|
|
|
ROMAN
CATHOLICISM |
|
What Does the
Roman Catholic Church Teach
About the Doctrine of Justification? -- Part 3
by Dr. John
Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon |
|
Are the Disagreements over
Justification only Minor Differences? Many
Catholics and Protestants today would have us believe that there are
really only relatively minor differences between the doctrine of
justification as taught by the Reformers and that taught by the Council
of Trent and modern Roman Catholics.
A good illustration of the complexity—and
differences—between the Catholic and Protestant view of justification is
illustrated in the 1964 text by Hans Kung, Justification: The
Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection. In part, Kung
attempts to outline the alleged similarities between Catholic and
Reformed theology on the subject of justification. The book cover asks,
"If, then, there is so much that is ‘Protestant’ in Catholic teachings,
are Catholics really divided in their faith from Evangelical tradition?"
But the Catholic and Protestant views on justification
can never be reconciled until one group gives up its own beliefs and
adopts the other view. Karl Barth himself in "A Letter to the Author"
included in the book makes the following perceptive comments:
Of course, the problem is whether what you have presented here
really represents the teaching of your Church. This you will have to
take up and fight out with biblical, historical, and dogmatic experts
among your coreligionists. I don’t have to assure you that I am keenly
interested in discovering what reception your book will find among
them.... The negative conclusion of your critique is this.... I have
been guilty of a thoroughgoing misunderstanding and, consequently, of
a thoroughgoing injustice regarding the teaching of your Church,
especially that of the Fathers of Trent.... [Nevertheless] How do you
explain the fact that all this [alleged compatibility between
Protestantism and Catholicism] could remain hidden so long, and from
so many, both outside and inside the Church? And now for my own
salvation, may I just whisper a question (a very confiden-tial
question, but one not liable to detract from your book in the mind of
any serious reader): Did you yourself discover all this before you so
carefully read my Church Dogmatics or was it while you were reading it
afterward? 14
In other words, if Rome and the Reformers were really
saying pretty much the same thing about justification, why all the papal
bulls against the Reformers? Why the Counter-Reformation, Trent, and the
Thirty Years War (1618-1648)?
If Catholics really do accept justification by
faith alone, and thus aren’t teaching salvation by works,
how is it that even former "Evangelicals" who have been in Catholicism
for 25 years or more freely comment that "9 out of 10 Catholics"
don’t understand the basic Catholic doctrine of salvation by
grace, let alone the biblical concept? Rather, they believe their good
works alone will take them to heaven and accept "a whole other religion"
than that found in biblical Christianity.
In essence, the decrees of the Council of Trent on
justification remain the standard of Roman Catholic theology—and these
decrees have never been modified, altered or rescinded by Rome. This is
why Karl Keating maintains that the view of Trent on justification are
not only true Catholic doctrine, but that they are true biblical
doctrine as well. 15
Again, we stress that the Roman Catholic Church has
never repudiated the official decrees of the Council of Trent; in fact,
it continues to uphold them and cite them repeatedly in defense of its
teachings as accurate representations of official Catholic doctrine.
The purpose of the Council of Trent (1545-1564) was
not only a restatement of Catholic doctrine but principally a reply to
the "heresies" of the Reformation begun by the great Protestant
Reformer, Martin Luther. After meditation on Romans 1:16-17, this
works-tormented Catholic monk had realized the true nature of biblical
justification: "There upon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone
through open doors to paradise. The whole of Scripture took on new
meaning, and whereas before the ‘justice of God’ had filled me with
hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in great love."
16
What kind of theology did Luther respond to? Those who
read the sixth session of Trent on justification can see that as a whole
its pronouncements were clearly contrary to Scripture.
Trent decreed that whoever does not "faithfully and
firmly accept, this Catholic doctrine on justification... cannot be
justified…". 17
Indeed, an anathema or curse of God is pronounced on
all who reject the decrees of the Council.
Thus, in the section "Canons Concerning
Justification," we read e.g.:
Canon 9: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith
alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to
obtain the grace of justification… let him be anathema. 18
Canon 11: If anyone says that men are justified either by the
sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of
sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured
forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and remains in them [i.e., the
Catholic view of infused justification], or also that the grace by
which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be
anathema. 19
Canon 12: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing more
than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake,
or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be
anathema. 20
Not surprisingly, Trent also decreed that good works
increase our justification. For example:
Canon 24: If anyone says that the justice received [i.e.,
justification] is not preserved and also not increased before God
through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and
signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase,
let him be anathema. 21
The Council closed with:
Canon 33: If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of
justification as set forth by the Holy Council and the present decree,
derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our
Lord Jesus Christ... let him be anathema. 22
In other words, what the Catholic church then
taught—in opposition to the Protestant Reformation—and continues to
teach as official doctrine today, is that God Himself is opposed
to all who reject its teaching on justification.
As the standard Lutheran authority on the decrees of
Trent, Martin Chemnitz, remarks concerning these decrees:
They deny that the justification of a sinner is solely the
remission of sins. And they pronounce many anathemas if anyone says
that men are righteous before God through the righteousness of Christ,
or that men are justified solely through imputation of the
righteousness of Christ…. They affirm that the justification of the
ungodly before God to life eternal is not solely the remission of sins
but also the sanctification of the inner man. 23
Chemnitz correctly observes the consistent teaching of the Scripture
concerning justification "is condemned with many dreadful curses by the
Council of Trent," 24 and he proceeds to note the semantic and
hermeneutical subterfuge characteristically employed by Rome’s
theologians: "The craftiness with which the architects of these decrees
have disguised the matter itself with a certain show of right, in order
that they might not at once be detected by the more inexperienced, is
worthy of observation." 25
Notes:
14. Hans Kung, Justification: The Doctrine of
Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1981), pp. xx-xxi.
15. Karl Keating in "The Salvation Debate," March
11, 1989 held at Simon Greenleaf University, Santa Ana, CA (with Dr.
Rod Rosenbladt).
16. R. H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin
Luther (Nashville: Abington, 1965), p. 65, from Geisler,
prepublication manuscript.
17. H. J. Schroeder, (translator), The Canons and
Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1978),
7th Session. Canon 1, p. 42.
18. Ibid., p. 43.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., p. 45.
22. Ibid., p. 46
23. Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council
of Trent (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971), Part 1, pp. 514-55.
24. Ibid., p. 515.
25. Ibid., cf. pp. 515-518.
|
Roman
Catholicism Authors
Mr.
Jim McCarthy
Mr. Mike Gendron
Mr. Greg Durel
Carlos Tomas Knott |
|
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"
CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS
Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?
|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|
