Here are my thoughts:
Grace is a CENTRAL issue. The most important thing to point out is that Catholics believe it is both God's favor AND can ALSO be God's "divine energy/life" that is INFUSED in the human soul. Protestants focus almost entirely on the "God's favor" to the exclusion (or downplaying) of the infusion into the soul. That is what I believe is at the heart of this matter, and when one looks honestly they see the Catholic definition is not only superior, but the true Biblical understanding.
I agree, SS is a secondary issue to Faith Alone, I believe it was invented to as an added excuse for Justification by Faith Alone.
Quote, Hays :"Tridentine theology might not be novel to Aquinas, but still be novel to St. Paul or St. John"
Nick: When protestants talk like this they are virtually saying nobody was a "true Christian" until the Reformation because they Gospel was in effect lost. They might fight this, but when pushed, that is what they are saying. At least the LDS and JWs openly admit the Gospel was lost.
On this same issue, it is worth noting that Koons was HORRIFIED to discover that Melanchthon had bastardized St Augustine's beautiful and powerful "On the Spirit and the Letter" (pg 6, Koons).
Quote, Hays: " Why does he cut Catholicism so much slack when he’s unwilling to cut Lutheranism any slack?"
Nick: That is LAUGHABLE, Koons painted Lutheranism in the BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT all through the book, he constantly gave it the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion he actually painted it in too great a light, but then again, his genius showed through in that Lutherans CANT turn around and accuse him of misrepresentation...has there even been any Lutherans (or any Protestants) who have actually gone to deal with Koons' HARD WORK in its entirety?
Quote, Dave:"What the Catholic argues is that sola Scriptura is incoherent and unbiblical and unworkable. We then assert that our system is not any of those things."
Nick:LOL, I love it.
Quote, Hays:"ii) Koons is also assuming there’s only one true church,"
Nick:LOL, caught you red handed. Protestants reject/fear the notion there is "one true church" because such a notion implies church authority/infallibility. The ironic (if not down right twisted, doublethink) thing here is that Protestants get OFFENDED when Catholics accuse them of being bitterly divided and thus not the "one true church". So what we have is Protestants attacking the concept of "one true church" when it applies to Catholics, yet defending it when confronted about their own position.
Quote, Dave:"This is a classic, textbook expression (complete with obligatory mockery and straw man construction) of postmodernist, relativistic, pessimistic, literally anti-biblical, faith-challenged mush, as I have critiqued in the following papers ... it has been the sadly predictable outcome of a ridiculous proliferation of contradictory beliefs."
Nick: Dave, I hav
Quote, Dave:"This is a classic, textbook expression (complete with obligatory mockery and straw man construction) of postmodernist, relativistic, pessimistic, literally anti-biblical, faith-challenged mush, as I have critiqued in the following papers ... it has been the sadly predictable outcome of a ridiculous proliferation of contradictory beliefs."
Nick: Dave, I have been saying we are in the "end game" phase of the protestant heresy, and your comments above confirm this. It is at the point of pure absurdity and there is no room to hide or dance around the issue. The Catholic Church has been vindicated, and any fair and rational individual (ie not driven by anti-Catholic bias) can see this, Thanks be to God!
Quote, Hays: "Many denominations and independent churches exemplify the true church in varying degrees. And saving faith does not demand membership in a doctrinally inerrant church. There’s a difference between good, better, and best."
Nick:How sad. How unbiblical.
I was disappointed that this didnt get into the heart of the matter, soteriology, then again maybe SS is the heart of the matter?
I am very glad I read this, it was very enjoyable (though sad).
Excellent article, Dave. Thanks.
"Grace is a CENTRAL issue. But when Erasmus denied that human wills are in bondage to sin, Luther called his doctrine and pointed out that this was the main issue; that only God's grace can awaken a dead soul (Ephesians 2:1-9), that without the internal drawing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit, all humans are enslaved by their sinful wills (John 8:34).
"The most important thing to point out is that Catholics believe it is both God's favor AND can ALSO be God's "divine energy/life" that is INFUSED in the human soul. Protestants focus almost entirely on the "God's favor" to the exclusion (or downplaying) of the infusion into the soul. That is what I believe is at the heart of this matter, and when one looks honestly they see the Catholic definition is not only superior, but the true Biblical understanding."
Protestants do not exclude or downplay a change or transformation in the soul, they and the doctrine of Sola Fide only says that that change within us/holiness/sanctification is not the basis of merit by which we will stand before God in the judgement.
We believe all who trust Christ are also changed and transformed and results in good works and love and repentance and sorrow over sin and growth; but those are the fruits and results of a real justification, when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer; it comes to the believer through faith alone, but that faith does not stay alone. It moves, is living, growing, dynamic, wants and seeks God.
The issue is on what basis or ground can a sinful human stand before a holy God ?
only, having been justified by faith, do we have peace with God, . . . and obtained this introduction into grace in which we stand.
Romans 5:1
Listen to Piper's sermons at www.desiringGod.org
"God justifies the ungodly" Romans 4:5
For something to be Biblical, it must not just have some words from a Scripture verse, but must conform to the author's intended meaning, the main principle of proper interpretation.
RCC distinctives do not conform to the author's original intended meaning. They have taken words and phrases and parables and allegories and created new things in history, centuries after the Scriptures were finished (49-95 AD, maybe 49-70 AD), "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" Jude 3.
There is more than one author of Scripture. God is the author in a far more absolute sense than the human authors. That's not by any means to say that what they meant is irrelevant, but what God means by it is far more important (and the two are not necessarily coextensive).
Further, why should we believe any Protestant's claims as to the meaning of any text, especially given that they can't even agree amongst themselves??? The "author's original intended meaning" is so often disputed even amongst Protestants as to make it blindingly obvious that something is missing from their paradigm: that is, an authoritative, binding interpreter.
Ken,
Your first comments about the will being unable without grace is part of the grace issue, I agree. Catholics already have that ironed out though, the Church infallibly condemns the notion that any good work can be done apart from (infused, enabling) grace. But here is where things get interesting for the Protestants, some believe in issues such as "regeneration" (comes before Justification) but what they are in fact describing is infused grace, yet somehow this infused grace plays no part in Justification.
Quote, Ken:"Protestants do not exclude or downplay a change or transformation in the soul..."
Nick: But the fact you have severed it from the issue of Justification means you have. Catholics dont mince words here, if your soul is not righteous then God cannot declare you righteous.
The fact you admit there is such thing as infused grace means your wholly imputed justification system is on shaky ground.
The rest of your comments I consider unbiblical. Key chapters like Romans 4 give no indication of an imputed righteousness which is alien to you, rather it says Abraham's FAITH was what God considered him righteous for, and faith was a window into Abraham's soul.
Since there seems be quite a bit of discussion on
sola Scriptura on this blogsite, I thought I would add my two cents worth. I am a Lutheran (LCMS) layman.
The Lutheran Church is a Bible church. She receives the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures of the Old (39 books) and the New (27 books) Testament, as the only source and standard of doctirine, the sole authority in matters of faith and life. On the authority of Scripture (1 Peter 4:11; John 8:31,32; Isaiah 8:20; and other passages) she declares "The Word of god shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel" (Smalcald Articles, P. II, article II, 15). Again, "The Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged" (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Summary Column 7). The Augsburg Confession is concerned only with "showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands" (Preface, 
. Its final words: ". . . according to the Scriptures." (Conclusion, 7)
Therefore the sole rule and standard according to which all doctrines together with all teachers in the church should be judged "are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone" (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Summary Column 1). To safeguard this principle, Lutheran pastors are asked: "Dost thou believe the canonical books {66} of the Old and the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" To This question the candidate to be ordained must answer: "I do so believe."
I subscribe to this sola Scriptura completely.
Thanks for that summary. I did understand this to be Lutheran belief.
Any relation to Rob Koons?
Yes, father.
Wow, you're the father of Dr Robert Koons of UofT?
What do you think of his 95 page apology? Also what do you think of his conversion?
Update from my last comment....I followed the link of Dr C. Koons above and in the "contact us" page there is a Bruce Koons listed in a ministerial position. I guess that is more family in the LCMS.
I want to make it clear that I'm the last person to want to cause any more friction than might already be present in matters of conversion within families. Dr. Koons is under no obligation to discuss such personal matters here, and I would ask all to respect the privacy of such family matters, as inappropriate on a public blog.
Dave: I appreciate your comments. Rob and I have had discussions on his conversion. I do not agree with many points in his treatise, but he tells me he is still a Christian and his salvation is not in doubt. For that I am thankful to God.
Bruce
he tells me he is still a Christian and his salvation is not in doubt. For that I am thankful to God.
If your son converted to any other Protestant denomination would you need his assurance he was still Christian?
Commenting by HaloScan
