Sungenis' response to recent ECT Document..."The Gift of Salvation"

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:45:20
From: "Dave G. Armstrong"
Subject: Sungenis on ECT2

The following is a letter from my friend, Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis (formerly Reformed; Master's from Westminster Theological Seminary), about "ECT2." As we have been discussing this, I thought it might be helpful for our discussions:

As for comments, I do have a few:

ECT2 is cited as saying:
<>

As it stands, I don't have a problem with this paragraph. I am, however, pleased to see the aspect of adoption as a major element in how Scripture describes redemption/justification.

<>

There are several problems with this paragraph. First, although the statement "We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God's gift, conferred through the Father's sheer graciousness..." can, from one perspective, be understood to be in line with Catholic theology, it lacks the major distinction between works done under law from works done under grace, of which the latter is meritorious in Catholic theology (in accordance with Romans 2:4-10, as explained in pp. 32-46 in NBFA). When Catholic theology agrees that "justification is not earned by any good works of merits of our own" it understands the works in view as those done out of self-righteous presumption or boasting which seek to obligate God to repay. This Catholic understanding would be in line with the phrasing of Eph. 2:8, "not of works lest any man should boast," the operative word being "boast." Justification is a gift of God because God does not "owe" anything to man, i.e, man cannot put God under legal contract to be repaid with justification for his works. The Justification can only come from a disposition outside of a legal framework wherein God gives out of good pleasure and gratuity, not because of a man-imposed obligation. Faith is the beginning element of justification because implicit in faith is a personal, non-legal relationship with God that acknowledges that everything that comes from God is gratuitous, not from obligation.

The ECT2 statement "In justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so," is a half truth as far as Catholic theology is concerned, and as a result, distorts the real essence of justification. The part that is true is that God declares. The part that is missing is what the nature of the declaration is. Catholic theology would agree that the meritorious cause of justification is the atonement of Christ. No man can do what Christ did. Thus, we can say that it is on the basis of Christ's atonement that God justifies us. But the word "basis" is a loaded term. I can say the engine of my car is the "basis" upon which my car will move, but it is not the engine alone that moves my car. There are drive shafts, differentials, wheels, etc, that work in conjunction with the engine to move my car. Thus, saying something is the "basis" for something else really doesn't say much if the statement is not defined properly or adequately developed. Analogously, the mere fact that ECT2 would agree that FAITH is needed to apprehend the justification offered by God through the atonement of Christ injects an uncertain variable into the formula, i.e., whether or not faith will be present in the individual to apprehend the righteousness. Moreover, it must be a qualified faith (as ECT2 said itself, "Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life").

The only one who can judge the quality of an individual's faith in order for that individual to apprehend the "righteousness of Christ" is God. But God must judge the faith from his graciousness, not from his perfect standards, otherwise no one's faith would be adequate to apprehend Christ's righteousness. But once you admit that faith must be judged from God's graciousness, you must also acknowledge that works done for justification can be judged from his graciousness, not from the standard of the perfect law. Thus, this is why Catholicism sees no difference between faith and works in acquiring justification since both must be evaluated from God's grace — the gracious viewing that was provided by Christ's atonement. Works that are anathema in Catholicism are those man attempts to thrust in the face of God on a legal basis (viz., using the standard of law for evaluation). All in all, if faith (and works) are required to apprehend justification, I think it is misleading to say that God declares us to be justified on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone. The necessity of individual faith (and eventually, works) to procure justification eliminates using "alone" as a qualifier for justification or any of its related terms.

Evangelicals think that the way out of the dilemma posed by the requirement of faith is to say that faith is a gift of God, so that it is not man's action but God's. Here the evangelical attempts to isolate faith as the only gift from God, implying that works are not a gift of God. But Scripture, and Catholicism, teach that both faith and works are a gift of God, and both require man's cooperation. We could have neither faith nor works worthy of God's notice unless God gave us the power to believe and perform. Everything we have from God is a gift. Hence, in the words of Ephesians 2:8, "this is the gift of God," the word "this" is a neuter adjective that is singling out no one aspect of salvation (being that grace and faith are feminine nouns) but the whole panorama of salvation. (ECT tacitly admits this in the two statements: (1) "the gift of justification" and (2) "faith, which is also the gift of God").

I would also take exception to the statement "declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so." If by this language ECT2 means that in justification God merely LABELS us as his friends but we are not really friendly with God because our inner nature has been changed, then it is flatly against Scripture. If they mean that by declaring us his friends God actually changes us so that we can be his friends, then they are more in line with Tridentine and Biblical thought. By and large, ECT2 language is vague and ambiguous and therefore prone to error and distortion.

< Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).>>

ECT2 seems to be ambivalent as to the nature of faith. On the one hand, it says "faith, which is also the gift of God," and on the other hand it says "by our response of faith to Christ." This again shows the dilemma faced by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin and all the original Protestants as to the nature of faith. Is it a gift, is it a response, or is it both? This has been the unending question in Protestantism, with no clear answer for 475 years. Catholicism has the answer, and it has never changed.

The statement "We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide)" is begging the question. By the use of the plural "traditions," ECT2 implicitly admits that there are several strains of Reformation thought, but explicitly they are attempting to make these Reformation traditions monolithic, which they are not by any means. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Methodists, all disagreed as to what "faith alone" meant and how it was to be practiced. It can even be shown that Lutherans disagreed with Luther, and Calvinists disagreed with Calvin. It is simply naive and misleading to portray the Reformation as uniform on the meaning of "faith alone." Moreover, the statements of ECT2 that you cite are so general and ambiguous that they are sure to overlap with many of the different strains of Reformation thought, even as they overlap with much of Catholic thought, as I have shown above. I would hasten to add that the only monolithic statement on justification coming out of the Reformation was the sixth session of the Council of Trent, and as it still stands today as the infallible proclamation of Christ's Church on Justification.

Bob Sungenis
(forwarded by Dave A.)

Return to 100% Catholic