Can We Talk about

[Drawmack]

Dr. William Lane Craig is a Protestant apologist. He does not often talk about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism because he places a much greater focus on the similarities and on defending Christianity than on the differences between Christians. He did a podCast last year where he talked about the differences, from his point of view, and I was wondering if we could have a discussion on the points he makes. I tend to agree with most of what he says, but I also have my points of contention with what he says. The link below will take you directly to the audio podCast. I ask that you listen to it so we can actually discuss what is said – it’s only about 15 minutes long.

rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_About_Catholicism_.mp3

 

[Newbie2]

How about you summarize 5 or so points for discussion? Personally, I don’t have 15 minutes during the day available to listen to a podcast.

BTW, isn’t Dunder Mifflin in Scranton?

 

[VociMike]

OK, I took a listen.

First point - the opening music is Barber’s beautiful “Agnus Dei”. One can hear Christ’s entire Passion and Death in that piece.

Now, as to Lane’s points, the main one is “salvation by works”, which he thinks the Church teaches, but then he makes the point that I have often made, which is that the actual faith life of a faithful Cathlolic is very similar to the actual faith life of a faithful non-Catholic Christian. Both recognize they are sinners, granted unmerited life-giving grace by God, and both seek to live out their faith as they understand that calling. To me the debate has something of a chicken-or-egg irrelevance to it. In reality, whichever came first, what we see are simply chickens and eggs together.

He also talks about Mary, saying that while Catholic doctrine may not be a problem, in practice some Catholics seem to go overboard. I tend to agree with this. The one thing he overlooks in this analysis, and which must not be overlooked, is the Mass itself. Regardless of what statues may be in a church, or how many candles may be lit, what happens in every church, every day of the year, is throroughly and ardently God-centered, Christ-centered. But yes, for some people Marian devotion can skirt the line and even cross it. And don’t even get me started about the “5th Marian Doctrine”.

Then he talks about lukewarm Catholics. No issue there, the Church (in America at least, where my experience lies) is full of cultural or lukewarm or cafeteria Catholics. And I hold the bishops and priests largely to blame for this, for avoiding the hard teachings for the easy platitudes. Too many of them have given in to the temptation to become of the world rather than in the world.

 

[SimonArizona]

OK, I took a listen.

First point - the opening music is Barber’s beautiful “Agnus Dei”. One can hear Christ’s entire Passion and Death in that piece.

Now, as to Lane’s points, the main one is “salvation by works”, which he thinks the Church teaches, but then he makes the point that I have often made, which is that the actual faith life of a faithful Cathlolic is very similar to the actual faith life of a faithful non-Catholic Christian. Both recognize they are sinners, granted unmerited life-giving grace by God, and both seek to live out their faith as they understand that calling. To me the debate has something of a chicken-or-egg irrelevance to it. In reality, whichever came first, what we see are simply chickens and eggs together.

“By Faith alone” IS found in the Scriptures…“See then, how a man is not justified by faith alone.”

He also talks about Mary, saying that while Catholic doctrine may not be a problem, in practice some Catholics seem to go overboard. I tend to agree with this. The one thing he overlooks in this analysis, and which must not be overlooked, is the Mass itself. Regardless of what statues may be in a church, or how many candles may be lit, what happens in every church, every day of the year, is throroughly and ardently God-centered, Christ-centered. But yes, for some people Marian devotion can skirt the line and even cross it. And don’t even get me started about the “5th Marian Doctrine”.

The Church teaches that there is such thing as Marian excessiveness. What’s happening at mass is found in John’s revelation. The Lamb on the throne, Holy, Holy, Holy, priests in white praising the lamb, prayers for the saints, incense, …

Then he talks about lukewarm Catholics. No issue there, the Church (in America at least, where my experience lies) is full of cultural or lukewarm or cafeteria Catholics. And I hold the bishops and priests largely to blame for this, for avoiding the hard teachings for the easy platitudes. Too many of them have given in to the temptation to become of the world rather than in the world.

Same exact thing applies to Christians everywhere. No Catholics are forced to continue the instruction of their faith. I’ve never seen Christians as devote as Catholic mothers and grandmother praying for their children.

 

[Drawmack]

How about you summarize 5 or so points for discussion? Personally, I don’t have 15 minutes during the day available to listen to a podcast.

BTW, isn’t Dunder Mifflin in Scranton?

But you’d have 15 minutes to read my summary?

Yes it is and Dunder Mifflin is actually a real company but they are a company that cleans office buildings and not a paper company.

 

[Drawmack]

OK, I took a listen.

First point - the opening music is Barber’s beautiful “Agnus Dei”. One can hear Christ’s entire Passion and Death in that piece.

Now, as to Lane’s points, the main one is “salvation by works”, which he thinks the Church teaches, but then he makes the point that I have often made, which is that the actual faith life of a faithful Cathlolic is very similar to the actual faith life of a faithful non-Catholic Christian. Both recognize they are sinners, granted unmerited life-giving grace by God, and both seek to live out their faith as they understand that calling. To me the debate has something of a chicken-or-egg irrelevance to it. In reality, whichever came first, what we see are simply chickens and eggs together.

He also talks about Mary, saying that while Catholic doctrine may not be a problem, in practice some Catholics seem to go overboard. I tend to agree with this. The one thing he overlooks in this analysis, and which must not be overlooked, is the Mass itself. Regardless of what statues may be in a church, or how many candles may be lit, what happens in every church, every day of the year, is throroughly and ardently God-centered, Christ-centered. But yes, for some people Marian devotion can skirt the line and even cross it. And don’t even get me started about the “5th Marian Doctrine”.

Then he talks about lukewarm Catholics. No issue there, the Church (in America at least, where my experience lies) is full of cultural or lukewarm or cafeteria Catholics. And I hold the bishops and priests largely to blame for this, for avoiding the hard teachings for the easy platitudes. Too many of them have given in to the temptation to become of the world rather than in the world.

So you’re saying, that for the most part you agree with Dr. Lane?

 

[Drawmack]

“By Faith alone” IS found in the Scriptures…“See then, how a man is not justified by faith alone.”

Did you listen to the podCast? The point is something that we went round about on a thread here recently. Basically, if you really dig into Sola Fide the name is sort of a misnomer. The doctrine of Sola Fide teaches that a man is saved by his faith and nothing else, however a true faith will naturally out pour in works. The works are simply a proof, or justification, of the faith rather than a part of ones salvation. The Catholic teaching is the works, in some way, actually play a part in the process of salvation. Like VociMike said it’s a chicken or the egg or a cart and the horse argument. Really, when Sole Fide is properly understood it becomes a point of theological minutia.

The Church teaches that there is such thing as Marian excessiveness. What’s happening at mass is found in John’s revelation. The Lamb on the throne, Holy, Holy, Holy, priests in white praising the lamb, prayers for the saints, incense, …

Again, did you listen to the podCast. He didn’t say anything bad about Mass. Actually he had some very nice things to say about Mass.

Same exact thing applies to Christians everywhere. No Catholics are forced to continue the instruction of their faith. I’ve never seen Christians as devote as Catholic mothers and grandmother praying for their children.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second. If you really want to see devout Christians go to parts of the world where it is illegal to be a Christian and there you will see extremely devout Christians of every stripe.

 

[VociMike]

So you’re saying, that for the most part you agree with Dr. Lane?

I don’t agree that Catholicism teaches that we earn our salvation through works, but again, chicken-and-egg. I do agree that, while Catholic doctrine makes it clear that Mary is a creature who is what she is by the grace of God, and is not to be worshipped, that some people might appear to get carried away. And I agree that not every Catholic is a good advertisement for Catholicism.*

*on this last point, I think there’s a more general principle being illustrated. A religious person (in the good sense) will tend to see other religious (itgs) people of like persuasion around him, and those are the people he will compare to the everyday person of another faith. In that comparision the “others” will always come off badly. It’s like being an college or professional team athelete. Comparing your fellow atheletes against people at large, the people at large are always going to come across as having a lot of fat and lazy members.

Note that this can and does happen with Catholics. I can point you to Catholics who’s lived faith will put the average Protestant to shame. But in my experience those Catholics just don’t seem to be as quick to make conclusions about Protestants.

 

[Drawmack]

I don’t agree that Catholicism teaches that we earn our salvation through works, but again, chicken-and-egg. I do agree that, while Catholic doctrine makes it clear that Mary is a creature who is what she is by the grace of God, and is not to be worshipped, that some people might appear to get carried away. And I agree that not every Catholic is a good advertisement for Catholicism.*

I agree that it isn’t a very important point. I also agree with what you’re saying about some Catholics not being a good advertisement. I would say the same about some Protestants. Actually there is a book called Unchristian written by a minister and the books major premise is that Christians have come to be known for what they stand against rather than who they stand for. For example, ask the average Joe off the street what a Christians is and you’re more likely to hear – “They oppose [insert issue here]” then you are to hear something like “They worship Jesus Christ as their personal savior.” I think that is true of both Catholics and Protestants and I think that needs to be corrected – but I’m at a loss as to how.

*on this last point, I think there’s a more general principle being illustrated. A religious person (in the good sense) will tend to see other religious (itgs) people of like persuasion around him, and those are the people he will compare to the everyday person of another faith. In that comparision the “others” will always come off badly. It’s like being an college or professional team athelete. Comparing your fellow atheletes against people at large, the people at large are always going to come across as having a lot of fat and lazy members.

That makes a lot of sense.

Note that this can and does happen with Catholics. I can point you to Catholics who’s lived faith will put the average Protestant to shame. But in my experience those Catholics just don’t seem to be as quick to make conclusions about Protestants.

The fact that they are not so quick to judge others would point to the fact that they are living the Christian faith would it not?

 

[Newbie2]

But you’d have 15 minutes to read my summary?

Yes it is and Dunder Mifflin is actually a real company but they are a company that cleans office buildings and not a paper company.

Well, I read really fast. I get bored listening to stuff and would rather read. Left brained, I guess.

Really? I wonder if they pay royalties to them or if the real company benefits from the name recognition.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, I read really fast. I get bored listening to stuff and would rather read. Left brained, I guess.

Really? I wonder if they pay royalties to them or if the real company benefits from the name recognition.

I think that Dunder Mifflin made The Office use the real name of the company because they are the ones who occupy the building featured in the opening credits as the Dunder Mifflin office building.

 

[VociMike]

The fact that they are not so quick to judge others would point to the fact that they are living the Christian faith would it not?

Well, I consider Lane to be living the Christian faith, but he is still entitled to make an honest evaluation of what he sees. The problem, as I see it, is that if he doesn’t take into account the Mass, said countless thousands of times every day throughout the world, attended by countless millions of Catholics, then he’s not getting the full picture. The Eucharist, and thus the Mass, is the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, and to leave that out of the evaluation is to come to a seriously skewed conclusion. You can’t correctly judge the focus of the Catholic faith based on what you see in isolated empty churches, or pictures you find on the internet. For every church that has “too much” Mary stuff, how many don’t? For every town that has an “excessive” Marian procession, how many don’t?

 

[Drawmack]

Well, I consider Lane to be living the Christian faith, but he is still entitled to make an honest evaluation of what he sees. The problem, as I see it, is that if he doesn’t take into account the Mass, said countless thousands of times every day throughout the world, attended by countless millions of Catholics, then he’s not getting the full picture. The Eucharist, and thus the Mass, is the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, and to leave that out of the evaluation is to come to a seriously skewed conclusion. You can’t correctly judge the focus of the Catholic faith based on what you see in isolated empty churches, or pictures you find on the internet. For every church that has “too much” Mary stuff, how many don’t? For every town that has an “excessive” Marian procession, how many don’t?

How many millions of Catholics attend daily Mass vs. how many do not? How many Catholics attend weekly Mass vs. how many do not? If we’re going to take Mass, which I agree is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, as our major marker then I want to know why a greater percentage of Catholics do not attend weekly Mass than do attend it?

 

[VociMike]

How many millions of Catholics attend daily Mass vs. how many do not? How many Catholics attend weekly Mass vs. how many do not? If we’re going to take Mass, which I agree is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, as our major marker then I want to know why a greater percentage of Catholics do not attend weekly Mass than do attend it?

OK, we’re confusing two different issues here. One is judging Catholicism by looking e.g. inside empty churches and pictures of procession on the internet. That’s the issue I was addressing. The other is judging Catholicism by looking at Mass attendance. Interestingly, historic Mass attendance in America by Catholics was always higher than Sunday worship attendance by Protestants, but the number has been falling since the late 50s / early 60s. Now the numbers are approximately equal. So what conclusion can we draw from that? I’m not sure.

 

[Drawmack]

OK, we’re confusing two different issues here. One is judging Catholicism by looking e.g. inside empty churches and pictures of procession on the internet. That’s the issue I was addressing. The other is judging Catholicism by looking at Mass attendance. Interestingly, historic Mass attendance in America by Catholics was always higher than Sunday worship attendance by Protestants, but the number has been falling since the late 50s / early 60s. Now the numbers are approximately equal. So what conclusion can we draw from that? I’m not sure.

No we’re not confusing two different issues. I was talking about things which can be seen from the outside. The Catholic claims that Mass is the source summit of their faith. While Protestant attendance service is important but it is not viewed as the source and summit. So, comparing Mass attendance to Protestant service attendance is not really a valid comparison. What I was getting at is this, is someone who gives up the source and summit of their faith really still a practicing member of that faith? Is someone who violates basic tenets of their faith (regularly without remorse) really a practicing member of that faith? Is someone who doesn’t complete the minimal requirements dictated by their faith (regularly without remorse) really a practicing member of that faith?

 

[Pax]

…
The point is something that we went round about on a thread here recently. Basically, if you really dig into Sola Fide the name is sort of a misnomer. The doctrine of Sola Fide teaches that a man is saved by his faith and nothing else, however a true faith will naturally out pour in works. The works are simply a proof, or justification, of the faith rather than a part of ones salvation. The Catholic teaching is the works, in some way, actually play a part in the process of salvation. Like VociMike said it’s a chicken or the egg or a cart and the horse argument. Really, when Sole Fide is properly understood it becomes a point of theological minutia.
…
…

Drawmack in Christ,

You’ve raised two points that we discussed on the other thread which I will address only for the sake of those that missed the previous exchange.

On one level, I would agree that Catholic and Evangelical differences on justification may in some ways appear to be items of minutia. This is clear by way of the comments already expressed on this thread. On another level, it is not minutia. The truth is what it is, and we cannot ignore what scripture says about such an important topic. Most Christians recognize this, and that is why they cannot unify on this very divisive issue.

I appreciate your ecumenical spirit…we all need this in order to appreciate what we have in common and to build bridges. On that score, I give you “high fives.”

I still disagree with your view that works are simply an outcome and demonstration of faith. On one level, works are a demonstration of faith, but that is only one dimension. So far I have never received an adequate rebuttal to the plain words of the apostle James. As pointed out on the other thread, James says the following:

1. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
2. Faith without works is dead.
3. Faith without works is barren.
4. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

None of these statements indicate that works are merely an outcome or demonstration of faith. Moreover, they indicate something quite the opposite. Furthermore, the apostle gives us the clincher when he says this about Abraham in James 2:22:

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

What we really learn from all of this is that works are not simply an outcome or demonstration of faith. Instead, works complete faith and both must be understood in terms of the body and spirit analogy presented by James. This is important and meaningful and I have yet to find an adequate refutation concerning that point. The works of our Christian gospel faith spoken of by James proceed from faith but they are enabled and propelled by grace. The works are in fact prepared by the Father for us to walk in even before we are justified[see Eph 2:8-10]. He makes us a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works. Moreover, the Father’s purpose is to conform us to the image of his son[Romans 8:29]. None of this is accomplished in the Christian if that Christian has faith alone.

God bless.

 

[Drawmack]

Pax in Christ,

Thank you for the wonderful summation of what originally took pages. There is just one point that I think you glossed over and would like to fill in. Not for purposes of renewing the debate simply so that both sides are presented in this summation.

Namely, that point is that I did refute those scriptures from James. You did not accept my refutations and that is fine, but I think it only fair to present those refutations out of completeness.

1. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

I interpret the word justify, in this sense, to mean proven. Thus a man’s faith is proven, or demonstrated, by his faith.

1. Faith without works is dead.

Truly this is correct. As works are the natural out pouring of true faith anyone who does not demonstrate his faith with works has a dead faith.

1. Faith without works is barren.

Truly this is correct. As works are the natural our pouring of true faith than anyone who professes faith (as James says of the man he is talking about) but does not justify, demonstrate, this faith with works is barren. That man does not have a true faith but a barren profession of faith.

1. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Truly, see what I said above about faith without works.

None of these statements indicate that works are merely an outcome or demonstration of faith. Moreover, they indicate something quite the opposite. Furthermore, the apostle gives us the clincher when he says this about Abraham in James 2:22:

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

That is true as well. In the same sense that if I buy desk I then own that desk. No one would deny that the moment I purchase a desk from office max I own it. However, no one would recognize it as a desk until I do some work and assemble it. Does this mean that it wasn’t a desk before I did the work? The same is true here the man is saved by his faith but that is completed through the works the same way the desk above was completed. (I know it’s not a perfect analogy give me some points for off the cuff please.)

God Bless,

 

[VociMike]

No we’re not confusing two different issues. I was talking about things which can be seen from the outside. The Catholic claims that Mass is the source summit of their faith. While Protestant attendance service is important but it is not viewed as the source and summit. So, comparing Mass attendance to Protestant service attendance is not really a valid comparison. What I was getting at is this, is someone who gives up the source and summit of their faith really still a practicing member of that faith? Is someone who violates basic tenets of their faith (regularly without remorse) really a practicing member of that faith? Is someone who doesn’t complete the minimal requirements dictated by their faith (regularly without remorse) really a practicing member of that faith?

Well then, your point was not my point, but I will address your point. I don’t see how someone who gives up the source and summit of Catholicism, someone who violates basic tenets of Catholicism (regularly without remorse) can in any useful sense be called Catholic. Their actions bring great scandal and damage to the Catholic Church and to other Catholics, and it would be better if they stopped lying by claiming to be Catholic.

Of course that doesn’t mean that I don’t desire that they have a living faith in God, and that they be saved. And it doesn’t mean that I do not consider that I am the chief of sinners, and am in no place to look down on them and judge their hearts.