclined toward God. He is in willing
bondage to sin and has no desire for Christ. Faith is a fruit of
regeneration. The believer is a changed person. He is still
a sinner but is in a process of spiritual reversal that has, by
the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit, already begun.”
Now here is where
Reformed theology is confusing. On the one hand, they deny
infusion of God’s grace into the heart of man to justify
oneself, while on the other hand they affirm that “faith is
a fruit of regeneration.” Now if the latter is true, then
how can one say that infusion is a false doctrine? If it is by
regeneration that faith comes to us, in Dr. Sproul’s own
words, then it is the Holy Spirit working in us, and thus it is
the Catholic definition of infused grace. Infusion, therefore,
precedes justification. Thus justification is by infusion, not
imputation, for infusion would then be the operative cause.
To
quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Moved by grace,
man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness
and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the
remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the
inner man” (#1989).
Taking the
Protestant understanding to its logical conclusion, we have a form
of Calvinistic predestination. If, as Dr. James Kennedy
argued in the tape series “Irreconcilable Differences,”
that it is ALL God from beginning to end, man does nothing at this
moment of justification, he can neither accept nor reject this
infusion (regeneration), then we’ve just made God into a
monster who predestines some for eternal glory, and the rest for
eternal damnation. We know well that there are many in the
world who are not now, nor will be in the future, saved.
Therefore, if it is all God from beginning to end, and some wind
up not saved, then how is it that God did not regenerate those who
are perishing? The Scriptures teach that “God wills all
men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”(1
Tim 2:4). Thus, either the Protestant concept here is
correct, or the Scriptures are correct, you can’t have it
both ways. Personally, I’ll side with the Word of God
every time!
Jesus proclaims
in the Book of Revelation: “Behold, I stand at the door
and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will
come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev
3:20). If man has nothing to do with his salvation, why does
Jesus say “I knock?” Why wouldn’t he just
enter in to the hearts of the elect? The verse is clear that
we have to open the door for him, thus there is effort on our
part.
One Gospel
In his next
section, Sproul elaborates on the recent documents filed by joint
ventures of Catholics and Protestants. Most notably Evangelicals
and Catholics Together: The Christian mission in the Third
Millennium (ECT). He shows his indignation for the statement
in that it never addresses ‘sola fide’ directly or
indirectly. From pages 26 to 44 he belabors the point.
ECT was not satisfactory to him because of this omission:
“This list nowhere mentions justification by faith alone.
Indeed justification is not included at all (unless it is hinted
at in the veiled issue of sacerdotalism).” This
again shows a varied understanding among many Protestant
denominations as to the nature and effect of justification, and
this by those who all go by the “Bible alone.”
On page 44 Dr.
Sproul puts forth in his defense, Gal 1:8: ‘But even if
we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.’
“For now let it suffice that the apostle recognized only one
gospel. This apostolic gospel either did or did not include sola
fide as a necessary and essential element . . . .ECT nowhere
mentions forensic justification or the concept of imputation, the
fiery issue of the reformation. Is a doctrine that denies the
forensic character of justification properly called the gospel?”
If we are to
understand Sproul correctly, then what are we to do with the
myriad of “different gospels” being proclaimed from
the myriad of Evangelical and Protestant denominations? If there
is only one true gospel, and there is, which one is it? My
own understanding of ECT was that it attempted to show the areas
where we are in complete agreement, and those areas where we agree
in part (or to a lesser degree). It was designed to keep
both sides talking in order to understand each other better.
“Justification by faith alone” is not dealt with
because we don’t agree on it. I doubt that the
authors of the statement meant it to cover every possible area, as
Sproul seemingly wanted it to. By the way, we’ll
return to Galatians 1:8 a little later in this chapter.
In response to
ECT, the Evangelical community came up with a document entitled
Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue.
In it we read: “We see justification by faith alone as an
essential of the gospel on which radical disagreement continues,
and we deny the adequacy of any version of the gospel that falls
short at this point.” Sproul then adds, “To
indicate that the Roman view is ‘inadequate’ or that
it ‘falls short’ is a gentle criticism. In my
estimation it is too gentle. One could construe this statement to
mean that, though it has shortcomings and is less than adequate,
the Roman ‘version of the gospel’ is still just that,
a ‘version of the gospel.’ The New Testament makes it
clear that there is only one gospel. An ‘inadequate’
gospel is not the gospel. A ‘gospel’ that falls short
of its essence is not a true gospel and must be vigorously
rejected.” The document goes on to state that “We
perceive that the Roman Catholic Church contains many such
believers. We deny, however, that in its present
confession it is an acceptable Christian communion, let alone the
mother of all the faithful to whom every believer needs to be
related.”
So here Dr.
Sproul denies that the Catholic Church is Christian. In a
sense, Sproul is to be commended, for he rightly sees that
justification is crucial to the Gospel. To his credit he
doesn’t want to see the Gospel watered down for the sake of
unity. But you know the Catholic Church was ridiculed for its
stance on “no salvation outside the church.” It
was perceived as arrogant and unforgiving on that account. While
this charge is badly misunderstood by many (and outside the scope
of this essay), we could appropriately assign it to Sproul’s
own statement about the Catholic Church being unchristian. Realize
that this (sola fide) is a doctrine that prior to the sixteenth
century was unheard of.
What the
Catholic views on this issue is this: no one taught “sola
fide” until Martin Luther came along in the 1500’s (as
evidenced already by the quotes put forward previously). This very
idea that the whole church, even those that were taught by the
Apostles got it all wrong, and that an Augustinian monk 1500 years
later corrected all of Christendom certainly tests ones reason.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit was lax in His duties. For Jesus had said;
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all
the truth.” For us to accept the axiom “faith
alone” as the Reformers hold, we must believe that the Holy
Spirit did not lead the Church into all truth until Martin
Luther’s day! That’s 1500 years of Church error
with regard to the most important doctrine in the Church; i.e.,
justification. This is one pill that the Catholic finds hard to
swallow.
|
|
