Time to Make Proper Distinctions: Part 2
Paul Owen has responded to my article on the erroneous views of Reformed Catholicism. The reader can find the article in its entirety here: http://www.reformedcatholicism.com. I will begin with this quotation from Owen’s opening remarks:
Some weeks ago I wrote an essay which argued that the affirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a necessary evidence of genuine saving faith. In other words, one might have genuine saving faith, but reject the formal Protestant doctrine of sola fide, as do our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. None of this of course was intended to deny the truth of that doctrine, for I firmly believe that justification by faith alone is the most consistent expression of the Bible's teaching regarding the nature of our appropriation of the saving grace of God.
I think it might be helpful to break this down. Owen himself affirms the truth of sola fide: “I firmly believe that justification by faith alone is the most consistent expression of the Bible's teaching regarding the nature of our appropriation of the saving grace of God.” But then he allows that those who do not come to Christ by faith alone may also be saved: “one might have genuine saving faith, but reject the formal Protestant doctrine of sola fide, as do our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.”
The options for exactly what this means are limited. Does it mean (1) that the Roman Catholic is saved who consciously and knowingly denies that one is justified by faith alone and so attempts to offer to Christ both faith and the host of Roman Catholic sacraments and good deeds in fair exchange for his justification (he is justified by faith plus works)? Or, does it mean (2) that the Roman Catholic is saved who consciously and knowingly denies that one is justified by faith alone, but, in an ironic twist, comes to Christ by faith alone apart from the host of Roman Catholic sacraments and good deeds (he is hypocritically justified by faith alone)? Or does it mean (3) that the Roman Catholic is saved who consciously and knowingly denies that one is justified by faith alone, but unknowingly comes to Christ by faith alone apart from the host of Roman Catholic sacraments and good deeds (he is unwittingly justified in spite of himself)? Or, does it mean (4) that the Roman Catholic is saved who does not consciously and knowingly deny that one is Justified by faith alone and so comes to Christ by faith alone out of sheer ignorance that he is required by the Roman Catholic Church to do more (he is justified by faith alone)? Just who is included in this category of the justified sola fide deniers?
If, by his statement above, Owen intends meaning # 4, then we have no disagreement. Indeed, this is just what I affirmed in my first response to him. If Owen intends meanings # 2 or 3, then we may still be in agreement about the saved state of the person, but the scenario is so unlikely as to represent only a hypothetical option. Moreover, the fact that this person is expressing to everyone else that they must be justified by faith plus sacramental works places his spiritual state in a similarly precarious position as the Galatian errorists whom Paul condemns on the basis of proclaiming a false gospel.
If, instead, Owen intends meaning # 1, then we have a problem. In what meaningful sense can Owen affirm Paul’s theology that a man is justified on the basis of faith alone, and not by works, “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified,” and still allow that some can be justified by other means than faith alone? If we affirm with the Westminster Confession that “faith is the alone instrument of justification” (a statement with which I presume Owen agrees), but then proceed to affirm that a man is also justified who conscientiously approaches Christ with faith plus works, then in what meaningful sense can it be affirmed that faith is the alone instrument of justification? If a man can be justified either way, then sola fide is nothing more than a lie—or, at best, a nice (but completely unnecessary) option—and there is no more reason to make an issue of it than there is to make an issue of modes of baptism. I rather prefer the apostle’s view on it: “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
There is a fifth option not mentioned in the list above, a modified form of option # 1; namely, that the Roman Catholic is saved who consciously and knowingly denies that one is justified by faith alone and so attempts to offer to Christ both faith and the host of Roman Catholic sacraments and good deeds in fair exchange for his justification, but that God overlooks his ignorance and takes into account his faith alone as the basis for his justification. I will have more to say about this option below, as I think this is the core of Owen's position. Now to Owen’s four objections:
1. Svendsen claims that I identify certain beliefs as essential to salvation because "we are commanded to believe them." That is simply not the case. It is not simply that the NT writers command us to believe these things, but that we are specifically told that the acceptance of these truths is necessary for salvation. We are commanded to believe everything that God says, but I hardly claim that the acceptance of EVERYTHING that is taught in the Bible is necessary for salvation.
Fair enough; Owen believes we must accept doctrine x not only because we are commanded to believe it but also because we are specifically told that acceptance of the belief is necessary for salvation. This still does not account for Owen’s view that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation—and not just belief in the Trinity, but belief in the Nicene definition of the Trinity—in spite of what he writes below (which I will address in due course). It also fails to account for the fact that we are specifically told the same thing in regard to sola fide: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified”; “If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be eternally condemned.” What passage can Owen cite regarding the Trinity that even remotely approaches this kind of language? The answer is, he can’t. The most he is able to produce is a baptismal formula upon which he superimposes a “command” to believe the doctrine. But even if we allow him that much, there is a huge jump (as Owen himself acknowledges above) between a command to believe something and a specific statement that informs us that acceptance of that command is essential to salvation. To which passage will Owen turn for that? And yet we have such passages in regard to justification by faith alone. Yet Owen embraces the Trinity as an essential belief, but rejects sola fide as an essential belief. My charge that Owen cherry picks criteria stands.
So when I identify a certain doctrine as necessary for salvation, it is because the Bible says it is necessary for salvation, not simply because the Bible commands us to believe it. A review of the texts I cited in my essay will reveal that in each case, salvation was said to depend upon the acceptance of a particular doctrine. Those who do not believe Jesus when he declares, "I AM" will die in their sins (John 8:24 ). It is by believing that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God that we are saved (John 20:31 ). It is necessary to believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead to be saved (1 Cor. 15:1-4). God's truth and word does not dwell in those who deny that they are sinful and in need of forgiveness, which means they are not saved (1 John 1:8-10). Those who deny the reality of the incarnation do not have the Spirit of God, which means they are not saved (1 John 4:2).
The problem as I have already noted is that Owen includes the Trinity, which has no support in terms of an express statement to the effect that belief in it is necessary for salvation; and excludes sola fide, which does have that support.
2. Svendsen objects to my reasons for arguing that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation, because the Bible never says that you must believe in the Trinity to be saved. He objects to my use of inferential reasoning to come to the conclusion that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. My arguement was essentially: 1) The Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16 ). 2) The Bible teaches that baptism is to be performed in the name of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19). 3) Baptism in the name of the Trinity assumes that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. 4) Nobody would submit to such a baptism if they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. 5) Therefore, acceptance of Christian baptism, which is necessary for salvation, entails acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. 6) Therefore, acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for salvation.
Owen explains:
In other words, the necessity of baptism in the name of the Trinity for salvation implies the necessity of acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. A person must be willing to be baptized in the name of the Trinity if they are to be saved. This means that a person must be willing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, since it is contradictory to sincerely accept a baptism which presupposes a doctrine that one rejects. That would be a baptism without sincerity, and a baptism without sincerity surely cannot save.
But none of this follows from the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity. First, I reject the notion that baptism is necessary for salvation—much less justification—and I think Owen is engaging in a lot of proof-texting to support his point. Second, even if baptism were essential to salvation, the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity is not equivalent to a statement that belief in the Trinity is essential to salvation. The literal meaning of the Greek word baptizo is “to immerse; to dip; to plunge” (darn those sectarian Baptists, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker!). Yet Owen does not believe it is essential to salvation to immerse the baptized. He would also reject the notion that any mode of baptism could be essential for salvation. But on what basis can he reject this, given his statement that mere mention of the Trinity in the context of baptism (something he believes is essential to salvation) makes belief in the Trinity essential? Indeed, he would be on firmer ground, using these specific texts, to argue for the essential nature of belief in the correct mode of baptism (words have meaning in the New Testament, after all) than to argue for the essential nature of belief in the Trinity.
Third, the command in this case is not specifically to baptize in the name of the Trinity, but to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—something a Mormon could also do with a clear conscience. There is nothing here, by way of a command to accept an essential belief, that specifically states a person must subscribe to a Nicene version of the Trinity. Hence, Owen still has no support for his exclusion of Mormons from the covenant. Owen objects:
Now Svendsen's complaint is basically that I am presuming that Matthew 28:19 assumes the doctrine of the Trinity. He points out that Mormons for instance, would not share that assumption. My reply is simple. Of course I am assuming that the doctrine of the Trinity was believed by Matthew and all the New Testament writers! Why would I belabor that point when everyone involved in the present dispute over Reformed Catholicism accepts the doctrine of the Trinity?
But that same rationale can be applied with equal force to the issue of sola fide. Owen and I are in agreement that “justification by faith alone is the most consistent expression of the Bible's teaching regarding the nature of our appropriation of the saving grace of God.” And so we both assume that paradigm for this discussion. The reason I brought the Mormon into the discussion vis-à-vis the Trinity is because he acts as the precise counterpart to the Roman Catholic vis-à-vis sola fide. In the words of Owen, “Of course I am assuming that the doctrine of [sola fide] was believed by all the New Testament writers! Why would I belabor that point when everyone involved in the present dispute over Reformed Catholicism accepts the doctrine of [sola fide]?” But since this is true, Owen cannot make an exception for Roman Catholics who reject sola fide, at least without engaging in special pleading. He would never make this kind of allowance for the Mormon who rejects the Trinity. And since the express biblical command to accept sola fide is much stronger than any supposed derived command to accept the Trinity, a fortiori, he cannot make an allowance for the Roman Catholic who rejects sola fide.
If it were to turn out that Christianity is false, and Mormonism is true, then it would simply be the case that the Mormon doctrine of God was believed by Matthew and all the New Testament writers, and was assumed to be true in Matthew 28:19. This simply highlights the fact that Christian baptism and Mormon baptism cannot both be valid, because they necessarily assume different doctrines of God, due to different understandings of the meaning of the utterance which is pronounced over those who are baptized: "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." These aren't simply words; they express belief in a particular doctrine of God which was accepted in the early church by all who administered and submitted to that sacrament.
Neither is the word baptizo simply a word; yet Owen somehow does not feel compelled to make that expressly implied mode of baptism mandatory for salvation. And neither are the words “we are justified by faith in Christ apart from works” or “for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” mere words. They were the uniform and guarded beliefs of the New Testament church.
The issue is not whether a doctrine is explicity stated to be necessary for salvation, or whether that is merely a clear inference. The issue is rather which such inferences are validly drawn and which are not. As the Westminster Confession of Faith obligates me to believe: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, MAN'S SALVATION, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence MAY BE DEDUCED from scripture" (WCF 1.6).
It is worth noting here that the Westminster Confession also obligates Owen to believe that faith is the "alone instrument of justification."
3. We now come to the heart of the matter. There is simply no place in the New Testament which says that acceptance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is necessary for salvation. Galatians 5:2 does not teach that. The closest the New Testament comes to such a demand is Romans 4:5, which I do believe teaches the substance of the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Yet, is it not clear that what Paul is insisting in this passage, is that God will not justify those who "boast" in his presence?
This is a remarkable statement from one who has just taken pains to convince us that we must rely on a derived command thrice removed regarding the essential nature of belief in the Trinity. How about Gal 2:16: “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified”? The implied essential nature of this belief is much more easily derived from this passage than is any supposed derived command to believe in the Trinity derived from Matthew 28.
Or, how about Rom 3:20: “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight”? Here again, Paul affirms that the justified consist of those who approach God by faith alone. This is not a generic statement to the effect that “even if someone thinks he can be justified by faith plus works, in reality God will take only his faith into account, and he will be justified by that faith whether he knows it or not” (the fifth option mentioned at the beginning of this article). Far from it. Rather Paul states this in regard to those who were attempting to approach God on the basis of faith and works, and who were rejected as a result. Notice how Paul sums it up in 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Grace and works are on two conflicting and opposite courses. One cannot apprehend Christ if he is following the course of works. Paul tells us regarding the Jews who rejected Christ: “For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:3-4). In other words, the primary reason for the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah had more to do with the implications of accepting the Messiah than it did accepting the person of Jesus. They simply could not accept the fact that God would not accept their works in addition to their faith. In a nutshell, they sought to establish their own righteousness and as a result were rejected by God. Indeed, they seem to have understood the ramifications of accepting Christ more than modern Roman Catholics do. They understood that accepting Christ meant abandoning any personal merit before God based on law keeping, and fully accepting Christ’s righteousness alone as the ground for their justification.
But if Owen and the Reformed Catholics are right, then God justifies not only those who exercise faith, but also those who want to add works to that faith. How is this different from what the Jews wanted to do? Why didn’t God just make allowance for that in the same way Owen believes God makes allowances for those who deny sola fide? And why did Paul make such a fuss over not adding any works to faith alone? If both he who believes by faith alone and he who believes by faith plus works are saved, then why didn’t Paul just treat this as one of those disputable matters in Romans 14? And why did he issue condemnations against those who propagated the addition of works to faith?
Owen addresses one potential objection in Romans 4:
The "worker" in Romans 4:1-5 is not someone who, like the Roman Catholic, believes that faith alone is insufficient for justification; he is someone who believes that he is justified solely by his works (5:2). Paul is affirming that faith justifies without the addition of works; Paul's opponent would argue that works alone are sufficient to justify, without the acknowledgment of unworthiness and need for the gracious forgiveness of God (in other words, without faith).
This is demonstrably false; and as a New Testament scholar Owen should be ashamed to make such a careless statement. Paul is speaking of Jews. All Jews—first-century or otherwise—believed you must have faith in God, and that mere law-keeping without faith is insufficient. What Jew of the first century believed he could be justified before God on the basis of works apart from faith? The very idea is absurd on its face. Having said that, let’s look at the text of Romans 4:4-5: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Paul is here referring to two men. The first attempts to obtain justification through religious works. In other words, this man believes he can do something to merit God’s favor. This cannot be referring a man who has no faith at all; for in that case, why would he be attempting to earn God’s favor? A man who does not believe in God is an atheist, and no atheist would attempt to approach God on any terms. Hence, the faith of the first man is assumed by Paul.
The second man, we are told, “does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,” and as a result “his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” What is said of this man could not be more relevant to this debate. Note well, we are not told simply that this man is “one who believes.” Paul goes further than that. The man who is justified is the one who “does not work, but believes.” In other words, he is justified who does not approach God with works but only with belief. If as Owen states, “the New Testament never condemns a soteriology such as is encountered in the Roman Catholic Church,” neither does it allow for that soteriology. Owen asserts that the New Testament never condemns Roman Catholic soteriology, “for the simple reason that it did not yet exist.” But that’s a lot like saying the New Testament never condemns Mormon trinitarianism for the simple reason that it did not yet exist. I somehow doubt that Owen would be satisfied with that statement.
Owen continues by addressing his fourth objection to my article:
4. Svendsen brings up Galatians 1:8-9, and argues that it implies that the acceptance of faith as "the alone instrument" of justification is necessary for salvation. While I agree that this coheres with Paul's teaching, I do not agree that the rejection of this truth implies that Roman Catholics are not saved.
This statement is incomprehensible. Owen concedes that the teaching of the New Testament is that faith is the “alone instrument” of justification, but then proceeds to allow that a man may be justified by something other than faith alone. But once he has made that allowance, he can no longer hold that faith is the alone instrument of justification. These are mutually exclusive premises. But let’s see where Owen goes with this anyway.
First of all, it depends on what you mean by "faith." The Council of Trent did not define faith in a manner most Protestants would accept. Neither intellectual assent alone (chapter VI of the Decree on Justification; assumed in Canon IX on Justification), nor confidence in God's mercy alone (Chapter IX of the Decree on Justification; Canon XII on Justification) is a complete definition of faith. Nor would Protestants deny that true saving faith is necessarily joined with a disposition of repentance towards God (See Calvin's Institutes, 3.3.1-5).
This seems to be included in Owen’s presentation for no other reason than to obscure. What does any of this have to do with the biblical definition of faith? It certainly does not help his case, for once Rome has abandoned what the New Testament writers mean by faith, then not even “faith alone” (extra-biblically defined) can save the Roman Catholic. The Protestants got it right on the biblical definition of faith; the Roman Catholic Church did not. Hence, if the Roman Catholic Church includes the sacraments in its definition of “faith,” that is to its own detriment. The New Testament does not concern itself with semantic games regarding faith—it concerns itself only with excluding all works as a basis of justification before God. Either Owen believes the Protestant definition is the right one, or he does not. If he believes it to be right, then his point here is completely moot.
Second, it is not at all clear that what Paul is accusing the Judaizers of is rejecting faith as the sole instrument of justification. He never in this letter accuses the Judaizers of "adding" works to faith for justification. Rather, he everywhere argues as though the Judaizers were rejecting faith, not faith "alone," as the instrument of justification. The Judaizers taught that justification is found in the Law of Moses, not in Christ (see 2:16 , 21; 3:21 -22). Paul taught that justification comes through union with Christ, a union which is effected by baptism when they believe (3:26 -27). Those who are united with Christ are clothed with his righteousness, which is the ground of our justification (2:20-21), adoption (3:26) and assurance before God (4:7). The Judaizers on the other hand, insisted that righteousness is found in the Law, which is everywhere in this letter presented as an alternative to justification by faith, not as an addition.
I want to be very clear about this. While the Galatian error may be uncertain to Owen, it is not so uncertain to the rest of evangelical New Testament scholarship. Owen is a lone voice for his thesis. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of suggesting there may have been Jews who had no faith in God but somehow wanted to earn salvation from God. The faith of the Jews is everywhere assumed. Owen has attempted to draw a distinction between the Pharisees who had believed in Acts 15 and the Judaizers of Galatians, insisting that they are two distinct groups, not one. An analysis of the two groups is therefore necessary.
The situations are identical, and there is no distinction between the Galatian errorists and the Acts 15 errorists. What we find in Acts 15 is what we find in Galatians 2; and this is completely consistent with the majority view of New Testament scholarship. Owen is simply wrong here, and he has a decidedly maverick view of this issue.
The importance of all this should be obvious. Roman Catholics do not teach that we can derive righteousness from any other source but the grace of God found in Jesus Christ alone. The teaching of the Judaizers was condemned by the Council of Trent when they pronounced: "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema" (Canon I on Justification).
The key phrase here is “without the grace of God.” In other words, as long as we do not claim to have done all these marvelous deeds in our own power, and as long as we always attribute these deeds to the grace of God (never mind that we cannot actually know whether they are done in grace or in our own strength) then those deeds effect justification within us. This is antithetical to Paul’s teaching on justification.
Here is what Trent says about the role of works in justification:
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
Owen concludes his article:
In conclusion, I am not presently persuaded by Svendsen's response to my essay. He misunderstands my rationale for regarding some doctrines as necessary to be believed for salvation. He wrongly thinks that my case precludes arguments from inference, when I gladly depend upon them when they are valid. He has yet to demonstrate that any New Testament text makes the acceptance of faith as the sole instrument of justification necessary for salvation. And he exaggerates the extent of continuity between Roman Catholic teaching and the doctrines of the Judaizers which Paul condemns in Galatians.
I still believe Owen’s rationale for viewing the Trinity as an essential belief while rejecting sola fide as an essential belief is extremely faulty and inconsistent. I also believe this inconsistency is driven by a dual agenda, and not by clear thinking. That agenda, on the one hand, is to allow into the fold those who oppose the true gospel, and, on the other hand, to exclude from the fold those who deny the Nicene definition of the Trinity. Owen’s attempt at this has proven unsuccessful, because it requires him to rely on tenuous evidence in regard to his chosen criteria for viewing belief in the Trinity as essential, while rejecting even stronger evidence in regard to a required belief in sola fide.
Eric
Svendsen, Ph.D.
Director, NTRMin.org