[This is an old post from my own website, but since I never got any comments on it there, I thought it might be a good introductory post for me here. Please, consider this an exercise in amateur theology; I am not a theologian by training, and will be perfectly happy to heed any corrections or qualifications given by those who are.]
Protestants have long been irked by a critical fact that Martin Luther noticed early in his reform work regarding the accuracy of the Vulgate. Luther, using the newly-produced critical Greek New Testament of Erasmus, noticed that at Matthew 3:1 and 4:17 the Vulgate translates the Greek term metanoia (to turn around) with the Latin term paenitentiam agite (”do penance”). This, said Luther, was a dire mistranslation, since the Greek text cannot be made to support the complicated penitential theology of the later Middle Ages. Ever since, the argument has become a major plank in Protestant polemics alleging Rome’s “dislike of plain biblical truths” and reliance instead upon “traditions of men.”Now I do not propose to defend the Catholic theology of penance in this post. However, I would like to bring out a possibility that occurred to me this past week in, ironically enough, the context of some Latin tutoring that I do. One of my students was translating a speech by Pope John XXIII at the funeral of Pope Pius XII (1958). In this speech John XXIII, expounding on the “double reason” why his papal name was “John”, said the following:
“Joannes Baptista precursor Domini: qui non erat certe ille lux, sed testimonium erat de lumine: et vere fuit testimonium invictum veritatis, justitiae, libertatis, in praedicatione, in baptismo paenitentiae, in profuso sanguine.”
That is:
“John the Baptist was the forerunner of the Lord: he was not truly that light, but was a testimony of that light: and truly he was an unconquerable testimony of truth, justice, and liberty in public proclamation, in the baptism of penance, in blood poured forth.”
Note the text I have bold-faced: in baptismo paenitentiae, or, “in the baptism of penance.” Now of course, non-Latin based translations of Matthew 3:1 and 4:17 read “baptism of repentance”, not “baptism of penance.” But, given that Catholic theology doesn’t as tightly distinguish “faith” and “works” as does Protestant theology, I can’t help but wonder if this is a reason why Jerome chose paenitentiam agite for the Greek term metanoia.
While I would want to be careful not to read developed Roman Catholic theology back into the Church Fathers, and would certainly not wish to read developed penitential theology (complete with notions of Purgatory and the sinner himself rendering satisfaction for the temporal consequences of sins) into the New Testament, it makes a good bit of sense, if one assumes that the turning of mind expressed by metanoia is immediately followed up by a different set of actions (i.e., paenitentiam, or penance) which demonstrate by means of works that repentance has truly taken place.
Now this sort of construct is similar to Protestant theology in that just as we say that justification and sanctification are not separate but only distinguished and that the latter must inevitably follow from the former, we would also view a repentance that does not issue forth in a changed life as being a false repentance. Indeed, the New Testament itself teaches that works must follow upon repentance, as in Acts 26:20’s injunction that the Gentiles should “perform deeds appropriate to repentance.”
Catholic theology as I understand it teaches that faith has to be “formed” by works or it is the dead faith of James 2. Again, without trying to make concessions to the whole complicated tangle of Purgatory and the sinner himself making satisfication for temporal penalties, etc., I can’t help but wonder if the root of the Catholic view of penance, as stated in the Latin translation of such verses as Matt. 3:1 and 4:17, is the biblical teaching that true repentance issues forth in changed works. Repentance thus cannot help but produce penance, and thus metanoia was translated by Jerome as paenitentiam agite–”do penance.”
This is probably too simple an explanation, though, and certainly must be missing a number of distinctions within Catholic theology itself. Any corrections, qualifications, or additions would be welcomed.
Tim,
Certainly, in the case of adult converts, I think baptism could be described as a baptism of penance (repentance is a condition for baptism of converts in Acts 2:38). It signifies our dying to sin and being raised to newness of life with Christ (Romans 6:1-11). To that extent, John’s baptism certainly anticipates the full reality of Christian baptism (cf. especially Luke 3:3, 10-14).
I think it depends on one’s translation methodology. Ironically, I was writing about this again tonight with regard to a Latin translation of a statement of Luther’s that Steve Ray and I and another friend have been debating for now literally two months. One can translate absolutely literally or exercise more freedom and do more of a thought-for-thought rendering.
My friend John McAlpine was over tonight doing some Latin translation for the other project. He has a Masters Degree in Linguistics from U of M and teaches Latin to many home-schoolers. He wrote:
———
It occurs to me, a latinist, that the discussion has so far neglected a formal element of the Latin translation “paenitentiam agite”. As I understand it, the question is, why does Latin use the verb “agite”, which to an English speaker seems to imply some kind of action, being, after all, translated as “do”. Well, it should be noted that while the Greek “metanoeite” in Matthew 3:2 is used “personally”, if I may so put it, being in the second person plural, the Latin verb “paenitet” (dictionary form) is used impersonally, being in the 3rd person singular. That is to say, in Greek the logical subject is the same as the grammatical subject, but in Latin the logical subject of the verb “paenitet” (dictionary form), the Latin verb closest to the Greek verb in meaning, would be the grammatical direct object: one would not say “Repent,” as in Greek, but “May it repent you”. It may be partially for this reason that the Latin chooses to say “Paenitentiam agite,” which is a word phrase, and not in itself a direct translation of the Greek “metanoiete”, which is a one-word Greek imperative.
——————–
I was curious to see how more recent Catholic translations rendered these verses. Knox’s Revised Vulgate, Confraternity, Jerusalem, and NAB all have “repent.” That’s what I would prefer, myself, as I like to get as literal a translation of the Greek as possible. So it isn’t like the Catholic Church wants to stubbornly hold on to the older translation from the Vulgate.
I would agree with the notion that faith and works are closely allied in Scripture, and I agree with you that Catholic and Reformed thought are closer in this regard than many realize (as I have argued for many years), especially viewed in a practical sense of the requirements of the Christian life (as opposed to salvation per se).
I made a similar argument to yours above in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 36-37:
———————–
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (RSV)
The Greek word for believes is pistuo, and the Greek for does not obey is apitheo. The interesting thing in this verse is the parallelism, whereby belief and obedience are essentially identical. When all is said and done, believing in Christ is obeying Him. This ought to be kept in mind by Protestant evangelists and pastors who urge penitents to “believe on Christ,” “accept Christ,” etc. To disobey Christ is to be subject to the wrath of God. Thus, again, we are faced with the inescapable necessity of good works — wrought by God’s grace, and done in the spirit of charity — for the purpose and end of ultimate salvation, holiness, and communion with God.
St. Peter, in 1 Peter 2:7, uses the same parallelism, with the same two identical Greek words (believe / disobedient in KJV). St. Paul uses apitheo with regard to disobedience to parents in Romans 1:30 and 2 Timothy 3:2, and in a more general sense (describing sinners) in Titus 1:16 and 3:3. Obviously, no one disbelieves in the existence of their parents. St. Paul is speaking of disobeying their commands. In the same sense, such disobedience (not mere lack of faith) is said to be the basis of the loss of eternal life in John 3:36.
To speculate further, if it be granted that pistuo (“believe”) is roughly identical to “obeying,” as it indisputably is in John 3:36, by simple deduction, then its use elsewhere is also much more commensurate with the Catholic view of infused justification rather than the more abstract, extrinsic and forensic Protestant view: For example, the “classic” Protestant evangelistic verse John 3:16, Jesus’ constant demand to believe in Him in John 5 through 10, and St. Paul’s oft-cited salvific exhortations in Romans 1:16, 4:24, 9:33, and 10:9, generally thought to be irrefutable proofs of the Protestant viewpoint on saving faith.
—————————
Another biblical motif along the same lines that I find rather striking is the fact that every passage I have found about judgment after death invariably seems to condition salvation or damnation on works rather than faith. Now, they don’t rule out faith as a factor (and I don’t think one can do that, in light of overwhelming biblical data on the importance of faith and God’s grace, without which no one would be saved, contra Pelagianism), but in any event, it is never mentioned. I won’t paste all these passages, but here they are:
Matt 7:16-27
Matt 16:27
Matt 25:31-46
2 Cor 5:10
1 Pet 1:17
Rev 22:12
Ecc 12:14
I meant to add this tidbit also:
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, gives as his first definition of “Penance”:
“The virtue or disposition of heart by which one repents of one’s own sins and is converted to God.”
(Etym. Latin paenitentia, repentance, contrition)
Thus, if this definition were applied to the passages in question, it might mean, literally, “perform the act of repenting.” I’ve argued with Protestants who say that no one can do anything, and I’ll reply, “when you repent, YOU are doing something. You are doing this thing which is repenting, changing your life around, turning fro sin. That is a thing, and that is you DOING that thing. God causes it, but you DO it.” Etc.
So the one who repents is also dong something; hence, possibly “do penance” could actually mean this, or have a double meaning, along with the more usual interpretation of what Catholics mean by penance.”
Also, similar to Acts 26:20 is Matt 3:8, right in the same context: “Bear fruit that befits repentance.” Parallel verse Luke 3:8 is identical except for having “fruits”. And we could add Luke 3:9 to my list in my last comment of “judgment based on works” motif:
“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
So that is now eight passages I have found that tie damnation to lack of works. I’ve yet to find one that discusses faith in that context. If anyone finds one, please let me know; I’d be very interested to see it.
The problem with this is the “biblical teaching” is not what is at issue here because the translation of “metanoeite” – “you all repent” is just not the same as “do penance” for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the difference in meaning between the once for all changing of one’s mind in converting (repenting) and the continued action of doing ‘works of penance’ in the aftermath of that repentance to secure salvation.
It would be very difficult if not impossible from a purely historical perspective for someone to read any intent in Jerome’s reasons for translating the passages as he did and speculating why he might have done so really doesn’t make any stride toward actually translating the passage properly. I don’t have any doubt that Jerome would have reasons as to why he chose the words he used over others but none of that really helps explain the continued loaded misuse of such terms as metanoeite in current Catholic sentiment regarding passages like this.
There is no “baptism of penance” in the original Greek manuscripts and a aope’s use of such is doubtless done with reference to a preferred understanding that supports the fuller and later Catholic dogma. In the Bible, there is only the “baptism of repentance” which resulted in the forgiveness of sins because of God’s grace and not because of later works which remedied some requirement on our part to actively make up for what was lacking. The New Testament advocates that works after repentance happen as a result of our already existing salvation and not as a result of our supposed continued effort in securing and maintaining that salvation.
But, Kevin, I wasn’t talking about the “proper translation” of the passage; I was speculating about Jerome’s reasons for choosing the wording he did. My question is one of historical theology, not normative theology.
Tim and Kevin,
I think you’re both right. I agree with Kevin that the “do penance” translation has come to carry with it too much theological and practical baggage to be acceptable, in my opinion. But I’d like to, with Tim, give St. Jerome the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he is, by using the phrase paenotentiam agite trying to convey something along the lines of what is contained in John’s proclamation, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentence.”
Biblical repentence, in my view, is not a mere mental action, but rather a turning of the whole person away from sin and towards Christ. Action is the consequence of this rather than a constitutive element of it. But it is nonetheless a necessary consequence and fruit, for a good tree (one that repenets) cannot but bring forth good fruit. It is therefore very appropriate, and biblical, to speak of a “doing” that is in keeping with repentence. I don’t know that it is necessary to read anything other than this into Jerome’s translation.
Kevin,
You are assuming that metanoia means simply to change your mind in a purely cognitive sense, rather than seeing it holistically as a change in direction, a change of one’s path (as repentance uniformally is in the Bible). Mark 1:4 (probably the verse Pope John XXIII had in mind) is given further clarity in Luke 3:3, 10-14, where it is clear that “repentance” entails an intentional change of path, not simply a change of mind. I don’t know if you have studied Greek or not, but I have taught the language for years, and I can tell you that you are reading the lexical meaning of metanoia in a linguistically wooden and uninformed way (cf. Colin Brown (ed.), NIDNTT, 1:358: “the predominantly intellectual understanding of metanoia as change of mind plays very little part in the NT”). Tim is making a good point.
Tim, Umm. Okay.
If we are going to speculate, perhaps a more obvious opinion is that an increased attention to Jewish concepts of keeping the commandments as a requirement for conversion and that penitence must be done with clear indications that one is truly repentant helped the early development of penitential discipline and the later equation of metanoia and penance regardless of the more basic and original meaning we find in the New Testament.
But I’m sure you’re aware that this development is not by necessity a matter of catholic doctrine when the actual meaning of the text departs significantly from the later view likely enjoined by Jerome and others.
Speculation like this of course can be done but its results can hardly be definitive. It is an interesting historical question to be sure but I think a more interesting one is why the Catholic Church continues to leave the Vulgate translation of this phrase “do penance” and corresponding usage as you note above when the original biblical text says otherwise. Given that such a heavy and developed meaning is now attached to the phrase “do penance” one can’t help but think that it is only dogmatic concerns that force Rome’s hand in this regard.
Why not instead be truthful to the actual meaning of the text?
Paul,
I am not assuming that repentance means merely a changing of mind “in a purely cognitive sense”. I never said that. Where did I say that? Where did I indicate at all that I meant “in a purely cognitive sense”?
I am saying that whatever it means (and we can leave my own consideration of the meaning of the original aside for the moment), it doesn’t mean “do penance”. But, if we can’t agree that the Vulgate translation is undoubtedly inaccurate and carries with it a meaning that goes well beyond what is immediately present by the NT usage of the term “metanoeite” I don’t see what sense there is in quibbling over how I would translate the term.
And, I’m not without adequate scholarly support on this as you seem to imply.
Well, Kevin, maybe you might want to consider sticking to the topic of the post. I believe you have recently gotten onto others at RefCath for failing to do so on your own posts.
Tim,
I was just reacting to the “translation methodology” of Dave Armstrong (as if he knows Greek in the first place!) who veered quite widely from the topic in the first place.
Cut me a break, will you?
Kevin,
Don’t blame me. Tim made the point that perhaps there is an insight in the Vulgate translation, in that it reminds us that true repentance cannot be divorced from the change of action which it necessarily produces. You chose to disagree with what Tim said. In support of your disagreement, you said that repenting is a change of mind for salvation, whereas penance involves an ongoing change of action. You are the one who contrasted change of mind with change of action. To then draw back and say that you did not use the words “purely cognitive” is sheer sophistry. You know what you meant. If you agree that biblical repentance does involve a change of action, and not only a change of mind, then why on earth are you disagreeing with Tim’s point? Perhaps you didn’t read him very carefully, or maybe you just haven’t thought through the issues, in which case you should not jump into argument mode. This website is for thoughtful reflection, not useless and endless disputation.
Hi Kevin,
How refreshing to be in the same place, both freely allowed to speak. A nice change, isn’t it?
. . . why the Catholic Church continues to leave the Vulgate translation of this phrase “do penance” and corresponding usage as you note above when the original biblical text says otherwise. . . . one can’t help but think that it is only dogmatic concerns that force Rome’s hand in this regard.
As I stated above, the four major translations that have come from Catholic circles in the last hundred years or so have “repent” at this passage. That hardly sounds like a “dogmatic” resistance to textual / linguistic arguments as to the best translation here. I have stated that I agree with that. Though I understand better now what “do penance” may mean and how it can have at least a possible defense as a translation at Matt 3:2 and 4:17, I think “repent” is a better rendering, which is why most Bibles have that word. I would even have granted that “do penance” exhibited a Catholic translation bias, but in light of my friend John’s clarification as to Latin construction, perhaps that is not the case.
I was just reacting to the “translation methodology” of Dave Armstrong (as if he knows Greek in the first place!)
I am not assuming that I know Greek. I never said that. Where did I say that? Where did I indicate at all that I knew Greek? Nor did I translate anything on my own accord. That would be ridiculous. But I do use Greek language reference works that are intended precisely for English speakers who do not know the language, in order to delve more deeply into the biblical text. If you have a problem with that, go quibble with Strong, Thayer, Robertson, Vince, Vincent, Kittel et al. Do you know Latin?
who veered quite widely from the topic in the first place.
Really? The post was about the meaning of a Latin phrase from the Vulgate. I cited my friend who knows Latin very well and majored in languages in grad school. That’s off-topic? Bringing in Latin grammatical aspects is helpful to this discussion, I think most thoughtful folks would agree.
Then I mentioned that four recent Catholic translations no longer have “do penance”. That’s off-topic? I should think it was quite relevant information. Maybe not. But it seems relevant to me, anyway.
Then I made two biblical arguments that tie repentance and action together, which was a major component of Tim’s post; therefore relevant. But maybe not. No one else is saying so. But you have been suspected of sophistry and useless speculation.
Then I brought in a definition of “penance” from a major Catholic scholar in an effort to further explain how “do penance” may not be as wide of the mark as you seem to think. How is that off-topic?
Reasonable people can differ on the somewhat subjective matter of what remains on a topic, surely. As a webmaster and blogmaster for eleven years and moderator in two venues, and participant in “live” discussion groups in my home and others’ homes for now 18 years and running, I know that very well indeed, believe me. But I think a quite plausible, feasible argument can be made that I have been right smack dab on-topic in my replies. Tim would be a better judge of that than you, in any event.
Have a great day!
Well, this isn’t going as I’d hoped. The point of the post was not to talk about the legitimacy or not of Catholic translations, much less to attack Catholic doctrines thus provoking defenses of same. The point was a historical one. Nothing more, nothing less.
For my part, I thought I was mostly agreeing with you. I wasn’t so much defending Catholic doctrine as I was establishing common ground between Reformeds and Catholics, as I saw it, much as in the spirit of Paul Owen’s replies. Repentance and action have some intrinsic connection of some sort, both sides agree (or should agree).
I also thought it would be heartening to Protestants to see that Catholic translations other than Douay-Rheims from 1582 or whatever also have “repent” at these verses. More common ground . . .
Believe it or not, I like unity as much as we can manage to achieve that exalted goal, and am not always trying to create some huge stink and controversy, as my critics seem to assume is always my motivation. In fact, it virtually never is. But I become controversial because I have opinions and am not shy about expressing them (and surely you can relate to that, right Tim? :-).
I believe the central thesis of your discussion is here:
“I can’t help but wonder if the root of the Catholic view of penance, as stated in the Latin translation of such verses as Matt. 3:1 and 4:17, is the biblical teaching that true repentance issues forth in changed works.”
And in this you are 100% correct. Some of your responders would do well to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the “Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation” (Paragraphs 1422 through 1433). Too long to quote in its entirely, just consider this much: (1430) “Jesus’s call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does NOT aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the CONVERSION OF THE HEART, interior converstion. Without this such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior converstion urges expression in visible signs, gestures, and woks of penance….”
It seems as clear as a day in July that in the NT genuine repentance implies, as far as humanly possible, restitution.
Think Zacchaeus. No genuine repentance without restitution.
But where RC theology got into trouble at a very early time was in the unBiblical notion that proper restitution can be commuted into other actions: so many Hail Marys, so many pilgrimages, so many nocturnal visits to the Blessed Sacrament, etc. That is why the Reformation was necessary and still relevant.
But your insight is right on target, Biblically accurate, and not a sell-out of the Reformation. St Jerome grasped that repentance is not just something we feel, but something we do.
Fr. Wells, thanks for those very helpful remarks! And, I agree that it is unbiblical to imagine that proper restitution can be commuted into other actions, such that repentance becomes like a series of quantitative economic actions–the favorite example being in Luther’s day, where you could get, what, a million or more years off your time in Purgatory for piously viewing a certain collection of relics and performing required actions before them. Yes, indeed, the Reformation was necessary, and to whatever extent this sort of thing still remains Catholic teaching, the Reformation is still relevant.
Fr. Wells and Tim,
Good thoughts from both of you. This is why I referenced previously John saying in Luke 3:8, “bear fruits in keeping with repentence,” and the possible light this might throw on St. Jerome’s translation. It is interesting to note how the Baptizer described these “fruits”:
True action, but nothing of praying a certain number of set prayers, paying a certain amount of money, or gazing at a skull, etc.
I find it remarkable but not surprising at all that, having identified the true (“Roman”) Catholic doctrine of interior conversion leading to repentance and penance, nevertheless you have to go right back to the usual humdrum Protestant “either/or” mentality and pit these same works against the interior conversion, as if they were antithetical. Why is that? You’re looking right at Catholic truth, as ably expressed in the Catechism, yet one second later you act as if you didn’t see what you just explained. There must always be a division created where there need not be one.
There is no necessary dichotomy here! Obviously, individuals can misunderstand and mis-apply Catholic teaching, but we’re talking about actual theology and doctrine of the Church, not practice, as indicated by the phrase, “But where RC theology got into trouble . . .”
CCC #1460 (citing Trent) explains the relationship of such penance to Jesus:
————————–
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.
————————–
Now what is wrong with that? The only way a Protestant can fault this notion (correctly understood) is to go back to the old canard, that this amounts to us poor sinners actually “doing” something, which must be Pelagianism, and couldn’t possibly be a biblically synergistic view, with God providing all enabling grace, and our cooperating with Him. That smuggles in prior presuppositions that are not themselves biblical. For example:
1 Cor 3:9 (RSV) For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
KJV: For we are labourers together with God . . .
Phillips: In this work, we work with God . . .
Amplified: For we are fellow workmen — joint promoters, laborers together — with and for God . . .
2 Cor 6:1 Working together with him [i.e., Jesus; see 5:21], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (RSV)
Now, why is this so difficult to grasp?If penitential works are such a terrible thing, supposedly disconnected to God’s grace and Jesus’ death on the cross, etc., etc. (“the unBiblical notion that proper restitution can be commuted into other actions: so many Hail Marys, so many pilgrimages, so many nocturnal visits to the Blessed Sacrament, etc.”), then what do you do with these passages from the Apostle Paul?:
Philippians 2:17 Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.
Philippians 3:10 . . . that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.
2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
2 Corinthians 4:10 Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
And what about what I have called “the most ‘Un-Protestant’ Verse in the Bible” (The Catholic Verses, p. 163):
1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
I submit, then, that what is “necessary” is not so much the “Reformation” but for Protestants to be more biblical and especially “Pauline.”
Mr. Armstrong,
Funny, I see absolutely no conflict between the passages you’ve just given and what Fr. Wells, Tim, or I have said above. None of us have said anything like “either faith or works.” Actually, I think we’ve said just the opposite. Our contention however is that the Bible paints a different picture of good works than does the RC penetential system.
The Biblical presentation of the “fruits befitting repentence” is one of true love for God manifesting itself outwardly in the form of worship of Him and works of love for others. These works are not of course something disconnected from the sacrifice of Christ or our subsequent justification. All are intimately related, having their center in our mystical union with Him. This, I believe, is precisely what is at work in each of the passages you’ve cited.
Sure, you can continue to marshall forth your list of texts. But they mean nothing to one who does not share your perspective on things. In fact, without at least some exegetical work to demonstrate the connections you’d like to draw, they don’t really amount to a hill of beans. We all have Bibles of our own, and we’ve all read those passages before. What’s more, we even believe them. Heck, some of us even know Greek and have analyzed the context, grammar, and syntax of a few of those passages, and all that without becoming Roman Catholic!
Surprising, I know.
These works are not of course something disconnected from the sacrifice of Christ or our subsequent justification. All are intimately related, having their center in our mystical union with Him. This, I believe, is precisely what is at work in each of the passages you’ve cited.
Exactly. And that is the Catholic position. So where do we disagree? I’m saying we agree on this when the Catholic position is correctly misunderstood. You guys are the ones who insist on there being a huge difference. I’m seeing points of unity and common ground, and rejoicing in it, but you guys want to create a division where there is none. There is plenty where we actually disagree . . .
Lastly, I’m curious: can you direct me to a post where you actually do comparative exegesis with a Catholic? Or is this the presuppositionalist method again, where no one who does not share it can ever break through the bubble? Therefore, Bible verses are of little value and can be dismissed as irrelevant unless one presupposes the entire Reformed structure of belief, then it all makes sense . . .
“correctly misunderstood” should be “correctly understood.”
Dave, why didn’t you see Catholicism in these verses before you became a Catholic?
Mr. Armstrong,
Well, let it be known that you are the one who expressed disagreement first. Your reactionary stance here is not appreciated. No one said anything about a “huge” difference. But there is a difference. For instance, Protestants would view things such as relics and indulgences as being at best utterly meaningless, and at worst an abomination.
And, please, don’t be silly. I’m not about to point you to posts I’ve written or commented on in order to simply indulge your curiosity. The vast majority of exegetical and theological work I do does not make its way onto the internet anyway. Unlike some, I don’t spend a whole lot of time figuring out what profound topics to write on next so that people can be convinced of how right I am. So, yes, I have compared Roman Catholic and Protestant exegesis of various passages. But whether or not the work I’ve done in these areas is on the internet doesn’t mean anything.
And just so you know, future comments along the lines of what you’ve written in your second paragraph above will be deleted without warning.
Dave, why didn’t you see Catholicism in these verses before you became a Catholic?
No one ever pointed them out to me in a systematic way, so in reading the Bible, I would pass over them without giving them much thought. If they had been presented in the way I presented them above, I wold have been given serious pause, and would have tried to interpret them according to my evangelical grid.
So then, from the fact that as an Evangelical you had a perspective which determined what you considered “evidence” and how you arranged and examined data once you identified it as “evidence,” it follows that other people who have other perspectives may consider all the things you raise and examine as not being “evidence” for Catholicism at all.
It would also seem to be the case, if you are going to be intellectually charitable toward non-Catholics, that someone might examine all the things you raise in a systematic way similar to what you have done and yet not be given serious pause. Indeed, it is fully possible that someone might give all the so-called “evidences” for Catholicism a full and fair examination and yet not come to the conclusion that Catholicism is true in the way that it claims to be true.
This is why I cited Geisler saying that all facts are “interprafacts” and Nash saying that all “proofs” are person relative. Perhaps you didn’t understand the relevance of those remarks to your understanding of “evidence”–which, it now appears, is not quite so simple as your rhetoric often presents it. It is not, in other words, as one of your papers argues, that people who look seriously at Church history and do not become Catholic are likely guilty of merely using history as a “massive front for propaganda.” Indeed, it is more likely that such a person thinks of you as the propagandist.
It’s interesting what perspectives can do to claims about “evidence,” isn’t it?
Tim,
That’s a very profound question: Why didn’t any of us see what we now embrace as (more) fully biblical, back when we had a less-than-biblical worldview?
I think it’s possible to arrive at any given position simply on a readng of Scripture, but it’s unlikely a full-orbed construct could be re-constituted by simply reading outside the hermeneutical mind of the Church. Roman Catholics, as you well know, use a certain set of traditional lenses to make sense of the pertinent data — right or wrong, this can’t be overlooked in these discussions, as you so astutely have been urging. Further, there should be no offense taken at being told that your view or my view is shaped by the lenses we knowingly or unknowingly adopt to make rhyme and reason of the faith we have.
Good discussion, gentlemen.
Tim,
I like your referance to Geisler and interprefacts. To me, if I understand it correctly,it points to our biases influencing what we see and believe about the saving reality of God. This is what is somewhat perplexing to me regarding the teaching of Christian truth. I don’t know how to seperate each person’s , including my own, bias from what the truth of the matter actually is. Since the Bible requires interpretation in order to be properly understood, and it is precisely at the point of interpretation that the biases join with the Bible and are then presented as the truth of Christianity, then it seems we will always be left saying I believe this about essential doctrine X, but others teach something else about doctrine X so, Who is to say? Thus, certainty is always ellusive and out of our reach. It seems to me that since Christ is The Way The Truth and The Life then it stands to reason that the objective possibility of knowing the Truth without error exists.
By the way, there is absolutely some truth in your assertion that I am in over my head. However, my intentions are sincere.
Tim,
The shortest and the surest response to your observation with regards to Dave’s “evidence” is evidently Grace. Let’s pray for that Grace.