After thirty years of study and reflection, Lutheran philosopher Robert Koons joined the Catholic Church in 2007. This book articulates his reasons for abandoning the church of his ancestors for the Roman communion, reasons that centered on a deep and systematic re-thinking of the central issue of the Reformation: the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone. Koons draws on a broad knowledge of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the most prominent theologians of the Lutheran movement from the time of the Reformation until the present, including Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Robert Preus. Since Jesus clearly intended for the church to remain visibly united, the burden of proof on any theological innovation is heavy, and Koons demonstrates that the Lutheran doctrine was innovative, and he argues, relying on the best New Testament scholarship, that the Bible passages cited by the Reformers do not support the innovative features of the Lutheran doctrine. Koons seeks to eliminate widespread misunderstandings of the Catholic doctrine of justification on the part of many Protestants, emphasizing the christocentric character of that teaching. Koons argues that, in contrast, the Lutheran doctrine is inconsistent. He also points out serious logical problems with the principle of sola scriptura.
Reviews with the most likes.
Conundrums Answered: this is the book I've been looking for.
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R102DZPNHI41TF?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
I am a lay Catholic with an interest in historical theology. My interest has led me to read, among other things, the complete debate between Erasmus and Luther, the creedal statements of the various magisterial churches, and similar documents. I've also engaged in discussions with various Protestants, including Lutherans (one of whom converted to Catholicism before our discussion could begin in earnest.)
In my discussions, I've noticed that Protestants are insistent that justification is by faith alone, which I agree with if we understand that after “initial justification” the believer continues to grow in justice, which Protestants call “sanctification.” I often point out to my Protestant interlocutors that their creeds include a statement that sanctification requires that Christians perform the good works prepared for them, without which they will not see Heaven. They usually admit that sanctification is required. This would seem to render the controversy about faith and works moot or far more subtle than tossing slogans about “faith alone” or “works righteousness,” or citing James or Paul, can permit.
When I get to this point in the discussion, my Protestant interlocutor will usually retreat to “justification by faith alone” and tell me that their salvation depends on no works.
And around and around we go.
Professor Robert C. Koons offers an insider-view of this conundrum. Koons wrote this book as part of his long process of considering the claims of Catholicism against his faith tradition of Lutheranism. Portions of this book were written by Koons as his private consideration of the issues, the resolution of which led him to convert to Catholicism.
Protestant apologists usually start with Catholic distinctives, such as Mary and the papacy, which is odd since, as Koons points out, Luther and Lutherans claim that justification is the point on which the Reformation stands or falls. On that basis, Koons examines the issue as outlined in both the Council of Trent and in Lutherans texts, such as the Formula of Concord. This is useful since it seems that many Protestants know Trent (or misunderstand Trent) but their own positions sit in a limbo of formlessness. (Koons also has a very useful analysis of Trent, biblical proof texts, and St. Augustine's “On the Spirit and Letter,” which is worth the price of the book.)
Koons confirms my lay experience; the division between Catholic and Protestant is not faith v. works. Both sides acknowledge that salvation is by grace alone, that faith provides the avenue by which that grace is applied, and that works are the vehicles to confirm and grow faith and grace. The distinction between the two traditions lies not in these areas, but in the distinction between infused grace and imputed grace.
For Protestants, God's declaration of justification is “forensic” or “imputed.” It does not do anything (other than changing the relationship of God and the justified individual.) For Catholics, justification is “infused”; not only is there a declaration that a person is “right with God” but the Holy Spirit makes a deposit of supernatural faith, hope, and charity into the hearts of the justified.
The different positions seem to have something to do with a “works” phobia. Lutherans prefer to think of “faith” as purely a “grace receiving organ” which works passively to channel God's grace. (p. 31.) As such, faith is viewed as not involving work, whereas “love” inherently implies a “work” or “working,” but as Koons points out, a saving faith is “active trust” which seems to be as much of a work as love. (p. 29.) There is also the further point that the infused virtues are “supernatural virtues” that come from the Holy Spirit and hardly presuppose a human work.
Koons ultimately points to the fatal contradiction in the faith alone paradigm. (See p. 44 – 45.) I'm pleased to see it as the same point I've made – and had ignored – namely, that Lutheranism acknowledges that works play a vital role in ultimate salvation. Historical Lutheranism – as opposed to Luther – acknowledges that grace can be lost by living in serious, unrepentant sin. The Formula of Concord insists that believers can and must cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Salvation depends upon perseverance in grace, which, in turn, involves “good works” which “should be done, namely that we may make our calling sure.” (p. 44 quoting Melanchthon.) Koons makes the following observation at this point:
“Thus, it seems that Lutherans must admit that our works do contribute to our final salvation, so speaking of ‘salvation through faith alone' is an exaggeration.” (p. 46.)
Exactly! And it is at this point in my discussions with Protestants that they perform the Justification/Sanctification Two-Step and start talking about Justification again. Then, I remind them that we are talking about sanctification and it is like I'm speaking Martian.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
My Aquinas group is now discussing the Incarnation. Koons offers a fascinating Incarnational analysis of the distinction between eternal and temporal penalties as found in the human/divine natures of Jesus. (p. 46-48.)
Koons then turns to the issue of Sola Scriptura and points out the theoretical and empirical disproof of Sola Scriptura which can be found in the lack of an inspired table of contents and the historical evidence of disunity among sola scriptura Protestantism. Koons addresses the conundrum of Protestant claims that there is agreement on “matters of essentials” by noting that Protestants do not agree on what the essentials are. Koons accurately observes that “the Protestant principle has utterly failed the test of history.”
Finally, Koons summarily disposes of the usual Protestant arguments under “other issues.” He notes that the big Protestant objections are relatively minor aspects of Catholicism. For example, the discussion of purgatory takes up only four pages in the Catechism. Koons finds the Lutheran objection to purgatory to be “exceedingly weak.” Lutheranism argues that purgatory creates doubt which is intended to be dispelled by the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. However, purgatory does not create doubt – those who are in purgatory are destined without a doubt for heaven. On the other hand, purgatory is consistent with the many doctrines that teach God's respect for the “integrity of the development of our personalities.” (p. 76.)
As a Catholic, the objection to purgatory seems puzzling. Certainly, we know (a) no one is perfectly sinless at death and (b) no one who is not sinless will enter heaven. This seems to necessitate an in-between state, which some Protestants (e.g., Jerry Walls) acknowledge. The alternative position is problematic. Koons explains:
“The Lutheran conception of glorification embodies a kind of Gnosticism, wrongly identifying our sinfulness with our physical bodies. Lutheran theologians assume that the death of our mortal bodies will, all by itself, free us forever from the propensity to sin, as though sin's reality in our lives is grounded entirely in our physical aspects.” (p. 21.)
Is this true? I suspect that my Lutheran interlocutors would deny this, but the gist of this paragraph seems to answer my conundrum.
Concerning Mariology, Koons notes that Luther held positions identical to Catholic positions and that Catholic Mariology counteracts the “extreme form of monergism espoused by Luther and Calvin.” (p. 79.) Further, Mariology usually acts as a “hedge around the Incarnation.” The Incarnation is ultimately about the involvement of human nature with God in the salvation of humanity. Mariology furthers this concept: “Mary's role as co-redemptrix highlights the fact that Christians are not utterly passive in the process of salvation, i.e., that we genuinely cooperate with God's grace.” (p. 79.)
This is an easily read, fairly slim book of about 150 pages. The language is generally accessible to the lay reader, particularly to those with an interest in theology and/or scripture. There is a wealth of insights that would pay dividends for discussion or contemplation.
