Imputation and Infusion: A Reply to R.C. Sproul Jr.

R.C. Sproul Jr.

In "Imputation, Infusion and Eternal Consequence: A Parable," R.C. Sproul Jr. recently claimed that the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (St. Luke 18: 9-14) not only supports the Reformed notion of imputation over the Catholic doctrine of infusion, but also shows that those holding the Reformed doctrine of imputation are justified, while those holding the Catholic doctrine of infusion "will spend eternity weeping and gnashing teeth."

Sproul appeals to the Pharisee's use of "Lord, I thank you" as evidence that the Pharisee knows that he needs the grace of God, that the power to make him righteous came from God, and that God deserves all the glory for his obedience to God. The Publican too, notes Sproul, knows that he needs grace from God. Thus, according to Sproul, the difference between the Pharisee and the Publican does not lie in their awareness of the divine origin of grace and righteousness. They both know that grace and righteousness come from God.

According to Sproul, the difference between the Pharisee and the Publican is this: the Pharisee believes that God’s grace has “made him whole” while the Publican knows that he is an unrighteous sinner. Because of this difference, claims Sproul, the Publican will spend eternity walking with God, while the Pharisee will spend eternity weeping and gnashing his teeth. But here’s the kicker: (continue reading)

Rome's non-enemy seeks full communion with her

William Chellis

I first 'met' Bill Chellis through his blog De Regno Christi back in September of 2007. He was the pastor of Rochester Reformed Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York, which is a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. During the last two weeks of September of 2007, Bill hosted a two week discussion/debate between proponents and opponents of the theological position known as the Federal Vision, on De Regno Christi. I followed the discussion carefully, and commented there occasionally. The discussion prompted my post here titled "Darryl Hart on the Need for Sacramental Magisterial Authority," and a few days later "Protestantism "left only with opinions".

Two years later, in October of 2009, Bill published a post titled "Why Rome is not my enemy," which I wrote about in "William Chellis: Why Rome is not my enemy."

Then a few weeks ago Bill started a new blog named The Augustinian Anglo-Papist, on which, in a post titled "From Geneva to Rome," he announced that he is now seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. He writes:

This is a pilgrim's blog. It is the story of a journey in progress. I once took my stand with the militant Presbyterians. I served as a Pastor of small confessional, orthodox Presbyterian congregation in a small conservative and strident denomination. The Reformed Presbyterian Church was my home.

More than my home, she was my mother. She gave me life by pointing me to the riches of Christ. She fed and nourished my spiritual life on a steady diet of Word, sacrament and prayer. I will always love and honor her, as I will always love an honor my friends in Christ who remain within her.

If I am a catholic today, it is because she taught me to love the catholic faith. If she is not able to recognize the catholic faith in Rome, then I will lovingly disagree and pray for the unity of Christendom!

For, over time, my mind has changed. My search for the catholic faith has lead me to an unexpected place. Convinced that our Puritanism was another century's liberalism, my family began worshipping among the Anglicans. A fan of C.S. Lewis and T.S. Eliot, Anglicanism was an easy friend. The beauty of Anglo-Catholic liturgy and devotion, the wholesome goodness of the Book of Common Prayer, the Sermons of John Henry Newman were sources of great blessing. I even began to consider incardination into Anglican Holy Orders.

The more I prayed, however, the more restless I became. Anglicanism was an easy fit but was it the right fit? Could I really keep one foot in Geneva while having the other in Rome? Would I not be spewed out for being lukewarm?

After much prayer, sweat, blood, tears my Puritanism has transformed into Popery. From Geneva to Canterbury to Rome, this was my path. ... (continue reading)

Please pray for Bill and his family as they make this transition, and welcome them warmly into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Michael Liccione and Neal Judisch Reply to Keith Mathison

Sacra Conversazione
Fra Angelico (c. 1443)

Michael Liccione and Neal Judisch have both written replies to Keith Mathison's Reply.

Michael's article is titled "Mathison’s Reply to Cross and Judisch: A Largely Philosophical Critique." In it he focuses on what he claims is the most important philosophical issue in the debate, namely, that the disagreement is paradigmatic, that is, that the differences between the Protestant and Catholic positions are not intra-paradigmatic, but involve two distinct paradigms that must be understood as distinct paradigms to be understood rightly and to be compared properly. In other words, resolving the disagreement requires comparing the paradigms, and thus comparing the framework that constitutes the respective paradigms. Michael examines and compares the interpretive paradigms operative between Catholicism and Protestantism, and explains how those paradigms can be evaluated against each other.

Neal's article is titled, "Some Preliminary Reflections on Mathison’s Dialectic." In it he offers a critical evaluation of Keith's claim that the principled distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is visible to the inquirer only if the inquirer presupposes Catholic ecclesiology. Neal argues that Keith's claim is not plausible, and that it does not address the argument we raised in our 2009 article "Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority." He writes:

[T]he “Catholic presupposition-induced blindness” to the distinction Mathison draws is a putative psychological-cum-epistemological fact about Catholics. But the allegation that our case for the No Distinction Thesis is “circular and question-begging” is a putative fact about the logic of the argument. And there is a principled distinction between these things, which Mathison has perhaps not seen. For arguments (like offspring) need not inherit their parents’ defects; a fortiori when the defects are of categorically different kinds.

Once an argument marches forth into the wider world, the umbilical cord is severed and it takes on a life very much its own – to be praised or to be blamed in accord with its merits. And no amount of blaming its authors for blindness can imply that an argument they gave is guilty of circularity. For it is at any rate possible that Bryan and I in Athenian fashion groped hazily about, read incautiously and uncharitably, or embraced the No Distinction Thesis merely via some quasi-Freudian wish-fulfillment mechanism; but, like the proverbial blind hog, we might for all that have delivered into the world an acorn without so much as knowing how we’d done it.

(continue reading Neal's article)

Keith Mathison's Reply

In November of 2009, Neal Judisch and I posted an article titled "Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority." The article provoked a good deal of discussion, the comments now number over 1,200. Our article was a reply to Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scripura, and focused on the distinction Keith makes between sola scriptura and what he calls "solo scriptura."

Keith Mathison

In his book Keith argued strongly against solo scriptura, and endorsed sola scriptura as the rightful alternative. In our article, we argued that there is no essential difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. The defining feature of solo scriptura is the retention by each individual of ultimate interpretive authority, but under sola scriptura, each individual likewise retains ultimate interpretive authority, even if that fact is somewhat hidden by forming associations of those sharing similar interpretations of Scripture and appointing officers among such associations.

Last year Keith assured us that he would write a reply. Yesterday, he announced that he has completed his reply. It can be read at the following link: "Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch." A pdf version of his reply is available here. I expect that in the coming weeks we will write a reply to Keith's reply; in the mean time, follow the discussion of Keith's reply here.

Please Welcome David Meyer and his Family

In June I posted a note here that David Meyer had decided to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. Tomorrow (Dec 19), he and his wife and children will be received at Holy Family Catholic Church in St. Louis Park, MN. Please go to his blog and congratulate and welcome him.

St. Josaphat and the Internal and External Unity of the Church

St. Josaphat of Polotsk

Today is the feast day of St. Josaphat of Polotsk, an Eastern Rite bishop who gave his life for the unity of the Church on this day in 1623. (Read an account of his martyrdom here.) The following is an excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Dei, promulgated on this day in 1923 by Pope Pius XI in commemoration of St. Josaphat. In this excerpt we see the nature of the unity Christ established in His Church.

The Church of God, by a wondrous act of Divine Providence, was so fashioned as to become in the fullness of time an immense family which embraces all men. The Church possesses-a fact known to all-as one of its visible marks, impressed on it by God, that of a world-wide unity. Christ, Our Lord, not only entrusted to His Apostles and, to them alone, the mission which He had received from His Father when he said: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations;" (Matt. xxvii, 18, 19) He also wished the College of Apostles to possess perfect unity, a unity based on a twofold and well-knit bond, one bond internal, that of the selfsame faith and charity which is "poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Romans v, 5); the other external, that of the rule of one of the Apostles over all the others, for He conferred upon Peter a primacy over the Apostles as a perpetual principle and visible foundation for the Church's unity. At the close of His mortal life, he impressed upon the Apostles in the strongest possible terms the supreme need of this unity. (John xvii, 11, 21, 22) In His last soul-stirring prayer he asked His Father for this unity and His prayer was heard: "He was heard for his reverence." (Hebrews v, 7)

The Church was born in unity and grew into "a single body," vigorous, animated by a single soul, of which "the head is Christ from whom the whole body is compacted and fitly joined together." (Ephesians iv, 15, 16) Of this body, following the reasoning of St. Paul, He is the visible head who takes the place of Christ here upon earth, the Roman Pontiff. In him, as the successor of St. Peter, the words of Christ are being forever fulfilled: "Upon this rock I will build my Church." (Matt. xvi, 18) And the Pope who, down the ages, exercises the office which was bestowed upon Peter never ceases to confirm in the Faith, whenever it is necessary, his brethren and to feed all the sheep and lambs of the Master's flock.

No prerogative of the Church has been assailed more bitterly by "the enemy" than this unity of government, by means of which the "unity of the Spirit" is joined "in the bond of peace." (Ephesians iv, 3) It is quite true that the enemy has never, and never will, prevail against the Church. He has, however, succeeded in wresting from her bosom many of her children, and in some cases, even whole nations. These great losses were brought about in many instances by the wars which divided nations, by the enactment of laws inimical to the interests of religion and of virtue, or by an unbridled love for the passing goods of this world. (continue reading Ecclesiam Dei)

St. Josaphat, pray for us, that all those who seek to follow Christ would be reconciled in full and visible unity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A Lutheran Theology Professor and an Anglican Priest become Catholic

Rev. Giles Pinnock

Dr. Michael Root

Recently Dr. Michael Root, Professor of Systematic Theology at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina, announced that he will be received into the Catholic Church.

And today Giles Pinnock, Vicar of St Mary-the-Virgin, in Kenton, announced his intention to pursue full communion with the Catholic Church. (See also here.)


H/T Jeffry Steel

Barrett Turner's "Pelagian Westminster?"

Barrett Turner

I recommend this essay by Barrett Turner. Barrett completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Virginia. This Spring he graduated from Covenant Theological Seminary with an M.Div. This Fall he will be pursuing his doctorate in moral theology at the Catholic University of America. He lives with his wife and son in Alexandria, Virginia. They were members of the Presbyterian Church in America until they were received into full communion with the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil this year. In this essay he shows the Pelagian character of the Covenant of Works apart from infused grace.

Continue reading

David Meyer and Christopher Lake seek full communion with the Catholic Church

Yesterday Christopher Lake and David Meyer independently announced their intention to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. Christopher was raised in the Catholic Church but has been a Protestant for fifteen years. David has never been Catholic; he has been a Reformed Protestant the past ten years.

Christopher wrote:

On Tuesday of this now-almost-past week, I met with a wonderful, orthodox, kind, wise, 80-year-old Catholic priest (with age, indeed, comes much wisdom!) and expressed my desire to return to the Church. We talked for 90 minutes, every single one for which I very grateful to God. Lord willing, he will hear my confession as soon as it can be arranged– and then, soon after, the Eucharist, the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of the one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

David wrote a letter to the session of his PCA church explaining his decision. He posted his letter at New Christendom. Toward the end of his letter he writes:

The Catholic Church is the only option left. In many ways it is a bitter pill to swallow for me. I have been very critical of Catholic doctrine as a Protestant. Much that they believe I am not inclined to believe. But I will have to submit to the mind of what I must believe is the church Christ founded.

Read the rest of David's letter.

Please welcome them and pray for them.

How John Calvin Made me a Catholic

John Calvin

Dr. David Anders received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in 2002, in Reformation history and historical theology. He was received into the Catholic Church in 2003. He has recently written an article titled "How John Calvin Made me a Catholic." He will be on EWTN Live on June 23rd, 7:00 pm Central (8 EST), and may be discussing some of the material from this article.

(Continue reading)