Greybeard brought up Roman Catholic tradition vs. Scriptural understand in Lars’ post on braving the dark, and I remembered that reference last Sunday when we celebrated communion. It seems easier to hold to a doctrine in which saving grace can be administered to the unrepentant through ritual and the sacraments than to hold to the idea saving grace is the unmerited gift of God for whomever he wishes. I don’t want to offend anyone, but we’re talking about vital truth, aren’t we? This is the road to salvation we’re discussing.
It seems like an institutional idea, a concept developed from a desire to uphold the institution from which it came, to teach that baptism, communion, repetitive prayer, and a priest’s blessing grant bits of salvation to a soul who must act on those bits to merit full salvation. But Luther was set free from that unending cycle of salvific merit when he understood by the Lord’s grace that the righteous shall live by faith. The righteous–mind you, those who have been declared righteous by the one holy God–live by faith in God’s salvation. The same righteousness given to Abraham when he believed (Genesis 15:6) is given to those who believe today without a need for additional labor. Of course, when James says that faith without works is dead, he is dead right. Those who believe will repent of their sins and follow Christ to the best of their ability, but repentance and the fruit of belief are not works, “so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-10).
When we celebrate communion, we celebrate the finished work of Christ. His suffering, death, and resurrection atones for all of the sin of his people, and anyone who understands the judgment he faces if he stands before God alone can repent and be saved. Christ’s work is the only work required. There is no other saving grace. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 3:13-14).
I don’t think you can make an argument that Luther’s spiritual discovery had anything to do with rejecting infant baptism as a saving sacrament. He had plenty of time to abolish infant baptism among his followers if he’d wanted to, and not only didn’t he do it, he wouldn’t hear of it. His discovery that grace was free carried the implication (in his theology) that grace could be bestowed by God upon infants without their comprehending it at all. Because none of us really comprehend it, do we?
No, we don’t, but did Luther teach that a man once baptized was bound for heaven? The reformed church teaches that infant baptism is a fulfilled sign of the covenant succeeding circumcision. It is a sacrament of God’s grace, but it does not save.
Well, Lutherans believe that baptism saves (by God’s grace working through water and Word). A baptized child is fully justified through the Blood and bound for Heaven.
I didn’t know that. What do you say when a baptized child rejects the church as an adult?
We say that he walked away from his baptismal grace. The point of confirmation is to provide an opportunity for those who received the Holy Spirit through baptism to consciously acknowledge the grace that God gave them in baptism. I liken it to Jacob’s praying in his early life to “the God of my father Abraham.” Only after wrestling with God did he call Him El-Elohe-Israel, The God of Israel, acknowledging an adult personal faith.
Whoops! We Catholics most definitely do believe that saving grace is the unmerited gift of God for whomever he wishes; and we most certainly do not believe that saving grace comes to the unrepentant through the sacraments. Approaching the sacraments as an unrepentant sinner is a Really Bad Idea.
In what follows, bear in mind that the word “grace” has multiple shades of meaning in Catholic theology.
What we do believe is that God gives us grace through the sacraments. It’s an incarnation thing: just as Christ came, suffered, died, and rose, saving us through bodily actions, so he continues to give us grace through bodily actions, the sacraments. We aren’t trying to do magic; we are following the directions he left us. “Baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” “Do this in memory of me.”
As Mark Shea often notes, God is not bound by the sacraments; he can give his grace to anyone he likes. But the sacraments are one of the ordinary ways in which he gives us his grace–and as such, they are a great and beautiful gift.
As I understand it, one difference between the Lutheran and Catholic understanding of grace is that Roman Catholic dogma views grace as God giving us the ability to do the good works to earn our salvation whereas Lutherans see grace as the unmerited favor of God whereby He grants forgiveness for the sake of Christ without our doing anything to deserve it.
This last idea is what I meant to present. Thanks, Greybeard. May your beard never fall out.
Will, I knew I would get this half-wrong, and I should have assumed that the warning I hear every time we take communion is the warning Catholics hear too, that to approach the table in willful sin is to drink judgment on yourself. Professing Protestants and Catholics alike sin this way.
But I wrote this post thinking Catholics do not encourage the lost sinner to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but to repent by following the directions of a priest. Is that not an accurate summary?
Oh, man, where to start.
First, with Greybeard’s statement. “Roman Catholic dogma views grace as God giving us the ability to do good works to earn our salvation.” No, not at all. Christ earned our salvation on the cross. Rather, it’s the difference (if I remember the terms correctly) between imputed and infused holiness. God gives us the grace, through the sacraments (among other ways) to live in a holy way. We can (only with his help) truly move toward holiness. Some of us (the great saints) get a lot further along that road before they die than most of us manage. But we really, truly can become objectively holy. It takes work to do that, and constant repentance. Point is, God doesn’t simply say, “Bang! You’re holy! Despite all of the manifest sin, bad habits, vices, and so forth in your life, you’re holy!” Instead, he gives us the wherewithal to grow into holiness. But in trying to become holy, I’m not trying to earn my salvation. I have that. I had that when I was baptized. Instead, I’m trying to grow toward complete union with Christ, the true and right end of every human life.
Next, your question: “…Catholics do not encourage the lost sinner to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but to repent by following the directions of a priest. Is that not an accurate summary?” On the contrary. We encourage the lost sinner to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And because we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, we do what he directs. The sacrament of penance has been part of the faith since the earliest times, and comes from the time when Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom: “what you declare bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what you declare loosed on earth is loosed in heaven” (I paraphrase.) When I go to confession, the priest stands in persona Christi, in the place of Christ. He absolves me of my sin–but he is only Christ’s instrument. It is Christ, who knows my heart, who absolves. Could he have absolved me without the priest’s help? Certainly. “He is not a tame lion.” There are Christian martyrs who we say received the Baptism of Blood. That is, having chosen to follow Christ but not yet having received any of the sacraments, they chose to die for him rather than renounce him and live. Their martyrdom is proof of their conversion.
But again, Christ gave us the sacraments, and they are the usual and ordinary way for us to receive grace.
And then, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the greatest of the sacraments: there, in that most ancient of Christian rites, initiated by Christ himself at the Last Supper, there we receive Him in his Precious Body and Blood, for “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” It is not a symbol I receive, the priest gives me nothing of his own; it is Christ Himself that I receive.
It’s certainly possible for a Christian to live, die, and join Christ in heaven without ever having truly received Him in the Eucharist. But why would I want to live like that, when I know this great and wonderful gift is available to me?
In short, don’t think of the Sacraments as hoops you have to jump through to be forgiven, or to be saved. They are gifts from Jesus to us, special ways in which he promises to come to us, ways in which he delights to meet us.
Can you tell that I feel strongly about this? 🙂
Here’s another thought for you.
The Church, according to St. Paul, is the body of Christ. Christ himself is the head, and we are the members of the body. In doing his work in the world, Christ usually seems to prefer to work through his body. He wills that the hungry should be fed, and the naked clothed–and members of his body feed the hungry and clothe the naked. As they serve the poor, Christ serves the poor. And so Christ ministers to all our needs, including the need to be absolved of our sins–and he works through his body, in the person of the priest, to do it.
What you’ve said, Will, looks good. Are you confident the Vatican teaches these things? I remember the Pope drawing the line between us on justification, but what you say above is not much difference than a good protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone.
Bearing in mind that we might be using words slightly differently, yes, I am. As I understand it, a Catholic cannot say either Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura, but can affirm Sola Gratia with a vengeance. This is not to say to that works do not matter: they do. But they are not the cause of our salvation, but rather a necessary effect of our salvation. If I do not move out in charity, I find myself turning my back on God’s gift of grace.
Anyway, it’s all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I’m not a Catholic and have some genuine disagreements with Catholicism, but I’ve noticed over the years that if one chooses to test what one’s been taught about CAtholicism against primary sources (such as something published by the RCC such as the CAtechism Will mentions, or else getting acquainted with the faith of an actual Catholic Christian), many of the things one thinks one knows about Catholicism start crumbling to the ground. The same thing happens if you study other groups on their own terms as well, even Lutheranism.