Within my British PhD work, I found
Roman Catholic Theologian, Alan Schreck quite useful academically, and have
relied on Roman Catholic scholarship a fair amount in my academic work, on and
offline, even with my somewhat different Reformed views. I also
documented work from Roman Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft along
with Ronald Tacelli.
---
Tradition
Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck
states his Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God,[1] but
does not believe that the Bible is the only source of Revelation and spiritual
guidance for Christians.[2] A
dividing point between Protestants and Catholics comes with Schreck’s idea that
God within Catholic thought continues to select certain individuals that teach
with God’s authority through the Holy Spirit.[3] Protestant and those within the Reformed
camp have, at times throughout history disagreed, with the Biblical and
theological interpretations of certain Roman Catholic leaders, in particular
the Pope,[4] believed
to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.[5]
Trinity
Alan Schreck demonstrates the Catholic
view is quite similar to Reformed on this issue as he explains it is a central
belief of his Church,[6] and that the early Church comprised the word Trinity from the
Biblical idea for the one God consisting of three equal and distinct divine
persons.[7]
Baptismal
Regeneration
Concerning the idea of baptismal
regeneration, Schreck explains that Roman Catholics view infant baptism ‘as
normally the first step in accepting God’s salvation.’[8] He admits that the New Testament does not explicitly state
whether or not infants or children were baptized,[9] but it is possible they were as
‘whole households’ are mentioned in the New Testament as receiving baptism.[10] He reasons that there is no solid evidence that before the third
century infants and children were baptized in the Church,[11] but by the fifth century this
practice was universal in the Church.[12] The theological hope with the practice of infant baptism is that
the initial stages of regeneration have taken place through the faith of the
parents,[13] as Schreck notes ‘Jesus does
respond in this way when infants and children are baptized.’[14] In the baptism process it is Christ that saves, and therefore
salvation is not merited.[15] Whale reasons infant baptism
demonstrates that Christ did something for a person, without waiting for human
approval.[16] Rebaptism[17] would never be needed as although
baptized Roman Catholics can turn from the faith, if they do turn back to
Christ the initial baptism is sufficient.[18] The sacrament of infant baptism is one of the ‘foundational stones
of Church.’[19]
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard reason it is not Biblically clear what type of baptism should be practiced.[20] Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture directly,[21] and therefore it can be deduced the same could be stated for the associated concepts of baptismal regeneration with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, legitimate theological inference leads to concepts of infant baptism,[22] and so there are also historical arguments for baptismal regeneration within the Christian community which includes Catholic,[23] Eastern Orthodox, and even in some cases Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal.
BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing
SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
[2] Schreck (1984: 42). Strictly speaking as noted, those in
Reformed theology do trust in non-Biblical truths for spiritual guidance.
Calvin admitted this in the context of Scripture and tradition. Calvin
(1543)(1996: 64). I should also add that any reliance on philosophy
and philosophy of religion is not strictly Biblical and I and
many Reformed scholars look to philosophy for truth.
[4] Calvin explains, within The Bondage and Liberation of the
Will, his opinion that at that point in history the Papacy was beyond
Reform. Calvin (1543)(1996: 17).
[11] Schreck (1984: 127). G.W.
Bromiley writes that Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254)
were Church Fathers that could be traced back to the Apostles, and these men
practiced infant baptism. Bromiley (1999: 116). If Irenaeus did
practice infant baptism, this would trace the practice to the second century.
[19] Whale (1958: 158). Whale
does not view infant baptism as mere dedication or as a rite effecting
regeneration and so his position is not identical to Schreck’s, although he
does support the sacrament being practiced.
God and Sovereignty
Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most
serious problem in the world,[1] and is a very serious objection
to theism.[2]
Roman Catholics Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994) suggest that
God faces no real barriers in actions he wishes to commit, and that only what
God allows, such as human sin, could thwart God’s plans.[3]
They note if God did not allow human
beings the option to misuse their freedom, they would not be human but animal
or machine[4] having less value than creatures that had the potential to be
persuaded by God to follow him, and turn from wrong doing.[5]
Satan
Kreeft, working with Ronald K. Tacelli,
states Satan is a deceiver of humanity,[6] and this implies the assumption that Satan has personality.[7]
In Regard to Calvinism
They note that some, but not all, forms
of Calvinism subscribe to a view of hard determinism that denies any human free
will.[8] I would reason that in light of their statement[9] that most Calvinists are not hard
determinists.[10]
On Desires and Freewill
Kreeft and Tacelli approach desires in a similar way as Mele as they
state that human beings have innate desire for natural things such as food and
drink,[11] and external desires such as
sports cars and political office.[12] Kreeft and Tacelli’s innate desires concept would somewhat
correspond to Mele’s intrinsic ones as these would be the inner most human
desires.[13] Kreeft and Tacelli’s external
desires would be similar to Mele’s extrinsic desires,[14] which would be secondary desires fulfilled in order to fulfill the
deepest human desires.[15]
Immanence and Transcendence
Kreeft and Tacelli explain that God’s
immanence means the creator must give created beings what they need.[16] If God was not actively communicating being[17] to all his creation, his creation
would cease to exist.[18]
It is stated that God as transcendent is not part of the material
universe.[19] God is ‘other’ than his creation
yet maintains it as transcendent.[20]
Universalism
Kreeft and Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and
has been considered by some well-known orthodox Christians over the centuries[21] as a viable alternative to hell,
although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this alternative.[22]
KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals
of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI
(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois,
InterVarsity Press.
MELE, ALFRED R. (1996) ‘Extrinsic
Desire’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
[5] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994:
138).This assumes incompatibilism but it is true that human beings would be
vastly different with significantly less freedom due to divine determining
factors.
[10] My research demonstrates that hard determinism is problematic for
the majority of Calvinists and those within Reformed theology because Scripture
(Romans 1-3, for example) condemns persons for sin and holds them morally
accountable. Therefore, persons must at least freely embrace their own actions
within soft determinism in order for punishment to be just.
[17] Kreeft and Tacelli with the use of
the word ‘being’ are stating that God, in an abstract sense, is communicating
himself to his creation.
[22] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286).
Edited from
Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010), The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.
