Damned if you do… September 3, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Bush, CNN, Iraq, Iraq War, Main Stream Media, Media Bias.19 comments
In a classic example of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” the Left has wasted no time criticizing President Bush’s surprise stop in Iraq today enroute to a summit in Australia, the third such visit he has made in four years.
The anchors on CNN’s American Morning this morning, John Roberts and Kiran Chetry, said the president “by-passed the politically paralyzed Bahgdad,” choosing rather to land “out in the middle of nowhere well west of Baghdad in Al-Anbar province.” MSNBC says the president is “using the war zone as a backdrop to argue his case that the buildup of U.S. troops is helping stabilizing the country.” This story is just breaking so you can be certain that as the media machine heats up throughout the day today the criticisms will mount.
The Left understands this political reality: whenever a president of either party does something as daring as entering a war zone it increases his political capital. CNN and MSNBC are taking early and preemptive strikes to head off as much of that political capital as possible by suggesting that the president wasn’t bold enough to actually land in Baghdad and that in any event the whole thing is just a photo-op at tax payer expense.
So why land in Al-Anbar province and not Baghdad? Al-Anbar province may be, according to CNN “out in the middle of nowhere,” but it is anything but a safe-zone as CNN is implying. Until the troop surge began a few months back, Al-Anbar province was experiencing the highest rate of U.S. and coalition casualities and was a significant training ground for Al-Qaeda. Since the troop surge, violence is way down in Al-Anbar province and Al-Qadea has been routed. Why should the president not choose to visit the troops there to personally thank them for their service? And why should the media fault the president for doing so? Because such a high-profile visit calls attention to the truth that things are improving in Iraq, something the mainstream media does not have the will to admit.
To-ma-to, To-mah-to: Justification is not the same for Catholics and Evangelicals September 1, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Catholic Theology.add a comment
From Scott M. Manetsch’ review of Noll & Nystrom’s Is the Reformation Over?:
The Catholic Catechism defines justification as both the event that initiates the Christian life and the process by which the believer grows in holiness and righteousness. “Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.”23 Hence, the Catholic doctrine of justification brings together (what Protestants usually understand to be the separate doctrines of) justification and sanctification. Justification occurs in two stages: initial justification and the process of justification. Initial justification is merited for us by the passion of Christ, made possible by grace, and is conferred in baptism (called the sacrament of faith). The Catechism states:
Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.24
Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, the adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.25
Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.26
This initial justification is not the imputation of the external righteousness of Christ to the sinner (as the Protestant reformers asserted), but the infusion of Christ’s righteousness and forgiveness into sinners, thereby making them righteous and fit for eternal life. Thereafter follows the process of justification, whereby the Holy Spirit renews the baptized Christian by infusing sanctifying graces into his or her soul to cure it of sin and make it holy. “With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.”27 In this process of justification Christians must freely cooperate with God’s grace; indeed, as Christians cooperate with the divine work of grace they merit those infused graces necessary for sanctification and the attainment of eternal life. In one sense, therefore, the sinner is justified by God’s grace alone in baptism. In another sense, the sinner is justified by the merit achieved by cooperating with God’s grace.
ENDNOTES:
22 A helpful introduction to some of these important debates is found in Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier, eds., Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates.
23 Catholic Catechism, 489, par. 2019.
24 Catholic Catechism, 482, par. 1992.
25 Catholic Catechism, 483, par. 1997. Italics in the original.
26 Catholic Catechism, 489, par. 2020.
27Catholic Catechism, 482, par. 1991.
Irreconcilable Differences September 1, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Catholic Theology, Reformed Theology, Theology.2 comments
At the risk of stating the obvious, there are fundamental differences between the theology and practice of evangelicals and Catholics. I state the obvious so that I can make a broader point.
Whenever an evangelical, especially one committed to the principles of the Reformation, clearly articulates why he is an evangelical and not a Catholic, more often than not he is accused of being anti-Catholic. Yet when a Catholic apologist - or even a mere lay adherent to the Catholic faith - draws attention to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals, he is more often than not praised as defending the faith. The evangelical is a bigot; the Catholic is just being faithful.
Faithful Catholics who call my radio program endaevoring to counter my Reformed view often tell me that I am mistaken about the Catholic view of justification. They want me to know that their Church indeed teaches justification by grace through faith. No amount of shouting the word “ALONE” helps them understand the critical biblical difference between what their church teaches and what the word of God actually says. Beyond that, the Church is teaching them that their righteousness is inherent - that is, they already possess righteousness which is made effective for salvation through the Church and its sacraments. Those of us on the Reformation side of the divide recognize that our righteousness is NOT inherent; it is the rightousness of Another that has been imputed to us by grace through faith (Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9; Titus 3:5).
I don’t quite understand why some Catholics who listen to my radio program are shocked and surprised when they hear me say things that clearly evidence a defense of Reformational Protestantism. I certainly am not shocked nor surprised when I hear a Catholic talk radio host say things that are not only contrary to what I personally believe, but even more importantly, contrary to what the Scriptures actually teach. The Catholic host defends his faith from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I defend mine from inspired Scripture.
Justin Taylor over at the Between Two Worlds blog offers a compelling summary of the irreconcilable differences between Reformational Protestantism and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
