Tag Archives: ecumenism

And the Wind Cried Mary

10 Replies

Sadly, I still haven't had time to properly respond to Ed Heckman's difficulties with the Church's beliefs concerning Mary. I did get one answer to my call for rebuttals from the peanut gallery. Here's Anonymous' defense of Marian doctrines. The opinions expressed by him/her may or may not reflect my beliefs or the beliefs of the Church.

1. Ed's first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she's no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ's life.

In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17. But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will. See Luke 1. Being faithful without knowing what the consequences will be is better than being faithful for a reward.

And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that "you yourself a sword will pierce," Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites. See this.

2. Ed's second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless "New Eve" because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless "New Eve."

In response, I would note that: a) you can "save" people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.

And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless "New Eve." But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don't demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.

It seems Jay is having similar discussions at Deo Omnis Gloria.

Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [regarding Jesus' "brothers"]
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II [regarding Joseph not knowing Mary "until" Jesus' birth]

Tempus Fugit

1 Reply

If only I had more time to blog. Between class, research, RCIA, choir, and spending time with my wife, I can’t spend nearly as much time writing as I would like. I’ve been trying to cut back on blogging so as to not neglect my wife, so I try to pick one big topic to tackle each week.

My exchange with Adrian Warnock regarding "the simple gospel" seems to be winding down, which opens up a "slot" for something else. On the other hand, I’ve been outlining an article I’d like to write on imitation of Christ, directly and by proxy through imitation of the saints. That leaves me little or no time to respond to Ed Heckman’s well-constructed thoughts regarding Mary, the Catholic Church, and Scripture.

In his latest post, Ed does what no other Protestant with whom I’ve debated has done – actually read the Catechism. I’m so thoroughly pleased and impressed that I wish all the more that I had time to respond. He does a pretty thorough job fisking some of the Catechism’s statements about Mary. Obviously I disagree with him, but I respect his analysis none the less. I would be overjoyed if some of my knowledgeable Catholic readers would respond to him criticisms.

Go to it!

Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1

Update: If you’d like to write a post-length rebuttal but don’t have a blog of your own, send your post to me and I’ll consider posting it here.

Arminian and Catholic Soteriologies, Part Deux

7 Replies

After some conversations with knowledgeable folks, it seems there are indeed some differences between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies. Here’s how I’d formulate Catholic teaching (with thanks to Jimmy Akin and Wikipedia). I cannot guarantee it is free of error.

Total Deparavity: God gave man free will so that we might choose freely to love Him. Unfortunately, the Fall impaired our free will. Grace restores our unfallen goodness, if only for a time (i.e until we sin).

Semi-Conditional Election: God has told us through Scripture that there is a guaranteed way to be saved. We must accept Jesus Christ by our own free will and live by His commandments. However, God also saves whomever He wills, and we, as mere mortals, have no right to judge which individuals will and will not receive eternal life. We may only say that certain actions are contrary to God’s law and unpleasing to Him.

Unlimited Atonement With Limited Intent: Jesus Christ died for all mankind, but the saving grace He made available is only guaranteed to be efficacious if we accept Jesus Christ by our own free will and live by His commandments. By opening ourselves to grace through faith, we become members of the elect who shall receive eternal life.

Irresistable Grace: The sacraments of initiation, baptism and confirmation, confer grace unconditionally. That is, one need not already be in a state of grace to receive the grace conferred by these sacraments.

Resistable Grace: Grace is not forced upon us. We open ourselves to grace and by doing so restore the free will we were intended to inherit from our progenitors. Grace is conferred conditionally in the Eucharist and annointing of the sick. We must already be in a state of grace to participate in those sacraments. For instance, if we take the Eucharist unworthily, we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves.

Uncertain Perceverance: Membership in the elect is not made permanent at initiation. God gives us sustaining grace, spiritual sustenance if you will, if we ask for it and through sacraments. However, there are choices we can make (i.e sins we can commit) that separate us from God and remove us from the company of the elect. Like Paul, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and strive to finish the good race. We must also seek sustaining grace through praying, reading scripture, receiving the sacraments, etc. In particular, the sacrament of confession restores us to a state of grace if are truly contrite and repentant. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved" according to the Church. We were saved by Christ’s salvific act. We are being saved as we grow in faith. We hope to persevere to the end and be saved at the judgement.

Questions? Comments? I’m not sure where to put marriage and holy orders. Any suggestions?

Arminian and Catholic Soteriologies

2 Replies

As a Catholic and a former relatively "high" church Lutheran, I’m quite lost when it comes to battles between Calvinism and Arminianism. I am somewhat familiar with Calvinism and have been exposed to TULIP. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin wrote a good review of TULIP from a Catholic perspective. I’ve only heard of Aminianism recently. Here’s some of what good ol’ Wikipedia had to say.

The Arminians suggested five, anti-Calvinist corrections [to TULIP], which are summarized below:

Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ, out of fallen and sinful mankind, those foreknown by Him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving.

Universal Atonement: Christ’s death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ.

Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man’s natural state, not a spiritual gift – and thus free will was not lost in the Fall. The grace of Christ works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend.

Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate.

Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace.

Am I wrong, or is this basically what the Catholic Church teaches? It certainly sounds awfully close. Akin focused on Calvinism, so I’m not sure if his Thomistic TULIP is compatible with Arminianism’s formulation (which unfortunately doesn’t have a nice acronym). Help from my readers would be appreciated.

The Not-So-Good News?

Leave a reply

Adian Warnock has been taking some heat for his wife’s "simple gospel". I think he thinks I’m one of the people giving him flack. Honestly, I’m not. I read his post too quickly and then foolishly blogged based on a misconception. In my rush to catch up on the blogosphere, I didn’t notice he was posting about something his wife had presented to 4-7 year-olds. Had I noticed that, I probably wouldn’t have responded. That’s not to say I agree with all ten points she gave, but given they were meant for children, I probably wouldn’t have blogged about them.

Anyhow, Adrian didn’t approve of my response "The Gospel in 30 Seconds". He calls my views "totally false" and makes the claim that I stated "that we must EARN our salvation". This is not true. I did not say that we have earn salvation. I implied that faith without works is dead. I also implied that repentance isn’t a do-it-once-and-you’re-done thing. It’s something we must do all our lives. Sin has consequences. Even when God forgives us, we still must attempt to repair the damage we have caused to ourselves and to others. Not to do so is to not be sorrowful of our sins and truly repentant. Also, it is possible to lose salvation. There are sins that cannot be forgiven without explicit confession, contrition, and penance. There’s no such thing as "once saved, always saved". Neither I nor the Catholic Church believes that one must earn salvation.

Now that I’ve defended my impromptu over-simplification of 2000 years of soterilogy, I’d like to apologize to Adrian and his wife, in case either felt ganged up on. I’m big into interdenominational dialogue, reunification of the Mystical Body of Christ, and apologetics. I was hoping to spur discussion, not attack anyone’s faith or expression thereof.

Your blog is a regular read of mine, Adrian. Keep on keepin’ on. 🙂

Pax Christi