“Conscience is central for [Newman] because truth stands in the middle,” Ratzinger said then. “Conscience signifies the perceptible and demanding presence of the voice of truth in the subject himself.”
In that sense, Ratzinger argued, it’s a mistake to style Newman as a patron saint of dissent.
For Newman, Ratzinger argued, “A man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.”
That led Ratzinger to identify two standards for a genuine sense of the role of conscience.
“First, conscience is not identical to personal wishes and taste,” he said. “Secondly, conscience cannot be reduced to social advantage, to group consensus or to the demands of political and social power.”
That, in effect, is the version of John Henry Newman whom Benedict beatified this morning. In some ways this was a classically “Ratzingerian” moment, a theologian-pope embracing and extolling another towering Catholic intellectual, rather than a devotional figure who embodies popular religiosity.
I apologize at the beginning for my question, because it is only tangentially about Newman. This summer my wife was reading Newman’s novel *Loss and Gain* and puts something like the following question in the mouth of one of the characters: How is post-conversion sin by the believer forgiven? The idea, as I understand it, is that because post-conversion sin is not forgiven at the time of conversion, a believer must confess the sin to receive forgiveness. If I understand the issue accurately, it seems to me that the issue of post-conversion sin is part of the reason RC makes reconciliation a sacrament. With regard to Newman, I understand that this was one of many questions that led him out of Protestantism into Roman Catholicism. It is an interesting question to me and I am posting this comment to ask for some guidance or recommendations for reading on this issue from a Protestant perspective. Thanks to anyone that can help enlighten me.
#1. I don’t understand your question. Do you mean, how is post Baptismal sin forgiven? Baptism does forgive all sin up to the present- both inherited (original) and actual (committed) sin. But there has to be some access to absolution after Baptism since we continue sinning. Otherwise, we end up putting off Baptism to the deathbed, or we become libertines that believe we can do anything we want since all forgiveness was contained in that one sacrament.
There’s a very good article and discussion on this at Called to Communion http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/
hopefully you find it addresses your questions. I think it should!
# 2. I think that you understood my question. Your answer was directly on point. However, your answer does indicate an ambiguity in my initial question. I read your answer as a catholic answer in line with what Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism would say. I wasn’t really thinking about the Anglo-Catholic tradition, but the low church, or evangelical, Anglican tradition, out of which Newman initially came, I think. As a follow up to your response, what happens if we pass with unconfessed, post-baptismal sin? Would that sin threaten salvation?
# 3. Thanks for the reference. I will follow it up.
#4. okay. I think I understand now, and you’re right that I gave the standard catholic answer. As to your question: dying with unconfessed mortal sins would place one’s soul in jeopardy. Only God knows the final end of any give person, though. As for Blessed Newman’s evangelical background- you’re right, although the ‘evangelical’ didn’t mean quite the same thing as it does now. His was a more academic evangelical/ low churchmanship. You might try reading his [i]apologia pro vita sua[/i] if you want a full answer to your question. He explains conversion in his own words. That work also gives you some deep insights into his issues with the CoE of the era. Helped me understand the need for the Tract of the Times and esp. Tract 90.
# 3. Thanks for the reference. I looked it, and it was exactly the issue that I have been thinking about from my reflections on Newman’s novel. That blog, though, is thoroughly catholic, and I am looking for some protestant, maybe particularly, reformed or evangelical responses to the reality of post-conversion, or post-bastismal, sin.
We are having a discussion over this question in our Friday small group at the evangelical low church I attend. What fun. Some in our group take justification through Christ’s death on the Cross to be eternal and something which can not be lost by us, and others believe if we fail to repent of sins which we commit after turning to God (or, perhaps, baptism) we are actually mocking Christ’s great sacrifice. The latter is what is accepted doctrine at the church we attend.
As indicated by our debate, there is no single “Protestant” answer. The article on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)]Justification[/url] at Wikipedia may help explain where Christians agree and disagree – and perhaps why.
#6, yes, CtC is unabashedly Catholic, however, many of the Reformed commentors there have their own blogs as well, which may provide what you’re looking for. Generally I’ve seen a very high quality of dialogue there from both sides that’s been an enjoyment to read (if occasionally hard to wade through given some of the commentors high level of discourse and the length of some of their comboxes!)