133. The heart of the gospel is not its creeds or codes
133. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL IS NOT ITS CREEDS OR CODES
Sociologists and anthropologists tell us that religion has three dimensions: creed, code, and cult; or words, works, and worship; or theology, morality, and liturgy. Which is the essential dimension of the gospel, or the “new law”, or the Christian religion?
Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost (zoe, eternal life, supernatural life, sanctifying grace, regeneration, the state of grace, being born again), which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law (the gospel) is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost which is given to those who believe in Christ. . . .
Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace; such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law, and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed in our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law (I-II,106,1).
As stated above, there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. . . . The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary, namely the teachings of faith and those commandments which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor 3:6): The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth; and Augustine explains this by saying that the letter denotes any writing that is external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter even of the Gospel would kill unless there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith (I-II,106,2).
Jesus told Nicodemus, the good Pharisee, a teacher of God’s own chosen people, that he did not know the very heart of his own God-established religion, which He called “being born again”, when He said, “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand this?” (Jn 3:10).
Christianity is at its heart extremely simple. (Jesus taught that too, to Martha, who was “worried about many things” and did not know that “one thing is needful”: Lk 10:42.) That one thing is called by many names: divine grace, sanctifying grace, regeneration, being born again, the presence of God, salvation, eternal life, zoe, supernatural life, the state of grace, agape, sanctification, justification, redemption, theosis, the presence of God in the soul, and “the law that is inscribed in our hearts”. Each of these terms speaks a different aspect or dimension of that one single reality, which is the only thing that ultimately and absolutely matters. Everything else is a means to that end or a consequence of it. All creeds, codes, and cults are for that, and about that. Everything is good when it is a cause or an effect of that. Everything is bad when it is a cause or an effect of the lack of that. As St. Thomas says, the New Law contains many things “of secondary (yet great) importance” since these all either “dispose us to receive” that “grace of the Holy Ghost” or “pertain to the use of that grace”.
St. Thomas was not a legalist, as the Protestant Reformers often thought. Like them, he clearly taught that the Gospel was essentially this “inward” or “spiritual” reality, which “gives life” while the “letter” of the law without the inner spirit “kills” (2 Cor 3:6). Only the real presence of God in the soul, not orthodox beliefs, or moral obedience, or right sacramental worship, is what reconciles us to God. The rest was important only because it was about that, as either its cause or its effect. Luther and Calvin rightly reminded us of that primary fact, a fact the Church had always taught. They were wrong to reject the secondary things but right to emphasize the absolutely primary thing. From the Catholic point of view, therefore, they were more right than wrong.