Pro-choice pastor: Churches must “lead charge” against abortion stigma
Many times in my ministry, a conversation with abortion clinic staffers that began with talking about the spiritual needs of patients ends on a far more personal note….
An office manager told a colleague of mine that she braces herself every time she checks the mail, wondering how many hate letters she’ll come across, and wants a sacred community to turn to for support. One clinic counselor said she misses the rituals and music of her faith community, and often thinks about trying to find a church, but worries about being judged or shunned when small talk leads to questions about where she works…
Given that the domestic terrorists who threaten clinic workers so often coach their actions in the garb of faith, it seems imperative to me that faith communities welcome clinic workers with open arms, and lead the charge in helping to break down the stigma around this needed work.
~ Reverend Matthew Westfox (pictured) of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, describing the spiritual needs of abortion clinic workers to whom he has ministered, via MSNBC, January 31
Click the link for the MSNBC interview with Melissa Harris-Perry.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
AHA over this dude every day of the week. And I am sure AHA would prefer the views of Catholics to the views of this dude.
So either we’re getting two quotes of the day today or this was supposed to be posted on Monday.
And if AHA prefers this dude over Catholics AHA and I will have to surely talk because there is no way that Jesus would ever consider the professing of a similar creed more important than protecting the preborn human being. This would be a good opportunity to talk about the importance of good works in the Christian religion and faith.
Boohoo. Poor abortion mill workers. Their lives are so hard. Yet they press on, day after day, making sure there are plenty of dead babies and injured women to go around. Life is just SO unfair when you feel shunned for murdering innocent humans for a living.
Gross. Gag. Barf. What propaganda.
If these folks would stop killing children, their churches would stop making them feel bad about it. Easy peasy. Yes, society judges you when you do something inherently wrong. Either live with it or stop doing it.
@JDC: But it is Monday…?
The “needs” of those that work in the abortion industry are a safety net to land when they have had enough. They need to LEAVE the evil that they are involved in.
Go and sin no more.
Abby Johnson is doing some amazing work ministering to those that want a way out. And Then There Were None.
http://www.attwn.org/
I would add that this man’s actions means he is professing a different creed. His lips say one thing but his actions say another.
This guy is a Baptist!!! Give me a break. The same denomination that doesn’t (didn’t) want people to defile the body (the Temple of the Holy Spirit) by drinking would support destroying the bodies of newly created human beings. What a lie and misrepresentation. This Pastor compassion for the Mom is fantastic however he needs to learn to show the same compassion for the little baby inside the said mother’s womb. This Pastor is living proof for the need for a Pope.
“@JDC: But it is Monday…?”
Yes, it is now but look at the date of my original comment: February 3, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Ah – playing the victim.
Go feel sorry for Satan because God threw him out of heaven.
I think clinic workers who come to repentance need to be welcomed with open arms and compassionate hearts, and when they aren’t repenting or leaving, they should be held up in prayer for a change of heart, but Matthew, please don’t ask others to join you on the high places with your compassion for the priests who burn their hands shoving living children further into the fire in order to appease Molech.
@JDC: …Yes. Yes, that was yesterday wasn’t it. *blush*
Tyler, there are different “sects” of Baptists just like there are different sects of Catholics. And I see a lot of priests, nuns and Bishops espousing unbiblical things and catholic universities supporting homosexuality etc… so how much good is your pope doing?
I am a member of a fundamentalist Baptist church and we don’t support any of those things. So don’t lump all Baptists in with this guy, thanks and I won’t lump all Catholics in with priests who molest.
There are people who can claim to be of a certain denomination all they want but they obviously don’t know CHRIST. Going to a church and calling yourself by a Christian does not mean you truly are one. This man is obviously deceived by the devil and has no clue as to the character and heart of God or any clue as to what God says in His Word.
Matthew Westfox is ordained in the United Church of Christ. If you google the website for that denomination you will get your answers related to the theological questions you have. It would be interesting to know why he is affiliated with a Baptist Church since it would appear that theologically the two would be miles apart.
Sydney, I see your point regarding the Pope. I am fully aware of the many scandals within the Catholic Church and renegade groups like Catholics for Choice. My point about the Pope is that at least we have an authority we can point to and say: “No that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.” If Baptists can point to some human authority here on earth to denounce breakaway Baptist denominations as well, then how exactly are Baptists any different from Catholics with respect to the importance of having an authoritative force here on the panet? Obviously, from a practical standpoint every denomination needs a human “living” authority to be the umpire judging what is and isn’t inbounds with respect to their particular religion. The beef many people have against the Pope isn’t a real issue, rather it is an issue of prefering one human authority over another. Perhaps, Sydney you can explain why Baptists have Pastors and Ministers – do they have authority? If so, where do they get it from?
I am *not* lumping all Baptists into one group. I am in disbelief that this guy is a Baptist at all.
It should’ve read:
Sydney, I see your point regarding the Pope. I am fully aware of the many scandals within the Catholic Church and renegade groups like Catholics for Choice. My point about the Pope is that at least we have an authority we can point to who says: “No that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.”
Janet, I watched the video – wikipaedia is probably correct – in the video he says his Mother is Baptist, he doesn’t call himself a Baptist in the video.
My point about the need for a living human authority for the Church stills stands. In fact the sheer number of protestant denominations and divergent theologies expresses the need to have a human living authority. It doesn’t make sense that Jesus would leave us, his Church, without such an authority.
Chris, great comment at 10:17!!
“please don’t ask others to join you on the high places with your compassion for the priests who burn their hands shoving living children further into the fire in order to appease Molech.”
Would Westfox express support for a Religious Coalition for Incestuous Choice? If not, by what moral standard?
Tyler, we point to the Bible. God’s Word is our authority.
I just thought about how the Bible talks about people “having a form of godliness”. You can call yourself “Reverend” and put on a white collar and maybe even carry a big Bible but you spew lies from hell Matthew Westfox. You are woefully deceived and I would tremble if I were in your shoes. God is not mocked!
Okay, I can get his point that clinic workers might be having a really rough time (we’ve seen plenty of testimony from ex-clinic workers about how soul scarring that “job” is), but as a type of authority figure I find it gross that he wouldn’t try to steer these people to more positive, life-affirming type of work. I think that most clinic workers genuinely think that their work helps women, but if they worked at a CPC or in a neo-natal ward or something, I bet they would be surprised at how much better actually helping women without killing children would make them feel. It feels good to help people, and I honestly think that a lot of these people are well-intentioned. They just need to see that they aren’t doing something good and helpful.
Wow, this is one sinister minister. As I mentioned before, I am not a big fan of organized religion and I don’t go to church, but if I did and this guy was preaching, I would run outta there like hell’s chasing me!
I watched the video – or as much of it as I could stomach. I couldn’t believe it when the newswoman interviewing him talked about how she used to be an abortion clinic escort. That’s some real unbiased journalism there!
I’m sorry but this “minister” is so smarmy it’s unbelievable. All the time he was talking about how “compassionate” he was to the woman who had two kids and was pregnant and didn’t know how to handle it, I wanted to yell at him “then how about getting off your butt and getting some help for her, her family and her coming baby?” Yes, but you see, he is so “compassionate” for advising her to abort her child!!!
God help this man. He needs to wake up before it’s too late. There is retribution coming.
A wolf in SHEPARD’S clothing..leading the “flock” astray.
I pity you, Matthew Westfox.
Just want to clear up a little Catholic information: The Catholic Church does NOT have sects. We have Rites. I belong to the Roman Catholic Rite. I don’t know all the Rites but I do know this: We all participate in the same hierarchy and we all share the same dogma. A person who attends church in the Byzantine Rite, for example, will experience differences in language and local customs but the Catholic teaching is exactly the same.
Corrupt priests who break moral and civil laws do not belong to a sect of any church that has ‘fondle underage minors’ as part of it’s teaching. I think we can all agree that molesting children is criminal behavior regardless of what religion the perpetrator belongs to.
What this Westfox is doing is similar to that scandal. How? It is obvious that killing your own children is about as wrong as wrong can be. A clinic worker or post abortive woman who is told that feticide is OK with God is being damaged on many levels. How can they trust any cleric or church at all when they’ve been lied to by even one? Westfox is lying to them and endangering their very souls. He is the kind of person Ezekiel is describing when he says that if we do not tell our brothers when they are doing wrong, then we take the guilt of their own death upon ourselves. If we warn them that what they are doing is wrong, maybe they won’t listen, but we will have ensured our own lives by at least trying. In terms of pastoral care, Westfox is participating in the destruction of souls as well as the destruction of human lives. If you don’t advise a clinic worker to immediately STOP, then you are as guilty, Westfox, as the hand that holds the cannula.
Eternity is a long time (in fact, it’s the absence of time) to be tormented above and beyond what your mind can currently conceive Matthew.
Run to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, cry out for mercy and the grace to repent for facilitating the serial killing of innocent children while you still can!!!
Yes, but you see, he is so “compassionate” for advising her to abort her child!!!
I just wonder if he has ever said to a couple “if you have your baby, I will offer as much spiritual and financial support as I can. Or if you decide to place the baby for adoption, I will be there too.”
Or is the only choice he sees the one for abortion? Is he going to be there if the woman starts grieving over what he advised her to do?
Just wondering . . .
Wow, this is one sinister minister. As I mentioned before, I am not a big fan of organized religion and I don’t go to church, but if I did and this guy was preaching, I would run outta there like hell’s chasing me!
In this guy’s church, it would be. Just because a building hangs a sign out that says “church,” it doesn’t mean they are one any more than sticking up a sign that says “mechanic” means you can fix a car.
JDC was right. The post was inadvertently made live yesterday… :)
Why is he wearing a collar? If he is not a Catholic Priest (which by his views, I would hope not) he needs to lose the collar.
Deb he is not a Catholic priest, whew!! But you make a good point - this man did not do a good job at identifying his denomination – the only thing he said was that his Mom is a Baptist. All in all this guy seems very deceitful — from his costume to his claim to being Christian.
He must be one of those “once saved, always saved” guys.
I always get a chuckle when someone tells me I’m going to hell because I’m a non-believer, but then see a dude like this “of the cloth” and preaching bloodshed.
Giggles abound!
Deb- pastors and ministers of many other denominations wear collars as well, it is not, nor should it be, limited to only Roman Catholic priests
Laura is correct, other denominations do where collars. This man is NOT a Catholic.
“Reverend Matthew Westfox is the National Coordinator for Field Services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. He also serves as Associate Pastor of All Souls Bethlehem Church in Brooklyn, New York, and is ordained through the United Church of Christ. Before attending seminary at Pacific School of Religion, Reverend Westfox was a community organizer for New York Lawyers for the Public Interest and a legislative aide for New York State Senator Thomas K. Duane.” from the website Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
No matter how many clerics say it is OK, they will never succeed in taking away the stigma of abortion work. Tearing arms and legs off of tiny babies will never be highly regarded by most people, no matter how “needed” it seems to be to those lacking faith, hope or love.
Abortion workers: admit that you are being used by people who don’t want to face responsibility. Return to the healing profession that you at one time wanted to be a part of.
“One clinic counselor said she misses the rituals and music of her faith community, and often thinks about trying to find a church, but worries about being judged or shunned when small talk leads to questions about where she works…”
Aaw, she misses the entertaining music! And the “rituals” were so interesting too.
She wants a faith community to approve of her? Then she should be faithful and live a life that can be approved of – simple. But no, change churches instead – it’s so much easier for her that way.
This man seems motivated by false compassion – the most dangerous kind. Instead of looking at the real difficulties and problems faced by a woman who is unhappy or ambivalent about being pregnant to help solve them, he advocates putting a violent end to the “problem” – and then calls that reproductive choice. His thinking is half-baked, really, and how can he just get round the ethical problem of abortion as someone who is supposed to be representing Christ?
A couple of years ago when we fought the CPC restrictions here in NYC there were a lot of “pastors” testifying on the other side…sadly only one was there for the pro life side.
Lots of clinics have clergy present as you kill your child..it is diabolical. As far as stigma goes, good luck with that one…try as they might what they fail to understand is that stigma is not from other people, it is from our souls because it is against all that we are to kill our own children.
I am praying that as we fight Cuomo’s extreme bill this year more pro life clergy will speak out and become involved.
what is happening in NY is the enshrinement of abortion. It will make it untouchable. Add to that the travesty of morning after pills being handed out to kids…you have to wonder how NYC has not sunk into the Hudson..God surely is very patient…
Well, the Twin Towers are gone, Theresa. In the Old Testament God often used the pagans to punish the apostates and purify a remnant for Himself. Just as Jonah did not welcome judgement on his people and the possible repentance of the cruel Assyrians, so I don’t either (at least not the former). God’s will is still good, we know, and Christ will build His Church.
Sydney since Protestants get their authority from the Bible does that mean each Protestant is a Pope for himself or herself? How do Protestants agree about what the Bible teaches? If everyone can interpret the Bible anyway they feel like who has the authority to tell them they are interpreting the Bible incorrectly? Why even have Ministers and/or Pastors? And how do Protestants understand or make sense of all those passages in the Bible that advise Christians to submit to authority, ecclessial or civil?
You’re making a very old Roman Catholic argument, Tyler. G.K. Chesterton made the same one in his Father Brown story of “The Sign of the Broken Sword” (something like that, certainly there was “broken sword” in the title).
I probably don’t belong to the same Protestant denomination as Sydney, but mine, a Reformed church, does have creeds and confessions. The Apostles’ Creed is one of them, one to which you hold, too. We don’t ascribe to them the same authority as the Bible, and so we have, for example, changed one article in the Belgic Confession on the role of the civil magistrate, where we believed it to not be in agreement with the Bible. Such changes are very rare, though. A confession is indeed a defining document.
The Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth, and in a limited sense I do believe that she is my mother. Her Lord is Jesus Christ, and He is the mediator between God and man. Although He is now in heaven to intercede for His people at the right hand of God, He gave His Spirit to the apostles to bring to remembrance all that He had taught them. They wrote the New Testament, and on this foundation, together with that of the Old Testament prophets, Christ builds His Church, He Himself being the cornerstone. The Church has learned more of the riches in the Word through history, and she offers them to the world, piercing hearts with her sword of the Spirit, reaping the harvest, and discipling all to whom she gives spiritual birth.
My church has elders (bishops) and deacons. The pastor is a teaching elder, but both he and the ruling elders are under-shepherds of the one great shepherd of the sheep, the good shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. Elders of the various churches in the denomination meet periodically for synod, but the authority of synod is limited, and its organization is temporary, i.e. there are no permanent offices in synod, it gets dissolved after it finishes in a matter of days (usually).
Jon, thank-you for the reply. If I follow your argument correctly am I right to understand that Protestants do recognize human and living authoritative figures? Doesn’t this make the traditional complaint by many Protestant denominations that Catholics ”believe” in a living human authority a hypocritical accusation? The existence of authoritative structures and people in Protestant Churches makes it appear that Protestants are concerned with the acquiring the perceived ”power” of the clergy rather than submitting to the authority of the clergy – a clerical authority they were all once beholdened to, as instructed Jesus and the Apostles instructed them to be.
If you can remember the name of the Chesterton book let me know – I think I would like to read it. Becoming a Catholic is easy, remaining Catholic is the hard part. Once a person throws off one set of authority figures what is stop them from throwing off the next set of authority figures? The abandonment of the original authority established by Jesus could lead (or leads) a person into a cycle of creating new and different authority figures with each new authority figure more and more aligned to the person’s personal preferences which are, in turn, created by the age that the person lives in.
By the way Jon I think I can prove that Luther’s conception of “faith alone” is incorrect. I have at least two arguments to prove this (and not just the fact that Luther inserted the word “alone” into Scripture and ignored the Book of James).
Edited the following paragraph so that makes a little more sense:
The existence of authoritative structures and people in Protestant Churches makes it appear that Protestants are concerned with acquiring the perceived ”power” of the clergy rather than submitting to the authority of that clergy – a clerical authority they were all once beholden to, as Jesus and the Apostles instructed them to be.
* not replying here to your last comment immediately preceding this one. I only now just saw it.
That’s a strange question, Tyler: ”am I right to understand that Protestants do recognize human and living authoritative figures?” Jesus Christ is a human and living authoritative figure. He is also God, to be sure.
I don’t quite understand what you are saying in your first paragraph. Your second paragraph I disagree with. I’m sure you know that Protestants don’t agree that they have “abandoned the original authority established by Jesus.” Christ doesn’t have any vicar on earth; there is no Scriptural warrant (no, not in the Peter-rock passage, either) for the office of a pope. I don’t want to spend much more time and effort here now.
Sure, I’m happy to tell you the name of the book by G.K. Chesterton. It was a combined book of all the Father Brown stories, and the title had “Father Brown” in it. (I’m sorry, I don’t know whether it was in the “Innocence of Father Brown,” or in one of the other sections.) Father Brown is almost as famous as Sherlock Holmes and just as intelligent. I just don’t like his name (which is like the pope’s=papa); my spiritual Father is God by adoption through His Son and the regenerating power of His Spirit.
“Jesus Christ is a human and living authoritative figure. He is also God, to be sure.”
Yes Jesus is fully human and fully God – but Jesus is living in Heaven as you confessed in another post. He gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles who were living on earth, and through them to all Christians, so that His disciples would not be orphans. Your point about Jesus, therefore, doesn’t obviate the need for a living authority here on the planet for those who dwell in the City of God as it is enmeshed with the earthly city.
Jon, do you need me to back up what I said in my 10:53 am post with Scripture? I can if you feel it is necessary.
Luther did not ignore James. Yes, I can read James 2, just like everyone else, and that’s hardly a strike against Faith Alone. To wit, if a house is hooked up to the electrical grid, but has no outlets to plug anything into, it is still getting power. The power can’t be accessed or demonstrated, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The outlets enable you to tap into the power that was there all the time and visibly demonstrate it by plugging in your TV and watching a show. The ability to power appliances is the manifestation of the connection, but is not the connection, nor would the lack of outlets mean that the connection wasn’t there.
Now this turned out to be an even better analogy than I first thought, because the obvious objection is “Why build a house, connect it to the grid, but not put any outlets in?” And the answer is, you wouldn’t. There’d be no point. Any builder with any sense would naturally put outlets into a house that has electrical power. Works do not justify or save, but they are the natural outgrowth of a real and active faith. A genuine faith will result in works, but works are effect. They are not cause.
As to sola scriptura, you’ve got it backwards when you say it makes every protestant into their own pope. Someone (I want to say Gerard) once likened the pope to SCOTUS as the supreme authority on what the Constitution means. And I thought that was the perfect illustration as to where Protestants start quibbling with the RCC on church authority. Because here we all are protesting a Supreme Court ruling on abortion, saying that SCOTUS was wrong on Constitutional interpretation and that the unborn are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The “supreme authority” got it wrong.
Simply put, no human being–be they pope or judge or anybody–can ever be infallible about anything. No human being can be the final authority on any work. Not the Constitution, not the Bible, not anything. Rather than making every person into a pope, scripture alone makes every pope into a person. This does not mean that church auithority does not exist. My church absolutely practices church discipline, and we certainly do rely on our pastors and elders for spiritual guidance. But it does enable us to admit that those men are only humans. Which is why, at my church, the body that carries out church discipline is composed of several people. And why the church body must ordain someone before they are installed as an elder. That way the power of the church does not rest fully in the hands of any one member. (And if that sounds a bit like the way the Framers built the US, it should. Presbyterianism was popular in the early US, and got baked into the ideas about checks and balances and authority. To the point that George III and some of his guys called it “The Presbyterian Revolt” in an attempt to sideline political complaints as purely religious ones. The more things change…)
The short version is Protestants, by and large, believe all human beings are too fallible to designate any one man as the supreme authority on Scripture. That’s too much power for any one person to have. Even if corruption weren’t a concern, plain human error still would be. And with the Bible, that’s too big a risk to take to rest it in a single set of hands.
Jill,
The only infallible human is the Living Jesus. He is the Supreme Authority on the Word of God because He, Himself, is the living Word (John 1). Anyone who comes to Him will have all they need (John 6:37-40). He is in each one of us who depends on Him (John 15, John 17). There are those who will argue those words and the scriptural application, but they are still true. Anyone who follows Jesus (John 10), keeps His words, and obeys them will have that proven to them personally (John 14:15, 21, 23).
Alice, thanks for the response.
Let me first deal with Sola Scriptura: if no human being has ever been fallible how can a Protestant have any faith in the authority of the Bible? Either a Protestant person believes the Bible fell from the sky written by God, or that person understands that the Bible was written by human beings filled with the Holy Spirit of God which permitted them to write Scripture in inerrant form, is it not so? So if human beings were once infallible prior to Jesus’ coming in history why do you feel that it is not possible for Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit to continue endowing certain human beings with this ability? Also, I wasn’t asserting that Sola Scriptura makes each Protestant into their own Pope, I was asking if that is how Protestants see themselves. I can’t speak for Gerard’s comparison, but for some reason I don’t think you presenting his argument accurately. I will leave it to Gerard to explain his analogy. Finally, the Church has never said that the Pope wasn’t human – Alice come on – please don’t tell me you think that Catholics believe the Pope is a deity. The Pope is not. He is a human being and a sinner just like all other human beings. He is a creature. He is only infallible with respect to issues of faith and morals. The title “Vicar of Christ” is just that a title – Vicar means representative. The fact that is the Vicar doesn’t mean that other Christians do not represent Christ – or that the Church believes only the Pope is a Christian! All of our Saints (and yes we are all saints in process) prove that Church recognizes the power of the Holy Spirit in other human beings aside from the Pope! Your concern for the power dynamics of the Church, though noble and understandable, is stopping you from trusting in the full power of the Lord and the Holy Spirit and understanding the true inverted power dynamics of Christianity – the Pope, as much he is the Vicar of Christ, he is also known as ”the Servant to the Servants of the Lord” - like Christ he washes the feet of the disciples of Christ.
As for Faith Alone – the fact the Bible was written by human beings is instructive again. This fact shows the need for men to conform their wills to his will. Your analogy of a house and outlets doesn’t work because a house and outlets are inanimate objects and are nothing comparable to God and human beings. Our wills are critical hear. If we turn from God’s grace, it is our turning that places outside his Grace just like Adam’s disobedience. If our wills are not involved how do Protestants understand original sin? Where is the fall if human will does not exist? So although Faith Alone sounds good and is very appealing on the surface it doesn’t jive with reality or our lived experience as human beings before and after being baptized or converted. We will all know too well the struggles of remaining faithful and not falling into sin.
“The only infallible human is the Living Jesus. He is the Supreme Authority on the Word of God because He, Himself, is the living Word (John 1). Anyone who comes to Him will have all they need (John 6:37-40). He is in each one of us who depends on Him (John 15, John 17). There are those who will argue those words and the scriptural application, but they are still true. Anyone who follows Jesus (John 10), keeps His words, and obeys them will have that proven to them personally (John 14:15, 21, 23).”
LS, Catholics believe that as well. But just to be clear the “living Word” refers to Jesus coming in the flesh, in human form, as the Son of God.
Why do certain Protestants believe the Pope is excluded from having Christ live within him? It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that he has authority. It is the Holy Spirit when the Pope is teaching on faiths and morals that is fallible. The human being who is Pope is completely fallible, and indeed is a sinner just like everyone else. LS the Pope is not magical, or omnipotent, or perfect.
Why do certain Protestants believe the Pope is excluded from having Christ live within him? It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that he has authority. It is the Holy Spirit when the Pope is teaching on faiths and morals that is infallible. The human being who is Pope is completely fallible, and indeed is a sinner just like everyone else. LS the Pope is not magical, or omnipotent, or perfect. Indeed, the Pope is even capable of making typos!
Deb Brunsberg says:February 4, 2013 at 6:12 pm
“Why is he wearing a collar?”
Because he is a lap dog, probably a miniature French poodle. He does have that dainty air about him.
Alice I failed to edit the following passage. Here is a corrected version:
As for Faith Alone – the fact the Bible was written by human beings is instructive again. This fact shows the need for men to conform their wills to His will. Your analogy of a house and outlets doesn’t work because a house and outlets are inanimate objects and are nothing comparable to God and human beings. Our wills are critical here. If we turn from God’s Grace, it is our turning that places us outside his Grace just like Adam’s disobedience brings death and banishment from Paradise. If our wills are not involved, or required to cooperate with God’s Grace, how do Protestants understand original sin? Where is the fall if human will does not exist? So although Faith Alone sounds good and is very appealing on the surface it doesn’t jive with the truth of reality or our lived experience as human beings before and after being baptized or converted. We all know too well the struggles of remaining faithful and not falling into sin.
—-
Alice, perhaps you can share how Protestants conceive of sin and how exactly human beings are capable of sinning according to Protestant theology?
As to the inerrancy of Scripture, yes, I absolutely believe Scripture is inerrant. Westminster Shorter Catechism, etc., etc., etc. But while it was written by men, it was written via Divine Inspiration (which gets capitals because it’s a specific theological concept), which boils down to them writing it but the Holy Spirit guiding their hands to the point that the words they chose to use were chosen by God. Not one stroke of a pen was written without the Holy Spirit guiding where it went.
Now, you’ve kind of run off on a tangent with the house/electricity example. Yes, houses and outlets are inanimate objects. That’s not the point. The point is that the power can be there whether you see it or not. Faith can (hypothetically) be there whether you see it or not. But the hypothetical saved person who doesn’t exhibit works is an academic construct to illustrate that works don’t save. There is no saved person who doesn’t do good work. That work is effect and not cause is the point. Yes, obviously, houses are not people.
As to the pope…
He is a human being and a sinner just like all other human beings. He is a creature. He is only infallible with respect to issues of faith and morals.
That right there. If the pope is a sinner, just like everybody else, he’s clearly not infallible with respect to faith or morals. That doesn’t make him a bad person, not a Christian, or secretly plotting to take over the world. That doesn’t even mean he can’t be very smart, have good insight, or receive revelations that I don’t. It just means he is not infallible on any subject whatsoever. He may be right most of the time, but nobody is right all of the time. …Unless they are Jesus, obvs. (No, I never thought Catholics thought of the pope as a deity. :) )
As to Free Will and Original Sin and sin in general, bear in mind this is coming from a Calvinist, so at some point I’m going to say that God’s will trumps yours. Which, let’s face it: He’s sovereign God, so it kind of does. But, even putting aside issues of predestination, justification through faith alone doesn’t mean human beings have no will of their own. I’m guessing we’re crossing wires on the definitions of Justification and Sanctification here, which may defined differently amongst Catholics. So, for the Reformed Protestants, here’s what happens. You are born sinful, dead, and Hell-bound. You, of yourself, can not fix this. You are sinful by nature and everything you do is sin and you are utterly incapable of making yourself right with God. Ever. That’s sin. It’s not a checklist of dos and don’ts. It is a reality of being in rebellion to God. You’re doomed! Thankfully, the Holy Spirit enables you to accept the work of Jesus by faith. Now, right there, in that last sentence is where Justification happens. You are, by faith, instantly justified before God, made part of His family, granted eternal life, etc., etc., etc. Justification is being made right before God, and is instantly granted.
But, as you rightly pointed out, Christians are still sinners. This is because Sanctification, the process of being made more and more like God, is not instantaneous. It’s a long process, and that is where our will of turning away from sin, and doing right more and more as we grow closer to God, comes in. Sanctification will take the rest of your life to complete. If you die tonight, you will enter Heaven Justified and Sanctified. If I live five hundred more years, so (eventually) will I.
So, that was really long, but I hope answers your question. :D
Alice you did not address any of my question with respect to Sola Scriptura: Why do Protestants conceive the Holy Spirit as dead and not guiding men after Jesus specifically told us that he would not leave us orphans? Why are the human being writers of the Bible, who existed before Christ, considered divinely inspired but the Pope and the Bishops not guided by the spirit?
Now if works are only the effect then how is man capabling of sinning? Bad works obviously damn people, no? Can a person of “faith” kill someone and still be saved? If your argument that a person of faith will never kill or do a bad work you are simply playing a game of semantics, truly believe in Faith and works. You have simply restated what the Church has always taught and not what Luther taught ”Faith Alone.”
This Calvin perspective on sin and man does not correspond to the way God created man – as very good. Man’s nature was very good. It is his vice or wilful refusal (bad work) of God’s grace that cause man’s separation of God. Original sin is the first sin which is passed onto every human being. We are not capable of making ourselves right with God, but we are capable of refusing his Divine Grace. Sin must be both inherited through our first parents and a checklist. Why Jesus still subscribe to the 10 commandments and preach forgiveness if we Christians weren’t able to sin once we converted and were baptized? Finally, why do you consider Calvin an authority – surely, he is just a man, and a man much removed from Jesus in terms of time.
Sydney I am not following how this idea of Sanctification fits into Calvin theology. Doesn’t the recognition of Sanctification as a process completely nullify the conception that Man can’t lose God’s Grace?
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer the question. Hopefully, it is beneficial others. Thank-you for thinking I could get into Heaven immediatly I hope you are right, but I think I will likely have to spend some time in purgatory.
opps, I wrote to quickly and without editing:
Alice I feel that you did not address my main question with respect to Sola Scriptura: Why do Protestants conceive that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Bishops after Jesus specifically told us that he would not leave us orphans? Why are the human being writers of the Bible, who existed before Christ, considered to be Divinely Inspired while the Pope and the Bishops are considered not to be guided by the Spirit?
While good works are the effects of faith bad works are not. And good works must be meritious in Heaven because God is going to Judge us according to our works. Bad works obviously damn people, no? Can a person of “faith” kill someone and still be saved? If your argument is that a person of faith will never kill or do a bad work you are simply playing a game of semantics – meaning that it appears that Calvinists must truly believe in Faith and Works. In other words, it appears that Calvinist theology does not believe in “Faith Alone” but has simply restated what the Church has always taught: Faith and works.
The Calvin perspective on sin and man does not correspond to the way God created man – as very good. Man’s nature is very good. It is his vice or wilful refusal (bad work) of God’s Grace that is the cause of man’s separation from God or sin. The fact that the original sin, or first sin, is passed onto every human being is relevant to our salvation and justification. The work Jesus accomplished for us is that Jesus ransomed us from the consequences of that first – eternal death. We were not capable of entering Heaven due to our first sin; however, Jesus’ passion and death and ressurection does not obviate our free will and the reality of the consequences of the original sin. We still sin and we still die. We are still capable of refusing his Divine Grace. But Jesus opened the door to Heaven – eternal life. In summary, humans inherit sin through our first parents and also sin by committing wrongs today (a checklist in your words). So while we can’t work our way into heaven, we can lose it by our own free will. If the last sentence does not reflect the human spiritual situation after Christ’s work why would Jesus still request that we subscribe to the 10 commandments and preach forgiveness?
Finally, why do you consider Calvin an authority – surely, he is just a man, and a man much removed from Jesus in terms of time.
Sydney I am not following how this idea of sanctification fits into Calvin theology. Doesn’t the recognition of Sanctification as a process completely nullify the conception that Man can’t lose God’s Grace? How did Calvin reconicle sanctification with predestination?
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions. Hopefully, it will be beneficial to others as well. Thank-you for thinking I could get into Heaven immediatly and I hope you are right. However, I think I will likely have to spend some time in purgatory first.
Why do Protestants conceive that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Bishops after Jesus specifically told us that he would not leave us orphans?
The Holy Spirit guides everybody, Bishop or not. But everybody still sins, Bishops included. Stating that the pope is not an infallible moral authority does not mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide him, just like any other Christian. In that same vein, yes, I consider Calvin to be an authority, but not an infallible one. I agree with him a lot of the time, but sometimes I don’t. Someone can be right on a lot of things but not all of them. Calvin’s writings, for example, must be balanced against Scripture. If there are discrepancies, Scripture wins. Like you said, Calvin is just a man. He is a man I happen to agree with on a number of issues, but at the end of the day, he’s just a man and that’s all.
The writing of Scripture is a particular case. And even the writers of Scripture weren’t infallible people. They were only infallible when writing those things that would become the Bible. God is big and can do things like that.
Now, I didn’t say that people of faith will never do bad works. In fact we both know that isn’t the case because we agree that Christians are sinners. I said that good works naturally proceed from faith, the way that thunder follows lightning. But thunder does not cause lightning, it is the result. You can’t have lightning and not have thunder, but it’s important not to get the cause mixed up, because making loud noises won’t get you lightning any more than doing good stuff will get you saved. Trying to do good works to merit salvation just leads to legalism and heresies about being able to save yourself. Major headaches that way.
And I have to disagree with you on our ability to loose salvation. “No one can snatch them out of my hand,” as the verse says. Even you can’t pull you away from God. When God says come, you can’t not.
To be clear, this does not mean the Christian is therefore free to sin as much as they like. After all, you can’t loose your salvation, right? This is another one of those “In theory…” parts. In theory a saved person could sin all they wanted. You can’t loose your salvation. Practically, like thunder follows lightning… Sanctification will follow salvation, and the saved person, as they become more like God, will begin to turn away from sin. It may take a while, but it will happen. Otherwise they aren’t saved. If there’s no thunder, there wasn’t any lightning.
(No, I don’t know exactly how free will fits in here. That there is human free will is indisputable. It fits in here somewhere. And this, unbelievably, is still actually less confusing than infralapsarianism vs supralapsarianism…)
Why would Sanctification nullify predestination? Acts 13: 48 “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Philippians 1: 6 “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion.” God Justifies His chosen in an instant but Sanctifies them over time. How is that contradictory? Jesus always stands in the stead of the Christian. It’s His righteousness that stands for me, not mine. So even if I were perfect from the time I accepted it ’til death (which I am so, so not), Jesus would still have to stand for me. The fact that my Sanctification is incomplete does not make me any less Justified by Christ. I’m not getting why these things contradict.
And I don’t believe in Purgatory. Aside from the whole, it’s-not-mentioned-anywhere-in-the-Protestant-canon, there’s the minor fact of Jesus being way more powerful than that. When Jesus died to save you, He did it properly and saved you all the way. You don’t have to wait around in anywhere for anything. You are totally Justified in Christ for all the sins you have ever or will ever commit. There’s no extra innings, no final countdown, no remaining balance. You’re as saved as you can be, as saved as you need to be. From all your sins, whatever they are and whenever they happen. Whoo-hoo! :D
…Yeah, I really like that part. I admit it.
Alice, sorry this post is a bit rambling.
I have been reading the Belgic Confession and started to read some things by John Calvin. In the Belgic Confession makes claims that it is says are infallible. One such claim is that the Bible is the innerrant Word of God. Why do the Men who wrote the Belgic Confession get to claim infallibility and not the Pope. In reading these confessions and Protestant Creeds it really seems that the Protestant Churches were in it for the money, and resented sending money to Rome. The theological issues that they had with Rome seem almost ancillary to their concern about money. The shared theological positions between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches far outnumber the differences.
For example, we agree that the Holy Spirit guides everybody and we agree that the writers of Scripture weren’t infallible people and we agree that the Scriptures are innerant and that good works precede from faith/God’s Grace. We just believe the Holy Spirit perserves the Pope from making any errors on matters of Faith and Morals - why is that so hard to believe? Why can’t God merit our Good works as well as being the cause and source of those good works? He crowns his glory so to speak. So though Heaven is the merit of Christ’s work for us, why can’t God merit our good works with Graces such as good health etc… He Graces us with the ability to pray and then crowns his own good works through us with good health for example.
From your post I was wondering (and this may sound odd) if it would be fair to say that Calvinists fear that idea that Catholics and St. Paul present: that one can go to hell after being converted or justified?
When St. Paul talks about the good fight what do Calvinists think he is talking about? And if we can’t go to Hell what is Jesus judging us for?
Clearly, to be intellectually honest you need to at least try to reconcile the idea that Christians can’t go to Hell with the fact that the Lord will be judging Christians according to their works.
Also can you tell me what makes Calvin an authority according to your denomination/tradition?
Are protestants bothered by the proliferation of denominations?
I think if you look closely at Sanctification it involves good works. Is a Calvinist saying they can make themselves more Holy? What was there complaint again with respect to good works? Did they just sneek good works back in through another area of their theology? It is this kind of stuff that makes me think the Reformation was all about money and power and not about religion.
We Catholics believe Jesus has stood for us and has redeemed us. Our job here on earth as a co-heir of the eternal life is to imitate him in his good works and not screw-up his good work. He set the example we are to follow.
I suspected you didn’t believe in purgatory – but that’s ok. You wouldn’t find purgatory in the Protestant canon since they denied many of the truths of the Catholic faith.
I looked up the terms “infralapsarian” and “supralapsarian”. If a Protestant ever accuses Catholics of having an intellectual faith I am going to laugh my butt off and bring up these terms and walk them over to a mirror. Reading all the confessions and ordinances of the Protestant faith make it seem man-made and very intellectual but I acknowledge there is much I don’t know about the Protestant faiths.
Well, the thing with Calvinists is that we love to think about everything. Personally, I think lapsarianism, infra-, supra-, or otherwise is overthinking by a long mile. I don’t care what order God did everything in at the beginning of the universe. It all happened in some order or other. That’s good enough for me. But I get a kick out of the fact that this stuff is a thing and I thought you might, too. Clearly I was right. ;)
Okay, so to the serious points. I’m sure there were some Protestant churches who were in it for the money. But the theological complaint re: indulgences and the abuses thereof is quite a serious one. Under no circumstances should anyone be able to purchase permission to sin, which is what an indulgence boils down to. Sin is sin period. You’re right that Catholics and Protestants do agree on a great deal in some respects. I can recite the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds right alongside a Catholic, cheerfully and sincerely. And it’s not hard to believe that the Holy Spirit could make the pope infallible with respect to morality. But, as you say, the pope does sin, so apparently the Holy Spirit doesn’t do that. It’s not a question of power and it’s not hard to believe the possibility. It’s the realization of that possibility that I’m not buying into.
I don’t think Paul does say that you can fall away from grace after being saved. I don’t know that I would say I’m afraid of that, but I’m certainly not sad that you can’t. I like that I am a slave to Heaven, and that I can’t leave that service even if I try to. But good works are a part of Christian faith. And are part of both bringing us closer to God and bringing other people into the faith. Which might seem counter-intuitive, since if God will save all His chosen people, why would I need to bother reaching out? But that’s not how God has built the world. He set it up so that Christians are to go find all the family of God. So that’s another function served by good works. But you can’t make yourself more holy. That kind of goes against the definition of what holy is. As to how God is going to judge on works, I’m not overly concerned. If I get to Heaven and somebody else has a bigger mansion/sparklier crown than me, I have a sneaky feeling I will be beyond caring at that point. But God isn’t going to judge me unsaved based on the number of volunteer hours I have with Habitat for Humanity or whatever.
Yes, it does bother a lot of Protestants that there are so many denominations. I know of several that are very close, doctrinally, to my own. The PCA (my denom) and the OPC often call one another “sister denominations,” for example. And you find a lot of similar doctrines amongst the denominations that take Scripture very seriously. It’s when you get church leaders not taking every part of Scripture as binding and important that you run into trouble. But I would love to see a denomination merger at some point. I think that’d be neat.
Having read over your posts, I’m starting to think we’re meaning different things when we say “authority” with respect to church leaders. John Calvin is an “authority” on theology in the same way that Carl Sagan is an “authority” on science. Calvin was intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned, and well-sourced. His ideas and arguments shaped a number of theological tenets (like the Five Points). But that’s it. His commentaries and arguments are open to challenge and overturning if someone has more compelling logic or a better grounding in Scripture (preferably both). And Calvin is hardly the only authority my denomination subscribes to in that sense. We’re also fans of Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Knox. And modern theologians like R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, John Piper, and Steve Brown. But I don’t mean authority in that I am in any way morally bound to obey the teachings of these men. I imagine every one of them would be quite horrified at the idea. The authority, in this sense, is more like the authority held by a professor over a class (not identical, but that’s the ballpark). Do you have a different idea in mind here?
TBH, there’s a lot of Catholic ordinances that strike me as pretty artificial and man-made. (Not sure why you said “intellectual” like it’s a bad thing, though. God did give us minds, after all.) My disagreements about church authority and the function of good works are just two in a long list of discrepancies I have with RCC doctrine. Praying to saints is another huge one. Penance is another. And indeed, purgatory, as I mentioned. Which is a question I wanted to ask you. Why do you feel that Jesus work was not sufficient to grant you entrance into Heaven? If you are saved, why aren’t you completely saved? Why purgatory? I don’t get it. Isn’t God powerful enough to redeem you from all your sins?
Hi Alice,
I should’ve written this sooner. I am working on a response to your comment. It has prompted me to do a lot of thinking. I apologize for not responding sooner.
I also feel I should quickly make two clarifications I made earlier right now and that I will respond on some of the other issues you raised. The three clarifications have to do 1) calling the Pope a sinner; and 2) good works as the fruit of Jesus’ work.
1) In Catholic theology human beings are redeemed by the passion of Christ – removing the stain of original sin but not its effect. Unlike in some Protestant theologies, Catholics do not believe we are both sinner and saved at the sometime. Catholics believe we were once sinners but now after baptism are infused with the Holy Spirit and only have the inclination to sin. Because of this inclination to sin Catholics can and many do sin – so according to Catholic theology Catholics can become sinners again. However, this personal sin is different from original sin. Personal sin is committed by the person and is not inherited from Adam’s first sin. Personal sin is the result of wrong doing – bad works. So Catholics can and do become sinners. However, since I don’t Pope Benedict personally it was inaccurate of me to say He is/was sinner – only Pope Benedict and God know the state of Pope Benedict’s soul. From all accounts he is decent and loving human being.
2) Good works are the fruit of Jesus’ passion. By this I would to convey the more organic and close relationship that our Good Works have to ourselves and God. In Catholic theology, God does not coerce people to do Good Works – he wants people to freely choose to love Him and to perform Good Works for our neighbors and Him. We are his members so what we do ultimately flows from His Grace, but we cooperate with that Grace. Catholic theology acknowledges the free will of the individual here, in these good acts of good will.
Some of our differences are the really a matter of emphasis as the Declaration between Catholics and Lutherans articulates.
Finally, due to the current Pope Benedict XVI being such a tireless worker for ecumenism I hope I have not damaged his efforts in this regards. Catholics and Protestants have been able to come together on many issues.
With respect to Purgatory I will quickly note the passages from Scripture that Catholics believe support this spiritual reality: 1 Cor 3:15; 1Pet 1:7; and Mt 12:31.
May God bless the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.
His retirement is loss for the Church. He is and has been a great spiritual leader.
Hi Alice,
I should’ve written this sooner. I am working on a response to your comment and the many points you raised. It has prompted me to do a lot of thinking. I apologize for not responding sooner.
in the interim, I feel I should quickly make two clarifications of statements I made earlier. The two clarifications have to do 1) when I acknowledged that Pope sins; and 2) good works as the fruit of Jesus’ work.
1) In Catholic theology human beings are redeemed by the passion of Christ – removing the stain of original sin but not its effect. Unlike in some Protestant theologies, Catholics do not believe we are both sinner and saved at the sometime. Catholics believe we were once sinners but now after baptism are infused with the Holy Spirit and only have the inclination to sin. Because of this inclination to sin Catholics can and many do sin – so according to Catholic theology Catholics can become sinners again. However, this personal sin is different from original sin. Personal sin is committed by the person and is not inherited from Adam’s first sin. Personal sin is the result of wrong doing – bad works. So Catholics can and do become sinners. However, since I don’t Pope Benedict personally it was inaccurate of me to say He is/was sinner – only Pope Benedict and God know the state of Pope Benedict’s soul. From all accounts he is decent and loving human being.
2) Good works are the fruit of Jesus’ passion. By this I would to convey the more organic and close relationship that our Good Works have to ourselves and God. In Catholic theology, God does not coerce people to do Good Works – he wants people to freely choose to love Him and to perform Good Works for our neighbors and Him. We are his members so what we do ultimately flows from His Grace, but we cooperate with that Grace. Catholic theology acknowledges the free will of the individual here, in these good acts of good will.
Some of our differences are the really a matter of emphasis as the Declaration between Catholics and Lutherans articulates.
Finally, due to the current Pope Benedict XVI being such a tireless worker for ecumenism I hope I have not damaged his efforts in this regards. Catholics and Protestants have been able to come together on many issues.
With respect to Purgatory I will quickly note the passages from Scripture that Catholics believe support this spiritual reality: 1 Cor 3:15; 1Pet 1:7; and Mt 12:31. God is definitely strong enough to redeem all of our sins; however, in this life we sin, and if we do not make adequate reparation and confession of sins in this life and this sins are not evil enough to warrant eternal damnation then God grants us time in purgatory so that our souls can be cleansed of these sins. (Discussing aspects of religion is much more difficult than I anticipated. I really appreciate your efforts to do so Alice.)
May God bless the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.
His retirement is loss for the Church. He is a great spiritual leader.
Finally, due to the current Pope Benedict XVI being such a tireless worker for ecumenism I hope I have not damaged his efforts in this regards. Catholics and Protestants have been able to come together on many issues.
No, not at all. I don’t expect Catholics to agree with me on a lot of doctrinal issues, most of which are important. So, knowing that, I am only trying to answer the questions you asked in a complete manner and to ask a few of my own in the hopes that we can better understand where one another is coming from. But I don’t feel attacked or cornered or even pressured. As far as I can see, this has been a pleasant discussion, and I hope the same is true for you.
So, no. No damage. :)