|
Welcome |
|
|
|
Welcome |
|
|
  All the legal, descriptive, or otherwise boring stuff goes here.
This website is brought to you with AWESOME 1997 GIFS, complete with their very own PIRATE LINGO!!! This is how much we love you. Now CLICK SOMETHING!!!! |
Filed Under: List All | General / General / General / Welcome Welcome!Welcome to CalvinDude.com, home of the theological and philosophical mussings and mutterings from the wacky hombre known as CalvinDude. Here you will find writings that formerly were on The Calvinist and Debate Atheism websites, as well as fresh new content. Please continue to look back as more information is added. In addition, feel free to browse through the blog as it will be updated frequently. Filed Under: List All | General / General / General / Welcome Current Article: Justification And The Mass -- 10 Mr. Pike's Cross-Examination Rebuttal
Mr. Pike's Cross-Examination RebuttalIt is my hope that the cross-examination done in this debate illustrates for the reader the necessity of having a consistent view of Scripture. Hopefully, the reader will be able to tell from our exchange which view is consistent, not only with Scripture, but with it’s own claims; and likewise which view is not. Firstly, we must examine Mr. Michael’s use of “the Law.” On the one hand, he argues that there is a distinction between the “Old Law” and the “New Law.” Yet when asked for the particulars, it appears that the “New Law” is directly taken from the “Old Law” (when Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5). Thus, Mr. Michael is making a distinction without a difference so that he can claim Paul was rejecting only the “Old Law” and not the “New Law” when it comes to a basis for Justification. The reader may note that Paul never bothered to make a distinction between the “Old Law” and the “New Law” but spoke only of “the Law” and “grace.” Mr. Michael’s position, in order to be true, would require “grace” to be equivalent to the “New Law” while simultaneously maintaining that the “Old Law” was the ceremonial law. But this is something that most obviously is not the case. We see specifically that Paul thought the very concepts that Mr. Michael includes in the “New Law” were part of the Law “we have been released from” in Romans 7:6-7. After all, Mr. Michael admitted that coveting was a sin that could result in the loss of Justification (thus proving that, according to his view, the Law prohibiting coveting is still in effect in the “New Law”), and yet Romans 7:6-7 shows us that Paul includes coveting in the list of the Law “we have been released from” by grace. Thus, we have an aspect of the “New Law” that is not in accord with Paul’s definition of “grace.” This is a point that Mr. Michael cannot provide a reasonable answer to. Indeed, when I asked Mr. Michael to explain Romans 7:6-7, he responded not by dealing with Romans 7 but by appealing to Galatians 5:13, 16, 18 and then trying to force that context back into Romans 7. Likewise, when we look at how Mr. Michael dealt with the issue of obeying the Law, we see how precarious the Roman Catholic position is. Let us look at some of the things that Mr. Michael asserts are true in order to refute the Protestant position: 1. It is righteous to obey the Law. Mr. Michael stated: “The law is holy, and to obey it is righteous; the defect of the Mosaic Law, of course (according to the N.T. writers), is that it was only a dead letter written on stone, and was not accompanied by the Spirit through Whom ‘the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.’ (Rom. 8:4)” 2. Our righteousness does not come from obeying the Law. When asked specifically if righteousness comes from obeying the Law, Mr. Michael stated: “No, of course not, and the Catholic Church has never taught such.” 3. We first become justified (based on our righteous) apart from the Law. Mr. Michael stated: “…[I]f you're asking whether a person becomes righteous after having been wicked - that is, does this transformation itself take place - by means of obeying the law (perfectly or not), then the answer is no.” He also stated: “The man becomes righteous when God infuses grace into his soul, and that grace makes him righteous.” Note the conclusion from these last two points. In Mr. Michael’s view, both our conversion and our stand in righteousness are completely apart from the Law. In fact, the Law has absolutely nothing to do with our righteousness, even though it is righteous to obey the Law, for our righteousness does not come from the Law. Our basis for Justification, therefore, has nothing to do with how well we have kept the Law, but instead on whether or not God has “infused” grace into us. While we may agree that the above is the case—apart from the “infusion” aspect, for we agree that our righteousness does not come from obedience to the Law—how can we reconcile that notion with the following points that Mr. Michael also believes? 4. Justification is lost by disobeying the Law. Mr. Michael stated: “When does a man lose his justification, Mr. Pike? When he acts contrary to these words of Our Lord: ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments ... He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.’ (John 14:15, 21)” 5. God, however, does not view people differently after conversion than during conversion. Mr. Michael says: “There is neither a change in the grace itself nor in the standard by which the person is viewed. The change is in the person himself, or more accurately, in his soul. If he chooses to reject God and quench the Spirit in his soul, he is dis-graced; he has, in the words of St. Paul, ‘fallen from grace.’ (Gal. 5:4)” We see here the inherent contradiction in Mr. Michael’s beliefs. While saying that there is no change in “the standard by which the person is viewed,” he says that people who do not obey the Law lose their Justification. But when people are first Justified, it is not on the basis of the Law—so how can they then lose that Justification on the basis of the Law without there being a change in the standard by which a person is viewed? The answer is that Mr. Michael’s view is self-contradictory. His view is that a sinner has righteousness infused into him apart from works, but by works he loses that righteousness (which, possibly would not be a contradiction except that he views this as occurring without a difference in the standard by which the person is viewed). The man is declared Justified apart from works, but unjustified due to works. Thus, works are not the standard in the first case, but they are the standard in the second case. The fact is that while Mr. Michael states that works are not necessary to be declared righteous (only the infusion of God’s grace is), works are most certainly necessary for a person to continue in that Justification. Thus, he demonstrates for us the fine line that Roman Catholics must walk when it comes to salvation by works. Mr. Michael affirms that salvation is by grace, and yet his position logically reduces to salvation by works because it is the works that keep a person saved. Salvation only begins by faith; it continues by works. Again, when I asked Mr. Michael if our righteousness comes from obeying the Law, he said: “No, of course not, and the Catholic Church has never taught such. Our righteousness comes from Christ, Who enables us … to keep the Law.” The end of this response contradicts his first response, for ultimately Christ enables us “to keep the Law” and thus it results in our righteousness coming from obeying the Law. Even though Mr. Michael affirms that it is impossible to keep the Law apart from Christ, that does not change the fact that if one does not keep the Law according to Roman Catholicism, one is not saved. The Law, therefore, becomes a prerequisite to Justification. That is why Mr. Michael says: “Well, Mr. Pike, again I'm going to have to fall back on the plain words of Scripture: ‘You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48)” The problem is that Mr. Michael admits he has not been perfect: “I have lived in obedience to the Law of Christ, by the grace of God, many times - but if you're asking me if I have lived a sinless life, then the answer is no.” Thus we see the following points of Mr. Michael’s theology: 6. To remain Justified one must obey the “New Law” (as we have seen above). 7. The standard of the “New Law” is perfection. 8. Mr. Michael admits he has not kept the “New Law” perfectly. Thus, we can conclude from Mr. Michael’s own statements that either his premise that the “New Law” must be kept perfectly is flawed, or else Mr. Michael is himself not Justified. Interestingly, Mr. Michael seemed to anticipate this very response, for he wrote: “But who can keep the law perfectly, right? ‘I can do all things in him who strengthens me’ (Phil. 4:13), because ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me’ (Gal. 2:20), and so ‘I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me’ (1 Cor. 15:10) because ‘He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.’ (John 15:5)” Unfortunately, apparently those passages do not apply to Mr. Michael, for he said: “…[I]f you're asking me if I have lived a sinless life, then the answer is no.” Mr. Michael would, undoubtedly, deny that he is (at least presently) unjustified. This is why I asked him if there was a way for him to quantify which part of his salvation was based on grace and which portion was because he had not disobeyed the “New Law.” His response was simply “Salvation encompasses all of who we are. Jesus told us to love God with not only our whole mind and heart, but also our whole strength. It's a package deal, Mr. Pike.” But this does not answer the question, which is how the Catholic can know whether his good works have been sufficient enough to avoid him losing his justification. There is no quantifiable method of answering this question, so ultimately it is impossible for a Catholic to know if he is justified or not. Now let us look at Mr. Michael’s view of infusion over and against the Protestant view of imputation. The key passage regarding this during the cross-examination was James 2:10, which again states: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." Mr. Michael would like for this passage to mean, “The man is guilty, not by reason of imputation or infusion, but by reason of the fact that he broke the law; and as far as the strict standards of the law are concerned, he may as well have broken them all, because in the end the verdict would be the same: guilty.” But James does not say, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point might as well have broken them all.” He says, instead, that breaking the Law in one point causes one to become accountable (ESV), or guilty (NASB, NIV) of breaking all the Law. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough space left to ask Mr. Michael which view of the Law is being discussed by James. I would assume that Mr. Michael would claim that it was the “Old Law” that James is holding in view. But if that is the case, then I must point out that the works that James speaks of when he says “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” (James 2:14) must be works of the “Old Law”, for the context of the Law has not changed in the space of those four verses. Indeed, if this is the case, James must have in view works of the “Old Law” when he writes: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). And if that is the case, then there most certainly is a contradiction in the Catholic view between James (speaking of us needing works of the “Old Law”) and Paul, who in Romans 3:28 (likewise speaking of works of the “Old Law”), said, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Likewise, since it is the case that the “Old Law” is the ceremonial law (as would necessarily be the case if Mr. Michael’s argument about Paul in Romans 3:28 is true in that it only refers to the ceremonial law), then one must ask why is it that James specifically refers to commandments (“do not kill”, “do not commit adultery”)? If the dichotomy between the “Old Law” and the “New Law” is to remain, Mr. Michael’s must explain how the “Old Law” in Romans 3:28 does not include commandments, but the “Old Law” in James 2:10 does. The fact of the matter is that it is a false dichotomy designed so that Mr. Michael can alter the meaning of “New Law” like a wax nose to shape it to whatever it needs to say for a specific verse. If my assumption is wrong, however and Mr. Michael instead says that James is viewing the “New Law” here, then he is left with the fact that whoever does not obey one portion of the “New Law” is guilty of breaking all of the “New Law.” This would mean that the instant any believer committed any sin, he would lose his Justification and be counted (in Mr. Michael’s system) just as guilty as someone who broke all the Law. Naturally, since the “New Law” is defined by Mr. Michael (at least part of the time) as the words of Jesus, including the command to love the LORD with all our heart, soul, strength, and might, then the instant someone does not do this, he is just as guilty as someone who broke all the Law. In short, the instant righteousness is infused into a believer, he does not love the LORD with all his heart (for he is left with competing interests, including struggling against the flesh), and thus he instantly becomes a Law breaker again. That aside, the words of James do require a view of either imputation or infusion here for they do not say what Mr. Michael wants them to say. James does not say that someone is viewed as if he had broken all the Law in the passage, but that he literally is guilty of breaking all the Law. We know that it is not the case that God would infuse unrighteousness into a sinner—such would be morally repugnant! God’s nature would not allow Him to do such a thing. Imputation, on the other hand, has no such limitations. If imputation is in view, then we have God legally declaring that a sinner is guilty of breaking all the Law. Thus, it is a legal declaration and not an infusion of that unrighteousness. Indeed, Mr. Michael, whether he realizes it or not, slips dangerously close to the language of imputation even when he says: “[A]s far as the strict standards of the law are concerned, he may as well have broken them all.” In what sense could it be taken that one “may as well have broken them all” if not imputation? Mr. Michael’s argument is: “But obviously this doesn't mean that a man who breaks one law can then be literally hauled into court and charged with breaking all of them.” However, I merely ask, how could it be said “he may as well have broken them all” if, indeed, he cannot be “charged with breaking all of them” in a legal sense? What is the dichotomy in that he is can be viewed in one way as breaking all the law, but not in another way? There can only be one non-contradictory sense of the idea “he may as well have broken them all” and that is in view of imputation. Secondly, we must consider all the ramifications here. If it is not morally problematic for God to infuse righteousness that is not the sinner’s own into the sinner, why would it be morally problematic for God to infuse unrighteousness that is not the sinner’s own? We know that infusion of unrighteousness is abhorrent. Even if we stipulate that James is not speaking of infusion or imputation at this point, the problem still remains. The process of infusion is, prima facie, an unfair practice. It is just as “unfair” to infuse righteousness into a sinner as it would be to infuse unrighteousness into a sinner. Why is one morally just and the other not? Finally, let us look at Mr. Michael’s hermeneutic. Twice, I asked Mr. Michael to explain the hermeneutical process he used to come to his conclusions. First, it was regarding what exegetical evidence he had to demonstrate “works of the Law” referred only to the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Mr. Michael’s answer was that Paul mentions circumcision. This, however, is hardly an argument against the Protestant position that the Law means the entirety of the Law, including the ceremonial aspect of it. Nor does Mr. Michael’s assertion that Paul is restricting the Law to only the ceremonial law hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as we have seen earlier, Mr. Michael’s definition of the “Old Law” sometimes refers to only the ceremonial law, and sometimes to the entirety of the Law. He has no fixed definition, nor can his position give him one for one the one hand he claims: “As I have said, when St. Paul talks about ‘the Law’ in general, he is referring to the Mosaic Law, particularly in its Deuteronomic renewal” and yet on the other hand he says: “In the larger Pauline context, we can look at Galatians as well, where this same argument against ‘works of the Law’ is seen; in that context, St. Paul points explicitly to the rite of circumcision as that which cannot justify, the group he argues against is identified as the ‘circumcision party,’ and he also spends a good deal of time recounting how he rebuked St. Peter for falling back into an observance of Jewish dietary laws.” Mr. Michael gives us no way to differentiate between whether Paul is referring to the ceremonial law or to the Law in general. Mr. Michael seems to make the argument that there is a difference between “the Law” and “works of the Law”, and yet Paul said both “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) and “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (Romans 7:6). Paul explicitly states that we are under neither “works of the Law” nor “the Law.” He uses both terms as if they are identical because they are. Mr. Michael is engaged in a false dichotomy to distinguish between the two. The second hermeneutical question I asked was about James 2:10. We have already seen how Mr. Michael’s position does not stand up on this text, but the reason I asked specifically regarding the hermeneutical issue was due to his treatment of Psalm 106. Since my argument before had been that the Psalms were written in a poetic genre that was not strictly literal but Paul’s words were found in the form of a systematic theology, Paul’s statements should be taken more literally than the Psalms. Likewise, James writes from a didactic perspective, teaching us theology, and not in a poetic genre—yet Mr. Michael insists: “Obviously St. James is not speaking in the strictly literal sense here.” If it were so “obvious” then certainly there would be a hermeneutical method by which Mr. Michael could demonstrate which passages of Scripture are strictly literal and which are not. Mr. Michael does not provide us with a way to tell, other than his simple assertions of which is which. It is highly unconvincing to claim that the Psalms must be taken more strictly literal than James should be taken, however. The only reason to accept such a claim would be if one was already reading his position back into the text. In the final analysis, Mr. Michael’s argument against the Protestant position is full of self-contradictory false dichotomies, and he offers no way for us to read Scripture in a way which we can understand it. Instead, he eisegetes the passages and molds them to say what he needs them to say. As a result, his counter proposal to the Protestant model fails. The Protestant position does not have these failings. The Protestant position does not require a dichotomy between the “Old Law” and the “New Law.” The Protestant position does not require us to maintain a razor thin balance of “grace and works, but works done in grace so they don’t really count as works.” The Protestant position is clear and concise and it remains unchallenged by what Mr. Michael has put forth so far. Filed Under: List All | Debates / RomanCatholicism / JacobMichael / Justification And The Mass -- 10 Mr. Pike's Cross-Examination Rebuttal |
