|
Transcript of a debate between Dr. Scott Hahn, Catholic
convert and former Presbyterian minister, and Dr. Robert Knudson of
Westminster Theological Seminary. The original tape was distributed by Catholic Answers.
Moderator:
I'd like to
begin this second half of the debate with a short scripture reading. I
got the sense during the break that emotions are running high tonight
on both sides. For good reason. All of us here, and I think I speak for
Scott Hahn and for Dr. Knudson, we all appreciate the zeal and energy
that we are bringing to this debate. Please don't think for one minute
that the other side, whichever side you're on, is less interested and
less convicted of their side than you are. And in an effort to try and
calm the tension, bring ourselves back to the quiet reflection of
truth, God's Word, I'd like to read a passage from 2 Timothy, chapter
2, beginning in verse 20.
"In a large
household there are vessels not only of gold and silver, but also of
wood and clay, some for lofty and others of humble uses. If anyone
cleanses himself with these things he will be a vessel for lofty uses
dedicated, beneficial to the master of the house, ready for every good
work. So turn from youthful desires and pursue righteousness, faith,
love and peace along with those who call on the Lord with purity of
heart. Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed
quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel but should be gentle
with everyone, able to teach tolerance, correcting opponents with
kindness."
So now, with
that in mind, we're going to open the second half of the debate on the
question of justification. The resolution is: Are we justified by faith
alone, which is the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, or is it as the
Roman Catholic Church asserts, that there is justification by faith
plus, in some way, some capacity, works? We'll open this section with
Scott Hahn.
Hahn:
I think that
it's a good sign that people who love Jesus Christ and seek to follow
the Bible get together even if it's hard. It reminds me of another
sign, a sign on a convent wall which read, "No trespassers. Violators
will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Signed: The Sisters
of Mercy." [laughter] Many people think that the Catholic view of
justification has that incongruity of justice and mercy. I'm not sure
it's incongruous, but I believe that it's harmonious. It's in contrast
to the Protestant view and, just for clarity's sake, I wish to
enunciate to the best of my understanding from Protestant sources what
Protestants generally regard -- whether they're Presbyterian
Methodists, Lutheran Episcopalians, Fundamentalists or whatever -- what
Protestants regard as the doctrine of justification. This is based on
the Augsburg Confession of the Lutherans in 1530, the Second Helvetic
in 1566, the Reformed Church's Westminster Confession in 1646, and many
other statement as well.
I think it's
best summarized by a book on the back table written by James Buchanan
on justification by faith -- didn't mean to advertise it, but it's a
good book from a Reformed perspective. He defines justification as, "a
legal or forensic term used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of
anyone as righteous in the sight of God." The Westminster Seminary
faculty has adopted a statement on justification that I believe is very
crystal clear in annunciating what is distinctively Protestant and
non-Catholic. I read from the Westminster statement on justification
[unintelligible] in seminary: "Justification is altogether a legal,
declarative act on God's part as the supreme Judge. We deny," it goes
on to say, "that justification is in any sense a moral transformation
or inner renewal."
The Protestant
position goes on, "In justification God legally declares the sinner who
in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ.
Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of
the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that
justification is by a grace given at conversion which enables sinners
to do the law unto their justification."
I used to teach
this, I used to believe it, and after much study of Scripture and
considerable prayer and a lot of pain I have repudiated it. I believe
that we are saved by Christ through grace alone, by a living faith
working in love. I believe that's the biblical view and I've also
discovered, much to my shock, that it's the Roman Catholic view,
restated in every official statement in the Catholic Church with regard
to the doctrines of grace, justification and salvation. Two thousand
years of faithful teaching. From Christ alone, through grace alone, by
faith and works done in love, only and always by the Holy Spirit. Not
works done by sheer human energy to kind of force God into a bargain or
contract, but the works of God in us, by the Holy Spirit, through the
Holy Spirit.
If you want to
understand the Catholic view, and I hope you want to understand it even
if you don't want to end up agreeing with it, I would recommend the
viewpoint of one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the ages,
Matthia Sheeban(?) who says, "The master idea of the Catholic faith in
general and the doctrine of justification of the Catholic Church in
particular is the family of God. We receive in justification, not a
legal acquittal only, but nothing less than the full gift of divine
sonship, living, active and powerful, simultaneous with when we are
first justified." This is stated clearly in response to the Reformers
in the Council of Trent, chapter 4, where justification is spoken of in
terms of adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus
Christ. In chapter 8 also, the beginning, foundation and root of all
justification without which it is impossible to please God and come to
the fellowship of sons, justification from a Catholic perspective is
divine sonship. It's standing in God's family. It's nothing we earn,
it's nothing we work our way into.
How many people
ever bought their way into a family? It can't be done and it hasn't
been taught in the Catholic tradition. Justification, then, understood
in the Catholic way, involves both the imputation of legal
righteousness as the Protestants believe, but also the infusion of
Christ's life and grace as the divine son so that in Christ we become
at justification living, breathing sons of God, not just legally but
actually. That's what the grace of the Father does for His children. In
other words we hold with the Protestants that justification involves a
legal decree, a divine word , that we are just, but unlike the
Protestants and contrary to their position, we believe that that word
of justification goes forth in power. In other words, God does what he
declares. In the very act of declaring us just He makes us just because
His Word is omnipotent, it's all-powerful. Isaiah 55:11: "So shall my
Word go forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it
shall accomplish that which I purpose." Were God to say, "Scott Hahn's
a woman," I would say, [falsetto] "No, I'm not." I would become a woman
in the very act of His declaring me to be such. His Word is what
brought the world into being, even if you don't like my falsetto (I
don't either!).
The point is
that whatever God declares, He does by declaring it to be, because the
Word of God is the living and active Christ himself. When we're
declared just, God does what He declares. He fathers children in
Christ, the eternal Son. The Catholic Church does not teach legalism.
If individual Catholics you meet believe that through their own
individual works-righteousness they can buy their way into heaven or
merit everything on their own, you tell them to go back to their
church, back to the Scripture, back to their councils, and change their
minds. It isn't works-righteousness, it isn't striking a bargain or a
deal with God at all. It's God having His way in us by filling us with
His life, His love, His power. So God transforms children of the devil
into children of God, not just by mere legal decree but by giving us
Christ in his sonship. Therefore, according to the Roman Catholic
Church, each and every deed I do that is pleasing to God is nothing
other than the work of Christ active in me through the power of the
Holy Spirit. St. Augustine said as a result, "When God rewards my
labors, He's merely crowning the works of His hands in my life." As
Paul says, "We are not competent of ourselves; our competence is from
God who has made us competent." It isn't me but the Holy Spirit in me
enabling me to cooperate and operate. So we are justified and made holy
by God's grace alone.
The Catholic
Church says it's grace from beginning to end; there's no strict merit
whatsoever. If there's any merit it's the merit of a child who grows up
and receives from the parents the life of the family, and works and
learns and does fidelity in the household. So it's like a father who
gives and fills his children with all that he has and is. But Paul
says, "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Paul's excluding good
works performed apart from grace, apart from sonship, outside the
family, by men and women who think of themselves as employees or
servants. But that is not what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that we
are saved by grace through faith, but nowhere ever does Paul say
"alone." Luther consciously added the word to Romans 3. He, in his
translation of the Bible into German, deliberately and knowingly added
a word that was not there in the Greek. He thought that it should be
and that it was in spirit, but he added it. Justification by faith
alone, first defined after 1500 years -- first defined by Luther -- was
done so and defended by adding a word to the Bible that was not there.
But faith alone
makes a man just with God; nothing else is needed? If we turn to the
New Testament, however, we find Christ's real teaching not only in Paul
but also in James, chapter 2, verses 20-24, where James says, "Faith
without works is dead. Do you not see that by works a man is justified
and not by faith alone?" As Professor Shepherd of Westminster Seminary
said, Paul and James are speaking of justification here in the same
sense. So why do Protestants formulate a doctrine of justification that
won't fit the way the Holy Spirit led the New Testament writers to
speak of justification? Paul and James are in harmony, but the doctrine
of justification by faith alone expressly and explicitly contradicts
what James says when he says, "A man is justified not by faith
alone...." But Jesus offers salvation as a free gift, beyond what we
deserve; all we have to do is just simply accept. Jesus offers himself
to us and his salvation as free gift, beyond what we deserve, but you
are wrong when you say we only have to accept. Jesus will say
to those who say, 'Lord, Lord' on that day, "Depart from me you workers
of lawlessness." As Paul also says in Philippians, "Work out your
salvation with fear and trembling in your hearts." So we can bargain
God into an exchange? No, because God is at work in you both willing
and doing for His good will and pleasure and purpose.
But Catholics
are always doing, doing; they're always doing something to be saved. Of
course that's true, because what father wants his children to be
sitting around all day without learning, growing, working and maturing
-- that is, becoming like Him? When we pray, "Lord, come into my
heart," we're doing something. When we say, "Lord, I want to receive
you into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior," we are saying and
doing something. When we sing, attend church, study Scripture, share
the Gospel, likewise. But then salvation is just God paying us for our
works, which Paul condemns. True, Paul condemns those who make
salvation a wage or salary. Let me say that again. We are not teaching
that salvation is in any sense an earned wage or salary. Rather, it's a
reward by way of inheritance.
What child ever
bought his way into the family? Entrance into the family, membership in
the family, is pure gift. Or what parent ever told a child, "You will
inherit and rule in the family no matter what you do? Salvation is a
reward only in the sense that an inheritance is. From start to finish
it's pure gift. Even growing up and learning and doing is a gift
received by children appropriating the parents' gifts of life and
truth. So its straight from the life and hearts of the parent, in this
sense God the Father, into the body and soul of a child, the Son of
God, the Christian. This is the Bible, this is St. Paul, this is St.
James and this is the Catholic Church. Matthew 5, verse 12: "Be glad
and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven." Matthew 7, verse
21: "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven." Matthew 19:17: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the
Commandments." Romans 2, verse 6: "God will render to every man
according to his works." Romans 2:13: "For not the hearers of the law
are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Colossians sums it up very well; chapter 3, verse 23: "Whatever you do,
do from the heart as unto Christ, knowing you'll receive of the Lord
the reward of inheritance." Given to children, of course. First John,
chapter 3, verse 7: "Little children, let no one deceive you, he who
does right is righteous as He is righteous."
One of the
greatest professors of Protestantism of the twentieth century was a man
by the name of John Murray. His protegé and successor had to leave
Westminster Seminary because he saw that these statements and
formulations of the Protestant church were not fully in line with Paul
and James: at least many people didn't believe that his statements were
converse with the Protestant tradition. You will see that Protestant
theologians in interpreting the Bible will actually say that adoption
is only a legal act, for instance, John Murray. Again, many consider
him the greatest Protestant Bible-believing, spirit-filled Bible
theologian of the twentieth century. As a typical and representative
Protestant, he argues in his book "Redemption Accomplished and
Applied," page 167, "Adoption is only a judicial act." We're not really
made children of God, we're simply declared children legally. That's
not the Catholic view. He says, "Not degenerating within us of a new
nature or character to say that men by adoption come to share in
Christ's sonship" -- this is Murray now -- "that men by adoption come
to share in Christ's sonship and thus enter into the divine life of the
Trinity, this is grave confusion and error. No one shares in Christ's
sonship." And yet we hear, "Little children, let no one deceive you, he
who does right is righteous as he is righteous." Galatians 3:26 also
tells us that we are righteous before the Father as children, for "in
Christ you are all sons of God." In Romans 8:12 it says, "You who have
received the spirit of sonship. It is the spirit bearing witness with
our spirit that we are children of God and if children, then heirs,
heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ provided we suffer with him
that we may be glorified with him." And my last verse is 1 John 3:1:
"See what love the Father has given us that we should be called the
children of God, and so we are." We're not just called children, we're
not just declared children, we are. We're given a new nature in
justification that makes us true children. J.I. Packer in his book
"Knowing God" says, "It's a strange fact that the truth of adoption has
been little regarded in Christian --that is, Protestant -- history.
Apart from two last century books, now scarcely known, there is no
evangelical writing on it, nor has there ever been at any time since
the Reformation."
No wonder. It
isn't by law alone. We are fathered as children of God when we are
justified by faith working in love, and not by faith alone.
Knudson:
If we read in
the fourth chapter of the book of Revelation we find that the four
living creatures day and night never stop saying, "Holy, holy, holy is
the Lord God almighty who was and is and is to come." I read from the
New International Version. We ought to be impressed not only, but we
ought to be overwhelmed by the holiness and the righteousness of God.
As far as the holiness of God is concerned, that of course refers to
the fact that God is highly exalted above us, above His creatures so
that we can only view Him in awe and reverence. But it also refers to
the goodness of God, to the fact that the Scripture says that Him there
is no shadow of turning. In him there is perfect righteousness, perfect
justice, perfect goodness. But then there is also the perfect standard
of God, that the scriptures not only tell us to be good, they lay out
the Commandments, but it also tells us this: that we ought to love God
with our whole heart, soul and mind, and that we ought to love our
neighbor as ourselves. This is not something that is simply partial; we
are told that we are to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is
perfect. And that does not refer to only one or other order of
Christians, we hope that those of us who belong to the clergy try to
seek to be holy, but that refers to everybody, everyone who is a
Christian. But then man comes to the big question: considering the
holiness of God and the righteousness of God, and considering my own
sinfulness -- because the Apostle Paul says, "Everyone, all have
sinned," and fallen short of this perfect standard, how can I become
right before God? That is the question of justification. You can say,
"What must I do to be saved?" Yes, that's indeed so, but as this
discussion has developed, we are focusing particularly on the idea of
justification: How then shall I be right before God?
Now, if I have
read the canons of Trent properly and the articles there, if I hear
Scott properly, it is said in your circles that we are not justified
by, in our own strength, and that is true. If I read these documents
properly and if I listen to Scott Hahn properly, then it is not by the
works of the law, and that is true. But then the question comes: How do
we view the works of the law? What do we mean exactly by what is in our
own strength? The teaching I would like to present, which I believe is
solidly based on Scripture, is that justification is a gracious
declaration of God. We're familiar in the courts with a "not guilty"
judgment. A judge or jury will come with a verdict 'not guilty' on the
basis of what that person is, that he did not commit the crime. But the
difficulty with us and our sinfulness is that we indeed are guilty and
nevertheless, in spite of that fact, God comes with His declaration
'not guilty' even though one is not right before Him. One is reckoned,
he is declared just, and that is the understanding that I am presenting
of justification.
I might mention
the Short Catechism -- Scott had been referring to Presbyterian
tradition -- in the Shorter Catechism it says in Question 33, "What is
justification?", and the answer is simply that justification "is an act
of God's free grace wherein He pardoned all our sins and accepted us as
righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to
us and received by faith alone." The matter is indeed from the
Protestant position that one is just from the declarative act of God
while he is yet a sinner. That belongs to the notion intrinsically.
That, then, comes through faith, as we say, through faith alone.
Now Scott is
indeed right that when God justifies us by imputing to us the
righteousness of Christ, He doesn't only do that. At the same time,
inseparable from that, He makes us new creatures, new creations in
Christ Jesus; He does adopt us as sons. That is obviously not because
of anything good in ourselves, but it is an adoption. We are not like
the Jews who were naturally in the vine, but we have been put in the
vine, grafted among the children of God. The point is that there is
power connected with this, but nevertheless in the Protestant
tradition, we limit the idea of justification to that declarative act,
but we say that this justification is never simply by itself, it is
never alone. But then why do we say that it is by faith alone? It is
because of the sharp opposition that is drawn in the scriptures, that
is drawn in the writings of the Apostle Paul, between justification by
works and justification by faith. The idea that justification is not,
that there is complete opposition between justification by works, if
it's not that, then faith is the only thing, the only avenue by which
one can receive this.
Do I understand
the position as Scott presented it? There is something that with God's
grace, there is indeed a merit. This is included in the idea of
justification and therefore we are not justified by faith alone but,
with the infusion of God's grace, we are justified on the basis of the
merits that we have in Jesus Christ by the work of the Spirit.
Now, you see,
that is indeed what the Protestant Reformation rejected, because it saw
in Scripture this great opposition between works and faith. And it said
that there is no merit connected with justification other than the
merit that is in Jesus Christ himself. The Good News of the gospel is a
salvation by grace through faith as Scott quoted from Ephesians 2. "For
by grace you are saved through faith and not of yourselves. It is a
gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."
But do I not
also understand that there is a question here of assurance? Is it the
case that one needs to be justified and justified and justified because
of the grace given to him but nevertheless continued until the issue is
finally settled when he dies in grace and is then finally saved? The
position, it seems to me, of Scripture, as the Apostle Paul says in the
first verse of the fifth chapter of Romans, "Having, therefore, been
justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ."
Now, it is said
that Luther wanted assurance, needed assurance, and that was the reason
that he came up with the idea of justification. I believe that we all
need assurance, and assurance belongs to faith because faith is a firm
attachment, it is a certain resting upon Jesus Christ for our
salvation. It is indeed not a mere credulity, it is something that has
a real foundation in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. As far as
uncertainty is concerned....I'm married. Is my relationship with my
wife better if it were kept constantly in doubt and uncertainty?
There's some modern thinkers who say that, but I wouldn't claim that
any of you would say that. But if we know that we are children of God
because He has declared us just because of the righteousness of Jesus
Christ, we have this peace with God of which the Apostle Paul speaks.
As far as faith
and works are concerned, there are very, very many subtle things that
could be said, and Scott referred to some of them. One of them is that
very difficult passage in the writing of James. Let's look at it this
way, as some commentators would; let's look at it practically.
Supposing a woman says to her husband, "You say you love me. Do
something about it!" I think that's the tenor of that passage. He's
talking about those who say they have faith and that faith is empty. He
even speaks about the empty man, the person who is void, he is empty,
who says such a thing. Faith without works is dead; in fact it is no
true faith at all. But what James is talking about there is not just
cooperation of faith and works unto justification. Isn't he telling us,
"This is the kind of faith that saves? After all, he is talking about
those who already are saying, Yes, I'm saved by faith. But he's telling
them that this is a faith that must show itself, must manifest itself
in works. Florists will sometimes say, "Say it with flowers." Indeed
our works do speak.
But let me just
repeat that, "Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein He
pardons all our sin and accepts us as righteous in His sight only for
the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone."
We do say that justification is by faith alone, but it is not by a
faith that is alone. That happened to be something that Professor
Norman Shepherd said with which I thoroughly agreed.
Hahn:
I want to thank
Professor Knudson for a very good job summarizing the Protestant
position and interacting with the Catholic position. I also want to
take this opportunity to thank him for the respect and sensitivity that
he shows in so doing. I hope that the last thirty minutes have been
clear in simplifying the differences.
There are two
views of justification and faith here involved. The Protestant view is
built upon God understood primarily in terms of His holiness as a
judge. We are understood primarily in terms of guilty criminals. Christ
is an innocent but willing victim substitute. Hang the penalty.
Justification then is just simply a legal exchange. We get his legal
righteousness; he gets our punishment. The Catholic Church agrees with
all of these but regards them as partial truths. The Church tries to
put them in the broader context, in this case the notion of the divine
family, the notion of divine sonship. God is a holy Judge, but even
more, He's a loving Father. His holiness and His judgment are that of
father's heart. God is a loving Father; we are the ones He makes His
children. Jesus is the one who dies and rises to give us his own divine
sonship and nothing less than his own divine sonship. Justification is
therefore His declaration of that sonship and, as I've mentioned, He
does what He declares by declaring it [Isaiah 55:11]. God's word does
not return to Him void. It accomplishes the purpose that He set out to
accomplish. So salvation and justification in the Catholic tradition is
regarded, then, as growing up to be a mature, loving hard working son
of God or daughter of God in His family, the Church of Christ.
Now, I don't
sense that this in any way detracts from the righteousness of Christ.
To me it perfectly manifests the righteousness of Christ which is put
within our souls, not just legally, but actually alive and powerful
because the Holy spirit transforms our nature. When we're justified we
are transformed, we are not only acquitted and forgiven. We are made
children of God and not only criminals who are taken off of death row.
Assurance does
belong to the Catholic doctrine, that is, the assurance of moral
certitude, as the Council of Trent and Catholic theologians define it.
It's the kind of certainty I have that my parents are my parents and I
am their child. I have the Holy Spirit, and so I have that moral
certitude that comes from the Holy spirit, that comes from my own
growth and life in Christ, that I am in fact a child of God. But that
moral certitude is not to be identified with my faith itself. My faith
is not in my faith, but in Christ who made me a child of God by giving
to me His own righteousness. I am a child of God because God has not
only imputed but also imparted, and that's the big difference. Has He
only imputed a legal righteousness, or has He also imparted a divine
sonship? Has He only decreed me innocent, or has He done what He has
decreed by making me a living child of God with the life of the Father
living and breathing and moving within me, so that my works are really
nothing but my Father's works in and through me?
The question I'd
like to pose, then, is: Is adoption what John Murray and the Protestant
tradition teaches -- that is, only legal? Is the notion of our share in
Christ's divine sonship actual, spiritual, dynamic and personal? Is
that really a grave confusion and a grave error, or is that in fact the
doctrine of St. Paul and St. James? And finally, how is that Paul never
says we're justified by faith alone, James does say we aren't justified
by faith alone, but by faith and works, and so why have we formulated a
doctrine in the Protestant tradition that contradicts James and says
what Paul never said? Who is taking the Bible literally here?
Knudson:
As far as the
question is concerned: Is justification simply legal? I don't believe
that's a good formulation -- "simply legal". It's a declaration in
which God pardons -- we have here [reading]: "He accepts us as
righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ." There is
a legal side of it, very, very much. There is a declarative thing which
is what we call forensic It is legal; of course, it is not legal just
simply in the sense of the law courts. But nevertheless the point is if
we think of justification are we going to think first of all about this
declaration of God that we are righteous in spite of the fact there is
no righteousness in us that is able to fulfill His holy, complete and
perfect will.
I would have to
look up some of these references to which Scott makes reference, and I
would have to look at them more carefully. But my point has been this:
that that is essential to the idea of justification as presented in the
Scriptures, and that this indeed is by faith alone. The question comes:
Why do we say by faith alone? I tried to point that out in my remarks
because of the opposition that Paul in Romans and Galatians makes
between the two. If faith is not by works and we would not allow merit
unto justification even by the works of the Christian if that is not by
works, then what is it? It says by faith and that, then, has to be by
faith alone.
Let's get back
a moment to what James says there We can admit that there are things in
Scripture which are difficult to be understood. The Apostle Peter
himself mumbled a bit about the teachings of the Apostle Paul, as you
know, that they were rather difficult to be understood. I tried to put
that is some perspective by asking us to look at it from the practical
point of view. Supposing a person does come to you and say, "I have
faith," and he has no works. Faith is, I would say, a living faith.
Otherwise, it's really no faith at all. A living faith, as Scott
pointed out, does something. That is true, it does something, but the
point is whether it is by faith that we, then, have justification. A
faith that will work, it does something. As I tried to point out, the
entire context there in James is that the Scriptures speak of Abraham,
that Abraham was justified by faith. And what does that mean? I would
think that's the entire context of it. We can't then think that it's
simply a question of faith and works together for our justification,
but what kind of faith is it that justifies? It is a living faith that
indeed does something, but it is by faith alone that we can be
justified because we can not be justified by our works and there is no
merit unto our justification. However, God does make us His sons. He
does fill us with life. Our faith is living and we are united with
Jesus Christ through faith, and we also live out the life of Christ in
everything we do.
Moderator:
Thank you both.
We'll now have the section for cross-examination, beginning with Mr.
Hahn.
Hahn:
[unintelligible] I want to ask a two part question. First, do you agree
with the statement of John Murray that, "To say that men by adoption
come to share in Christ's sonship, and thus enter into the divine life
of the Trinity, this is grave confusion and error. No one shares in
Christ's sonship"? And, secondly, in the Westminster statement on
justification they emphatically affirm, "Justification involves only
the legal imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ."
Knudson:
As far as the
statement of Murray is concerned, I'm trying to understand what he had
in mind there without having the book before me. It would seem to me to
make a lot of sense that Murray is denying that in our justification or
in our Christian lives we partake of the divine nature, that somehow we
would take on divinity, or something of the sort. We would then be
mystically immersed in the divine being, or something of the sort. We
maintain at our seminary and, I think biblically, always, the
difference between the Creator and the creature. However, it is true
that we are mystically united to Jesus Christ -- that is in the
Scriptures -- and we participate in Christ's life, but not in such a
way that is substantial.
Hahn:
I want to
stress that in the Catholic tradition that mystical element is
emphasized because as 2 Peter, chapter 1 says, "We are made partakers
of the divine nature." We have a real, and not merely legal share, in
the very life of the Blessed Trinity. The Trinity becomes our heavenly
home, it becomes our present life, we have eternal life through the
Holy Spirit here and now. On the basis of that I would say again this
question: Does God's decree of justification do what it decrees, or
does it fall short, and why is that James who says "not by faith alone"
and Paul who never says "by faith alone," how do we get from those two
passages the doctrine that all Protestants, all Fundamentalists hold,
that we're justified by faith alone?
Knudson:
Scott repeats
this idea. Again, one would have to look at the entire tradition, I
suppose, but on the basis of my knowledge of the Scriptures very
definitely I would have to deny that in any way we are united with God
in Jesus Christ in a way so as to destroy the relation of Creator and
creature. Whatever we become in Christ we become as God's creatures,
and then we are made perfect in Christ Jesus. Now, does the
justificatory act accomplish what it says? Yes, of course, because of
the fact that even though we are sinners, even though we have fallen
short we are declared righteous by God and we are accepted in Him and
we have the assurance of our salvation. Now, I know you said no
testimonies, but perhaps I can be allowed one sentence [laughter]. I
accepted Christ when I was 7 years old. Since that time God has not
left me for one moment without the warm sense of His presence as His
child and I thank Him for that.
Moderator:
Thank you, Dr.
Knudson. Now it's your turn to ask Mr. Hahn a question.
Knudson:
I have been
emphasizing a great deal the opposition between -- Calvin does this too
in his Institutes, as you are well aware -- the opposition between
justification by good works, as if there was some merit in our works,
and the apostle Paul says definitely that is not the case. If that is
so, then is not Calvin right when he says that we should not follow
Luther in this? Melancthon, I understand, did defend Luther in this
interjection "only" or "alone."' Isn't this tantamount to saying that
there is this cleavage, this opposition that justification is by faith
and by faith alone?
Hahn:
I'm not sure I
understand the question. Is there a cleavage between the Lutherans and
the Calvinists?
Knudson:
The cleavage of
which I was speaking is this: if our justification is by works it is
not by faith; if it is by faith it is not by works.
Hahn:
Right. We
emphatically in the Catholic tradition, following James and Paul,
denounce any works-righteousness, any notion whatsoever that we are
justified by works. We are justified by faith, and as James says, we
are justified by faith and works, as Galatians tells us, we are
justified by faith working in love. Neither circumcision counts for
anything, neither uncircumcision, but faith working in love. So the
perspective of the Catholic Church is not that of a Roman courtroom, as
J.I. Packer insists it should be, and also John Murray and other
Protestant theologians. It's that of a Hebrew covenant family in which
the judge is a father, and in decreeing judgment and in decreeing
righteousness He's doing what He's decreeing by imparting to us His own
life. Not that we cease to be creatures; we'll always be creatures ever
dependent upon the Creator and ever distinct form the creator, but the
Creator who loves is the Father who fathers us to be His children, and
that, despite whatever we may have seen or heard from individual
Catholics, that is the ancient teaching of the Church and that is
age-old teaching of the Church and I believe that it is perfectly
consistent with Paul and James insofar as we're not saying
works-righteousness, we're not saying any kind of legalistic scheme.
We're justified by faith working in love, which is nothing other than
the very real grace of Christ operating in us, enabling us as children
to grow up. Are we continually justified? Do children have to keep
going over hurtles and immaturities? Of course. We're continually
justified because our sonship is ever growing as a divine seed within
us as children of God.
Knudson:
I must insist
again that it is not right to say that the Protestant view is simply
legalistic. But without this declarative act, without this act which
has a legal side to it, without the idea that we are justified in spite
of the fact that we do not deserve it, merit it, that is the thing. As
far as the life that we have, once having been justified, as Paul says
in Romans 5:1, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.
Justification is an act of God's free grace in which He pardons and
accepts us. Then we live out that life which He gives us throughout our
entire lives, persevering to the end in love of Him. But what we do not
do is say that there is a continuing justification based on any merit
in us.
Moderator:
Now we'll have
audience questions. Please keep them short so that our speakers can get
to as many questions as possible.
Question:
Professor Hahn,
just so you'll know where I'm coming from, I'm an ordained officer in
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I want to say this: Praise God for
the work of grace in your heart. I've never heard a better, clearer
exposition of the Christian faith than I've heard from you tonight
[applause]. I've heard words such as yours from very few men, Catholic
or Protestant. My question is this. I know that at Vatican II it was
declared that the Church ought to read the Bible and that therefore
they ought to have a Bible in their own language and a modern version
so they can read it, and I noted that the moderator this evening made
the lighthearted observation that you could tell the Protestants from
the Catholics by whether they carried the Bible. Now you could only
have learned what you've learned from the Bible. What can you do to get
more Roman Catholics to read the Bible?
Hahn:
My years within
the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have led me to the utmost respect for
that denomination, and I wish to apologize for my vagueness at the very
beginning of the debate. If I was in any way taken to be casting
aspersions, doubts and accusations toward the OPC, that is contrary to
my intention. I love the brothers and sisters in the OPC and I respect
that denomination as much as any Protestant denomination in the world.
I am especially grateful for how it's nurtured me in many ways. One of
the ways I do it is by teaching scripture with about 110% of my energy.
You've seen about 10% of it tonight. My whole being aches and yearns to
share Scripture with the Roman Catholic people in this country. My
whole being yearns to share the doctrine of the covenant understood
properly, I believe, as a family, and not understood as a contract. I
think that was a major diversion from the Protestant reformation after
a beautiful insight of recovering the covenant, it misunderstood it as
a contract. I think that the covenant is a living and active family and
I believe it's the family in which many Catholics live and move without
hardly any understanding, largely due to an overreaction to the
Protestant use of the Bible alone, they've stopped using the Bible to
an extent.
I would also
add, though, that the Bible was made available in German in 14
different editions before Luther ever translated it; it was made
available in over a dozen other languages before Luther was even born.
It's a myth that I helped perpetrate by taking my girlfriend and
several of the young people in the youth ministry out of the Catholic
Church by telling them that the Bible always was suppressed by the
Catholic Church, when in fact I've discovered quite to the contrary:
that they made many more translations than I ever knew. The reason why
they refused to authorize certain translations of Wycliffe and Luther
was because of faults they found in the translations. Especially when
Luther added words such as "alone" in discussing justification.
Question:
I'd like to
bring you back to the question, Scott, and ask you what specifically we
can do to get more Catholics to read the Bible. Try to sum it up
quickly.
Hahn:
Well, I suppose,
hold debates like this where Catholics can discover their traditions.
Have Bible studies. I hold three Bible studies a week for an hour and a
half almost every week. I have to prioritize my family and my four
children accordingly, but I have a burning passion to see a Bible study
in every parish, following the Church's teaching, but digging deep. I
would encourage you to encourage your Catholic friends to study
Scripture, not contrary to the Church, but fully in line with the
Church. I would encourage Catholics to buy books about the Bible, read
the Bible, pray before reading the Bible and afterwards. My students in
my courses get so much Bible!
Knudson:
I spoke of
being properly ecumenical. I sincerely believe that with my heart. I
think that one ought to recognize the working of the Spirit wherever it
occurs: in the Lutheran Church, in the Catholic Church, in the
Presbyterian churches, wherever. I can only say, study the Scriptures!
That's what the Bible tells us to do, that we should study them and
understand them. I do want to point out, however, that we have brought
out real issues this evening. We have referred to the Tridentine
statements and the canons, for example. I think issues are drawn very
clearly there. I've tried to mention some issues from the other side.
So, my reaction to this is, go to it!
Question:
Dr. Knudson, in
one sense from what I've been hearing is that perhaps there's very
little difference between the two positions here. Much of what you've
talked about is actually the doctrine of atonement, but if you bring in
the doctrine of sanctification and put that together with justification
is there really all that much difference between the evangelical
Protestant and the Roman Catholic view?
Knudson:
Well, certainly
justification doesn't stand alone. It's always paired with other
doctrines, never separated from sanctification. The idea of atonement
is very important, but in the Protestant tradition and, I believe, in
the scriptures, justification itself has this forensic tone, this legal
side to it this declarative thing without really all the rest of it, I
would say it would be impossible.
Question:
Would you
clarify for the audience what sanctification is?
Knudson:
Sanctification
is that in Christ we are made holy, and not only made holy, but
increase in holiness. Referring once again to the Shorter Catechism of
Westminster, Question 35 says that sanctification is the work of God's
free grace whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of
God and are enabled more and more to die to sin and live unto
righteousness. Justification and sanctification in our view and, I
believe, the view of scripture are never separated. One of the major
things that one of the professors at our seminary, Professor Gavin
says, emphasizes so much is our union with Christ. We are united with
Christ and we partake of Christ's life and that life ought to be
manifested in everything that we do.
Hahn:
I do believe
that the issues are real and substantial. I have found in my own
tradition a strong statement repeatedly made that justification is
reducible to a legal declaration, and as the Westminster statement of
justification reads, pages 13 through 16, "We deny that justification
is in any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal." Now I believe
that St. Paul uses the words justification and sanctification almost
interchangeably in a way that Protestants do not and almost, I would
say, can not. I mention a few verses: Acts 20:32, Acts 26:18, 1
Corinthians 1:2 and many others that you can look up all speak of
sanctification as by faith. As a result I suggest that the distinction
between justification and sanctification that Protestants make, that
justification is only legal and sanctification is a moral change, is
not actually in Paul's writings.
Question:
There's so much
that I agree with, Mr. Hahn, in what you said about salvation and
justification, but I suppose the reason I agreed with so much is that I
shifted the terminology around because you were using justification and
salvation interchangeably. In one sentence you said, "Justification and
salvation is" and then you went on. You presented justification as
being the Protestant view of salvation, making justification and
salvation equal terms, and you present it as though Protestants don't
view God as doing the work in the heart, changing us, making us
different. I know you don't believe that because that's very much a
part of Murray's position, so could you clarify that Protestants do
believe that God does all that you said he does: He changes us, makes
us new people, and yet it's just that we don't call it justification,
because to do that would be to say that the final reason for me being
in Heaven is I had something to do with it rather than God. So could
you clarify the Protestant position of God working in our hearts?
Hahn:
I understand
that Protestants believe that God changes us, but I also find in their
theologians this continual position that there is no share in Christ's
divine sonship, which I find embedded in St. Paul's writings. John
Murray emphatically repudiates that. Also, with regard to
sanctification and justification, listen to 1 Corinthians 6:11: "You
were washed" -- most commentators think that means baptism -- "you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ."
Sanctified comes before justified there. Now I found that as a
Protestant I had so emphatically redefined justification as only legal,
sanctification as a moral change, so that, you know, Protestants
believe in moral change, and my point is not to deny that Protestants
believe a moral change comes over the Christian, but that Protestants
improperly completely dissociate that from justification. But in Paul's
writings we are justified by faith working in love, not in a sense
flexing our own muscles and forcing God to fork over some goods in
heaven, but it's His life being formed in us in the very act, in the
process of justification, that is, receiving sonship.
Question:
It's clear that
the scriptures teach that faith works in love, that is true. Faith does
something; faith is an active faith. But whatever the order is, the
scriptures do not, as I read them, associate a declarative act with
sanctification as it does with justification. In sanctification there
is a real change, we are transformed. In justification the idea is
first of all that we are declared righteous based on the righteousness
of Christ. To my mind that is clear teaching from scripture.
Question:
Dr. Knudson,
perhaps I misunderstood the rest of the debate here, but it seems to me
that much of the argument comes down to the status of man vs. God,
whether on the one hand it's a son relationship or on the other hand a
more status oriented and formal type of relationship. Salvation vs.
judgment, in a certain sense. If it is indeed simply a question of your
position, doesn't the Bible consistently, in all portions of the New
Testament talk about salvation in terms of Christ coming to bring man
into the kingdom of God, to transform man into sons of God. Christ
called himself not only the Son of God, but the Son of Man. If that's
the case, how does that conform to your position?
Knudson:
I would say it's
simply Scripture teaching that Christ did come to bring us into his
Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, but no one can enter into the Kingdom
unless there has been this declaration, that he has been declared just.
If we're going to be sanctified, we have to have been declared
righteous, because otherwise there's no entry into God's kingdom at all.
Hahn:
What comes out
in the questions and in the presentation is that hairs are being split.
I want to stress that the Catholic view is two thousand years old. It
didn't change with the Protestant Reformation. It's the same as it's
always been. Justification has always been stressed as a declarative
act, but not merely as a declarative act. That is what
Protestants emphasized and required, that it's only legal. The Catholic
Church has always affirmed that it's legal and declarative, but because
it's God declaring it's also transformative. Sanctification is a word
that emphasizes the transformative aspect but it also involves a
declarative aspect. In other words the Catholic position is both/and
whereas it seems to me that the Protestant position is either/or.
Either faith or works, not faith and works
Question:
I think both of
you would allow the discussion of justification to mix in with
regeneration. You don't get justified into the family of God, you get
born into the family of God, and the Bible splits hairs because it uses
the different terms. But however you want to use them I want to ask you
this: Can you lose it? And if you can, how do you lose it and how do
you get it back?
Knudson:
As far as the
Scripture teaching as I understand it, there is indeed the new birth or
the birth from above. Christ speaking to Nicodemis says not to be
surprised that you must be born again or born from above. That is
exceedingly important. Unless we are moved by God's spirit, unless we
are quickened by God's spirit, enlivened by God's spirit we cannot
believe. Nevertheless, our attention has focused here on justification
because that's the way the debate was set up.
Hahn:
In the book of
Hebrews, especially chapters 12 and 13, there's a continual warning
being given to people in God's family that they have got to hold fast
and work out their salvation in fear and trembling, not because God is
not faithful, but because sons can grow wayward. They can be
disinherited, they can run away, they can rebel. God's grace is always
there to restore, God's power and desire are always coordinated to
bring back the penitent son, the prodigal, but we have assurance that
God knows those who are His from all eternity, and they will be
effectually saved. But since we don't have access to the Lamb's book of
life to see our own names and know that we are among them, St. Peter
tells us to be zealous to confirm our call and election. So I would say
that we have the assurance as sons that we are children of God and in
his family, but that we have to be zealous to confirm that call and
election in the household of faith.
Final
Summations
Knudson:
Our debate or
discussion has focused on these two important questions: Where is the
final authority, and I have maintained that the final authority, what
we call the infallible rule is found in the Scriptures, and that we
cannot accord the same infallibility to church, council or whatever it
may be, even though we respect these things very much. Christ himself
said that He was the truth. He said He had come to promulgate the
truth. He himself in His incarnate form was subjecting Himself to the
truth, namely the word of God, which He Himself was, but in His
incarnate form subjected Himself to it. The tradition from which I
come, to speak of tradition, does emphasize the word very much. Scott
says that your tradition does that too, and I respect that very much.
But Scott also pointed out the major issue: whether the one that
establishes what is the tradition is the Catholic Church, and on that
we do indeed differ and we differ very much. According to the
Reformation it was said at that time that council and church and so on
had indeed made errors. We all make errors. But the enscripturated word
is our final touchstone, that is by which everything ought to be
judged.
As far as the
justification side of it is concerned, I have maintained the Protestant
position, the position as I understand it of the Reformation, that
salvation is by faith, that justification is by faith, and it is not by
works, lest any man should boast. We don't want to add anything to
translation of Scripture that is not there, but is it not the meaning
that it is by faith alone? But as I pointed out, salvation -- that is,
justification -- is by faith alone but it is by a faith that is not
alone. It is by a faith that is always accompanied by good works.
Now that brings
up the point about whether we can ever lose that justification. That
was one of Scott's major points in reference to Professor Norman
Shepherd at Westminster Theological Seminary. We discussed those
matters very very seriously for five years. Mr. Shepherd was indeed
saying that on a certain level it was indeed possible for us to lose
our justification, and some of us on the basis of the teaching of
Scripture had to demur. We did not force him out, at least the faculty
did not, but he was dismissed for the good of the seminary, an action
that I did not precisely approve of in that form. If one is once
justified, can he then lose it? God has declared that we are just on
the basis of the merit of Jesus Christ, the perfect merit of Jesus
Christ, and Christ has said that no one will pluck us, grab us, out of
his hand. No one. If, then, one rejects the faith, if one shows that
there are no works, is it not rather to be said, "No, he never knew
Christ." Christ will say, "Depart from me. You never knew me."
Hahn:
There is a
statement made by Archbishop Fulton Sheen that I heartily concur with.
Bishop Sheen said, "I don't believe that there are even a hundred
persons in America who really oppose the Roman Catholic Church,
although there are millions who oppose what they mistakenly believe the
Roman Catholic Church to be and teach."
I believed for
many years that the Catholic Church was not only wrong but sinfully
wrong, dangerously in error. I worked hard to get people out of it --
my girlfriend, several people in my youth ministries. In seminary I was
very anti-Catholic not out of any kind of cultural prejudice, but out
of a deep sense that if the Roman Catholic Church was wrong it wasn't
like another kind of denomination being wrong because no other church
on earth claims to be what the Catholic Church claims, and that is
God's one, true, universal family, historically tied to Jesus, Peter,
the Twelve, the Seventy and the early Church in an unbroken line of
succession, transmitting faith, doctrine, morals, worship, prayer,
spiritual life. If they're wrong it's a demonic deception, and I
respect people who oppose the Catholic Church as evil, because if it's
wrong, it isn't slipping or blundering lightly. If it's right, then we
have along with Jesus Christ and the Cross, a marvelous work of Jesus
Christ in our midst.
If Jesus Christ
were to walk into this room right now as He walked into rooms in
Palestine two thousand years ago, you would be surprised to think that
that is the second Person of the blessed Trinity, God in human form. He
would sweat, He might be tired, He might need a drink, He might have to
even relieve Himself in the bathroom... I don't mean to be irreverent
in any way, but He was a human, he had a body like ours. Do you realize
the kind of faith required of people back then who looked at that
Person and said, "That is the second Person of the blessed Trinity. Or
as St. Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." You're looking at a body
which is human, 30-some years old, performing miracles to be sure, but
the body of the God-man. What awesome faith God gives to us and we're
barely aware of it! How much more difficult it must have been to live
in the midst of his own ministry seeing this body that grew weary,
tired. He might have had acne as a teenager (laughter). He really was
human.
The Church
carries on that difficulty, because the Church is the Body of Christ,
the temple of the Holy Spirit, the household of the Father. Jesus said,
"I will build my church." It isn't our church, it isn't our
denomination. He is the one who established his church on a rock and
renamed a real slug named Simon to signify the fact that he could take
slugs and nothings like me and you and do great and wondrous things
through them. Not because Peter was so great, but precisely because he
was so small and God was so great. God can do, through the grace of the
Holy Spirit in human lives that are just simply submitted to Him,
awesome and wondrous thing throughout the world in restoring to Himself
prodigal sons and daughters. This is the master idea of the Catholic
faith.
It is seldom
understood, and when it is, it is seldom hated. I have a very heavy
heart because of all that I've done to detract from the Catholic Church
in my past, but I've gotten a far greater joy in the opportunity to
share the fact that the Catholic Church has always proclaimed itself to
be the one true family of God. As a fulfillment of the Old Testament
nation of Israel it is now international, neither Jew nor Greek nor
Gentile, male or female. We are all standing before a Father on the
basis of what Christ has done and what the Holy Spirit is still doing
in preserving the Church.
As hard as I
know it is for some of you to hear that the Catholic Church is
preserving the truth because we have deep prejudice against any and
everything that the Catholic Church is, I urge you, I plead with you
and I pray that you would buy this book or a book like it and
prayerfully read through it, asking yourself whether God has brought
about an evangelical movement in our own day, giving great faith to
many people in the Protestant world, and I believe that I'm a part of
that and I believe that God's purpose for it is to bring a lot of
people back into the Catholic Church with a great faith and great love
for the blessed Trinity as our family, for the Church as our home, for
the Pope as a symbol of our family unity. Pope -- Papa means father.
Mary is truly our mother, not just legally. We believe the saints are
our older brothers and sisters, role models who have gone before us to
inspire us and who now stand before our Father with a graced love that
is perfected so that they love us in a way that we can barely imagine,
and when you love someone you pray for them. The whole thing is great,
big family, and God I believe is sending out the Holy Spirit stir up
our hearts and awaken minds of anti-Catholics to the possibility that
like Saul of old, with good and sincere intentions, they were opposing
something that we nothing less than the work of God.
We have seen
that fallible men have been used by the Holy Spirit to produce
infallible Scripture. If God could do it then, why wouldn't He want to
raise up fallible men, filling them with the Holy Spirit so that He
could infallibly transmit sure and reliable interpretations of the
Bible? This book is a family register. It belongs not in the academic
environment, not in the ivory tower, but in the Church, the family of
God. This I believe is the purpose for my life and I believe it's the
purpose of many people who don't realize it yet. I can't tell you how
hard it was for me to read Catholic books. It was so hard for me for
years to even pick up a book that was written by a Catholic, it seemed
to me to be so wrong. I graduated at the top of my class at Gordon
Cornwell, I am a sincere if sinful child of God. The Holy Spirit is
great within us. He loves to use nobodies, and that's how I qualify. He
loves to use nobodies and speak through them so that God will get all
the glory. How does a father get the glory? Does he get it by simply
having us bow down and say, "We're nothing, we're nothing, You're
everything"? Or does a father get glory by raising up great children?
I'm a teacher. I want to be known as a great teacher. Can I go around
pasting up billboards saying I'm a great teacher? No one'll believe me.
The way I become known as a great teacher is by raising up great
students.
God fathers
well. He fathers us; He makes us what we can't make ourselves. We
aren't saved by works of the law -- that's what we do ourselves -- but
we are saved by a living faith that imparts to us the life of Christ,
and not merely His legal righteousness. We are saved by the life of
Christ living in us as children of God, sharing divine sonship. The
sacraments were scandalous for me. I couldn't believe what they meant.
And then I came to see that baptism corresponds to the natural birth;
that the Eucharist corresponds to the Father's sacrifice to provide a
family meal, to feed and so constitute His own beloved household.
Across the board the Catholic faith can be understood as God's family
in every way. God has given the garage mechanic, the cleaning lady, the
newspaper boy, the raw materials to understand His loving revelation.
You don't need a PhD in theology, you don't even need courses in
theology per se, although I recommend them highly. God has given us a
family on earth as a kind of curriculum, so that we might understand
what the whole plan of salvation entails, and that is what the Catholic
faith enshrines.
I know it's hard
for you to believe. I urge you to pick up this book, to read it with an
open mind, and if you don't have an open mind, ask God to suspend
hostility.
I believe that
God wants to work in this hour to reunify the children of God. The
family of God has been tragically split, rent asunder. Four hundred and
fifty years ago theologians and scholars and intellectuals split hairs.
Instead of keeping the reform movement within the Church so that
holiness would replace hypocrisy, people were impatient and left the
Church, insisting that their interpretation alone was the most right
one after fifteen hundred years of other views. Could it be that pride
got in the way of purification? Could it be that humans, as great as
Calvin and Luther and Zwingli were, didn't understand that they could
trust the Holy Spirit to transmit to them through fifteen hundred years
of living tradition a truth that could be reinvigorated with the Bible
the way they wanted to?
I believe that
it is true, I believe that it's possible for evangelicals, for
fundamentalists, for charismatics, for non-Catholics of every stripe to
look carefully and prayerfully into the Catholic faith, examine the
claims, judge the evidence, and I believe there will come a holy shock
and a glorious amazement. I've already seen it in some of my best
students. One of best friends in seminary talked to my wife and tried
to get her to think about divorcing me when I became a Catholic; he's
now centimeters away from becoming a Catholic himself as a Presbyterian
minister. The other good friend from seminary, the most anti-Catholic
of them all, is now dean of men and professor of theology at
Christendom College, one of the finest Catholic schools in the country,
teaching Scripture and pumping students with life and with truth and
with a vigor that is just going to spill out throughout our country and
I believe throughout the world.
I just want to
end on this positive note. I thank Dr. Knudson not only for being a
gentleman but for being a Christian gentleman. I thank all of you for
your questions and your patience in listening to this three hour
ordeal.
But now the work
really begins. Some of you I suspect have studied under some great
pastors and listened to some great preachers. I did, too. I count Dr.
Nicole, Dr. Packard, Dr. Sproul, Dr. Girschner and many others my
mentors and fathers in the faith. I believe I can only see farther than
them because midgets can see farther than giants when they're standing
on their shoulders. The great Protestant theologians can help us, and
your own Bible reading and your own prayer and your own openness can
also help. I don't mean to be exclusively exhortive, but I do mean to
exhort you to reconsider what is just so hard to consider: that the
Church as the Body of Christ in its own historical life continues the
same scandal that the individual body of Christ had when He was
ministering here.
We're not Jesus,
we're not identified with God or with the God-man, but we are living,
vital members of His spiritual body. And so all of our warts, faults
and flaws show, and all of the Catholic hypocrisies and sins were there
for me to see in the persons of all my Catholic friends who were
drunker than me, who were more profane than me. We've all got negative
experiences, but with much prayer and Scripture study I believe that we
can be pleasantly surprised in what we find when we study the Catholic
faith. I want to close with a simple question: Could the Reformation
have been one of the most tragic episodes in the history of God's
family, taking out great minds and great souls who because of a pride
common to us all were not patient enough to bring about inner renewal
through patient endurance in the holy Catholic Church? Thank you very
much.
|
|
