Prepared to Answer Gordon Ferguson Pt. 5

Chapters four and five deal with the same theme: soteriology, or, salvation, and the relationship between faith, works, grace, repentance, etc. I’ll be dealing with chapter four and appendix II here, and chapter five in my next post. It doesn’t take a paragraph before Ferguson begins to salivate at the thought of straw-men. He writes, “Although their theologians can quote certain writings which seem to support a more biblical position regarding works and grace, the average Catholic has little grasp of the biblical message.”
But isn’t this true of just about anything? Aren’t the academics generally more learned and precise than the laity, by definition? Now, I’m willing to be gracious here and say, Maybe, in the Church, we are all supposed to have a basic understanding of what our faith teaches. In this regard, I don’t deny a thing. I agree. The catechesis, generally, is in bad shape. I myself have had that terrible catechesis, yet I emerged fine, even to the point where I fact-check just about everything Ferguson is claiming about Catholicism, which is a lot for someone with a family, school, job and church! 

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (you may have heard of him, he was Pope Benedict XVI) is quoted, and as I mentioned, I’m trying to fact-checking Ferguson on everything, and unfortunately, it seems like him and I are using different editions of the CCC. His footnote says he is quoting from page 487, however I find that passage in page 541-542 in my edition (I mention this because this was irritable to locate it and I want you to recognize my work!). He quotes Part 3, Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3, paragraph 2010 (in case you want to follow along with whatever edition you have) which reads, “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and the attainment of eternal life.” Ferguson is too simplistic in his assessment when he declares, “This system teaches, in many ways, that a person is to ‘work off’ of his sins and earn the favor God.” 

But of course, the CCC would contradict even this understanding. Paragraph 2007, three paragraphs before the one Ferguson quoted, reads, “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.” Then paragraph 2008 continues, “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predisposing and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.” With a better understanding of this context, we can see it’s not as preposterous as Ferguson would like us to imagine. God saves us, through no merit of our own, and so long as we stay in that state of grace, we can then obtain other things, like it says in paragraph 2010, which Ferguson didn’t finish quoting, “Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom.” Health and friends have nothing to do with salvation, but are related to merit. Perhaps a better way to understand this is to “store up treasures in heaven”. We don’t deserve heaven in the first place, nor anything in it, but so long as we have Jesus’ grace, and we remain in that grace, we have heaven and can now store up treasures in heaven, or whatever else we merit. So I ask, has Ferguson deliberately misrepresented the Catholic position, after all what I quoted was on the same page in the CCC that Ferguson quoted, or did Ferguson just not do his homework? 

Ferguson quotes Gibbons on a statement of purgatory, telling us that such a doctrine arises because we Catholics have a lack of understanding of how grace works. When I read Gibbons, as Ferguson quotes him, however, I see a slightly different topic being discussed, and I probably see this because I understand Catholic teaching, whereas Ferguson obviously does not. I wish I had Gibbons’ book so I can do further fact-checking, but…eh. Gibbons could be talking about either the distinction between venial sin and mortal sin, or on temporal punishment and eternal punishment, which are both directly related. I’m sure Ferguson is not ignorant of this because he quotes Gibbons in the next chapter uses these words when the topic of indulgences comes up. Because this topic is mentioned more in passing in this chapter, and dealt with more directly in the next chapter, I’ll leave this alone for now, but I will go into the distinctions and differences in my next post. 

With this caricature of Catholicism in place, Ferguson goes on to show that we are indeed saved by grace, and certainly by faith, but not by faith alone either, as explicitly declared in James, though this latter part not addressed by Ferguson. So Ferguson can quote these passages if he’d like, but the Catholic won’t be fazed because he will agree that we are saved by grace, and faith is a necessary condition for that. So, there is no need to really get into detail about here since these criticisms don’t apply. 

There is a confusion on Ferguson’s part, and it can be pinpointed. He writes, “…we work because we are saved (if, in fact, we really are).” It can be put thus: If we are saved, then we do good works. Being saved is the antecedent, and the good works is the consequent. However, Catholics do good works because we realize it is a necessary condition. Consider this proposition: If we do not do good works, we are not saved. This logically follows by rule of modus tollens. However, when you read that statement, it is tempting to say: We are saved because of our good works. But that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This may be why we focus on our works, because they are necessary. They are not alone sufficient, nor will any amount of works qualify us for heaven, but their absence can disqualify us. I think this can be inferred by reading James. 

Galatians 3:10 is cited as an example of trusting works over faith, but a cursory reading of Galatians will reveal that Paul was talking about the Mosiac law, which had to do with the old covenant versus the new, and so has no relevance to the topic of the relationship between works and faith. 

Ferguson writes, “…a part of this walk in the light is a continued confession of sin, thereby remaining dependent on the mercy of God.” When G.K. Chesterton was asked why he converted to Catholicism, he said he did so because he wanted his sins forgiven. He was talking about confession. So it is really strange when Ferguson’s next sentence is, “Now that is good news! But it is not Catholicism.” I don’t mean to laugh, but…LOL. It is my understanding that the practice of confession is one of the hardest things for a non-Catholic Christian to accept. Now of course, the difference is, these people think they can confess to the deity without having gone through the Bishops or their deputized Priests. But it is unanimous, we must confess our sins in order to be forgiven for our sins committed after baptism. Exactly how that is done is disputed, but that’s a secondary, though very important, issue, which I will tackle more directly in the next post. So, confession is very Catholic. And that is good news indeed. 

I chuckled when I read, “I have talked to many Catholics about these matters, and I have yet to find one who understood much at all about these vital concepts.” I know I’m not quoting the Bible here, but I feel as though this captures what I want to communicate, “Hello. Is it me you’re looking for? I can see it in your eyes. I can see it in your smile…” LOL 

Infant baptism is the subject of the next section. Ferguson claims that infant baptism began in the third century. But this incorrect. If Catholics are correct, then it dates all the way back to the apostles, and what we’re trying to figure out here is whether or not Catholics are right (right?) and so this is simply question begging. But there is historical evidence to support the Catholic position. Polycarp, born 70 A.D. says, “Eighty and six years I have served Him, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king and savoir?” This should indicate that Polycarp was baptized in the year 70, and so was baptized as an infant. Polycarp was a disciple of the apostles. St. Justin mentions people of 60 to 70 years of age “who were disciples of Christ from childhood", and so must have been baptized in the years 85-95 A.D., which also indicates baptism at a very young age. 

Ferguson says that Irenaeus had the idea of original sin, but it wasn’t until Cyprian that the connection was made to baptize infants. This is also incorrect. Irenaeus himself saw the need to baptize infants. He writes, “For he [Jesus] came to save al through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God,-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Infant baptism was there from very early on in the Church. What is also important to note is that the baptism of infants is not presented as something novel. It was not argued for because it was already assumed. Even Origen writes, “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants.” It did not take until Cyprian to fully develop this doctrine. 

But what did Cyprian say, exactly? The historical context of his remarks can help us understand his statements. Cyprian was caught in a debate, and the question was this: did an infant have to wait a few days in order to receive baptism? See, they understood that baptism replaced circumcision. Circumcision was how one entered the Old Covenant, and baptism was for the New. But, infants could be circumcised. So the inference was that infants could enter the covenant as well. But in the Old Covenant, a child had to wait eight days before he was circumcised to enter the Old Covenant, so the question arises, does an infant also have to wait eight days before baptism to enter the New Covenant? Cyprians answer was clear, No. But you will see that the debate had nothing to do with whether or not baptism could be applied to infants. The very nature of the question assumes that they can, and that they were But if they can, then it was a common practice even before Cyprian. This stands in contradiction to what Ferguson writes on page 53, that infant baptism was not commonly practiced until the fifth century. This is simply falsehood on Ferguson’s part. 

Passages from the New Testament are looked at, and Ferguson claims that all examples of baptism have with them a cognizant faith, and since infants are not cognizant of faith, it follows they cannot be baptized. This is a valid argument, though not sound. The problem is the first premise. The first premise is not necessarily true. There are cases where the Bible records households getting baptized. Ferguson dismisses this as “ambiguous.” But that’s all we’re trying to prove. That it’s ambiguous, and so one cannot say with confidence that infants could not be baptized since infants were included in households. It does not need to be proven that infants we’re present, but just a small enough probability that they were, which is enough to suspend judgment on the first premise. And if you’re suspending judgment, then you can’t advance with this argument against infant baptism. 

Ferguson then goes on to say that because baptism requires faith, infants could not be baptized. But this is question begging, again. The question we’re trying to figure out is whether or not infants could be baptized, which entails that faith is not necessary if you cannot have it. So for Ferguson to then say that faith is necessary in such a case is to assume that Ferguson is right to begin with. But we want to know, is Ferguson actually right? Further, to infer that because some of the baptisms recorded had faith that therefore every baptism ever done required faith is guilty of a hasty generalization fallacy. And as I have shown, is not consistent with the history of the Church. 

Now it is correct that infant baptism is grounded in the doctrine of original in. Ferguson doesn’t deal with this in chapter four, but in an appendix. So let’s look at the appendix. It is interesting to note that Ferguson never actually defines the doctrine of Original Sin. You have to read in-between the lines. Ferguson repeatedly declares that we inherit the consequences but not the actual guilt of Adam. This is wonderful, because the Catholic Church does teach that we inherit the consequences. If Ferguson actually knew what Original Sin was, he would know this. But he insists on attacking straw men, and refuses to understand Catholic teaching. Why? 

To understand Original Sin, it would be beneficial to understand in what state Adam and Eve originally were. Adam and Eve are humans. So, because they are humans, they are naturally entitled to certain things. For example, come a certain point, they ought to have certain cognitive abilities, like thought. If enough time passes and their cognitive faculties aren’t fully developed (maybe they have Down’s Syndrome) we recognize something has gone wrong. Adam and Eve had all these natural gifts. However, God has given them what is known as preternatural gifts, gifts that go beyond their nature. For example, flying is a preternatural gift to a horse. It is not in the nature of the horse to fly, yet if he has it, given to him by God or something, we call this a preternatural gift. Adam and Eve had a preternatural gift, and that gift, perhaps among many, is called Sanctifying Grace. This is grace and favor bestowed upon Adam and Eve that they, as mere humans, were not entitled to. 

When Adam and Eve sin, they lost all their preternatural gifts. The gift of Sanctifying Grace was one such loss. This Grace entitled them to all the heavenly gifts, and now, with their actual sin, they not only fell out of God’s grace, they also fell into his wrath. What is the difference? The confusion, it seems, on Ferguson’s part is that he seems to think that they two are the same. Just because someone doesn’t have God’s grace to go to heaven, it doesn’t follow that he will automatically go to hell. It is not in the nature of man, when he dies, to automatically go to hell. This is not natural nor preternatural. Had Adam and Eve died in the Garden somehow, without God’s Sanctifying Grace, they would have been a state of natural happiness. This is why some Catholics say infants who die but are not baptized enjoy a state of natural happiness. As to what exactly this place is called, no one is sure (some have theorized Limbo) but what we are sure of is that they are not in hell. 

Like Ferguson says, we inherent the consequences. That consequence is the loss of the Original Sanctifying Grace. I had friend from the ICOC say that even this still seemed unfair. So I gave him the following analogy. Let’s say God gave your dad a billion dollars. So long as everything remains the same, you will inherit the billion dollars. However, if God takes away that billion dollars, you cannot say it is not just that you are out one billion dollars. You never deserved that billion dollars in the first place. That was a gift. In the same way, Adam and Eve, and man in general, are not entitled to God’s Sanctifying grace. This is what Original Sin is: the depravation of the preternatural gift of Sanctifying Grace. 

Because Ferguson does not correctly identify Original Sin, his criticisms are straw-man attacks, and so do absolutely nothing to the doctrine of Original Sin and thereby the practice of infant baptism. He goes through an off-the-rail exegesis of Romans, doing hermeneutical gymnastics to make it fit his perception of sin. I won’t go through it all because, as I mentioned, he is partially correct. There are consequences that we do inherit. Physical death is one such inheritance. But physical death is the first sign of spiritual death. There is a spiritual guilt that we do inherit as well. Now, when I read this appendix, I noticed something which I thought was unbelievable, and should really be the nail in the coffin for Ferguson concerning Catholicism. This should be the final and most damning piece of evidence that Ferguson is not being honest. 

In the appendix, Ferguson gives us an interpretive guide to Romans 5:12-21. His pattern is this: The words of God are in bold, and his commentary and interpretive guide is not in bold. It can be said that what is not in bold is not Holy Scripture. Anybody who sees this will agree that this is the pattern Ferguson has set out. Now, as a Catholic, though most of Christendom holds to Original Sin anyways, I would pinpoint, in this entire passage, verse 19 as the most explicit pronunciation of Original Sin. But look at what Ferguson does. Remember, that which is in bold is Holy Scripture, and that which is not Holy Scripture is not in bold. It goes, “For just as disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the man will be made righteous.” Do you see what’s he’s done there?! Do you see how incredible that is?! Do you see how the direct relationship to mankind’s original sin and the acts of Adam is being downplayed!? Do you see how he makes it look like the best and most explicit verse in favor of this doctrine IS MADE TO LOOK LIKE IT IS NOT SCRIPTURE?! Has no one caught this?! I am amazed that this got by anybody! Honestly, I haven’t heard or seen of any disregard for Holy Scripture since Luther! Luther wanted to get rid of the Epistle of James, calling it the “Epistle of Straw” for it’s explicit contradiction to his doctrine of Sola Fide. He also added words to Romans as well, like the word “alone” after the word “faith.” 

Now, one could argue that this was simply a mistake. This is implausible for a couple of reasons. First, Ferguson has pounded the point that Catholics do not know their scriptures. Ferguson presumes that he does, and I have no doubt he can locate a certain passage and give you a verse number along with it. So that he would make an accident like this is not likely. Secondly, that this mistake would occur at the very verse which is fatal to any opponent to the doctrine of Original sin is too large a coincidence. Thirdly, even if it were not intentional, what this does show is that there is cognitive dissonance on Ferguson’s part, and this will have indicated that such analysis has not really taken in the best opposing arguments. 

But that shouldn’t be a surprise by now. 

Finally, the Catholic claims versus the Bible Truths. I’ll go through them quickly. That we can merit grace and work off our sins is not what Catholics claim, and anything resembling that claim will be clarified in the next post. The second claim is that salvation is a very insecure thing and purgatory is necessary to pay off your sins. I’m not sure that this was even a topic in this chapter, and the issue of purgatory will be dealt with in the next post. The third claim deals with Original Sin. Ferguson doesn’t understand what Original Sin is, and so is wasting time. The fourth claim of infant baptism hinges on the third dealing with Original Sin, so there’s little point in talking about it again.