Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part IVa

 Session Six is the council's declaration of the nature of justification and its anathemas toward those who would teach otherwise. 

First, I want to note that the council seems to be bolstering its claim to authority at the beginning of this session as this is the first time it references so many higher ups in the church including the pope. It just seems like an appeal to authority, which is why authorities were declared as both the Scripture and the Church in earlier sessions.

Second, the very first claim made about justification is one that acknowledges and affirms the previous session's declaration concerning original sin but now adds to it the claim that "although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them." It seems clear, then, that Trent is attempting to argue that free will is not a part of Adam's fallenness "when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted." I can only imagine that "free will" here must be the ability to make a choice between good and evil since the previous statement declared that neither Gentiles with natural law nor the Jews with revealed law were able to move themselves out of the state that Adam put them in. If that is the case, there would be no disagreement at this point on the nature of "free will," since "free will" would just mean that one can choose, and cannot mean "one has the spiritual and willful ability to do good." If it means the latter, it contradicts the other statements made thus far by Trent.

The council states that Christ died for all, so it rejects limited atonement (although it may be anachronistic to say that), but only those who have his merit transferred to them receive the benefit thereof of course. "So, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins."

Hence, Trent's definition of justification is as follows:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Again, Protestants should agree with this. Some might say that justification is merely a declaration of all of these things that have not actually taken place but this would contradict Scripture. Justification may be a declaration of these things but because they have actually taken place. The believer is now in a state of grace (Rom 5:1-3). He has been adopted as sons of God (Rom 8:15-17). He has been regenerated by grace (Eph 2:4-6).

I would add to this that Trent has already stated on its declaration concerning original sin the following:

"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

Now, if baptism stands in for faith then this statement is essentially a statement that justification is by grace through faith alone. I only say this because the soteriological system that Trent is going to assume contradicts these statements. 

"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God."

Here is where the heresy of the semi-Pelagianism condemned in the Council of Orange is established as official, and here is where I would argue is the beginning of Roman Catholicism. The Church before was one that rejected semi-Pelagianism, and even the council here expressly condemns it, and yet it now sneaks it in the backdoor. Not only does it refer to some prevenient grace that makes one alive, with which Reformed Protestants would agree, but it refers to this grace as non-effectual without the assistance of the individual's free assent and cooperation with this grace. Hence, God's grace that is said to be necessary for salvation is not the deciding factor in justification but rather the free will decision of the individual. As Luther rightly noted in his work The Bondage of the Will this is the crux of the issue in Roman Catholic soteriology as the statement that one can gain justification through no merit of one's own is contradicted by the act of "doing" something, which is cooperating with this grace, making his actions more meritorious, having gained Christ's merit through it than that of one who does not cooperate with said grace. Hence, this grace moves but is not the sole cause of the individual's faith and subsequent justification.

Yet, by the council's own words in Session Five, those who argue that the remedy of original sin is through any human merit other than the merit of Christ alone, are anathema. 

"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, –is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema."

Roman Catholics may think my pushback means that man is forced into salvation but that is not at all the case. The will of the individual is simply and completely changed by God alone to submit to Christ in faith. This makes it both the individual's joyful will to receive Christ and God's work alone in saving the individual. Hence, no merit is attributed to the individual since the change of the will is effectual, leading to faith and justification. This is consistent with the Council of Orange, and in this regard, Trent here has not only instituted an innovation but a heretical one according to the church's tradition itself.

Orange stated in Canons 5-8:

"CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3)."

Trent makes faith and justification dependent upon the free will of the individual who must cooperate with it, giving credit not simply to the Holy Spirit and His grace but to the individual for having cooperated with the Spirit and said grace. This simply contradicts the statements in Scripture that we were made alive and seated with Christ while we were dead in our sins (Eph 2:4-6), that all who the Father gives the Son come to Him and are raised up on the last day to glory (John 6:37-45), and that those who are predestined and called are both justified and glorified (Rom 8:29-30). There is no other group that is given and called that is not justified and glorified. In Ephesians 2:8, Paul states that Christians "have been saved by grace through faith and this not of yourselves." The demonstrative τοῦτο this in the phrase τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν this not of yourselves is neuter but χάριτί and πίστεως are feminine and σεσῳσμένοι is masculine. What this means is that the this that is not of themselves is the entire thing, including each of its elements. So none of the salvation that is by grace through faith is of them. They had no part in it. They had not part in the grace, the salvation, or the faith. Both Scripture and church tradition rejects Trent's understanding of faith as dependent upon the individual's cooperation with some prevenient grace.

Trent attributes justification as something "whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation." 

The problem now is that if the human will is involved in receiving justification, Trent will now go on to argue that the human will must cooperate with the Spirit to maintain that justification, and thus, the entire Roman Catholic system of soteriology is born. We'll discuss that next time.

Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part III

 The fifth session deals with original sin and its effects upon all of humanity, both adults and children. The first couple statements reject Pelagianism with which all of orthodox Protestantism agrees. They anathematize anyone who rejects the idea that Adam lost his holiness and glory (image?) and that he obtained for himself, and for all of humanity after him, a transfusion of sin, the wrath of God, judgment of death and transferred himself and his posterity to the empire of the devil. It also states that the only remedy for this is the merit of Jesus Christ and not any merit obtained by human beings through any other means.  

Now, of course, Protestants would very much agree with this statement thus far but Trent's soteriology will explain this in a particular way that is very much not Protestant. 

The means of applying Christ's sacrifice to both adults and infants is baptism into the church and these doctrines, apart from which, as this session states in its very first statement, "it is impossible to please God."

Hence, the idea that baptism is the means through which imputation occurs carries with it an entrance into the Catholic Church. It is through baptism that one is made completely innocent before God, having completely removed all of the sin and guilt obtained by Adam, in whom there is now "nothing that God hates" is "immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

However, Trent argues "that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

In other words, there is a sin inclination that remains that is not sin itself but rather leans toward sin and must be countered by those who have entered into Jesus Christ. 

Again, no disagreement from Protestant theology per se, although I personally would explicitly differentiate between the water of baptism itself and what it represents, which is one giving his allegiance to Jesus Christ by entering into His church, which I don't identify as Rome itself. But there are Prots who would see the act of baptism as faith itself. This may be the way Peter is using it in both his epistle and in Acts 2:28, so this sort of language of synecdoche isn't really the problem some may make it out to be. Both RC's and Prots agree that it is allegiance to, and unification with, Christ that regenerates an individual and removes all sin and condemnation from him, and Trent would agree with us that this includes children. Hence, it argues for the Augustinian position of baptizing infants against Pelagius. This is not to say that Augustine had it correct but simply that this is not necessarily a Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issue or an innovation of the sixteenth century.

Of course, the biggest disagreements here would be over the fact that after all of this is said, Trent makes sure to state that Mary is not included in these statements concerning original sin. Mary herself declares herself as needing a Savior and at one time we even see her doubt Christ as she and others in his family seek to come get him because they think he has gone crazy (Mark 3:20-32). She is included in the "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" with Jesus alone identified by Paul as the sinless one upon whom everyone else's sins, and the sin of Adam, have been placed. 

The final word of the session is actually the longest and deals with reforming the churches so that only qualified teachers within churches, monasteries, and schools are employed. In other words, only teachers who are going to teach what Trent views as consistent with its decrees are to be supported financially and recognized by the church. I don't really have any pushback here as if a church thought they were in the right, theologically speaking, then this would be a proper course to take. 

The council ends by setting the text session date.

The "Both Sides Are Guilty" Admission of Guilt

 Listening to all of the Leftist commentators on the Charlie Kirk assassination this week makes me think we're closer to civil war than ever before. I don't think things are going to cool off this time. The demonic spirit that seems to overtake murderers when they murder someone seems to be growing like a contagion. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the state found in many people who may just decide to murder one person but in the process of doing so, there seems to be some sort of irrational frenzy that comes over them where they end up murdering others or committing suicide, as though the killing of one was like an animal tasting blood for the first time and becoming insatiable in that moment. Usually, this state of bloodthirst ends with the murderer being killed or arrested and the rest of us condemning from the heart his reprehensible act and the arrogance one needs to have in taking an innocent life. However, it seems to have grown unbound as it finds minds and hearts on the Left who rejoice in it, as though they had done the killing themselves and are now thirsty for more, as they not only rejoice in the reenactment of the murder but fantasize outloud about murdering more innocents. These violent delights have violent ends, as murderers must first extinguish their own humanity in order to extinguish the lights of others. 

But what caught me in all of this was the argument that both sides are guilty of political violence. I've commented before that we were in the middle of a church split and those who caused the split or joined it as some sort of cheerleader for it later included a couple people in leadership who were clearly informed of all of the sin being committed by the persons splitting the church. What was interesting to me is that they made this argument. “Both sides are in sin,” they said. Only, both sides actually weren't. 

Can you imagine going up to a woman who was raped and saying to her that, "Hey, both sides, you and the guy who raped you, are sinners, so let's not act like you have the moral high ground." I really don't know what other example to use now since our entire culture thinks that saying this of a man who was murdered and making this argument to the murdered man's family is somehow a convincing argument. 

But why is this argument made? Was WWII everyone's fault? Is every conflict and every time the innocent are slandered, harmed, canceled, killed to be met with the "well, everybody's a sinner" argument? "He has shown thee, O Man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee, but to do justly." But how is justice possible if everyone, including the innocent victims, are at fault because in the end everyone's a sinner so sin can somehow be found out in anyone?

The truth is that Charlie Kirk was a sinner, so the statement that he wasn't without sin is true. But, biblically speaking, this doesn't matter. He's not guilty of the sin committed against him. Nor is it true that both sides are as guilty as one another in any given conflict. In fact, there is only one reason why the "both sides are guilty" argument is deployed, and that is to lessen the guilt of the actually guilty party.

The truth is, when I heard this from these people I knew what side they were on, the guilty one. Only guilty people use this argument to justify their evil rather than to repent of it. Whenever it's clearly on the side of their opponents, the "both sides" argument is nowhere to be found. When an injustice is done against them, for instance, the evidence clearly points to the condemnation of their opponent. But the “both sides” argument is a subconscious way of admitting that one is on the wrong side. The people making this argument in our case wanted to join the guilty party because they wanted to join the denomination he was joining and they lusted after the power he would give them to make church their way. Yet, it's evil to join evil, so what's a wicked man to do? He just makes both sides equal to justify his decision to be on that side. No one wants to be on the wrong side, the side of the wicked, standing with Korah and not Moses. Solution? Make the sins of Korah and the sin of Moses equivalent and then neither side is better than the other. David and Saul? Well, both sides are sinners. John the Baptist or Herod? Both sides are sinners. Who can blame you for choosing one of two equally bad sides, right? And everyone is a sinner so it's a sure bet that it must be true. After all, anyone who claims to be innocent must be arrogant and self-righteous and thus prove the point that both sides are in the wrong in every single case. It’s impossible to do anything without some sort of sin that can be conjured up somewhere and somehow.

The same thing has happened here. Leftists are now on the side of murder. They are the actual people of hatred and illegal violence. They are the insurrectionists and the destroyers who are harming everyone, and that was proven, not only in the assassination of Charlie Kirk but also in their celebration and justifications of it. But that would mean that they are the bad guys and no one wants to believe that. That would mean that all of the positions they've fought for, the people they've fought with and admired, are people on the wrong sides of those debates which means their stances are an alignment with, and fondness for, those who are evil. 

Cognitive dissonance sets in. There are only two ways out. Do the hardest thing they'll ever do in life and admit that their life has been a lie, turn and join the truly innocent and right side, or do the easy thing that all cowards like these church leaders did, make both sides equivalent so that you don't have to admit that you were not just wrong but wicked and the only repentance is rejecting the side you are now on by exonerating the other side as innocent. Only the truly courageous will do so, and unfortunately, not many people have such bravery to look in the mirror and say, "Thou, not the other side, art the man."

In a way, those who continue to justify themselves re-establish the evil that was done toward those who are innocent perpetually. The sin never dies. It never goes out. As one lie leads to another, the person must continually justify to himself why he is not on the wrong side, and so his whole world becomes a delusion where the evil is done again and again, forever and ever, world without end.  I imagine people in hell will be repeating their arguments for eternity, revictimizing the innocent forever, displaying that their condemnation is just. 

This argument revictimizes the innocent by implying that since both sides are guilty, the innocent party isn’t innocent and deserved to be sinned against.

The truth of the matter is that maybe everyone has sinned. The problem is that this doesn't lessen the sins of others but rather shows that all sin must be weighed in terms of when, where, how, why it is committed. Moses may have sinned in his life and maybe he spoke harshly with Korah rather than building bridges, but the Lord determined that only Korah, not Moses, was in a sin worthy of death. Maybe David flaunted his victories too much in front of Saul or didn't show his gratefulness enough, but the Lord determined that it was Saul who was in a sin worthy of death and David was not. So he gave Saul over to death and put David on the throne. God never makes the "both sides" argument because when someone is being victimized by another, there is only one side that is in the wrong, even if the victim is a sinner. Justice is impartial but iniquity looks to make the scales measuring boulders and pebbles equal.

No one should ever consider himself a Christian or on the right side if this is something that he has done or is doing.

May God grant sight and courage to those who would cease from using the wicked shield of the "both sides" argument and turn from their unity with wicked people before it's too late.

The Most Arrogant People Are Those Claiming Humility via Subjectivism

 I have found the most arrogant people, not to be those claiming that there is an objective meaning in the text that can be known and refute popular or unpopular views, but rather those who claim that humility is found in a pluralistic/subjective view of biblical interpretation. This makes the interpreter supreme over God’s intentions and ability to communicate those intentions through objective linguistic rules rooted in his logical nature. 

https://youtu.be/juFmH12CjyU?si=6IwRXIq_s-wmVQKw