Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug? (part 2)

Sorry about that break in transmission.

To add to the weight of Kung's theory that we should all just get along, Karl Barth wrote a letter to Kung (that Kung has placed in the front of his book) saying that what Kung says about his doctrine is all accurate. He's not twisted anything that Barth believes.

Sounds good, doesn't it! A protestant and Catholicism agreeing on Justification!

Unfortunately, it's not as good as all that.

Firstly, Kung's version of Catholicism isn't what the infallible words of the Pope (backed up by the council of Trent) actually teach. It's the opinion of some modern (and more Biblical) Catholic scholars, but not the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. More's the pity.

Secondly, the bits of justification that Kung is dealing with are so narrow as to make it pretty easy to get agreement on it. They essentially are both anti-Pelagian, and that's about as broad as the agreement can be said to extend. Alistair McGrath has noted that in this sub-section of doctrine, even Calvin and the Catholic church could be said to agree! Even I agree that Manchester United play football, kinda.

Lastly, the implications of the doctrine of justification, all the things that are implied by it, are massively different across the protestant and Catholic divide. While the words may be the same, the implications are a world apart.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug?

Hans Kung, in his doctoral thesis "Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection", proposed that the Protestant Karl Barth was in 'fundamental agreement' with the Catholic teaching on the issue of Justification.

Essentially, he's saying: Why are we all arguing? Protestants and Catholics have overdone the differences between us just in order to keep a difference between us. Why not recognise that we're more similar than we think and just get along?

To be continued... chatting with my wifey. Sorry to keep you in suspense.

In whose judgement

There is an interesting ambiguity in Paul's grammar in Romans 3:4. The NIV reads:

Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

While the quote reads a little differently in the ESV:

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

The change of the final word makes us ask: "Is God judging, or being judged?". We'll go into the fascinating use of Psalm 51 in this chapter tomorrow, but for today it will suffice to ask the question, "in whose judgement?".

Why did the different translations choose to make the meaning of the words different?

The answer is that in Greek the phrase is ambiguous. The words are:

kai nikeseis en tw krinesthai se

Or, word for word translated,

and be victorious in the judging you

So is the phrase objective or subjective? Is it 'in your judging' with God doing the judging of with God being judged?

The implications of the decisions are interesting (though not completely earth-shattering). The change from the NIV to the ESV brings the verse to mean that when God stands trial his testimony will always be found true, and the verdict will always display him victorious. In any proceedings. The implications of this are vast, especially given our propensity not to trust God. There is no situation we find ourselves in in which God's words and actions will not be shown to be right.

With context being the basis for the decision as to which we should go with, we've got plenty to help us think through the answer, especially given that it's an OT quote. But that's for tomorrow...