As I made the case in a post below (SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW), I have a
gimlet eye toward all the pressing calls for an ecumenism which demands all
Christians to put aside their differences and come together into one
institutional Church. As you may observe
in the exchanges recounted in this blog, doctrinal differences present critical
impasses that would make the achievement of this project problematic in the
least.
Between Catholics and Lutherans, the doctrine of sola fide is just one of the principle
stumbling blocks. Sola scriptura is another.
Most Catholic theologians as well as Catholic laymen reject these
central Lutheran doctrines out of hand.
This stands somewhat in opposition to the work of Pope Benedict XVI for
whom wishes further dialogue between Rome and Wittenberg would develop an
understanding in which the Augsburg Confession would be finally resolved to be
a faithful expression of the Catholic faith.
The possible basis for such a
resolution is complicated and may be doomed to failure; nonetheless the written
thoughts of Benedict XVI do present an interesting beginning
toward bringing Lutherans and Catholics together.
Not that this cuts any ice for my main correspondent,
Harry. Harry is quite cogent in his
defense of the Catholic Church as the one true depository of the Christian
faith--giving no quarter in our discussions.
As Harry sees it, the Catholic Church holds the unbroken truth set forth
by the Apostles of the early Church. It
is simply impossible that the Church could be mistaken at any time in its history. The Holy Spirit plainly wouldn't allow
it. He additionally holds that the
Reformers (mainly Luther in this case) took the faith and tailor-made their
theologies to suit themselves--sinning against the Holy Spirit through selfish
egotism. Harry does allow that the
corruption within the Church did provide the crucible in which division could
spring forth; but separation from Rome need not have been the result.
For Harry, doctrinal differences provide no excuse for not
accepting the discipline of the Church.
It is the task of all separated brethren to reconcile themselves to the
"unbroken traditions" of Rome and her teaching.
It doesn't take a particularly deep thinker to realize that
Harry's stance does not provide much room for productive dialogue.
Lutherans are quite clear that in many respects the Catholic
Church was and is mistaken. While good
and salutary, works of the Law is are not channels of grace. "Doing" does not make one holy--in
no way can we justify ourselves even in part.
Harry, in classical Catholic regard, holds that works (if only in part)
are necessary for salvation. This goes
against the Lutheran teaching that Christ alone justifies the sinner and that
good works are done in joyous and grateful response to His grace. Harry agrees that we are saved by Christ
alone; but to Lutheran ears he contradicts himself in his insistence on the
saving necessity of works.
The following is for your consideration. Mind that each of our responses' were limited
in length by the editors of FIRST THINGS to roughly 300 works each. Thus a thorough exploration of the issues was
impossible as much as we might have wishes otherwise. Given the parameters of our discussions, much
of what was written was not properly digested.
Looking back, I certain wish I had expressed my thoughts in fresher
ways. A fair observer might note that past a certain point Harry and I are talking past each other. Be that as it may, one can certainly also note Harry gave as good as he got.
Keep in mind that the following messages were in response to Ephraim Radner's thesis that there is no
excuse for Christians gathering in their own Churches. The love Christ demands all His disciples
become "as one". By this,
Radner does not mean a spiritual unity but a institutional unity of one visible
Church--an undivided Body of Christ.
All responses have
been reproduced in their original form--save a few corrections for spelling I
thought were absolutely necessary. An
handful of responses from other writers have been included to supply a little
context. I should also note that First Things did not seem to post some responses entirely in the order they were submitted.
For Christian unity to be genuine it must
also be in union with the Early Church. Any unity contemporary Christianity
achieves that is not also united to that of the Early Church in the essentials
of belief and practice is not "one" in the manner Christ so fervently
prayed we would be.
Christ promised He would send the Holy Spirit
to the Church, Who would lead it to "all truth." The fulfillment of
that promise is in the unanimity of the Early Church Fathers regarding belief
and practice, and in the church of today that remains united to that Church.
St. Irenaeus insisted that that faith be
"preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions
of the bishops" and that it is a "a matter of necessity that every
church should agree with" the "universally known Church founded and
organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” (Against
Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3)
If one believes Christ keeps His promises,
then one must believe the Holy Spirit Who Christ promised the Church is still
within it in spite of the sins of its members, and that in the official
teachings of that Church the promise of Christ that “He who hears you, hears
Me” is fulfilled. That church will be the one in union with the unanimous
belief of the Early Church Fathers, who, by the way, condemned contraception.
“For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in
such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of
Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him.” – St. Augustine
The Holy Spirit's teaching through the Church
has not changed.
There is the parable of the 10 virgins ..the
5 who chose to stay , in the house of the wedding .. .possibly with the mother
and other relatives ..
with enough loving trust for the household ,
that they would be woken up for the return of the bridegroom ...falls asleep ..
and the 5 virgins asking to part away with
the oil
When they return ,with the oil supplied by
the merchants , the Bridegroom not even recognizing them !
The killings in Rwanda were not motivated by any difft .forces other than the
usual author of such - the enemy that comes in, to steal, kill and destroy,
invited in, by the false gods of greed and the related envy ; what led to
healing was , deep repentance , helped by the Apparitions at Kibeho that had
warned on what happens to those who foster hatreds
Thus, the heat there was not of God but of
the enemy .
Wherever there is the light of the fullness
of revealed truth of God's goodness and holiness , there is also the remedy of
true repentance ; dividing up the oil would not do good , as the Lord tell us ,
through the wise virgins .
Harry is right about the need to stay consistent
with the Apostolic Church. When Jesus talked to Peter outside Caesarea Philipi,
He did not say that He was going to build a number of different churches upon
various rocks (the Protestant version). Nor did He tell the Church to go to
some countries and there establish autocephalic churches which could call
various issues for themselves (the Orthodox version). Rather, He told the
Church to go forth to all nations and to teach the same thing throughout all
the World (to observe all He commanded). Matt. 28:18-20.
When the first big dispute came up (Gentile
Circumcision), Paul and Barnabas realized that they or an Antiochean council
could not call the issue for Antioch alone, as they might see fit. Rather, they
went to Jerusalem, presented the issue and Peter made the ruling that was then
confirmed by the entire council after the Judaizer James backed down from the
outre position he had been pushing until Peter made his ruling in reliance on
the authority God had conferred on him as head of the Gentile Mission (Acts
15). That ruling was binding not just on Jerusalem and/or Antioch but on all
places to which it was sent. (Acts 16:1-5)
The teaching authority in the Church has
clearly been passed on through Apostolic Succession as Irenaeus recognized in
the portion of Adversus Haereses quoted by harry. That reliance on Apostolic
Succession is clearly biblically supported. Paul specifically noted how both
authority and the deposit of faith were passed on through the Spirit in the
laying on of hands (2 Tim. 1:5-56, 12-14; 2:1-2) to those entrusted by the
bishops (overseers, such as himself and Timothy).
Harry said: "For Christian unity to be genuine it
must also be in union with the Early Church. Any unity contemporary
Christianity achieves that is not also united to that of the Early Church in
the essentials of belief and practice is not "one" in the manner
Christ so fervently prayed we would be."
So, then, what did "the Early
Church" think about the "divisibility" and
"dividedness" of the Church? Given the existence of heresies, schisms
and "counter-churches" from the Second Century onwards (Marcionites,
Novatianists, Donatists, Egyptian Meletians, Arians, "Nestorians,"
Anti-Chalcedonian Miaphysites, to name only the most prominent between the
Second and Sixth Centuries, and not to mention the Gnostics, who appear to have
rejected the concept of "church"), they must have had a sense of
these things, adumbrating Radner's ideas, right? For the answer, see S. L.
Greenslade's Schism in the Early Church (SCM Press, 1953). I chose Greenslade
(an English Evangelical-ish clergyman and Church Historian) over others,
because (1) he demonstrates clearly and unequivocally in his book that the
Early Church believed that all schisms, once they became inveterate, were from
the Church rather than within the Church; in other words, that the Church was
indivisible; and (2) he deplores and rejects this "universal belief"
of both Church Fathers and founders of "counter-churches" alike
(Marcion, Novatus, Donatus, etc.) as (a) uncharitable and counter to "the
facts" and (b) incompatible with any Protestant and Anglican
ecclesiologies, and rendering the existence of these churches theologically and
historically unjustifiable. Whatever one thinks of the ecclesiological
question, or of Greenslade's "thesis" his book has the merit of being
lucidly and clearly written.
I fail to understand this preoccupation with
"unity". I find it utterly utopian and worthless. Way to much verbal
diarrhea is spent on the mating of the mammoths. One has to accept that we have
the Church we have instead of a Church we want. After centuries of division and
even outright hostility, we have to work on making all Christians work on
making us friendly toward one another. For the foreseeable future, that would
be a significant accomplish in and of itself.
John 17: 20-3
"I do not pray for these
only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may
all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may
be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory
which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we
are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so
that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou
hast loved me.
"
James 5:16
"The prayer of a righteous
man has great power in its effects"
I believe that the Lord's prayer was
answered. He came to establish the Church, which is His Body. As St. Paul asks,
"Is Christ divided?"
How is it some many of you folks who normally
take a careful, nuanced approach to Scripture suddenly turn into rock-ribbed
fundamentalists when it comes to Jesus’ “…may they be one…” prayer made in the
garden? In the same prayer, Jesus asked “…let this cup pass from me…” and He
didn’t get that one either. What makes you think that if He didn’t get one He
necessarily would be granted the other? How does a request made to the Father
turn into unqualified command to us? And does “be one” mean all of us have to
be under one roof?
Given human nature, each of us keeping to
his/her own “house” is the more humane choice over cramming us all together.
One way of looking at it: separate “churches” has been an expedient means of
keeping the peace. No. It is not ideal; but it is what we got.
Besides, am I the only cynical one who starts
to gag every time some church divine weeps great big crocodile tears about the
scandal of a multiplicity of Christian Churches in the eyes of the world? “You
don’t understand, Mick. Unless we’re one, they won’t listen to us.” Oh really?
Do you REALLY, honestly think that if the world doesn’t want to listen it needs
the excuse of a divided Christianity to do so?
Hello, Mick Lee,
"Let this cup pass from me" was a
prayer the answer to which was dependent only upon the will of the Father, to
which Christ was willing to submit: "Not my will but thine be done."
The answer to the prayer, "May they be
one" is dependent upon us, unless God takes away our free wills -- which
He isn't going to do.
To any genuine believer, Christ's fervent
prayer that we be one cannot be treated as though whether we are or not makes
no difference, nor can a genuine believer assume that Christ was mistaken in
praying that we be one, because "each of us keeping to his/her own 'house'
is the more humane choice."
Are you a believer?
Top of the morning to ya, Harry:
If you look to my first comment, I quoted
from Genesis the story about the Tower of Babel. This was not an idle notion.
My suggestion was and is that there are horrendous threats and hazards in an
integrated, monolithic church Given man’s fallen nature, such a Leviathan can
be turned again and again to do much evil. One only has to look to history to
note that the various denominations wielding powerful woe acting on their own.
If looks to history again, one could suppose
that Christ’s request “may they be one” was not granted by the Father because
the Church NEVER has been one—even in the days of the so-called early,
“primitive” Church. Many of those early churches were out rightly heretical and
set to subvert the Gospel. One thing we do know, if the Father did not set the
foundation for a unified Church, it was not going to happen no matter how much
we Christians exercised our precious “free wills”.
What I am suggesting is, if the Church never
was and is “one”, there are concrete reasons for it. There are deep theological
faultlines separating us across which even Christians of good will shall not
skip over and cross for the sake of fellowship.
Which brings us to the unpleasant subject of
rank hypocrisy. It isn’t worth a lot of time refuting the professed pieties of
“may they be one” because such self-appointed prophets don’t really believe in
them. If they did, the Protestants would submit to Rome and Rome would return
to the Orthodox.
As to whether I am a believer, I shall let
the question stand. Our gentle readers and those around me will have to judge
the matter for themselves.
Hello, Mick Lee,
Well, many Christians take the advice of
believers on what is good for the Church much more seriously than the advice of
those who are not willing to even say they are believers. Sorry, but that is
the way it is.
Our fallen nature means there will always be
sinfulness in the Church along with instances of great sanctity; it doesn't
mean we have to be stupid. Meditate on this fact for a while: Everybody being
the final authority is exactly the same as having no authority at all.
We know from the Old Testament God sets up
earthly authority and stands by those He has given authority. Remember the
earth opening and swallowing up those who rebelled against Moses? Christ
Himself taught the necessity of obedience to those in the Chair of Moses. That
has been replaced with the Chair of Peter, the authority established by God
under the New Covenant.
Mick Lee and Harry,
The Church is one, and Jesus' prayer was
answered. I am not talking about people getting over theological faultlines.
Jesus prayed that they may be one even as He and the Father are one; this is a
unity that exists from eternity and can only be entered into (not created by
us).
Jesus' unity w/ the Father is not like the
unity which is advanced by people with wildly different beliefs and ways of
life gathering together in prayer.
The unity that Christ desires to grant
mankind is at the core of why the Son of God incarnated, and of the true
theology of the Holy Communion, Holy Baptism, and the other Mysteries. As to
the example of the "primitive church", I see no indication that
heretical churches were somehow considered part of the Church; St. Paul speaks
of one cup, one faith, one baptism. He and the other writers do not send
letters assuring the readers that their Gnosticism is okay and that we just
need to get over it and be united.
This is why shared communion presupposes a
shared faith and theology.
In such discussions as we are having now,
when someone asks “Are you a believer?” 95 percent of the time it is a thinly
veiled accusation—not a question. For such manipulative indictments I have no
patience. Besides, other people have questioned whether I’m really a Christian
for a lot more entertaining reasons than this one.
Well, Harry, you gave the game away. Chair of
St. Peter, indeed! May I assume that when it comes to somebody having to change
in order for the Church to be “one” it sure won’t be you? I mean, you have an
allegiance to the “chair of St. Peter” you will not give up. If I may hazard a
guess, you also believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church for all
practical purposes to begin with. One Church? Hey! Harry’s already there! It’s the rest of us sad
sacks who’ll have to drop what we’re doing and come over and play ball.
Which illustrates the true nature of all this
bathos concerning a broken Church. Yeah, we all want to be one Church; but the
bottom-line that’s OK as long as it is on "my terms"—and by “my
terms” I mean ultimately what “I” believe is the nonnegotiable truth. Not that
I blame you or anyone else. I am just as “guilty” as anyone in this regard. I
won’t get into the tiresome business of “Pope or Antichrist”, “infallible or
never infallible”, “equal or first among equals”. Been there. Done that. But,
as you are in submission to the authority of the Pope, I would no more abandon
the primacy of Scripture than walk up to a helicopter wearing stilts.
Hello, Mick Lee,
When you imply that Christ was mistaken in
praying that we be one, because, in your opinion, "each of us keeping to
his/her own 'house' is the more humane choice," you invite others to ask
whether or not you are a believer since you make yourself out to be wiser than
Christ our Lord.
The Church didn't finish deciding which books
comprised the New Testament for nearly four-hundred years after it began.
Doctrinal issues were ultimately decided based upon the traditional teaching of
the Apostles and their successors. When St. Vincent of Lerins, a 5th century
monk, pointed out that it seemed as though there were as many interpretations
of Scripture as there were people who read it, and that all the heresies the
Church had dealt with up to his time were based upon private interpretations of
Scripture, he made clear the fundamental problem with Protestantism a thousand
years before it insisted on everybody being their own authority. If Popes are
so bad why have everybody who picks up a copy of the Scriptures declare himself
to be one?
I know many quite sincere, devout Protestants
who have demonstrated their love for Jesus by living out their faith. I believe
they possess the Spirit of Christ and in that sense all who do, regardless of
their denomination, are one. That doesn't change the fact that the visible Body
of Christ on Earth is now dismembered, contrary to the fervent prayer of Jesus
for our unity.
Why object to Christian unity in principle?
Very few do that – due to most Christians wanting what Jesus wanted and prayed
for, and due to the reverence of most Christians for the wisdom of the Son of
God.
Harry: I suppose I should thank you for so willingly
illustrating the thrust of my last comment. You have what I jokingly refer to
as the “John Lennon Syndrome”: “Come
together, Right now, Over me.” Unity is just fine as long as it honors what
“I” think is important and essential. In your case, it is Roman Catholicism.
This is your perfect right to think so and, given your premises, quite logical;
but I and millions across the face of the world don’t share your premises. We
work from quite different grounds and we exercise our birthright to follow them
where they lead. All that this reveals that, in spite of decades of ecumenical
work, we are back at square one.
My own view of the “oneness” of the Church is
very similar to that of Yaakov above. But that gets into the whole matter of
the visible and invisible Church—a distinction most Catholic theologians
historically have not accepted. Besides, all the crying in everyone’s beer over
the “broken Church” is about the visible—not the invisible—Church. It is all
this tearing out of hair and rending of clothes over a disunited, physical
Church I find misguided if not contemptible for its intemperance.
Hi, Mick Lee,
Set aside, for just a moment, your absolute
certainty about my being the victim of my own bias. Using the wildest stretches
of your imagination, see if you can consider the possibility that maybe -- just
maybe -- there is an objective case to be made for working for the restoration
of the visible unity of the Body of Christ, based on the historical facts and
on the wisdom and goodness of the One Who so fervently prayed for that unity.
Protestantism was in part a reaction to
sinfulness in the Church. That it ended in the dismemberment of the Body of
Christ was due to sinfulness on both sides. We don't have to let the effects of
sin prevail forever. Why should we? We can forgive, acknowledge the Spirit of
Christ in each other, and begin the process of the healing of Christ's Body.
Can anyone doubt that that is what Christ wants of us?
A return to those beliefs unanimously held by
the Fathers of the Church, that unanimity being the promised work of the Holy
Spirit, would be as difficult for many Catholics as it would be for
Protestants. It is not like all the work will be on the Protestant side.
More thoughts: The visible disunity is not trivial. It
represents a much deeper disunity. Christianity is rejected as the worldly hear
adherents of the various denominations each claiming the Holy Spirit is the
author of their teachings, when their respective teachings blatantly contradict
each other. This brings the worldly to conclude that either the Holy Spirit is
a very confused being not worth listening to, or He doesn't exist at all.
Christianity was once taken seriously even by
those who didn't believe in it. A serious consequence of confused, dismembered
Christianity no longer being taken seriously by the worldly is the rise of the
modern atheistic, radically secular state, which, being atheistic, acknowledges
no authority above its own. It claims authority over innocent human life that
belongs only to God.
Modern history's record of the slaughter of
millions of innocent human beings, sanctioned by states hostile to theism in
general and to Christianity in particular, make the historical sins of
organized Christian religion seem insignificant by comparison. Yet Christians
giving up on even the attempt at unity is what made and continues to make
possible states that are egomaniacal, self-deified, hostile to theism and
natural law, and lethal to vast segments of innocent humanity.
Shall we shout in unison, “We have no king
but Caesar!” or shall we show the world we have another king, the King of
kings, by our obedience to Him? He made it clear He wants our unity. It is now
easy to see why He so fervently prayed for it.
In my experience, I have observed that
Catholics and Protestants are at complete cross purposes when they speak to each
other about unity. For Catholics, the locus of concern is the Mother Church.
Quite frankly, this offers no end of puzzlement to Protestants. Putting it
crassly, when Protestants bring up doctrinal concerns, the Catholic response is
something on the order of “Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Look. Just come back to Rome and
we’ll sort all this other stuff out later.” To Protestants, this is putting the
cart in front of the horse. The original Protestants didn’t leave Rome so they
could have their own Churches (well…there were a bunch of Protestants on an
island off Europe who pretty much did)—they left for doctrinal reasons. It is
only through doctrinal reconciliation that institutional unity can be achieved.
For Catholics, Protestant stubbornness on this point remains bewildering. Given
the wide tolerance for the differing traditions and movements within Roman
Catholicism, the Protestant obsession with doctrinal purity strikes many
Catholics as invincibly obtuse. (Of course, a little instilling of correction
for these wayward souls would also be in the offing once they come home.)
In the view of the lion's share of
Protestants, the problem with Catholicism is that it obscures the Gospel.
"Returning to Rome" offers no promise at all this would change. To
Lutherans (which I am one), the doctrine of "saved by Grace alone" is
so central to all that Christianity means that its rejection by Roman
Catholicism precludes any opportunity for reconciliation. You may argue with
this; but these are the facts on the ground.
Just a thought. Consider Mark 9: 38-39. It
seems that Jesus is less concerned with institutionalism than you would allow.
Hi, Mick Lee,
Thank you for that thoughtful post. I read
Mark 9:38-39 and will consider it.
Concern with doctrinal purity is not obtuse,
but is to be expected of rational, serious Christians.
Harry: I would like to end our conversation
by thanking you for spending your time expressing your thoughts and concerns. I
would also like to clarify something. While I am nominally a Protestant, I feel
closer to Catholicism along with quite a bit of sympathy with the written
corpus of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. While they give lip-service to
Martin Luther, in truth most Protestants are suspicious of Lutherans—regarding
them as practically Catholic. In turn, Lutherans find that the other Protestant
denominations are positively allergic to what “saved by Grace” alone” actually
means.
Thus I hope you will understand that many of
the things I have conveyed have been painful to write. While Lutherans and
Catholics have been adversaries for most of these past 500 years, our
fellowship together has been much warmer and trusting. Perhaps it is because
the modern world has turned against Christianity--. what threatens one also
threatens the other. But I prefer to think that there are deeper engines which
brings us closer.
As utopian it may be, I do hope for the day
Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox will find their rest in the same home.
I do not think anything close to this will happen in our lifetimes. I very much
doubt it will happen during the lives of my great grandchildren. Our
differences are too deep and the distances we must travel are long and far. But
God has His own purposes. As Father Neuhaus was fond of saying: the Lord writes straight with crooked
lines.
Hello, Mick Lee,
Do you agree, in consideration of the following,
that it is at least understandable why one might think charity in action
(works) is a necessary fruit of saving grace, and its absence is not a good
sign?
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good
fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the
fire. –
Mt 7:18-19
I am the vine, ye the branches; he who is remaining in me, and I in
him, this one doth bear much fruit, because apart from me ye are not able to do
anything; if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without as the
branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and cast to fire, and they are
burned. –
John 15:5-6
For earth, that is drinking in the rain many times coming upon it,
and is bringing forth herbs fit for those because of whom also it is dressed,
doth partake of blessing from God, and that which is bearing thorns and briers
is disapproved of, and nigh to cursing, whose end is for burning. – Heb 6:7-8
Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You
hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not
minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it
to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous
into eternal life. –
Mt 25:44-46
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead – James 2:17
Harry: While the Law is good and laudatory,
it cannot make you holy nor can it save. In short, the Law is not a channel of
Grace. The Law in fact can break you and lead you into despair; because nothing
you can do is good enough before the righteousness and holiness of God. It is
by Grace alone (faith is a gift of Grace) that God chooses the sinner who
is/will be covered in Christ’s righteousness before the throne of God.
It should be noted that Lutherans separate
Justification from Sanctification. Justification is God’s saving action.
Sanctification is becoming like Christ. Sanctification is a work of the Holy
Spirit. Indeed, without faith, even the good we do is counted as sin. (Hebrews
11:6) and “(Romans 14:23). This interpretation of these verses—that works,
unless proceeding from the faithful, are sins in God’s sight, however good they
may appear—is not even particularly Lutheran. St. Augustine says the same as
does St. Thomas Aquinas. The important thing to take away is that the Christian
does good works IN GRATEFUL RESPONSE to Christ’s saving love.
The danger that Lutherans are acutely wary of
is the heretical belief that because one is saved he can do anything he wants.
This is a sign of spiritual death. Instead, the life of the Christian is one of
repentance and becoming more like Jesus. Thus the sign: if the fruit is bitter
or the branch is bare, the tree is poisonous or dead. If the fruit is hopeful,
loving, and faithful, these signs show that the person’s spirit is very much
alive.
Some Catholic theologians have taken to
thinking of Lutheranism as a kind of Christian mysticism. I don’t know about
that. Perhaps you might think there is
something to the notion.
Hello, Mick Lee,
St. Cyprian was born about 205 A.D. His On
Works and Alms was written after he had been Bishop of Carthage for
about five years, and about five years before his martyrdom in 258 A.D. The
horrific Decian persecution of the Church had begun several years before and
his flock was also suffering the effects of a recent devastating plague.
Cyprian, a good shepherd always concerned primarily for the spiritual welfare
of his flock (see his Exhortation to Martyrdom), exhorts them to works of
charity, focusing on the spiritual necessity of their doing good works rather
than on the dire plight of the needy.
An excerpt from On Works and Alms:
“You
are afraid lest perchance your estate should fail, if you begin to act
liberally from it; and you do not know, miserable man that you are, that while
you are fearing lest your family property should fail you, life itself, and salvation,
are failing; and while you are anxious lest any of your wealth should be
diminished, you do not see that you yourself are being diminished, in that you
are a lover of mammon more than of your own soul; and while you fear, lest for
the sake of yourself, you should lose your patrimony, you yourself are perishing
for the sake of your patrimony. …
What the defense for the unfruitful? But when
the servant does not do what is commanded, the Lord will do what He threatens,
seeing that He says: [Harry apparently
forgot to paste his quotation at this point.]
He then cites the ominous words of Christ in
Mt 25:31-46. That salvation can be lost by the failure to do good works was
taught amidst the doctrinal purity of the ancient Church in the midst of
suffering, fierce persecution and martyrdom.
Harry: I fail to see how your last post
really challenges what I written in my earlier post.
Perhaps the relation between faith and good
works can be likened to that of time and a clock. A clock tells about the time
but the clock is not time itself. Similarly, good works can tell us something
about the state of Grace in the believer; but the good works are not faith
itself.
A blood test can tell us a lot about the
blood; but these tests are not the blood.
It is the Grace of God which alone justifies
the sinner before the judgment of God--not the works of the Law. What Lutherans
find so objectionable in your formulation is the suggestion that Christ's
crucifixion was not good enough to entirely save the sinner.
Hi, Mick Lee,
You wrote:
"The
important thing to take away is that the Christian does good works IN GRATEFUL
RESPONSE to Christ’s saving love."
And:
"What
Lutherans find so objectionable in your formulation is the suggestion that
Christ's crucifixion was not good enough to entirely save the sinner."
No such suggestion is made. Christ's
crucifixion was more than good enough to save "the sinner" and all
sinners who have and will ever live on planet Earth and infinitely more. Even
so, Scripture speaks of the saved whose "good works IN GRATEFUL RESPONSE
to Christ's saving love" comes to an end, and who begin to bear bad fruit
instead of good:
"For it is impossible
for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them
again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,
and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that
cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is
dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers
is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." – Heb 6:4-8
No more than what the Scriptures assert is
asserted (not suggested). Fortunately for such as those referred to in Heb
6:4-8, "nothing is impossible for
God,”
and His Son gave hope to those who sincerely repent after they "fall
away" when He told the Apostles of His Church that “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them.”
Hi, Mick Lee
Take a look at this when you have a minute:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html
it is some thoughts of Benedict XVI entitled
"The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith."
Dear Harry:
Perhaps you may understand my apprehension. After contrasting Lutherans and Catholics, I
wrote: “To Lutherans …the doctrine of
‘saved by Grace alone’ is so central to all that Christianity means that its
rejection by Roman Catholicism precludes any opportunity for reconciliation.”
You then followed:“Do you agree… that it is at least understandable why one might think
charity in action (works) is a NECESSARY fruit of saving grace…”
A little latter, you also wrote: “…SALVATION CAN BE LOST BY THE FAILURE TO DO
GOOD WORKS was taught amidst the doctrinal purity of the ancient Church….”
In Lutheran theology, the word “necessary”
and the phrase “lost by the failure to do good works” throw up all sorts of red
flags.
Indeed, in the December 1999 issue of First Things, Avery Dulles S.J. (Later
Cardinal Dulles) wrote an article (Two
Languages of Salvation: The Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration) which
was quite critical of the Lutheran doctrine on justification. Father Dulles was
not just voicing his opinions. He was reflecting an analysis of the Vatican’s
Official Response to the Joint Statement On Justification.
In one telling instance, Dulles stated that, while the doctrine of “saved by
faith alone” was accepted in Roman Catholicism, it must be harmonized with
other doctrines within the rule of faith. Dulles also questioned whether
Lutheran positions as explained in the Joint Declaration really
escaped the anathemas of the Council of Trent.
One of Father Dulles main contentions is that
Lutherans and Catholics use the same words but mean entirely different things
by them. Thus even when we agree, each has a niggling suspicion we actually
don’t. In my case, I have misgivings as to what you really mean. I don’t
believe you are being deceptive—far from it. We just approach Scripture from
entirely different perspectives.
I looked at the "Joint Declaration"
the other day. Quite frankly (and I admit this sounds arrogant ;o) I think you
and I quite honestly discussing the issues involved may shed more light on the
subject for average Lutherans and Catholics than the "Joint Declaration"
did.
I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and will be happy to continue it if
you would like to do that and if you think it might be helpful to others reading
along -- who I hope feel free to contribute to the discussion.
Hi, Mick Lee,
An excerpt from the Benedict XVI's thoughts I mentioned previously:
"...
Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith
in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ,
being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the
life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter
into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he
primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that
works through love."
From Galatians 5
"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts
for anything, but only faith working through love. ... serve one another
through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You
shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
From Romans 13:
"... he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. ... and if
there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ... therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law."
The works of Old Law cannot save us. But the
fulfilled Law is a law of love in action -- works of charity. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Obedience to the
fulfilled Law is required for salvation.
Agree?
I should have said, "Obedience to the
fulfilled Law is required for the maintenance of our salvation." We
are initially saved only by the grace of God.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Surely that fulfilled law -- the law of love
-- is binding.
Harry: Before I go any further, a few more
lines from Cardinal Dulles:
John
Paul II in his encyclical on ecumenism reaffirms these principles and insists
that theological dialogue must take account of the ways of thinking and
historical experiences of the other party. Assertions that reflect different
ways of looking at the same reality, he says, should not be treated as though
they were mutually contradictory.
According
to an older theological model, ecumenism would aspire to take the statements of
the Lutheran Book of Concord and those of the Catholic councils one by one, and
examine them atomistically and fit them into a single internally coherent
system. What seems to be surfacing is a willingness to acknowledge that we have
here two systems that have to be taken holistically. Both take their departure
from the Scriptures, the creeds, and early tradition. But they filter the data
through different thought-forms.
The
Catholic thought-form, as expressed at Trent, is Scholastic, and heavily
indebted to Greek metaphysics. The Lutheran thought-form is more existential,
personalistic, or, as some prefer to say, relational. The Scholastics adopt a
contemplative point of view, seeking explanation. Luther and his followers,
adopting a confessional posture, seek to address God and give an account of
themselves before God. In that framework all the terms take on a different hue.
For a Lutheran to say that we are merely passive in receiving justification,
that we are justified by faith alone, that justification is an imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, that the justified continue to be sinners, that
concupiscence is sin, that God's law accuses us of our guilt, and that eternal
life is never merited—all these statements are possible and necessary in the
Lutheran system. These statements find strong resonances in the Catholic
literature of proclamation and spirituality.
Harry:
In Luke 10:26 Jesus speaks "He said to him, “What is written in the law? How
do you read?” The significant phrase for our purpose is "How do you read?" Indeed, the key is
how we read the text.
In Matthew 5:26, Jesus said: "Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you
are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and
the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, YOU WILL
NEVER GET OUT TILL YOU HAVE PAID THE LAST PENNY.
Also, in Matthew 5:48, Jesus says "BE YE THEREFORE PERFECT, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER WHICH
IS IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT."
These are pointers to an important
theological truth.
It is impossible to pay every penny. It is
impossible for us to be perfect. This leads each man to the breaking point and
despair. To where do we turn for rescue? God is so other and so holy that
nothing unclean and sinful can approach him--much less know Him. Thus
everything we really know about God was revealed to us on the cross. In His
sacrifice, every penny has been paid. As our advocate before the Father, Jesus
covers us in His righteousness so that we may approach the Father as He sits on
His Judgment throne.
In Lutheran teaching, there are no "ifs,
ands, or howevers" to this. The central question is how do I, a sinful
man, justify myself to a holy God? The answer is by Christ alone. Our attempts
to justify ourselves all or in part is sinful in itself and doomed failure
before we even start. Therefore to state obedience to the fulfilled Law is
required for the "maintenance of our salvation." is mistaken.
"that concupiscence is sin"
It is an inclination to sin, not sin itself,
right? Sin requires willfully, knowingly doing something that is wrong, or
neglecting to do a good work one is obligated to do (sins of omission). Good
angels do not have a fallen nature to contend with. To behave as we should in
spite of our concupiscence, overcoming our inclination to sinful
self-centeredness, shows our love for God in a way the angels cannot.
"God
is so other and so holy that nothing unclean and sinful can approach him--much
less know Him."
Well yes, but He went to a lot of trouble (taking on human nature and all that
that would lead to in the end) so the unclean and sinful would approach Him. He
scandalized many by inviting those everybody knew were sinners into His
presence -- so they could come to know Him.
"The
central question is how do I, a sinful man, justify myself to a holy God?"
Respond, however imperfectly, to His love.
That is what He wants. A response. He made it clear we could respond in a way
acceptable to Him by loving Him in His least brothers and sisters. For that we
would receive the reward prepared for us "from the foundation of the
world." He made it just as clear that those who did not respond to His
plight in His least brethren would be sent into "everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels." Therefore obedience to the
fulfilled Law -- the law of love -- is required for the MAINTENANCE of our
salvation.
The Old Law was summed up as one of love of
God and neighbor. So is the new. Yet there is a huge difference. It is now God
Himself we love in our neighbor. And it is God incarnate again doing the
loving: "It is no longer I who live but Christ Who lives in me." His
risen, glorified humanity is mingled with ours in the Eucharist, and His Spirit
animates our humanity when our willful spirits have fallen into the ground and
died like a grain of wheat -- allowing Christ's Spirit to reign in us bearing
much good fruit.
Harry:
Sin is our rebellion against the Lord and we
are sinful through and through. We are fallen beings born in Sin. Sin is in our
very nature. Murder, theft, lying, etc. strictly speaking are the results of
Sin. Our inclination to sin is counted as Sin. This includes our thoughts,
feelings and imaginations. This is the
meaning of original sin.
"we
are sinful through and through"
We are creatures of a good God. God doesn't
make evil creatures. We are basically good because we are the creatures of a
good God. Humanity's basic goodness was corrupted, not completely destroyed, by
the fall. And since then God has made us temples of the Holy Spirit, sharers in
the Divine Life, united to the humanity and divinity of His Son -- regenerated
into a new creation. We have been "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the
word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) The Word of God is not
impotent:
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Is 55:11)
Give God's Word some credit for having accomplished something.
Yes, we have a fallen nature. We also have
been given the grace to overcome it if we choose to do so. Not that we will
ever completely succeed at that: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us."
(1 Jn 1:8) Not being without sin is one thing; being sinful through and through
is quite another. We can, by God's grace, do better than that.
I have read and have been told that in
Catholicism a thought/temptation for sin is not in itself a sin. I don’t know
if that is necessarily so; but in Lutheranism such thoughts and temptations
result from man’s broken nature. They are sin because they proceed from a
sinful heart.
“We are basically good because we are the
creatures of a good God”. To this, one could ask: “If we are basically good,
then why the Cross? Then why do we die?” We should go after these questions
root and branch.
Since St. Augustine, one of the central
Biblical passages establishing the doctrine of Original Sin has been Psalm 51:5
“ Behold, I was brought
forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This means all men are
conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and
inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true
fear of God and true faith in God.
Consider Romans 7:18-19: FOR I KNOW THAT NOTHING GOOD DWELLS WITHIN ME,
that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do
not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
After the Fall, man can do good as men call
good; but such righteousness is wickedness in the eyes of a Holy God. Think
over Romans 14:23b: “for whatever does not
proceed from faith is sin.”
Being sinful through and through? It is only through faith and the Holy Spirit
that one can do what is righteous (let alone choose) in the eyes of our Holy
Father. Yes. Through and through.
Consider the thought of Hippolytus (died ca.
A.D. 236) in his Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, Chap 29-30:
“This
Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth ... we know to have remodeled
the old man by a new creation. ... if He were not of the same nature with
ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. ... In
order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different from us, He even
underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger [thirst, etc.] He did not
protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His
resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own
manhood, in order that you, when you are in tribulation, may not be
disheartened, but, confessing yourself to be a man (of like nature with the
Redeemer), may dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has
granted unto this Son. ... you have been deified, and begotten unto
immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, Know yourself; i.e.,
discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. ...
For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from
human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. … And provided you obey His
solemn injunctions, and become a faithful follower of Him who is good, you
shall resemble Him ...”
The ancient belief of the Church is that the
regenerated Christian – provided we obey Christ's solemn injunctions (like
caring for Him in His least brethren) – resemble Christ and share in His divine
nature. That doesn't sound like being “sinful through and through.”
As Kierkegaard remarked: "Purity of the heart is to will one thing".
And yet the truth is that before the resurrection to come our hearts harbor all
sorts of mixed motives. That is because, as Paul writes, while the Old Adam has
been put to death and we have been made new creatures in Christ, the old Adam
still lurks within us.
How can we judge for ourselves whether a good
work we do comes from a regenerate heart or a selfish one? How would you
"discover God within yourself" and know He was actually God when the
old Adam believes he is God? The human heart is very deceptive--and even
deceives itself much of the time. Moreover, in terms of
"maintenance", how would you ever know when enough good work was
"enough" to keep your salvation?
Harry:
What I am delving into and into which you are
responding, reflects one of the major faultlines between Lutheranism and
Catholicism: What is man’s nature when he is renewed?
According to our reading of Scripture, the
true Christian, the regenerate man, is at once a sinner and a saint (Iustus et
peccator simul). Once a man believes in God and His risen Christ, the Christian
is declared righteous by God even though he still has a sinful nature. Upon
glorification, he is made morally perfect. Catholicism vigorously objects to
this reading.
We also hold along with St. Augustine the
doctrines of the “total depravity”. That is, after the Fall, man’s focus and
pursuit is himself rather than God—he has made himself his own god. This is
man’s total sinfulness. There is nothing lovely about man. Yet the miracle is
God loves man even though there is absolutely nothing to recommend him. Grace
is thoroughly undeserved.
How does one know he is saved? It isn’t
because of great charity. It isn’t for “spiritual purity”. It isn’t for great
faith. We know we are saved because GOD HAS TOLD US WE ARE. We must trust God’s
pronouncement rather than any reliance our own evaluation or the judgment of
others. We must gaze to His Word rather than looking into ourselves to find a
divine spark that isn’t there.
P.S. Compared to St. Augustine, Lutherans do
not have much regard for Hippolytus. While we have great respect for the early
Church fathers, we find a great deal of what they have written to be undigested
and hardly definitive. You might consult your own Father John Henry Newman’s “The
Development of Doctrine” to gain some insight as to what we may
mean by this.
"According
to our reading of Scripture ..."
That is the problem. YOUR reading of
Scripture, where it contradicts the interpretation of the Scriptures believed
and taught by the Apostolic Church consistently from the beginning, is only
that: Your reading of Scripture.
"How
does one know he is saved? ...
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling."
(Philippians 2:12)
Apparently it is presumptuous to just assume
you are saved, if you haven't "always obeyed" and haven't repented of
that. We have a new law of love: "A new command I give you: Love one another." The new law of love
cannot be disregarded without losing your salvation. That is the ancient and
consistent belief of the Church.
"Compared
to St. Augustine, Lutherans do not have much regard for Hippolytus."
Obviously. I have deliberately cited Fathers prior to Augustine. Christianity
had been around for centuries before Augustine. It is fatal to proceed as
though theological thought began with Augustine.
"You
might consult your own Father John Henry Newman’s 'The Development of Doctrine'”
"I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (Jn 16:12-13)
If the Holy Spirit was to guide the Church to
the truth, there would necessarily be development of doctrine. That development
never contradicts what the Holy Spirit has already taught through the Church,
it only deepens it. That obedience to the law of love is no longer required for
salvation is an utterly new thought that blatantly contradicts what had gone
before.
One issue is the position that once one is
saved there is nothing one can do that would cause one to lose one's salvation.
This position is contrary to Heb 6:4-8, which speaks of the saved who fall
away. I cited those verses previously.
However one interprets the “impossibility” of
renewal for those who “are fallen away” in Heb 6:4-8, it is clear that one can
indeed fall away, and presumably if one dies in a “fallen away” state without
having repented, one's “end is to be burnt.”
I assume all would agree that if one is
“fallen away,” and persists in a serious sin of omission or commission, and has
no intention of repenting and seeking the renewal of his salvation,
wholeheartedly rejecting God, he will not when he dies be dragged kicking and
screaming into heaven as he blasphemes and curses God. God would instead honor
his free will.
To fall away due to grave sins of omission or
commission and to persist in them without any intention of repenting, resisting
the Holy Spirit as though He is an unclean spirit, is an unforgivable sin. (Mk
3:28-30)
“…
resistance [to the Holy Spirit] can reach the point of a special sin, called
"blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Jesus himself adds that this is a sin
that will not be forgiven (cf. Mt 12:31; Lk 12:10).” (JP II, General Audience,
10/31/1990)
Other than that un-repentant persistence in
sin which blasphemes the Holy Spirit, we are not capable of committing a sin
larger than God's infinite, loving mercy. He will always receive us back like
the prodigal son. We can only commit the unforgivable sin by choosing
un-repentant persistence in serious sin. God will honor our free will.
5.19.2013
| 1:42pm
God is love. Love became one of us and told
us He was the Way, the Truth and the Life. LOVE is the Way, the Truth and the
Life. Salvation is through Love made Man: Jesus Christ. Wc cannot have God's
life and not love. Love is a decision. Salvation is always our choice:
“If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed,
respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live;
he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him
from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would
I take pleasure in the death of the wicked -- declares the Lord Yahweh -- and
not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?
But if the upright abandons uprightness and does wrong by copying all
the loathsome practices of the wicked, is he to live? All his upright actions
will be forgotten from then on; for the infidelity of which he is guilty and
the sin which he has committed, he will most certainly die.
Now, you say, 'What the Lord does is unjust.' Now listen, House of
Israel: is what I do unjust? Is it not what you do that is unjust? When the
upright abandons uprightness and does wrong and dies, he dies because of the
wrong which he himself has done. Similarly, when the wicked abandons wickedness
to become law-abiding and upright, he saves his own life. Having chosen to
renounce all his previous crimes, he will most certainly live: he will not
die.”
(Ezekiel 18:21-28)
“I have set before you life
and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life” (Deut 30:19) That is, choose to love.
Harry:
In your three most recent posts, you have
given too much for me to comment line by line; so I'll make a few general
remarks.
1.) Lutherans hold that "saved by grace
alone" was and is the original message found in the Gospels. We also hold
that the ancient Church (perhaps imperfectly--that is, in an undigested
way)taught the same. Like the Creeds and so much else, the distinctive
development of doctrine (in this case, "saved by grace alone") takes
place in response to challenges within and outside the Church.
2.) Justification and sanctification are two
separate "activities". For others (including most Protestants and the
Catholic Church), there exists a blending of the two to one degree or another.
We believe this is mistaken--mistaken, not done in malice.
3.) Not separating justification and sanctification
feeds into each Christian his natural inclination (the Old Adam) to justify
ourselves by works of the Law. Such non-separation also lead to the terror of
the conscience in doubt as to whether we have done enough and whether we have
done good works for the right reasons. Such doubt betrays a lack of trust in
God's promise--also the natural inclination of the Old Adam.
4.) If I do say so myself, consistent with
Lutheran teaching, good works are strongly encouraged and if you look into the
lives of most Lutherans (there ARE bad Lutherans) good works are done every
day. The difference is we do not believe we are justified by them in any sense.
5.) Again, the relationship of salvation and
good works is the same as that of blood and a blood test. Blood tests tell us a
great deal about the blood but these tests are not the blood itself nor do they
make the blood in any fashion.
"If
I do say so myself, consistent with Lutheran teaching, good works are strongly
encouraged and if you look into the lives of most Lutherans (there ARE bad
Lutherans) good works are done every day."
I am confident in the goodness of Lutherans.
"Not
separating justification and sanctification feeds into each Christian his
natural inclination (the Old Adam) to justify ourselves by works of the Law."
Works of the old, unfulfilled law?
"Such non-separation also lead to
the terror of the conscience ..."
"Terror of conscience" can be (and
is) a real problem for many Christians. I think proper catechesis goes a long
way in dealing with that. First one must understand how one falls from a state
of grace. One must commit a "mortal" or "grave" or
"serious" sin. It must really be a grave sin. One must know it is a
grave sin. One must freely (without coercion) commit such a sin. Until one
sincerely repents of that, one has fallen from grace, and if one dies in that
state one has lost one's soul. As soon as one sincerely repents of it and
resolves to avoid that sin and to confess it (which is scriptural) as soon as
reasonably possible to those to whom Christ said "Whose sins you forgive,
they are forgiven them,” one is back in a state of grace. No need for terror
then, because one knows one's salvation has been restored.
Even if one still feels guilty after
confessing one's sins (most Catholics I have discussed it with experience a
sense of great relief and joy after confession), if one understands that how
one “feels” does not affect the efficacy of the sacrament of confession, one
can still be confident that one's salvation has been restored.
"When
God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man
himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject
it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself
toward justice in God's sight." -- Council of Trent
The Church teaches that man cannot "move
himself" towards justice in God's sight, his "good works" cannot
do that. Yet once justified or saved by God's freely given grace, man still has
a free will. He is free to move himself away from justification by committing
grave sins of omission or commission.
God is love. Salvation gives us a sharing in
the divine life of love. This enables us to participate in divine living (which
is loving). Enables us -- not forces us. We still have a free will, and can
freely choose to commit a grave sin of omission by not striving to live out
according to the fulfilled law – the law of love – God's life of love which we
have been given. To cease living our physical lives is to die. To cease living
the new divine life we have been given is to die as well, to die to our
salvation. We are free to choose to do that. If we weren't we couldn't love at
all, since love is a decision. To choose to love is a decision God eternally
makes, and must become our habitual decision as well. We still have a fallen
nature and must continually choose not to live according to it. St. Paul tells
the saved: “For IF ye live after the
flesh, ye shall die: but IF ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the
body, ye shall live.”
(Rom 8:13)
(Iustus et peccator simul). You also reject
the doctrine of Christ's "imputed righteousness" as the Christian
stands before the judgment of God. I also have to wonder to what if or to what
degree to agree with the doctrine of "total depravity". In my reading
of Catholic theologians, they seem of go back and forth on the issue of
"total depravity".
With these foundational disagreements among
others, Lutherans and Catholics are at loggerheads with each other. We also
disagree with what exactly the Apostles taught and where many statements by the
early theologians were in error not out of malice but because much Christian
doctrine was yet to be brought in sharp focus. Lutherans reject the notion that
the Catholic Church is the sole owner of the teachings of the early Christian
Church. Certainly the much larger
Orthodox Church demurs from these claims of Rome. At the very least, we reject
of the primacy of the Bishop Rome and whether the "Chair of Peter" is
in fact the legitimate and historic seat of the Apostle--let alone whether such
a seat ever existed.
Rome places great confidence in tradition
(along with Scripture and reason). For Lutherans, Scripture is the first and
foremost. Tradition plays a supporting role but only when it agrees with
Scripture. As for reason, Lutherans are distrustful--holding that because of
the Fall man's capacity to reason itself is corrupted and reasoning goes astray
all too often. It is only by Scripture that reason can glance the truth. Yes,
the Church did form the Cannon. But it did so only by the guidance of the Holy
Spirit and in service to Scripture--not by the supposed wisdom of one out of
the many combating traditions of the time.
Christ promised the Holy Spirit would remain
with the Church forever and guide it. What did that look like after a thousand
years? False teachers had come and gone over the centuries as had been
foretold; their movements had splintered and their followers had dispersed, as
Gamaliel had so presciently observed was the fate of movements that were of
human origin. An entrenched belief was that the successors to the Apostles had
real, spiritual authority: what they bound and loosed on Earth was bound and
loosed in Heaven.
The Church on Earth was definitely not an
institution where private interpretation of the Scriptures overrode the
authority of the Apostles' unanimous interpretation of it, as such private
interpretation had been the root of nearly every heresy the Church had dealt
with since it began.
Five hundred years later, in part due to
sinfulness in the Catholic Church, Luther's promotion of the authority of interpretation
that disregarded that of the Church's Apostles amounted to a revolutionary
reconstitution of the Church which immediately splintered as it crashed into
solid rock. The new movement was of human origin and that Rock was Christ.
Luther's movement has since dispersed, true to Gamaliel's observation, into
more versions of Christianity than anyone can count.
The dismemberment of Christ's visible body
has resulted in the rise of the atheistic state acknowledging no authority
above its own, claiming for itself even the authority to sanction the killing
of innocent human beings by the millions. For all practical purposes, this is a
return to the deification of Caesar, from which united Christianity had originally freed us by the blood of the
martyrs.
I wonder if only the end of the dismemberment
of Christ's Body will end the dismemberment of children in the womb by the
millions.
Harry:
For reasons I don't understand, the first
part of my last post got chopped off. It read: I trust that like all orthodox
Catholics you reject the both "sinner and saint doctrine (Iustus et
peccator simul). You also reject the doctrine of Christ's "imputed
righteousness" as the Christian stands before the judgment of God. I also
have to wonder to what if or to what degree to agree with the doctrine of
"total depravity". In my reading of Catholic theologians, they seem
of go back and forth on the issue of "total depravity".
Harry:
Lutherans to not divide sin into various
"types". The "smallest of sin" has the same weight as the
greatest. That is because all sins are results of Sin--which is unbelief in
God. All Christians, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all other, have places
within us where we don't believe God and His Word--any one (even just one in
one's lifetime) which should condemn us to Hell. According to Scriptures,
nothing unclean and with blemish can come into presence of the Holy. Without
the Grace and covering of Christ, none of us can and will.
"Terror of conscience" can be (and
is) a real problem for many Christians. I think proper catechesis goes a long
way in dealing with that " Precisely. But that depends on the content of
that catechesis. Luther said that the life of the Christian is one of
repentance--of which confession and absolution play no small part. Private
confession of the sins one has committed is good and beneficial; but it is not
decisive. Trusting in the Grace and forgiveness of Christ is the real and only
relief we can truly find from the terror of conscience. It is humanly
impossible to confess each of our sins nor can we be sure that all our mixed
motives in confession are all pure. In spite of our sinful selves, the Grace of
God totally covers us and justifies us before the Holy God. "From
there" (so speak) the life of repentance, daily baptism (see St. Paul),
and becoming more like Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit.
"Lutherans
to not divide sin into various "types". The "smallest of
sin" has the same weight as the greatest."
"Suppose you see one of our
people commit a sin that isn’t a deadly sin. You can pray, and that person will
be given eternal life. But the sin must not be one that is deadly. Everything
that is wrong is sin, but not all sins are deadly." (1 Jn 5:16-17)
Harry:
I had always been puzzled why so many
Christians ascribe the “private interpretation of Scripture” to Luther. It is
another instance in which Luther supposedly favored what in truth he actually
vigorously opposed. As for “private interpretation of Scripture”, on study you
will find Luther and the other Lutheran theologians said no such thing. I think
this is due in part to a non-Lutheran’s misunderstand of what Luther wrote. In
a nutshell, what is taught is that Scripture is plain enough that the smallest
child to the most learned scholar can benefit from it. And what is the message
men are to gain from it? That God loves you and that Christ died for your sins.
If one comes to a passage that perplexes you, dismiss it and remember that
Christ died on the Cross for you. Deeper reflection on the Bible, on the other
hand, requires knowledgeable commentary by faithful pastors and theologians.
That is very much simplified version but enough to get the sense.
If you ask me, the havoc caused by private
interpretation has far more to do with the excesses of the Enlightenment with
its emphasis on what would grow into radical individualism. With the
Enlightenment’s raising the dictum “man is the measure of all things” to
prominence, many became to believe they had no obligations to conform to any
standards outside themselves. Doubt may be a part in growing in faith, but let
us take head: doubt also can fester and turn poisonous to trust and faith in
God. The Enlightenment was not all sweetness and light: deep within its heart
was a profound doubt.
As for the splintering of the Church, your
account is in fact ahistorical. Upon further study, you will find that the
dissimilar movements left the Catholic Church at different times and for
different reasons. As for Lutherans, they didn’t leave the Catholic Church as
much as they were kicked out and persecuted by Rome. And let us not forget what
Rome’s sacking of Constantinople did for Church unity 320 years earlier.
In the splintering of the Universal Church,
Rome is hardly the innocent party. Rome’s corruption during several points in
the past, its persecution and sometimes murder of its separated but Christian
brothers and sisters, its sometimes siding with the rich and powerful over the
poor, itself waging bloody war for its own interests, are a stain which Rome
cannot so easily absolve itself. It may
be forgiven in Heaven; but on earth, Rome must bear the weight of the
consequences from the seeds it had sown. There are times, when in advancing the
Gospel of Christ, Rome is just dead weight.
To believe in Jesus is also to believe He
keeps His promises (Jn 14:16,26;15:26;16:7). If Christ kept His promises then
the Holy Spirit has always been and will be within the Church, forever guiding
it. If that is the case, then the essentials of belief and practice cannot
change. That which is genuinely new – not a development of existing belief and
practice – cannot be valid, and that which is genuinely valid cannot be
entirely new. To believe otherwise is to claim the Holy Spirit makes mistakes.
Read the works of Cyprian. He takes for granted a Eucharistic liturgy, belief
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrament of confession
restoring one's lost salvation, the authority of the ordained successors of the
Apostles, and so on. The Church of Cyprian's time was, in the essentials, that
of the Apostles, and remained basically that right up to Luther's time and
continues the same to the present day.
It is undeniable that Luther's reform/revolt (pick your term), for those who
followed him, was a revolutionary reconstitution of the Church, keeping what it
liked, discarding much, and introducing interpretations of the Scriptures
contrary to the consistent interpretation the Holy Spirit had preserved in the
Church and taught through it for fifteen-hundred years.
Yes, the members of the Church sin; this was
in part responsible for Luther's revolt. This sinfulness should not surprise
us. Christ handpicked twelve Apostles and one of them turned out to be Judas
Iscariot. God's people crucified Him.
The Holy Spirit, no doubt, wants the Body of
Christ made whole once again. Persistence in resisting the Holy Spirit is the
unforgivable sin. May Catholics and Lutherans alike not persist in resisting
the Holy Spirit in that regard.
Harry:
The Holy Spirit has never abandoned the
Church--The Church in the larger sense, that is in all its shapes and forms
wherever it has gone. The Holy Spirit is with the Methodists, Lutherans, the
Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, ect.,Churches. Even during times of extreme
corruption, the Holy Spirit never left the Catholic Church. As Scripture says
wherever two or more are gathered in His Name, Christ is in the midst of them.
(Matthew 18:20). The Spirit goes where it wills and no one Church can contain
Him. (John 3:7-9). That these other Churches have doctrines you and I believe
are mistaken does not change that. The Holy Spirit works with and through
imperfect men. The Holy Spirit works within and through imperfect Churches as
well.
I came to know Christians of many
denominations through activism in the Pro-Life movement. I saw them end up in
jail, losing their jobs and being separated from their families, because they
took up their cross and followed Christ, Who led them to block the entrances of
places where He was being brutally dismembered in the very least of His
brothers and sisters -- the innocent child in the womb.
I believe with all my heart that the Spirit
of Christ lives in them. One admitted to me he didn't know Catholics were
Christians, too, until he met me. ;o)
Mick Lee, I know the Spirit of Christ is in
the hearts of all those who love Him. Jesus wants our unity. If we love Him we
shall find a way to give that to Him. If we love Him we want that just because
He wants that. If we believe in Him we will seek out that one flock with one
shepherd, and become one bread, one body with Him and each other. Let's give
Him that.
"The
Church of Cyprian's time was, in the essentials, that of the Apostles, and
remained basically that right up to Luther's time and continues the same to the
present day."
Would that that were true. Such a statement is more a testimony of faith in the
Catholic Church; but it simply epistemologically not the case. Councils
contradicted each other. The patristic fathers differed with each other. The
early Churches often differed in practices and preaching with conflicting emphasizes.
Save the brief instance when the Church was confined to Jerusalem, there had
been multiple Churches and traditions. The Church has never been
"one". There is hardly any reason to believe the Catholic Church
alone hands down the faith once received.
Lutherans hold that "saved by faith by
alone" was/is nothing new. It goes back to the early teaching of the
Apostles--particularly with St. Paul. Luther didn't invent it. Lutheranism
began as a reforming movement within the Catholic Church. Luther himself never
wanted to leave the Catholic Church. It was with the Pope's excommunication
that what became the Lutheran Church was loosed. Still, the modern Lutheran
Church sees itself as a reforming movement within all Christian Churches--but
principally with the Catholic Church.
We can discuss the sacraments, the office of
the keys, rites, the forgiveness of sins and others and pick apart our
differences; but I think that, compared to other Protestant Churches, we have
more in common than many Lutherans and Catholics would allow.
Hi, Mick Lee,
Sure there was disagreement. There was also unanimity
regarding certain things. That unanimity was the promised work of the Holy
Spirit, leading the Church to the truth as Christ promised He would. Do you
believe Christ kept that promise? He fervently prayed we would be one. He sent
the Spirit to the Church do lead us to the truth around which we that unity
could be built. That happened. Irenaeus speaks of the amazing unity of doctrine
throughout the world where the Church had taken hold, comparing it the sun
being the same everywhere in the world. As I pointed out earlier:
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Is 55:11)
Here is Irenaeus on the amazing doctrinal
unity of the Early Church:
As I have already observed, the Church,
having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout
the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.
She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul,
and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands
them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For,
although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the
tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in
Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain,
nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in
Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the
world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the
whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and
enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor
will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in
point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater
than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of
expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and
the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding
it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
Against
Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10)
The unity observed by Irenaeus was the work
of the Holy Spirit. Christ keeps His promises.
As a Catholic, reading the Church Fathers is
a joy because one sees that the essentials of belief and practice present in
the Early Church are the same as those of the Catholic Church today. From St.
Justin's (martyred ca. A.D. 169) description of the Eucharistic liturgy to the
4th century catechetical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, one sees the
Catholic Church.
If one wants to know the faith of the Early
Church, make one's mind a blank slate, dropping all one's preconceived notions,
and make oneself a student of St. Cyril. Read his catechetical lectures and let
a Bishop born ca. A.D 315 teach you the faith.
Harry: I see you brought us back to square
one. Perhaps the road back to unity is "you first". That is, the Pope
and all Catholics convert to Lutheranism. Oh, you don't have to call yourselves
Lutherans; but you would be Lutheran in essence. Want a huge step in unity that
would be!
No? Your sense of "becoming as one"
only goes so far? The Lutheran and Catholic Churches moving toward each other
consists of one direction: The Lutheran Church submitting to Rome?
Perhaps the cynics are right. The call for "be as one" is actually theological
aggression by other means. As I had written before, there can be no unity
without theological agreement.
Within the experience of the Lutheran Church
alone, coming together has been, shall we say, problematic In 1989, The
Lutheran Church in America, The American Lutheran Church, and The Association
of Evangelical Lutheran Churches merged together to become the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). This was done by largely papering over
doctrinal differences. The hard work of working out our difference was not
done. By hook and crook (a complicated subject but leave that aside), the
result was the liberal Lutherans (a distinct minority) achieved practical
dominance over the more conservative, confession Lutherans. And by doing so the
ELCA has reaped the whirlwind. In setting aside the substantial divides between
the Catholic and Lutheran confessions, a merger of the two would harvest much
worse.
Harry:
In does not help that Rome periodically
throws up fresh doctrinal impediments. Recently, Pope Francis apparently
encouraged a version of universalism in which even unbelievers will enter into
heaven. (I say "apparent" as all I have read on the matter come from
the news media and we both know how reliable they are.) On the other hand, if
true, are we to understand the Unitarian Universalist Church was right all
along? Surely not. But if Rome should press universalism--however
delicately--"separated brothers" all over the world will never accept
it--holding that universalism is a profound heresy. At the very least,
universalism is not what the early Church taught nor is supported in Scripture.
The "be as one" project will be dead in the water and retrievable. I
suggest the Catholic Church should look into its own house.
Hi, Mick Lee,
The Catholic Church doesn't teach that
everybody else is going to Hell. Some Catholics have, unfortunately,
misinterpreted the phrase, "No salvation outside the Church," to mean
that. God knows what light everyone has received and whether they lived
according to it, including atheists.
If one has received the light and grace that
comes with hearing the Gospel preached as it should be, and rejected it, then
the words of Christ would certainly apply:
"And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:
but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
All are loved by God, Who knows exactly what they understand and what they
don't understand, and whether they live according to the light and grace they
have received. If they do, even though they are not formal members of the
Church, they are within it and are members of it. In that sense, there is no
salvation outside the Church.
I am confident that Pope Francis is only
saying what the Church has said repeatedly: that those who through no fault of
their own do not find the Church, but keep the moral law with the help of
grace, can be saved.
Harry:
Even given your (that is, The Catholic
Church's) limited sense of "universalism", one has to wonder what
Scriptural warrant there is for such a teaching? Where and when exactly was the
earliest pronouncement of this teaching?
To say it charitably, I have my doubts. This
teaching as you relate it is dangerously too close to "salvation by
works" if it is not on the mark altogether. However commendable it is for
unbelievers to keep the "moral law", the Law is not a channel of
Grace.
Such a doctrine seems to be erroneously
concerned with the "fairness" of God for unbelievers. That is, the
common objection that it wouldn't be fair of God to condemn those who had not
heard the Gospel. But this is to misunderstand the justice of God. By God's
justice, all men and women are deserving to be condemned to Hell and
everlasting punishment. That God's chooses some and not others is not for us to
question. (Isaiah 45:9-10) That some are chosen at all is a miracle. (John
6:44) There is no imperative that compels God is save any. That God has chosen
"you and me" is beyond understanding.
As to the unbelievers, all we Christians can
do is leave it to God's mercy but it is presumptions to affirm what He will do
for them. I certainly hope the Father will grant mercy to those good men and
women through the ages who died without faith; but my hope, no matter how
heartfelt, is irrelevant. God has His own purposes.
So can this question be Church-dividing? We
already know the answer: it can and is. For those who hold that universalism is
a heresy and betrayal of the Gospel, talk of fellowship in the name of
"One Church" is a waste of time.
Consider the thought of Clement of Alexandria
(died ca. A.D. 215) on the Gospel being preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades:
“Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel
to those in Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, “Hades says to Destruction,
We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.” … For who in his
senses can suppose the souls of the righteous and those of sinners in the same
condemnation, charging Providence with injustice? … Do not [the Scriptures]
show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or
rather had been chained, and to those kept "in ward and guard?" (1
Peter 3:19-20) ... For it was requisite ... that He should bring to repentance
those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had
lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life
not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration,
that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been
pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another
place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty,
should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.” – The
Stromata, Book VI, Chap 6
Those who never heard the Gospel because it
was never preached to them would be in the same situation as those who never
heard the Gospel because they died before the coming of Christ.
Luther's understanding of salvation was brand
new.
Harry:
Luther, huh?
Clement of Rome (c. 30-100): “And we [Christians], too, being called by
His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own
wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in
holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning,
Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with
Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats
and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith,
through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”
Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “. . . a person is saved by grace, not by works
but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by
doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith
are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7:
“Wages cannot be considered as a gift,
because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the
justification of faith.”
Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that
Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification,
redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on
account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the
true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ."
Harry: More blasts from the past:
Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Therefore let no one
boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is
just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of
regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ,
because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”
Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex
sola fide justificat)
Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God
willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save
without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of
God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has
forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one,
Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and
benevolence of God may become apparent.
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . .
Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3;
Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not
contradict each other: good works follow justification.
Yes. We can do nothing to merit our
salvation. It is a free gift. We obtain it by faith in Jesus. But we must live
the divine life we have so graciously been given a share in. How do we do that?
Well, what is the divine life? God is love. Living the divine life is loving.
If we stop living our physical life we die. If we don't live our divine life,
we die to it. One has to live life or die. That is why "faith without
works is dead." That is why the new commandment is to "love one
another." That is why if we don't bear fruit we are "burned."
That is why Christ said to those who did not care for Him in His least
brethren, "Depart from me into the
eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
The idea that salvation cannot be lost, and
that there is no hope at all for the unbaptized, and that living the divine
life (living a life of charity) is not necessary for salvation, were all
entirely new ideas and a radical departure from the traditional belief of the
Church that the Holy Spirit had preserved in it for 1500 years when Luther
arrived on the scene and re-invented Christianity to suit himself.
Harry:
To
wrap up "Luther's understanding of salvation was brand new. "
Augustine (354-430): “When someone
believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to
the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted
and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom
4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no
good works, but with good works as its consequence.”
Ambrosiaster (4th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have
not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have
been made holy by the gift of God.”
Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works
of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we
justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our
sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?
Again, nobody is disputing that salvation is
a free gift we don't earn. We are saved by faith in Jesus. So it is no surprise
we can find "saved by faith, not by works" in the writings of the
Fathers, as we do in the NT. We never earn Heaven by the works of the Old,
unfulfilled Law. We never deserve, because of obedience to the new, fulfilled
Law of Love, what we will receive in Heaven. We will receive way beyond what we
deserve.
"So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are
commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we
ought to do."
(Lk 17:10)
That doesn't mean NOT doing "that which
we ought to do" has no consequences. Failing to obey the new commandment
to "love one another" has grave consequences: "Depart from me into the eternal fire ..." This is what
Luther's radical new version of Christianity denied.
I accept and explain why the Fathers and the
Scriptures speak of "saved by faith, not by works." You do not accept
and explain why the Fathers and the Scriptures speak of the possibility of
losing one's salvation, and speak of the necessity of good works; or, in other
words, the necessity of living out the sharing in the divine life we have
received. We receive it by faith; we keep it by living it. Truly, faith without
works is dead. By faith we pass from death to life; if we fail to live that new
life we pass from life back to death. Where do the fathers claim and agree that
it is absolutely impossible for the saved to lose their salvation? Or that
failing to live a life of charity has no consequences?
Harry:
As I
had demonstrated, at the very least, the threads of “saved by Grace alone” are
there in the early Church Fathers. Given the writings of St. Paul which speak
directly to the subject, the stronger case is that “saved by Grace alone” is in
fact closer to the original teaching of the Apostles than the synergistic
salvation advocated in your posts. Like it or not, Luther responded to the
theology that was already there. Luther didn’t invent anything—as you
uncharitably put it—merely “to suit himself”. (Even John Paul II and Benedict
XVI gave him more credit than that.) The Lutheran Reformation was/is a course
correction for the ship that is the Church. That the Catholic Church did not
bring that reform into its fold was to its detriment.
... for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear
the voice of the Son of God. And they that have done good things, shall come
forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of judgment.
(Jn 5:28-29)
That, by the way, is basically what Clement of Alexandria was saying about the
souls of those who died before the coming of Christ. Note also that it is those
who have "done good things" that shall be saved. 1 Peter 3:19-20
isn't the only place where the Scriptures speak of the salvation of the
unbaptized.
"The
Lutheran Reformation was/is a course correction for the ship that is the Church."
So Christ didn't keep His promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to the
Church to guide it and be with it forever? The Holy Spirit let the Church go astray
for 1500 years and then Luther came along and straightened things out for Him?
The truth that it is possible for the saved
to lose their salvation has been there from the beginning. Exactly what did St.
James mean when he said, "Faith
without works is dead."?
What is the meaning of Hebrews 6:4-8? What is the meaning of "Depart from me into the eternal fire ..." being said to
those who did not care for Christ in His least brethren? What is the meaning of
the thoroughly Scriptural idea that that which bears no good fruit will be
burned? Justify your answers from the Fathers. I can justify my answers to
those questions from the Fathers.
"The
Lutheran Reformation was/is a course correction for the ship that is the
Church."
Not only did Luther introduce a new
understanding of salvation, he introduced an entirely new understanding of the
authority in the Church. His wasn't a course correction, it was justifying
getting into another ship that had pulled up alongside the "ship that is
the Church," and inviting others to follow Him.
"Luther
didn’t invent anything—as you uncharitably put it—merely “to suit himself”.
(Even John Paul II and Benedict XVI gave him more credit than that.)"
That Luther's ideas in part came from his own
personal needs is not my idea:
"It became the great anxiety and
need of Luther's life that he should know that he was among those predestined
to be saved, be free from all doubt that he could not lose his soul. ... But
Luther's own needs -- which he came to see as the common problem of all mankind
-- went undoubtedly for much, as he studied and put together the lectures on
such classic treatises about God's grace as the Epistles of St. Paul to the
Romans and to the Galatians. And once he had found his doctrine, if it was as
an emancipator of mankind that he published it, it was, at the same time, with
his great cry of personal liberation that he gave it to the world."
-- Philip Hughes, A History of the Church To the Eve of the Reformation
3:19-20 Avery Cardinal Dulles' 2003 article
in this very publication entitled "The
Population of Hell".
I hardly think I said anything like "The Holy Spirit let the Church go
astray for 1500 years". Certainly Luther made no such claim. As shown
above, "sola fide" was well represented within the letters of St.
Paul and the Church Fathers. Luther believed he was picking up where others
before him left off. There is, on the other hand, a long anti-Lutheran
tradition toward reducing Luther's proclamation of the Gospel to a
psychologism. That Luther found comfort in it is hardly disputed--indeed,
Luther's own testimony stressed this feature in his account of his life. In
light that Catholics themselves find comfort in Catholic doctrine, this should
hardly be counted against him. If comfort is to regarded as a poison at the
root of the tree, then we all are in much trouble.
You take offense at the term "course
correction"; but why? The history of the Catholic Church itself is composed
of dozens of "course corrections" in which Catholics themselves
reform their Church. Challenges within and outside the Church brought the
Church to congeal unrefined doctrine into a sharper, settled focus. (The
Council of Trent was one such instance.) Questionable practices were discarded
while others brought to the fore. In my reading, Catholic theologians teach
that these reforms were lead by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Hi, Mick Lee,
" ... 'sola fide' was well
represented within the letters of St. Paul and the Church Fathers."
Yes. That our sharing in the divine, eternal
life, becoming a new creation, is a free gift obtained by faith alone, not
something obtained by the works of the old, unfulfilled law, is a fact. What
could a mere mortal with a fallen nature possibly do to obtain that on his own?
But this gift is not an irrevocable ticket to heaven. It is an entrance into a
new life - a sharing in the divine life of love - that we are free to abandon
by not living that divine life of love; the gift does not turn one into an
automaton.
One can't be free to love without also being
free to commit serious sin, free to be cold, hard, and indifferent to the
plight of Christ in His least brethren. If that is one's choice, then one has
abandoned the new life and returned to the old one, leaving oneself in a worse
state than before, as is pointed out in Heb 6:4-8. Luther's “irrevocable
ticket” notion of salvation was entirely new and contrary to that which the
Holy Spirit has continuously preserved in the Church.
We have a fallen nature prone to sin.
Entrance into the new life does not change that but enables us to basically
overcome it. When we fail at that, we must sincerely repent and seek out those
to whom Christ said, knowing quite well that we would fall, "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them.”
What do Lutherans think was the reason Christ
said that to His Apostles? What, according to Lutherans, did He intend to
establish by saying that, if anything?
As for course corrections:
Course correction can be renewal.
Course correction cannot be corrections to
traditional, official teaching. The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. He
cannot lead the Church into error. The Church can't error in its official
teaching because the Body of Christ is not a corpse; it is a living Body
animated by a Spirit -- The Holy Spirit -- Who speaks in its official teaching
according to the promise of Christ: "He who hears you, hears me."
Some expect from the Church a retraction of its traditional teaching on
contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage. God's plan for human sexuality
hasn't and won't change, nor will the Church's official teaching in that
regard. The Holy Spirit just won't let that happen.
Course correction can be a deepening of our
understanding of the truth, which we should expect as Christ promised the
Church that the Holy Spirit would guide it to all truth. No guidance would be
necessary if our understanding of the truth couldn't be deepened, if it
couldn't be articulated in a clearer way that exposed the heretical for what it
was. This has been the work of the Councils, which never proclaim, "Oops.
The Holy Spirit was mistaken last century. He has informed the Council of His
mistake and we now declare His correction to be as follows …"
Course corrections can be a new direction
taken by the barque of Peter as it traverses the centuries through the
tumultuous storms in which it always seems to be enveloped. That is not
teaching something entirely new and different, it is taking a new course that
enables it to better cling to the deposit of faith and to better proclaim it.
The Holy Spirit does not nor has ever lead
Christian(s) into error; but Christians can and do ignore the lead of the
Spirit of Christ and chose to take in Church into directions according to their
deeply flawed notions. Christian leaders of all types have been prone to this
mistake. However, the Holy Spirit does lead the Christian Church back on
course--that is if Christians will listen. Fortunately, by the power of the
Holy Spirit, He does break through often in spite of our own efforts.
Christ's promise that "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them.” wasn't just directed to
just the Apostles but to all Christians. Lutherans believe in the priesthood of
all believers; thus each Christian has the power to forgive. We forgive as
Christ forgave his executioners and enemies at his crucifixion.
Lutherans have a theological tradition which looks deeply into Scripture. We
aren't superficial nor do we ignore the "gotcha" parts you think are
so decisive. The differences between us are due to the fact we work from
suppositions which are poles apart at times.
Since your stance is "The Catholic
Church said it--I believe it--that is the end of it", you have not study
Lutheran theology to any extent. Instead, you seem to have of cartoon version
of Lutheranism related to you by its critics.
It is perfectly your right to reject
Lutheranism. However, because you and other Catholics refuse to seriously
understand us as we understand ourselves, our respective Churches will never be
"as one".
Hi, Mick Lee,
"Since your stance is 'The Catholic
Church said it--I believe it--that is the end of it' ..."
If the Holy Spirit animates the Body of Christ, the Church, and speaks through
its official teaching, then it should be that simple, unless one is in the
habit of disputing matters with the Holy Spirit. For me it was, to a
significant extent, a matter of discovering the teaching of the contemporary
Catechism of the Catholic Church in the writings of the Church Fathers. I found
the essentials of belief and practice not changing in twenty centuries to be
very compelling. That is a work of the Holy Spirit, as was the unity of
doctrine throughout the known world in the Early Church. I previously cited
Irenaeus beautifully describing that.
I want you to know that I have very much
appreciated your patience and your willingness to discuss all this.
Harry:
As you might have guessed, I am a
disciple--closely reading Luther's Large Cathicism, the Formula
of Concord, and the several major Lutheran theologians. I am an
orthodox Lutheran and (as far as I can tell) what Lutheran theologians call a
"radical Lutheran". "Radical" in the sense of
"returning to the roots" and guarded against the works of the
theologians who try to adapt the tradition to the dogma of the Enlightenment.
Against this background, I simply have to say
I have no idea what you mean by " Luther's 'irrevocable ticket' notion of
salvation". Lutherans hardly believe in "once saved always
saved" as some Evangelicals put it--if that's what you mean.
I also have to add that the Lutheran aim was
never a "new Church" but (being at root Augustinians) seek the
restoration of the Church. Catholics typically take offense at the notion that
the Church needs any such restoration; but that is our "worldview".
Be that all as they may be, I too thank you
for taking your time and sharing your thoughts. We did get at some pretty tough
nuts but I think we both felt constrained by the 300 word limit on our posts.
For myself, many issues needed to be unpacked that unfortunately had to left
behind. For these reasons, we probably have taken this subject/subject as far
as we can go. Therefore I am signing off.
It spite of our differences, perhaps we both can say that we are beggars before
God.
