Tag: justification

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 2

What is the gospel-allegiance model of salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The first part, I’m going to quote a section of seeing as I think it’s pretty important.

Saving faith as allegiance to a king. Saving faith (pistis) in the New Testament is embodied, enacted relationally, and already includes good works within its purview. 1 Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant model tends to speak about saving faith as inclusive of active fidelity toward a king in this way.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 4253-4256). Kindle Edition.

The second part of his model is that works are included in justification. At this, some of you might get nervous, understandably so. Isn’t it all grace? That gets us into the third part of Bates’s model.

The model argues in the third part that this does not negate grace. One who does works shows their honor to the one who has given them the gift of grace. Works are not done to earn grace, but because the grace is already there. If we receive the gift of justification and do no works, we are not truly showing loyalty to Jesus, likely because He is not really our king to begin with.

Next, resurrection life is part of this justification. We are to be living the life of resurrection in that we are new creations in Christ. The old has passed and the new has come.

The next step is that we are not made righteous through impartation. This is a challenge to the view of the Council of Trent. Bates says that Trent did not have proper Scriptural interpretation on this point.

That being said, he does agree with the Catholics that we are to grow in the virtues and that this is part of justification. I happen to think this is something we need to think about, as virtue is not really taught that much anymore. One of the important parts of philosophy long ago used to be virtue. We need to bring that back.

The seventh step for Bates is that allegiance, not baptism, is when justification occurs. Baptism is part of allegiance, all things being equal. My biggest hurdle to baptism was a fear of going underwater, something that I still have to this day. Having a steel rod on my spine making it hard for me to bend back doesn’t help and when my baptism came, I went under the bare minimum. There can be issues obviously with people who are parapalegic and other such cases.

Overall, I do understand people concerned about some aspects of Bates’s model and I’m sure that he understands that as well, but if Protestants look at it and say, “But it’s not the traditional reading”, then we are forgetting a reason we had the Reformation to begin with. We need to be able to question ideas and discuss them. If the model works with Scripture and is backable, then we can go with it. If not, Bates would be the first one to agree to go back to the drawing board.

Next time, we’ll look at what Bates says about imputed righteousness.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 1

What kind of righteousness do we have? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Here we get to Bates’s idea of righteousness and how it comes about. He starts off with saying that there is in Catholicism an infused righteousness that starts at baptism. The person then works in tandem with God to continue down the path of justification.

Bates also refers to Wright’s work. While he agrees with a good deal of Wright and appreciates him immensely, he doesn’t agree entirely. The Protestants have often spoke of imputed righteousness. Instead, Bates will write of incorporated righteousness.

Early on, Bates says something that both Protestants and Catholics will hopefully agree to.

To exclude the apostles from the church or justification is impossible for all concerned. Not only Protestants but also Catholics must appeal to Scripture when modeling justification: Any claim about what is always true about how justification happens must be able to take into account what Scripture says about how the apostles and earliest Christians were justified, or else the apostles have been excluded from the church. Catholics are required to make their case from Scripture too. This is why the Council of Trent did not appeal primarily to tradition in its “Decree on Justification” but sought to make its case extensively from Scripture.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 4238-4243). Kindle Edition.

He also says that we have had 500 years to look further at the doctrine of justification. What could have been said in the past could easily have been unfortunately, reactionary due to the needs of the time. Not only that, but as Bates says, we have uncovered more documents and historical sources that were not available to either the Reformers or Trent.

In saying that, that means that it is not just Scripture, but also tradition plays some role in what is said. Many Protestants can think that Catholics pay more attention to tradition than they should and many Catholics think that Protestants pay little or no attention to Scripture and that church history can jump straight from the apostles to the Reformation. Both are positions to avoid. Catholics definitely need to make sure they are paying attention to Scripture and Protestants need to be familiar with church history and what the church fathers thought.

Lastly, before we wrap this post up, Bates is still strong in saying that both Catholics and Protestants affirm the gospel. In our differences, I do favor this position where we agree that we are discussing issues that should not divide us. We have had enough of that. When Christians live in a culture where we have enemies at the gates, we need to do our work to have more allies instead of more enemies. Of course, we should discuss our disagreements, but discuss them agreeably.

Next time, I will start taking a look at what Bates calls his gospel-allegiance model. We will see how it differs from traditional Protestantism and Catholicism. I have chosen to make this post shorter to allow for more time to discuss those issues.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 8 Part 3

What about Trent on justification? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I know I said next time we would discuss imputed righteousness, but first, we have to discuss Trent on justification.

Martin Luther is well-known for his struggles in his fears of the righteousness of God. It is from him that we largely get the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Bates says that Luther compared it to being given a white garment to wear even though you are filthy underneath. When God looks at us, he no longer sees our sinfulness, but rather the righteousness of Christ. Calvin went on to declared double imputation where our unrighteousness is put on Christ. Bates then says it is ironic that those of us who hold to Sola Scriptura hold to a doctrine that is not spelled out in Scripture in imputed righteousness.

Bates says one issue today is that there has been no authoritative voice in Catholicism beyond Trent. Now, majority of Catholics recognize there are true Christians who have the Holy Spirit outside of the Catholic Church. I am sure this goes for the Orthodox Church as well as I remember my ex-wife’s priest when she was exploring Orthodoxy telling us we were both Christians while he knew I was decidedly not convinced by Orthodoxy. I fellowship with a largely Catholic group every Thursday night via Zoom to discuss Aquinas and my Christianity has never once been called into question.

I am thankful that we do live in a time where there seem to be better relations between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.

Bates goes on to talk about the causes of justification in Catholicism. The first is the efficient cause, that which brings it about. Here, Catholics and Protestants agree, that is God. The meritorious cause, that which had the value to bring about justification, is also agreed upon. That’s Christ. There is a disagreement on the instrumental cause, that through which salvation comes, as Protestants largely say faith and Catholics add in baptism, and Bates says not just baptism, but the faith of the church instead of the person being baptized. The final cause, the reason for salvation, is God’s glory, which is again largely agreed upon.

What about the formal cause? This is what causes a thing to be what it is. It is God in Catholicism who makes us just according to our capacities. A man has the moral category of being just. Second, it is not a participation in the righteousness of God. Third, not everyone receives the same amount of justification, and finally, the amount of justification we receive is in some way dependent on how we lived.

This is to be followed by good works. If someone commits a mortal sin, then they are cut off and must do penance to make up for it. This again is an area where Protestants largely disagree. While many like myself do not see all sins as equal, we do not see a category of mortal sins in Scripture and a requirement to do penance.

Chapter 10 of the book is largely a summation so next time, we will start to discuss the final chapter I will review, chapter 9. In this, we will get to Bates’s model of justification.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Chapter 8 Part 2

What does justification do? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So what does justification do for us? In this section, Bates says it’s not just something declarative. Yes, we do become a new reality when God justifies us, but that justification does result in good works that are included in the justification somehow. From what I gather, what he is saying is that the justification of our persons results in us being the creatures capable of doing the good works that form in us the character of Christ.

In other words, what we call sanctification, Bates thinks is found in justification still. I am unsure how he sees sanctification then in the text and perhaps this is in another book, perhaps even the one I recommended he write in the chapter on salvation. Bates does think that we do not need a divide between justification and sanctification. It could be that sanctification is included within the activity of justification.

This section is worth quoting in length:

In sum, at least three problems exist with regard to the traditional Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification in an individual’s order of salvation. First, it is not biblical, since there is radically insufficient evidence in Scripture that these are inseparable but qualitatively distinct benefits attained in the Messiah. Second, in Scripture personal justification cannot be restricted to a judicial declaration of innocence but rather involves liberating ontological change that extends into resurrection life and behavior, including bodily actions. In fact, Paul says that actual behavior, deeds, will form part of the basis of an individual’s final justification. Third, Paul nowhere intends to describe an individualized order of salvation in the first place with regard to justification, but he does describe the collective church’s vindicated position in the king as a whole. Justification is a corporate benefit that belongs to the church; individuals come to experience this benefit only conditionally if and when they become united to the king.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 3930-3939). Kindle Edition.

Once again, one of the major problems that we have here is the idea of individualizing the text. (If anyone has done any research into this large history to see where this individualization started to be dominant in interpretation, I would love to know.) Bates says that this is not so, including in the Romans 8:29-30 passage. The benefits of being in Christ are only applicable assuming that someone is in the group that is loyal to Jesus. If you cut yourself off from Jesus through outright apostasy or regular unrepentant sin, then you do not get the benefits.

Now some of you reading this might be wondering about what role the righteousness of Christ plays in all of this. Is it not the case that Jesus gives us His righteousness in exchange for our sinfulness and He paid for that on the cross? How one is made righteous was an area of divide between Protestants and Catholics and again, Bates has a different answer.

But that’s for next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 8 Part 1

How does salvation come about? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Bates starts off by saying that the mistake that took place in the Reformation was that both Catholics and Protestants made the debate over justification by faith. Bates holds that this is a true doctrine, but it is not a doctrine of the gospel. It is instead and effect of the gospel. It’s not that justification by faith is true, therefore the gospel is true, but rather the gospel is true, therefore justification by faith is true.

He says Protestants have typically seen justification as a declaration. God says a man is righteous and so he is. Catholics have instead seen it as a process with a man needing to live a virtuous life. I would like to say on my side that I think all sides agree that it is God who makes us righteous and also that all of us should be striving to live virtuous lives.

Bates from the Protestant perspective brings up Romans 8:29-30.

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

First, he says that his model says that this should not be individualized. It does not mean then that every individual that is A is automatically B, C, and D as well. It is saying that God calls a group whereby he does A to them and then if they remain in the group, B, C, and D follow.

He also notes that sanctification does not show up in this at all. He says that it is put there because it is thought that first off, good works cannot be a part of justification. However, good works will be a fruit of justification and so after a person is justified, they will do good works. Then, that person must be made holy and so I take it that Bates thinks that this means those good works are part of sanctification.

Bates says that this distinction first started with Melanchthon, Luther’s associate, but that Calvin really took it off towards where it is today.

But what about a text like 1 Cor. 6:11?

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Bates points out something that if one is looking for the order of salvation here should be immediately apparent. It is not in the right order. Santification comes before justification and also, I note it looks like if the people have already been justified, they have also already been sanctified.

He also disputes Romans 6:19 as a proof text.

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Here, he says Paul is speaking as a pastor and saying if you live the way you ought and abandon sin, holy lives will be the result. He is not talking about the order of salvation. Thus, the two main pillars Bates says do not hold up.

But is justification simply a declaration?

We’ll look into that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 4

Does Bates have a better reading of Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Bates wants us to consider several different points about the reading of Galatians.

First off, when it comes to the gospel being compromised, it does not refer to the content, but to the results. He specifically cites Galatians 1:6-9. They likely did agree that Jesus is King. They did not agree in how one is supposed to live in light of Jesus being king.

Second, their main dispute was how one displays allegiance to Jesus. They included following the Law as necessary to show allegiance. Bates does not say in the book how he would view someone who is Messianic Jewish and chooses to live by the law, say in dietary restrictions, not because they think it salvific, but because of a sort of connection they experience with their tradition.

Third, the troublemakers were not arguing a works salvation per se. They were arguing a works of the law salvation. This is an important distinction since in the time of the Reformation, it would not be arguments about the Jewish Law, but about works in general.

Finally, this does not exclude good works. One should do good works, but that is not for the purpose of salvation, but they are done because the King commands them and they are the fruit of salvation. This is the epistle where Paul talks about the fruit of the Spirit after all.

Bates then applies this to Catholicism. One of the problems is that in Catholicism, an individual is not allowed to have private interpretation of Scripture.

As the Catholic Church’s most authoritative statement, Dei Verbum, puts it, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1723-1725). Kindle Edition.

Bates says about this:

This puts the individual who is trying to assess the truthfulness of Catholicism in an awkward place. From the Catholic vantage point, no individual can make Catholicism’s fidelity to Scripture or history a criterion when testing Catholicism’s truthfulness, since neither

that individual nor any other has the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture or tradition in order to determine whether Catholic doctrine is in fact true. For Catholics, private individuals— whether laypeople, priests, Catholic, non-Catholic, or professional scholars— have no right to decide what Scripture, tradition, or Catholic doctrine truly means.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1726-1731). Kindle Edition.

Bates’s problems with Catholicism are not that Catholics do not appreciate grace. He affirms that they do. All forgiveness is grace. It is not even the sacraments. One can fully hold to sacraments if they wish. The problem comes in the relationship the sacraments play to salvation.

A central Catholic error regarding salvation is the belief that the terms of true allegiance can be universally and officially mandated through a list of must-do and must-not-do commands via the sacraments for everyone.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1760-1762). Kindle Edition.

He then says that:

Sacraments in general can be celebrated as helpful for the Christian life when their performative terms are not made mandatory for salvation. The traditional Catholic position is that the sacraments are absolutely mandatory, but as noted above, Lumen gentium has undermined this position by affirming that other Christian communions are somehow really “joined with us in the Holy Spirit” (§ 15).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1767-1770). Kindle Edition.

Catholics do not fall under the anathema of Galatians. Bates still considers them fully in the Christian faith. I can say that I also love my Catholic brothers and sisters, seeing as I meet with a number of them on Thursday nights to discuss Aquinas via Zoom.

Next time, we’ll wrap up this chapter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars: Chapter 4 Part 4

Are works necessary for salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So Bates is arguing that salvation comes from allegiance to Christ. Is this a works-based salvation? Do I have to live my life in service to Jesus in order for me to be saved?

My favorite analogy to use with this is a wedding. Imagine that a man meets a girl he really wants to marry. He spends many months wooing her and after a long time of dating, they decide to marry. He makes his vows at the altar as does she. After the wedding then, he drives back alone to his parents’ house, stays with them, and never sees his bride again and says “Married life sure is good!”

We would question if such a man is really married. Yes, a minister might have said something at a ceremony, but look at how he’s living. He’s not interacting with his bride. He doesn’t see her. He doesn’t spend time with her. Definitely then no sex with her. In what sense can he be considered married?

So does this mean that a man has to take his wife into a home with him and be intimate with her in order to be married? No. It’s being said that if a man doesn’t do those things, one can question if he really is married because married people do married things. In a parallel sense, if a man claims to be a Christian, but does nothing in service of Jesus, is he really a Christian? No. Saying you are a Christian entails that you will treat Jesus as your king.

Bates says about works that:

Classic Protestantism assumes that Paul objects to all works with regard to justification. But Paul’s concern is not with works in general (any and every deed) but more precisely with works of the law.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1612-1614). Kindle Edition.

Is this idea found in Scripture? Yes. Bates says:

Doing is required. In fact, for Paul, good works consistently form part of the basis for final salvation (e.g., Rom. 2: 6; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Gal. 6: 7– 10; 2 Tim. 4: 14; cf. Matt. 16: 27; John 5: 28– 29). It is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2: 13)

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1622-1624). Kindle Edition.

This is also how one bridges the gap between Paul and James that allegedly exists. James can say “You think Jesus is king? Good. Even the demons believe that, and they tremble.” (Yes. I know the text says that there is one God, but I think this would also apply.) In other words, the demons would believe that and take it seriously enough that they know it’s a threat. If you say you believe that Jesus is king and do nothing, you don’t even take it as seriously as a demon takes it.

So now we get to Bates’s critique then of Catholicism on this point. In Catholicism, there is set up a system of penance many times. There are things one is told to do such as the rosary or anything like that. Bates says that:

Paul is speaking about what it would mean to rebuild the “works of the law” (2: 16). To do so would be to turn back to the dysfunctional old order. It would be to turn away from the liberated new creation that is constituted by the king’s reign via the Spirit’s presence. Any person who reinstalls that stoicheia-based old system proves to be a violator of its regulations. Since the old-covenant system has reached its goal and end, forgiveness can no longer flow through it. Here’s the upshot: Anyone who attempts to reinstate the old covenant or any other written-rule system of salvation, whether in whole or in part, will violate God’s law, incurring the same guilt as someone who has violated every regulation within it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1666-1673). Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind Bates is not saying that Catholics are not Christians, but the system set up is problematic. Of course, there are times it is proper to do something, but it is not to receive forgiveness, but because one has it. If I fault my brother and seek forgiveness, I need to go to him even after going to Jesus if it is at all possible to go to my brother. I need his forgiveness as well. I don’t go to him so Jesus will forgive me. I go to him because Jesus has forgiven me and that healing needs to be extended to my walk with my brother.

Next time, we’ll look at how Bates thinks we should read Galatians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 3

Are we all family? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians 3 speaks about how Abraham was given a promise. Abraham is normally Exhibit A. He’s the father of the faithful and he was declared righteous in the sight of God for believing the promise.

Bates contends we have misunderstood what the promise is. It is not justification by faith. That would make sense since according to Paul, Abraham was justified by his faith in his own lifetime. Why would the promise be that Abraham would have what he already had?

In Galatians 3: 8 the gospel that Scripture announced in advance to Abraham is not justification by faith but expressly all nations will be blessed in you. The gospel here pertains to the arrival of the Messiah as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding his singular seed (3: 16).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1557-1559). Kindle Edition.

So what does this have to do with being in the same family?

We often talk about Jesus is the only way to God, but we really don’t talk a lot about what’s the way to Jesus. How does one come to be in the community of believers? If it is done in multiple ways, then there is not a common bond between us. You can be justified by faith or justified by the Law.

What Peter is doing in Galatians 2 then is creating a rift in the family by saying that if you were a Gentile, you had to live like a Jew. That was the way to show you were a part of the covenant people. Of course, pre-Christ, that would have been entirely correct. After Christ, you show you are a part of the covenant people by allegiance to Jesus.

Through the king’s loyalty to God and to God’s people the gospel creates one worldwide family out of the many nations. That is, the gospel does this when people give their allegiance to the king as a response to it. In Galatia, table-fellowship rules that reinstituted distinctively Jewish “works of the law” practices were splitting that one people into Jew and gentile factions, denying the truth of the gospel in its one-family purpose and result. In other words, justification by pistis is not the gospel (nor part of it) but rather is a key doctrine that safeguards the unity of the one true church. It shows that those who create false dividing walls, such as Jew and gentile, within the one true Jesus-is-king church are massively and dangerously in the wrong.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1568-1574). Kindle Edition.

Side topic on this from me personally, this is my problem with many people on the dispensational side of things. There is often seen as being that God has a plan for the Jews and then God has a plan for the Gentiles, but if Romans 11 is true, God has one covenant people only. Christians do not replace the Jewish tree. We are grafted into it.

Next time, we’ll see what Bates has to say about what he calls, the sad irony of justification.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: What Is The Gospel?

What do I think of Greg Gilbert’s book published by Crossway? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m in the process of joining a new church and in the membership class, this book is given to us as a requirement to read. As a side note, let me say I think that is awesome. Churches should be encouraging their members to read more books.

So what are my thoughts on the book? Let’s go with a straight list of positives and negatives and with the negatives, I plan to say how I would change them.

First positive, this is a short book. Not only does it have less than 150 pages, but it’s also small in size meaning you can carry it with you easily and a church member will not get intimidated by it. I would love to see church members read something like N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, but let’s face it. Most people are not going to read a book with 800+ pages sadly.

Second, it is easy to understand. The author does not use high theological terms that a layman would understand. He also uses real life examples that most anyone can relate to.

Third, there is talk, including one chapter, on ideas not normally included in the gospel, such as the Kingdom of God. I wondered if this is the effect of Wright in some way. Too often in gospel presentations, it’s easy to skip the life of Jesus and go straight to the death and resurrection. I was concerned for some time going through that the kingdom would never be mentioned, but thankfully, it was.

That brings me to what I would like to change.

First, when the gospel is being defined, the writer immediately goes to Romans. Romans is a great place to go to, but I’m thinking “Why don’t we start with Jesus?” This can be a problem though because if you think the central theme of the gospel is something like “Justified by faith” then what do you do with Jesus preaching in Mark in the first chapter saying the Kingdom of God has come near and to repent and believe the gospel.

This not to deny the doctrine of justification, but saying we need to see what Jesus meant by the gospel first instead of jumping to what Paul means by the gospel. This is also not to deny Paul. Christians should be reading Paul, but we need to go to Paul to understand Jesus and not Jesus to understand Paul.

For those wondering what I say on this matter, Jesus is saying that God is going to be king over the world again through Jesus and is reconciling the world to Himself. All are called to show allegiance to the true king revealed in Christ. Those who do so are going to be justified by their faith (Loyalty) to the one true God.

Second, there was a part where the author got into the definition of faith and saying that it is not blind belief or anything like that. He is certainly right. However, nowhere in this was anything about apologetics even mentioned, which is a great need in the church. I understand this isn’t a book about that, but would it have been difficult to add in a paragraph like this?

“For those interested in why we believe, there is a branch of Christianity called apologetics that is dedicated to answering hard questions about Christianity. This book is not about that field, but for those interested, I have included an appendix in the back of the book. This appendix lists a few books on specific topics that can get you started.”

Third, I understand at the end what Gilbert was saying about how the cross is central, yet as I went through this section, I kept thinking that it’s great to speak about the cross, but what about the resurrection? Shouldn’t we include that? If all we have is the cross and no resurrection, we have nothing. We can say we are justified by the cross, but only if that cross is followed by a resurrection.

Finally, I would have liked to have seen something more on the nation of Israel. When we tell the story of the Old Testament, we start at the fall and then tend to jump straight to Jesus. We need to know the purpose of Israel and the purpose of the Law, especially in a day and age where many atheists also misunderstand the Law and like to pelt Christians with questions on it.

Overall though, this is a good introduction to the topic. The criticisms I have could be easily fixed after all and most readers won’t notice something like that. This is a great book for a layman to learn how to address this topic.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Book Plunge: Protestants and Catholics

What do I think of Peter Toon’s book published by Servant Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Discussions about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism was never something I really wanted to get into. I have been a subscriber of Mere Christianity for several years and been one wanting to look at defending the essentials. What changed is when my wife started asking questions and I realized if she’s doing this, I need to start looking into this. I asked a friend fluent on the issues for a good book on the topic and was recommended Peter Toon’s book.

Toon writes from a Protestant perspective, but his writing is friendly and he shows problems each side has with the other and ways that both could handle things better. There is no hint of anything that says that Catholics are an apostate church or anything like that. There is nothing saying that Protestantism is where the action is and we have it all together on our end. He points to statements made by both Protestants and Catholics that are good and that are problematic He points to honest concerns that both have about the other.

He covers the main issues as well. Not everything, but some of them. Authority is a big one. When I encounter Catholics, many of them say that it’s not really possible to understand the text of Scripture without the magisterium. Protestants reply that the meaning is in the text. Catholics say they gave the canon of Scripture. Protestants say canonicity lies in the books and the church discovered that rather than created it.

Authority I think could be the biggest issue. Where does the authority lie? This is the issue that leads to Sola Scriptura. Protestants say that the tradition cannot be known to be accurate, but we can study the Scripture and know that this is what the apostles said. Catholics see the tradition as being based in apostolic succession and thus reliable.

Other issues come up too such as justification. This is likely also before the understanding of the New Perspective on Paul so that isn’t a big debate in the book, but it was a major issue. Fortunately, I do think Protestants and Catholics are starting to come together to discuss these issues more.

Sacraments are also an issue. Protestants tend to only recognize baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Catholics recognize more. There are also differences on how the Lord’s Supper is to be seen. Is it transubstantiation or real presence or is it something else?

Mary is one of the last topics covered. Catholics often see themselves as defending the mother of God and upholding her honor and such. Protestants look more and say that it seems to border on idolatry to them. Unfortunately, Protestants then go and don’t seem to pay any attention to Mary. While we can think Catholics give too much honor, let us not be guilty of giving too little.

One nice appendix also in the book is a letter John Wesley wrote to a Roman Catholic. It is a letter seeking reconciliation and focusing on what is agreed on. Many of us do hope that one day there can be reconciliation. I am not sure how it is possible, but I can hope.

In Christ,
Nick Peters