Contra Sproul

Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

Sproul had very proud words to say about the Reformation. "The Reformation Rescued the Gospel"*, as more detailed in this passage:

Since the gospel stands at the heart of Christian faith, Luther and other Reformers regarded the debate over justification as involving an essential truth of Christianity, a doctrine no less essential than the Trinity or the dual natures of Christ. Without the gospel, the church falls. Without the gospel, the church is no longer the church.

The Reformers followed this logic:

• 1) Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.
• 2) The gospel is essential to Christianity and to salvation.
• 3) The gospel is essential to a church’s being a true church.
• 4) To reject justification by faith alone is to reject the gospel and to fall as a church.

Pushing Back the Dark

The Reformers concluded that when Rome rejected and condemned sola fide, it condemned itself and ceased to be a true church. ...

Apart from the fact that the statues alluded to in the beginning of the essay smell somewhat of the veneration of Saints, vehemently condemned by Calvin, John Knox, Huldrych Zwingli, Theodore Beza, and at least some others (though not totally Luther or Melanchthon, nor Cranmer), this is nearly a good logic.

It falls on exactly one statement:

1) Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.

The final statement, which is equally wrong, cannot be concluded without that first one.

Unless, of course, they could document that this had been the fully embraced doctrine of Catholicism before their own time, before their own conflict.

So far, the Bible part involves Luther faking a quote of St Paul about Abraham and even admitting it, while the Patristics part involves overrelying on only St Augustine and even that reading him selectively (Jesuits have amply refuted the Protestant reading of St Augustine), and the scholastic part is lacking.

When what's his name Caerularius condemned Azymes, he argued that Leavened Bread was not just the traditional discipline in Constantinople, but had been so in "the Ancient Rome" (Rome on Tiber, Rome usually so called**) as well.

He therefore concluded that Rome in using Azymes (Unleavened Bread, in the Greek if his time usually referred to as Unleavened, without adding "Bread", which in Greek is azymoi, Azymes) had left what was essential to the Gospel.

While some could shake their heads on this, thinking that the Last Supper at least was Jesus Christ celebrating "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", Caerularius insisted "the Gospel says 'bread' and we don't call Azymes that". While I believe he can be proven wrong, also in assuming that Christ used Leavened Bread, he at least had the local tradition going for him.

A local tradition which Rome has respected. It was not Rome, it was a Norman Lord, who had on Sicily unjustly persecuted the usage of Leavened Bread.

But the Reformers were not claiming to continue even a local tradition.

The monument is clear enough : at least after more discussions, their claim crystallised in the memory of the later Protestants as Post tenebras lux.

It is as if Caerularius had been born in a Latin family, celebrating with Azymes, never heard of anyone using Leavened Bread and even so imposing it as a Gospel necessity. To do him justice, that was not what he was doing.

To do him justice, he was claiming for Constantinople "Post Lucem Lux"***.

While both he and Reformers were claiming for Rome Post Lucem Tenebras*** - and while both he and Reformers could not quite find a clear age up to which Rome had either been celebrating with Leavened Bread or dogmatising that Justification is by Faith Alone.

At least for his own city, he was more coherent than they. Since, for Geneva or Wittenberg, for Sweden and Denmark, for England and Scotland, they were claiming, basically, with one mouth "Post Tenebras Lux", and they could not and cannot now agree on what hour the Tenebrae started in their own Roman birthplaces and missions as well as in Rome.

Why are Catholic Trads not in the same Position? Well, we can point back to Trent as a formally undisputed authority, and we can check that materially it does mean literal inerrantism in Church Father after Church Father making up the overall consensus required by Trent : at least on subjects such as Young Earth and Geocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Roman Martyrs
Makar, Rufin, Just and Theophil
28.II.2017

* The Reformation Rescued the Gospel
R.C. Sproul / January 23, 2017
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/reformation-rescued-the-gospel

** By contrast with Constantinople, nicknamed New Rome or Second Rome.

*** I had to correct my use of case after post, it is accusative, not ablative. This for those who saw the essay while it said "post luce" in two places.

Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ...

Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

... I am glad "Geisler's" TULIP is not quite as black as those Dutch ones back in the heighday of Black Tulips and Calvinism. [Wiki is citing it after Allen, Bob. "Traditional Southern Baptists counter Calvinism". Baptist News Global. Retrieved 23 December 2014.]*

T

otal depravity extends to the whole person but does not destroy the image of God in fallen human beings;

[U]

Election is unconditional from the standpoint of God’s giving it and only one condition for human’s receiving it—faith;

[L]

The atonement is unlimited in its scope—Christ died for all mankind—but limited in its application to only the elect;

[I]

Grace is irresistible on the willing but does not force the unwilling;

[P]

All those who are regenerate will, by God’s grace, persevere to the end and be saved

Now, to the criticism. Some black tulip infection actually still remains, unfortunately.

T?

That depravity extends to the whole person of the unregenerate is correct. An unregenerate person who dies still or again unredeemed will have his whole soul and whole body cast into Hell - Limbo for the infants and Down's syndromers who aren't baptised, Hell of Tortures for the ones who after the use of reason have committed mortal sins that prevent or forfeit the fruits of regeneration and not been forgiven these on the right side of the grave.

A man who blasphemed but gave alms will not have his tongue in Hell and his hand in Heaven. A man who was chaste but hated God will not have half his soul in Heaven for chastity and other half in Hell for hatred of God.

But the totality from the side of persons solidarity in being damned does not mean a totality in respect to the aspects which are there before actual damnation.

The chaste but loveless soul still alive will have his chastity (insofar as genuine) pulling him toward redemption "as much as" his hatred toward God toward damnation.

No, not as much as, since love of God is a more important virtue than chastity, sorry.

This does not mean he can be saved without grace : it means grace is building on aspects of his nature.

It is therefore not totally depraved.

Rather, when he is finally saved, if finally saved, "to whom has shall be given", what was wanting in non-mortal sins will be filled with grace. As what was wanting in repentance for former mortal sins. And, when he is damned, if he is damned, whatever was grace in him during life shall be taken away from him, since he did not use it to save his soul before dying.

U?

That election is not given by conditions yet to be fulfilled from the side of God is certainly correct, that there are nevertheless conditions from the side of those elect to be fulfilled and faith is among them, is correct, but this is actually faith and obedience.

John 3:[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. [21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

So, doing truth is a condition, not separate from, but connected to faith.

Saying that faith alone is condition on part of the elect is as un-Biblical as it is heretical and condemned by Trent.

L?

The atonement is unlimited in its scope—Christ died for all mankind—but limited in its application to only the elect.

Catholics actually agree on this one. Mgr Lefèbvre opposed the faulty translation "which is shed out for all", and kept the Latin "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur" - "which is shed out for you and for many" for this precise reason.

I?

"Grace is irresistible on the willing but does not force the unwilling"

Does not force the unwilling sounds like contradicting - very soundly - the substance of "irresistible grace".

It would be better of course to speak in the case of the willing of "efficacious grace". And to admit the unwilling were offered a real grace, but did not take it and so it was not efficacious.

P?

"All those who are regenerate will, by God’s grace, persevere to the end and be saved."

Sorry, this is wrong.

The grace of regeneration can be lost. Until one dies, it can also be regained, by confession, and St Peter was asked to forgive 70 times 7. But it can be momentarily lost, and it can also be finally lost.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris III
Candlemass
2.II.2017

* Added [...] after signature, as an afterthought, lest I should be misrepresenting Norman Geisler. What I have criticised is the wiki's version - and looking at the source, it seems the wiki was somewhat mangled after citing it. Hence I also added "" around "Geisler's".