The "Elemental Spirits" of the Apostle Paul

I was reading Galatians last night and something struck me. St. Paul speaks repeatedly of enslavement to the "elemental spirits of the cosmos." (Gal 4:3, 8-9 RSV)

What are the elemental spirits? If you follow St. Paul's argument, the elemental spirits "enslaved" both the Jews under the Law and the Gentile Galatians under paganism.

St. Paul, following a line of Jewish interpretation, taught that the Law was not given directly by God but through the mediation of angels. (cf. Gal 3:19-20) Moreover, St. Paul believes that the idols of the Gentiles are representations of demons - fallen angels in this case.

Follow his line of thought in Gal 4:8-9:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

In other words the Gentile Galatians were formerly serving "beings that by nature are no gods," that is to say demonic idols. Now they want to "turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits" by becoming Judaizers and submitting to the Law.

Their reversion to Judaism is for Paul a "turning back again" to the elemental spirits. I find this fascinating and I don't know quite how to handle it. I can see how Marcion had a hey-day with this epistle and how he could use the language here to teach that the God of the Mosaic Law was actually a corrupt demiurge or "elemental spirit."

Perhaps the best way to understand this is to read it in light of Hebrews chapter 1 where the author, like Paul (perhaps it really was written by Paul?!), explains that Christ is far superior to angels. The Gospel of Christ is revealed through the incarnation of Christ. We come to "know God, or rather to be known by God." (Gal 4:8-9) The Law was given in the midst of thunder, clouds, smoke, etc. and apparently through angelic spirits. Even so it was given through a human man, Moses, who was not God.

When a person comes to Christ, his knowledge of God is directly through Christ. He can say "Abba" not through angels, elements, or men, but directly to God as a son to a father (Gal 4:6). It is not a mediated faith through angels or through men. For Paul, any attempt to know God in a way other than through faith in Christ is "slavery to the elemental spirits," whether they be Jewish or pagan. The "fullness of time" has come for both Jews and Gentiles to receive the "adoption as sons" that Paul speaks about in the same chapter of Galatians, i.e. chapter 4.

St. Augustine on Adoring the Eucharist

There has been a debate in the comments over whether St. Augustine believed that the elements of the Eucharist are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is also claimed that St. Augustine held to a spiritual presence of Christ akin to that taught by John Calvin.

Concerning the Eucharist, St. Augustine wrote:

"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it."

- St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9

As St. Augustine taught, Catholic Christians bow or kneel before receiving the Eucharist. This is because Catholics show worship or adoration (Greek - latria; Latin - adoratio) to the Eucharist because it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and worthy of our worship.

St. Augustine also explained that the Christians of his day prayed for the departed at the Eucharistic liturgy and he referred to the offering of the Eucharist as "the most true sacrifice" (verissium sacrificium) that the priest offers (immolat) to God. (cf. City of God, 10, 20)

Either St. Augustine believed that he was offering the one true Sacrifice of Calvary at the Eucharist or he believed he was offering an independent sacrifice of symbolic bread and wine. A sacrifice to God of symbolic bread and wine would be blasphemous since the only acceptable sacrifice before God is the sacrifice of Christ that was offered once and for all. Therefore, Augustine must have believed that the sacrifice of the Eucharist was the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Hence, we have here the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.

The Eucharistic sacrifice is NOT a new sacrifice or a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. It is the one sacrifice that Christ offered once and for all time. The presence of this one sacrifice is eternal and it realized in the eschatological banquet of the Holy Mass. Christ does not die again and again. But that one sacrificial death of redemption is re-presented every time the Holy Mass is offered or, to use the Latin phrase of St. Augustine, immolated.

This Year's Anglican Use Conference

For those in the Washington, D.C. metro-area, I'll see you at this weekend's Anglican Use Conference at the Catholic University of America. The theme this year is the "Catholic Priesthood."

Click here for details.

Jewish Marriage, Catholic Marriage Podcast

Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center, Taylor Marshall, discusses the origin of human marriage and examines in particular the aberration of polygamy and divorce in the Old Testament in contrast to the sacramental quality of marriage in the New Testament.

Click here for more information or to listen to the Jewish Marriage, Catholic Marriage Podcast.

Catholic Ecumenical Councils

The Twenty-One Ecumenical Councils have been added to the sidebar.

1. First Council of Nicea (325)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681)
"Quinsext" Council in Trullo (692)
7. Second Council of Nicea (787)
8. Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869–870)
9. First Lateran Council (1123)
10. Second Lateran Council (1139)
11. Third Lateran Council (1179)
12. Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
13. First Council of Lyon (1245)
14. Second Council of Lyon (1274)
15. Council of Vienne (1311–1312)
16. Council of Constance (1414–1418)
17. Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431–1445)
18. Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517)
19. Council of Trent (1545-1563)
20. First Vatican Council (1869-1870)
21. Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)

Justification by Works - Anathematized

The Catholic Church taught at the Council Trent that one cannot be justified by his own works - either through works pertaining to simple morality or by those works pertaining only to the Mosaic Covenant.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

- Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon I

Council of Trent on Justification

The Council of Trent defines Justification as:

"not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting." (Sixth Session, Chapter VII)

The Council of Trent also explained the causes of justification as these:

the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance;

the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;

the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, for without faith no man was ever justified;

the formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He makes 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 "great divide" is really over the how the formal cause (justitia Dei) is understood and received. It's worth noting that that the Church teaches that "we are not only reputed" as being just, but are "just, receiving justice within us."

Whatever God speaks actually occurs. If God says, "Let there be light," there is light. If he declares "John Doe is just on account of the merits of Christ," then John Doe really is just. The justified are not only clothed in Christ they are renewed and conformed to Christ - even partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). Our union with Christ allows us to actually share in His righteousness. This is not an "alien righteousness" but an indwelling righteousness.

The Catholic Doctrine of Justificaion

Below is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification. Note that the Catholic doctrine of justification is understood as "the acceptance of God's righteousness" (not our own) and that it relates to "divine love." It also leads to "obedience."

"Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1991)

President of Fuller Seminary on Prayer to Saints

The President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard J. Mouw, wrote this interesting piece on the Catholic practice of prayers to saints. Dr. Mouw explains how he has warmed up to the practice, though he has yet to initiate "actual conversations with people who have halos around their heads." Dr. Mouw hasn't bought a Rosary yet, but he has placed a statue of St. Francis in his yard, "near the bird feeder." A guess that's a good sign.

Hat tip to Dr. Scott Johnson.

My Interview with the BBC on "Women Priests"

Today I was interviewed by the BBC about the "Catholic Church and Women Priests." I was all set to go with quotes from John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I guess I should not have been surprised when the kind lady doing the interview said, "There have been plenty of polls. We're living in the twenty-first century. Shouldn't the Catholic Church get with the times?"

I answered that the Church does not determine her dogma by polling and that modernity rejects much of what the Catholic Church teaches. "Most people don't believe dead men rise from the dead - but that doesn't mean the Catholic Church is going to "get with the times" and remove the Resurrection of Christ from the books.

I also tried to explain how the Catholic priesthood his not a vocation of mere function. The priest "loans his voice and body to Christ at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when he consecrates the bread and wine."

The interviewer replied, "But these are just symbols. Can't they be modified?"

To which I answered, "The Catholic Church does not believe that the priest and the Eucharist are mere symbols. The priest is an icon of Christ who literally acts and speaks in persona Christi, and the consecrated Body is the actual substantial Body of Christ.

Hopefully, it comes out well.

Augustine on Justification as "Being Made Righteous"

Many Protestants wish to claim St. Augustine as a teacher of justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The following quote reveals that St. Augustine understood justification as the transformation and renewal of the soul, not merely as a forensic declaration or acquittal:

"For what else does the phrase 'being justified' signify than being made righteous, -- by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? For if we were to express a certain fact by saying, 'The men will be liberated,' the phrase would of course be understood as asserting that the liberation would accrue to those who were men already; but if we were to say, The men will be created, we should certainly not be understood as asserting that the creation would happen to those who were already in existence, but that they became men by the creation itself…In like manner, we attach one meaning to the statement, 'God sanctifies His saints,' and another to the words, 'Sanctified be Thy name; ' for in the former case we suppose the words to mean that He makes those to be saints who were not saints before, and in the latter, that the prayer would have that which is always holy in itself be also regarded as holy by men, -- in a word, be feared with a hallowed awe."

- St. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, 26:45 (A.D. 412)

St. Augustine clarifies what he means in the latter half of the quote that while we "declare" the sanctify of God's name as a fact, it is all together different when God justifies the sinner. His act of justification actually transforms the sinner or "makes those to be saints who were not saints before."

A Calvinist Thinking about Contraception

I can't say that I fully agree with Douglas Wilson's treatment of "birth control," but I applaud him for at least bringing up the unspeakable topic amongst conservative Protestants: Contraception.

Click here to read Wilson's article "Birth Control" from Credenda Agenda.

If you want to learn about the Catholic teaching against contraception, click here to read an excellent article by Janet Smith.

Thoughts after Reading Benedict XVI's New Book

I finished Pope Benedict's new book Jesus of Nazareth yesterday while riding home on the D.C. metro. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Anyone interested in biblical theology, Protestant or Catholic, should read this book. His treatment of the Beatitudes is beautiful. I especially like how handles the "hard words" of Beatitudes, e.g. "Woe to those laugh; are full; are rich, etc."

By far the most interesting sectoin of the book is his interaction with Rabbi Jacob Neusner's A Rabbi Talks to Jesus. I remember reading Neusner's book in Dr. Steve Taylor's class at Westminster Theological Seminary. Rabbi Neusner takes for granted that the canonical Gospel accounts are historical and he places himself, as a rabbi, into the first century crowds as they listen to the words of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth. Rabbi Neusner explains the significance of what Christ is saying from a Jewish point of view, and then goes on to explain why he as a rabbi cannot accept the teachings of Christ as authentically Jewish. It is a challenging book for a Christian to read, but I found the book to be a wonderful way of appreciating the radical message of Christ.

Pope Benedict closely examines three of Rabbi Neusner's objections. The first is that Jesus is not subtracting elements from the Torah, but that he is adding something. Rabbi Neusner explains that the addition amounts to Christ's very person. "Christ added only Himself." Neusner rightly sees this claim of Christ as Christ making Himself identical to the Torah. Following the Torah becomes following Jesus. This should not alarm Christian, because we believe that Christ is the Word made flesh. He is the incarnate Will of God for mankind. We could say that Christ is the Torah made flesh.

The second objection of Neusner relates to the Sabbath. In a provocative passage, Neusner sees what most Christians miss. Neusner believes that Christ's words about the Sabbath seem blasphemous because Christ identifies the work of God with the work of Himself. Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath" which can only mean that He is the Lord of Creation. Again, a profound observation that further substantiates what Christians already believe.

The third objection of Rabbi Neusner relates to Christ's disruption of the human family. Neusner believes that Christ's words about "dividing" families and his esoteric statement about his mother and brothers, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Lk 18:21), ultimately overturn the commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother." The Holy Father picks up on this and uses it to show that Christ's divine and eternal sonship reconfigures the meaning of human family, since God is revealed as "Our Father." Christ does not obliterate the natural family, but He does open the way for the formation of a supernatural family.

Chapter Nine on the Confession of Peter and the Keys of the Kingdom are amazing, especially as it is written from the perspective of a living pope. There is something special that floats off the page as you read the Holy Father dicuss the origin of Petrine office.

Well, I don't want to spoil it for you. Buy the book and read it. It's a jewel.

Catholic Apologetics Articles

A few posts on Catholic apologetics by Taylor Marshall concerning the doctrines that Protestants reject:

1. Assumption of Mary
2. Immaculate Conception of Mary
3. Indulgences & Treasury of Merit
4. Justification Not by Faith Alone
5. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
6. Purgatory & Prayers for the Dead
7. Relics & Images
8. Transubstantiation

The Catholic Church and Reformed Doctrine

A few Reformed folks have contacted me about the Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision post. One gentleman (a fellow alumnus of Westminster Seminary Philly) seems ready to be reconciled with the Catholic Church, but he asks, "How do I square predestination with Catholic teaching?" That is a great question. I myself struggled with it. Let's take a look at predestination and a couple of other issues that relate to Reformed objections to the Catholic Church.

Is the Catholic Church "Semi-Pelagian"?
First of all, despite what popular preachers say or what you've read in Tabletalk or Modern Reformation, the Catholic Church is not Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. These heresies were formally condemned by episcopal councils of the Catholic Church. The term "Pelagian" is only known today because Catholic bishops assembled and anathematized the heresies. Pelagianism was defined and condemned by the Council of Carthage (418). The canons relating to this council are as follows:

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

(Note that Baptists are technically "Pelagian" because they reject canon #2.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly teaches that grace is wholly unmerited and received by grace alone:

The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. (no. 2011)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church then goes on to quote one of the Doctors of the Catholic Church, St. Thérèse of Lisieux as an example of how this life of grace is supposed to be lived out and confessed by Catholic Christians:

"After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself." (St. Thérèse of Lisieux, "Act of Offering" in Story of a Soul.)

Did you see the part about "All our justice is blemished in your eyes"? That is official Catholic theology and devotion.

The 2nd Council of Orange (529) condemned "Semi-Pelagianism" and it is worth noting that Calvinists of today would deny at least one of its canons - especially Canon #13:

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

In other words the theologians at the Council of Orange (529) used baptismal regeneration as the antidote to the Semi-Pelagian heresy. The great irony is the theologians of the Scottish and American Reformed tradition technically fall under the heading of "Semi-Pelagian" because they deny that baptism is the "sacrament of regeneration" - to use borrow a term use by St Augustine.

What about Predestination?
As to the doctrine of predestination, and more specifically, the doctrine of unconditional election, the Catholic is allowed to hold the doctrine of unconditional election - so long as he does not espouse the doctrine of double-predestination. All Thomists (Catholic theologians that favor St. Thomas Aquinas) believe and teach the doctrine of unconditional election.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the following:

"God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" (Summa Theologia I, 23, 5)

This is a clear exposition of unconditional election, and it is taught by the Church's most celebrated theologian since St. Augustine.

What about sola fide and sola scriptura?
Justification through faith alone and the hermeneutic of Scripture as the sole authority for Christian doctrine are rightly identified as the sine qua non of the Protestant Reformation. Without sola fide and sola scriptura buttressing Protestantism, all roads lead to Rome, plain and simple. They are rightly identified as the material and formal causes of the magisterial Reformation.

It's no secret that the Catholic Church unequivocally rejects these two doctrines as dangerous to the Christian soul and to the Church at large. The Catholic Church can appreciate what these two doctrines try to protect. "Faith alone" attempts to preserve the radically gracious nature of the Gospel, and this intention should be commended. "Scripture alone" seeks to protect the doctrine of Divine Revelation and protect the Church from the erroneous doctrines of men. Again, good intentions. The Catholic theologian Louis Bouyer discussed the "good intentions, bad doctrines" of the Reformation at length in his The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism - a book I highly recommend to anyone interested in the Reformation debate. Bouyer shows that the Protestant Reformers were speaking out against abuses, but unfortunately employed the nominalistic worldview available to them. There were not equiped to handle the nuances and made conclusions that ultimately undercut their project.

If this one-two punch of the Reformation (sola fide and sola scriptura) is so key, why doesn't the Bible ever articulate these two doctrines? The words "faith" and "alone" only appear together once and that is in James 2:24 - "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Christ never proclaims the doctrine of justification by faith alone. St Paul speaks of the importance of justifying faith, but his just condemnation of "works" is always the "works of the law" - by which Paul means the "works of the Mosaic Torah," a reference to circumcision, the lunar calendar of Israel, etc. If you've read the New Testament, you know that Christ and His Apostles did not once articulate "justification by faith alone." It derives from Luther's insertion of the word "alone" into his translation of Romans 3:28.

"Scripture alone" is self-refuting, because it too is not found in Scripture. There are some who will immediately want to quote both 2 Tim 3:116-17 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 as evidence for sola scriptura but neither passage teaches that Scripture alone is the final authority. "Scripture alone" is one the extra-biblical doctrines that hovers over the Reformed worldview.

Ultimately, the Reformed tradition attempted to reform the nominalist mess of the late 15th century-early 16th century into a Christ-centered, grace-centered system. In their eagerness to posit human salvation in the will and power of God, they neglected the fact that human salvation could only be accomplished in human time and space and that God's eternal will included the ecclesial dimension of salvation. Like the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, so the Church belongs as a tangible element of the history of redemption. Abstracting the Church is the same gnostic tendency used to abstract the incarnation or resurrection of our Lord the Christ. To put it another way, you can't have Augustine's soteriology without Augustine's ecclesiology. Soteriology and ecclesiology should be happily married and not squabbling as with a divorce.

Rabbi Reveals the Name of the Messiah

Shortly before he died, one of Israel's most prominent rabbis wrote the name of the Messiah on a small note which he requested would remain sealed until now. When the note was opened, it revealed what many have known for centuries: Yehoshua, or Yeshua (Jesus), is the Messiah. Read about it here.

Hat tip to Hallowed Ground.

Benedict XVI on the Realized Eschatology of C.H. Dodd

I almost dropped the book when I read these words of Pope Benedict in his new book Jesus of Nazareth:

[C.H.] Dodd was basically right. Yes, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is "eschatological," if you will, but eschatological in the sense that the Kingdom of God is "realized" in his coming. It is thus perfectly possible to speak of an "eschatology in process of realization. (Jesus of Nazareth, p. 188)

I was a big fan of C.H. Dodd in my Calvinist years and I think that the notion of "realized eschatology" helped me to understand the efficacy of the sacraments and the need for a visible Catholic Church as the "realized kingdom" - perfect already, but not yet.

All of this relates to Origen's notion that Christ is the autobasileus or the "Kingdom Himself" - a concept taken up by the Holy Father and endorsed by him (cf. Jesus of Nazareth, p. 49). Wherever Christ is present there is the Kingdom. This means that the sacraments of the Church (particularly the Eucharist as the Sacrament of Presence) are royal and eschatological.

No one can enter the "Kingdom" without water and the spirit. Baptism.

We are anointed as kings of the Kingdom. Confirmation.

We receive at the eschatological Kingdom banquet of the Lamb. Eucharist.

We are joined in the covenant of matrimony - a sign of the eschatological union between Christ and the Church. Matrimony.

Ministers are anointed as stewards of the King. Holy Orders.

The juridical authority of the kingdom to prepare for eschatological judgment. Penance.

We receive the Kingdom phenomenon of healing, deliverance, and redemption. Anointing of Sick.

The Catholic Prespective on the Federal Vision

Over the past few years, pastors and members of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition have become alarmed at a new movement called the “Federal Vision.” I first became aware of what became the “Federal Vision” when I was a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I watched this storm form and take shape during the years that I attended Westminster Theological Seminary in the debates that were stirring up around the writings of N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, along with the growing discontent with Meredith Kline’s “merit model.”

From Where did the Federal Vision Arise?
For those Catholic readers that are likely unaware of the Federal Vision controversy, it is fair to say that this “federal school” grew out of a number of movements.

1. There was the Norman Shepherd controversy in the 1980s at Westminster Seminary in which Shepherd highlighted the role of “works” in the Epistle of James. Shepherd soon afterward disappeared from the campus of Westminster Seminary.
2. There was the Theonomy or Reconstructionist Movement in Reformed/Presbyterian circles that sought to take the Old Testament seriously and apply its legal/covenantal framework to the New Testament economy. This project largely fell apart because it was, well, impossile. The remaining bright minds adjusted their theology from a civic model to a liturgical model and abandoned Theonomy. They became “liturgical Calvinists.”
3. These ex-Theonomists and their discioples went on to become excellent biblical theologians with a knack for seeing the role of Israel and Judaism in the New Covenant. They gravitated toward the work of Anglican theologian N.T. Wright.

I was a young Calvinist who set to reading the post-Theonomy authors (James Jordan, Jeffrey Meyers, Peter Leithart, Ray Sutton, et al.) They were on the edge of things – robes, weekly communion, Old Covenant typology, realized eschatology, high ecclesiology, etc. This is the same pond that produced the covenantal Catholic theologian Scott Hahn, which nearly all American Catholics have celebrated.

I was drawn to their liturgical/covenantal worldview, because it was robustly biblical. It was able handle cultural questions in a way that was much more effective than the Evangelical “proof-texting” model. I took hold.

While at Westminster Seminary, I began to flirt with the Episcopal Church and joined the Anglican tradition as an “orthodox conservative.” I saw the need for the Eucharist as the focal point of Christ's covenant. I also saw the need for a historical organic Church, bound through time in Apostolic Succession. A few years later I became an Anglican priest and spent my time reading through the volumes of N.T. Wright. Then I finally did the unspeakable - I became…Catholic.

Needless to say, I now follow the “Federal Vision” debate in the Reformed realm of theology with great interest. I suspect that it will play out like the Oxford Movement of the Church of England in the 19th century. The Federal Visionists will soon see that they are not tolerated by Presbyterians and over time they will be persecuted. Some of their great minds will become Catholic. Others will break away and start their own “Reformed Catholic” movements (similar to the Anglo-Catholic Ritualist movements). These breakaways will continue to write and develop their thought.

What is Federal Vision?
The Federal Vision movement is so termed because it stresses the foedus, Latin for “covenant.” They are covenantal theologians par excellence. Fundamentally, Federal Visionists reject the bi-covenantal structure of the Scriptures taught in the Presbyterian articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In other words, the universe does not rotate on covenantal axis of "Works" and "Grace." Federal Visionists would say that obedience and works are not opposed to grace. They rightly point out that before the fall, Adam worked, obeyed, and received the grace/favor of God. Grace and obedience are not opposed to one another.

It is not a surprise then that Federal Visionists believe that justification is best understood as “union with Christ” and not as the imputation of righteousness in a strict merit/demerit transaction. Very biblical and very Catholic.

Federal Visionists believe that the sacrament of Baptism actually accomplishes union with Christ – not in a nominal way, but in an ontological way. Again, very biblical and very Catholic. A person is Christian if they are baptized – they are either a “good Christian” or an “apostate Christian.” This somewhat approximates the way Catholics understand being in a state of grace or mortal sin.

Federal Visionists understand “election” primarily in terms of sacramental participation, much as the Catholic Church does.

Federal Visionists stress the need to “persevere in the covenant.” This is perceived by many of their Calvinist brethren to be a repudiation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, or to put it in Evangelical terms, “once saved, always saved.”

Hearkening back to Norman Shepherd, Federal Visionists believe that obedience to the Gospel is a necessarily element of salvation. This causes them to be lambasted as seeking a salvation through “works-righteousness.”

The Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision
As a Catholic I believe the Federal Vision group is right in its theological tendencies and wrong about its denomination. Whether or not the PCA holds to the Westminster Standards, the PCA is still largely a Zwinglian/Anabaptistic denomination. I don’t mean this in a pejorative way. I just mean that the inherited tradition of the PCA is not covenantal and sacramental.

The Anglican Tractarians constantly “proved” that Anglicanism was Catholic. They quoted Anglican divines and tweaked the 39 Articles or Religion in a "Catholic" direction. They pointed to the liturgy and quoted the Fathers – but at the end of the day, the people of the Church of England were Protestant and had moved away from any sense of the Catholic past. Sure, there were “Catholic” movements within the Church of England – but that was not the Church of England. These "high-church" movements were exceptions, not the norm.

The same goes for the PCA. The leadership and pew members are basically Evangelicals that read R.C. Sproul, maybe believe in infant baptism, and have worked “the five points of Calvinism” into their worldview. And when the last word is spoken, the Federal Visionists will be sidelined and ridiculed as crypto-Catholics and adherents to “salvation by works.” Fundamentally, the PCA fears that the Federal Vision movement is “just too Catholic.” All this talk about sacraments, covenants, ecclesiology, robes, candles, weekly communion, just gives your typical Southern Presbyterian the heebie-jeebies. They want that old time religion of three Wesleyan hymns, the pastoral prayer, and a 35 minute sermon proclaims the “sovereign grace of the Gospel.”

Ultimately, I think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

Cosmology and the Ascension

Last night, as I lay in bed, I looked out the window and saw the moon. It was quite beautiful. It is currently in its crescent shape. Like so many images of the Blessed Virgin, she is depicted as standing on the moon. This, of course, derives from Revelation 12:1

"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

Being sentimental, I imagined the Blessed Mother standing on the moon.

I recalled how I learned as a child that the moon "reflected the light of the sun." I somehow thought that moon was a mirror because it "reflected" but now I understand the meaning of it all. Of course, many authors have used this cosmological imagery to describe the radiance of Christ and how Mary only reflects her Divine Son's light. She is not the source of light, she only reveals the light that comes from Christ. In the words of Revelation - she is "clothed with the sun."

Christ himself is associated with the sun. "The sun of righteousness shall rise" (Mal 4:2). And the Revelation also uses this motif. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23).

This made me think about the Ascension of Christ. In the world to come, there will be no sun. Christ will be the sole source of light. It will be a new creation - a new universe. The Ascension of Christ is the first installment in that new creation. The "Sun" of the world to come has been fixed in the firmament, just as the sun was placed in the firmament in at the first creation. So also the Assumption of Mary hints at the "feminine light" of the new creation - that light that perfectly reflects the righteousness of God. And then there are the stars - the saints. Scripture repeatedly refers to the holy ones as stars. God's promise to Abraham was to make his descendants "like the stars of the sky." This refers not only to their great number, but to their exaltation and brilliance.

The cosmos is the Temple of God's glory. It was defaced by sin, but through redemption in Chirst, God is "redecorating" it.

Thoughts on the Film Bella

It will make you laugh. It will make you cry. It's a great story. Do whatever you can to see Bella. It is a difficult movie to describe without giving it away. Essentially, it's pro-life without being preachy. I did think the scene at the Spanish restaurant was a interesting commentary on how young women feel so trapped and simply want to "take care of it."

SPOILER WARNING
There was once scene that was especially Catholic. Jose is bawling and his Mexican mother is holding him and comforting him in Spanish. The camera angle backs up and reveals a subtle image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The shot is set up so that the face of the Virgin of Guadalupe is "looking" at Jose weeping on his mother. It is very moving if you see it - the "Mexican" Mother of God looking down on a Mexican mother comforting her suffering son.

I also thought it was somewhat interesting that Nina's perspective begins to change when she comes to Jose's house. She bathes, is clothed in the new clothes and sits down at the dinner table. This experiences transforms her understanding of what life and family could be with love. I don't know if the director intended it, but it is an analogy of our initiation into Christ. The bath of baptism, being clothed in the white of Christ as a neophyte, and then ushered to the family table for the Supper of love and fellowship.

END OF SPOILER WARNING

Anyway, it's a great film. I had lunch last week with the lead actor Eduardo Verastegui and was impressed with him. He's a man of profound faith. I applaud him and director Alejandro Monteverde for creating an honest piece of art.

Jewish Synagogue, Catholic Parish Podcast

Taylor Marshall, Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center, explores the development of the Synagogue from the time of the Babylonian Captivity to the time of Christ. He examines its parallels with the Catholic parish, especially in architectural features. Click here to learn more about this interesting topic.

Land Promise, Levites, and the New Covenant

Michael Barber at Singing in the Reign has an interesting post in which touches on the subject of the promised land of Israel.

"If the restoration has to be sacramental, how do we reconcile that with God promising to restore Israel's land?"

Barber points out that Israel was to be a "nation of priests" but that they forfeited this universal vocation in the episode of Aaron and the golden calf. Barber says: "The Levites thus serve as a kind of model to Israel--they get what Israel was ultimately called to and lost."

Barber points out that the Levites did not receive an allotment of land. Moses explains, "Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers; the Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him" (Deut 10:9).

I agree with him that the Levites serve as the ideal model of Israel and that their lack of a land territory is a clue to the answer. However, this can't be the answer to the question "How do we understand the Abrahamic land promise in the New Covenant?" We can't simply say, "God, not land, is the allotment."

Let me suggest that the Levites did in fact receive a land allotment. They received the shrine/house/tabernacle/temple of God. This is not necessarily a geographical allotment, as the tabernacle was mobile prior to David's kingdom.

The Tabernacle/Temple is literally a microcosm - a micro cosmos. It was a mini version of Paradise Restored. It was designed in a garden motif and artistic depictions of cherubim guarded its portals - just as cherubim guarded the portal to Eden.

The Levites therefore received land - the land wherever the Temple rested. They received the deposit of the renewed earth - not merely the sliver of Palestine. When Christ reveals Himself to be the true Temple on Easter morning we know that creation has been restored in His incarnate Person. The whole earth has been inherited by the children of Abraham - including historic Israel. The Land Promise if fulfilled with the Great Commission to proclaim the Gospel to the "ends of the earth" and in the institution of the Eucharist - so that the Body of Christ (the true Temple) is present in every land.

Christ as Torah and Temple

I've been reading the Holy Father's new book Jesus of Nazareth. It is excellent.

He relies heavily on Rabbi Neusner's A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, a book a read in seminary years ago.

Rabbi Neusner objects to the Christ's of claims, primarily because Jesus presents himself as a new Lawgiver, like Moses. In fact, Neusner observes that Christ assumes that he is in fact "Torah" or "Law". Christ basically assumes that he is the Law - a theme that the Apostle Paul (previously Rabbi Saul) picked up when he said that Christ is the end of the Law for those who believe (cf. Rom 10:4)

The difficulty that Christians have is justifying to our Jewish brethren the reason for our "abandonment" of the what St Thomas Aquinas called denoted as the ceremonial and civil laws.

Pope Benedict XVI rightly explains that the universalizing nature of Christ's death requires that the particular laws pertaining to Israel cannot be universalized. It is the Theonomist error to believe that the Mosaic Covenant is the standard for Gentile nations.

The ceremonial/civic laws of Israel were instituted so that Israel would remain distinct and thus be a kingdom of priests to minister to all nations. The Temple was supposed to be a "house of prayer for all nations"(Is 56:7).

The death of Christ therefore universalizes the moral law of God (to love God and our neighbor) and the resurrection reveals the new locus of prayer, the new Temple - the Body of Christ.

The sacramental/ceremonial dimension of Israel is preserved in the incarnate "Body of Christ." The faithful enter this Temple by initiation into the Church (the "Body of Christ") and this initiation is priestly and thus sacramental.

The stumbling block for Rabbi Neusner and other observant Jews is that Christ universalized the mission of Israel in his very Person. God made all people and wants to know all people - not merely the circumcised ones. The divine vocation and goal of Israel was not to make everyone ethnically Jewish (God could have done that). The goal was to be "a light to lighten the Gentiles."

Bella at the CIC Tomorrow Night

Tonight we're hosting a screening of Bella at the Catholic Information Center to a packed crowd. I can't wait to see it. Click on the preview clip above to get a taste (which incidentally employs a great Sufjan Stevens song).

Reading the Holy Father's New Book

I started Pope Benedict's new book Jesus of Nazareth today. His Holiness has some interesting thoughts concerning the Baptism of Christ. I'll be attending the "book party" at the John Paul II Cultural Center this evening to hear the Papal Nuncio's words about the new book.

Great Pics over at New Liturgical Movement

Great liturgical pictures currently over at New Liturgical Movement.

High-Profile Conversion to Catholicism

Dr. Francis Beckwith, the President of the Evangelical Theological Society, has reverted to his childhood faith - Catholicism. Read his testimonial here. Dr. Beckwith continues to be a tenured professor of philosophy at Baylor University.

The worst thing so far are the comments lamenting Dr. Beckwith's "abandonment of the true Protestant Gospel." Take this one for example:

Seems like Dr. Beckwith followed the teachings and beliefs of some early church fathers, instead of trusting in the truths found in God's Word. Kind of sad, but nothing new. The gospel of grace only satisfies those saved by it. All others spend a lifetime trying to achieve it. That's just the way it is. I'll pray the Lord does for Dr. Beckwith what He's done for me.

Posted by: Brian McLaughlin | May 5, 2007 4:28 PM

Gee Brian, if "all others spend a lifetime trying to achieve it," then I guess Catholic Christians are in good company with St. Paul:

"Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own." (Philippians 3:12)