Augsburg Confession, Article VI: Of New Obedience.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Topic: Catholic Lutheran Dialogue - The Augsburg Confession and the Confutatio Pontificia - Where we were then, and where we are now. (Fifth in a series of Article by Article discussions relating to these historic documents).

1. MarkRohfrietsch will represent the Lutheran Position; Athanasias will represent the Catholic position.
2. Following the historic pattern, the opening posts of each discussion in this series will consist of the particular Articles themselves (The Augsburg Confession) , and the corresponding response as presented from the Confutatio (1530 Roman Confutation). Mark will then open the discussion with Athanasias responding.
3. Sincethis is a one-on-one discussion rather than a debate the number of rounds will be three each, however, by consent of both participants, if the discussion has run it's course, the discussion may be closed early; if it has not run it's course, the participants may agree to extend it. (Some articles such as the first historically resulted in little dispute, so the discussion may be quite short; others not so much)
4. The posts will be alternating.
5. Since both of us lead busy lives, we will not be setting a time between posts.
6. The maximum length for each post will be limited to the word count capacity of a single post.
7. All quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule. Also note that all quotes from the Lutheran Confessions and the Confutation will be taken from the unaltered Book of Concord; 1580 edition found here: Welcome to the Book of Concord.
8. Start date-Very soon.
9. In this discussion, the three Peanut Galleries; set up in General Theology , One Bread, One Body - Catholic, and Theologia Crucis - Lutherans will be updated and links to this debate will be added. Please note that the Christian Only rules apply in General Theology, and the Congregational rules apply in both the OBOB and TCL threads.

Peanut Gallery threads:

• General Theology: Formal Debate-Peanut Gallery-Catholic Lutheran Dialogue-Augsburg Confession...
• One Bread, One Body - Catholic: Formal Debate-Peanut Gallery-Catholic Lutheran Dialogue-Augsburg Confession...
• Theologia Crucis - Lutherans: Formal Debate-Peanut Gallery-Catholic Lutheran Dialogue-Augsburg Confession...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article VI: Of New Obedience.

1] Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification 2] before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

From The Confutatio Pontificia:

To Article VI.

Their Confession in the sixth article that faith should bring forth good fruits is acceptable and valid since "faith without works is dead," James 2:17, and all Scripture invites us to works. For the wise man says: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." Eccles. 9:10. "And the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering," Gen. 4:4. He saw that Abraham would "command his Children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and to do justice and judgment," Gen. 18:19. And: "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing I will bless thee and multiply thy seed." Gen 22:16. Thus he regarded the fast of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, and the lamentations and tears of King Hezekiah, 4:2; 2 Kings 20. For this cause all the faithful should follow the advice of St. Paul: "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith," Gal. 6:10. For Christ says: The night cometh when no man can work" John 9:4. But in the same article their ascription of justification to faith alone is diametrically opposite the truth of the Gospel by which works are not excluded; because glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good," Rom. 2:10. Why? Because David, Ps. 62:12; Christ, Matt. 16:27; and Paul, Rom. 2:6 testify that God will render to every one according to his works. Besides Christ says: "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father," Matt. 7:21. 4. Hence however much one may believe, if he work not what is good, he is not a friend of God. "Ye are my friends," says Christ, "if ye do whatsoever I command you," John 15:14. On this account their frequent ascription of justification to faith is not admitted since it pertains to grace and love. For St. Paul says: "Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2. Here St. Paul certifies to the princes and the entire Church that faith alone does not justify. Accordingly he teaches that love is the chief virtue, Col. 3:14: "Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness." Neither are they supported by the word of Christ: "When ye shall have done all these things, say We are unprofitable servants," Luke 17:10. For if the doors ought to be called unprofitable, how much more fitting is it to say to those who only believe, When ye shall have believed all things say, We are unprofitable servants! This word of Christ, therefore, does not extol faith without works, but teaches that our works bring no profit to God; that no one can be puffed up by our works; that, when contrasted with the divine reward, our works are of no account and nothing. Thus St. Paul says: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us," Rom. 8:18. For faith and good works are gifts of God, whereby, through God's mercy, eternal life is given. So, too, the citation at this point from Ambrose is in no way pertinent, since St. Ambrose is here expressly declaring his opinion concerning legal works. For he says: "Without the law," but, "Without the law of the Sabbath, and of circumcision, and of revenge." And this he declares the more clearly on Rom. 4, citing St. James concerning the justification of Abraham without legal works before circumcision. For how could Ambrose speak differently in his comments from St. Paul in the text when he says: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight?" Therefore, finally, he does not exclude faith absolutely, but says: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Athanasias]

Ok well thank you Mark for this opportunity. I am so sorry its been so long since my last post. I have much on plate lately but will do my best to continue this good dialog. I will start with a prayer.

Heavenly Father I ask you to be with both Mark and I in this dialog and help make it a dialog of love geared towards the truth your Son our Lord Jesus Christ lived, taught, died, and rose for. Send us the Holy Spirit and open our hearts to be receptive to this truth and docile to it and to listen to each other in true charity. Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle within them the fire of your love. St. Augustine pray for us. St. Mary Mother of God pray for us for the knots of sin in the form of prejudice and pride to be loosed and brought to your Divine Son to be undone. We ask all this heavenly Father through Christ Jesus our Lord and God your Son who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit one God forever and ever. Amen.

This is an interesting dialog mark. I had no idea there would be so much on justification. There are some things that can be brought up here but from what I read I think most of this today we would agree on in general.

As stated earlier we also teach that a man is justified by God's grace alone through faith. And if the type of faith we are talking about includes those acts of love ie a living faith like St. Paul talked about in Gal 5:6 then we can say we are justified by faith alone. Pope Benedict made this clear. So I think here we can agree. We agree with St. Paul in Romans and Galatians that man is not justified by the works of the mosaic law. Jesus is the New Moses as St. Matthew presents and we are no longer under the mosaic law or the law of Moses(Gal 5:4)We are under the law of Christ(Gal 6:2) which is the law of love or a faith "working" in love (Gal 5:6) and that saves us.

This is why I think we can agree for the most part on this. The biggest difference from our two understandings in the past is What Paul meant by "works of the law". This can be debated somewhat ( I view this primarily as meaning ritual laws of purification and so on such as circumsicsion as Gal and Romans has some good evidence for.) Other say its the whole law of Moses. Certainly the moral laws never cease but the ritual ones can. But I think overall it all comes down to the law of moses not being able to save us because Christ fulfills moses and is superior so Christ is the New Moses ie the New Law giver and we see his Gospel saving us by his grace and a living faith that works in love.

Does that help?

I look forward to hearing form you soon. God bless you.

Athanasais

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok well thank you Mark for this opportunity. I am so sorry its been so long since my last post. I have much on plate lately but will do my best to continue this good dialog. I will start with a prayer.

Don't worry, our lives are what they are. Likewise, our forefathers have been discussion these same topics for about 500 years; God is patient with us, so we to must be patient with one another.

Heavenly Father I ask you to be with both Mark and I in this dialog and help make it a dialog of love geared towards the truth your Son our Lord Jesus Christ lived, taught, died, and rose for. Send us the Holy Spirit and open our hearts to be receptive to this truth and docile to it and to listen to each other in true charity. Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle within them the fire of your love. St. Augustine pray for us. St. Mary Mother of God pray for us for the knots of sin in the form of prejudice and pride to be loosed and brought to your Divine Son to be undone. We ask all this heavenly Father through Christ Jesus our Lord and God your Son who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit one God forever and ever. Amen.

Amen.

This is an interesting dialog mark. I had no idea there would be so much on justification. There are some things that can be brought up here but from what I read I think most of this today we would agree on in general.

As stated earlier we also teach that a man is justified by God's grace alone through faith. And if the type of faith we are talking about includes those acts of love ie a living faith like St. Paul talked about in Gal 5:6 then we can say we are justified by faith alone. Pope Benedict made this clear. So I think here we can agree. We agree with St. Paul in Romans and Galatians that man is not justified by the works of the mosaic law. Jesus is the New Moses as St. Matthew presents and we are no longer under the mosaic law or the law of Moses(Gal 5:4)We are under the law of Christ(Gal 6:2) which is the law of love or a faith "working" in love (Gal 5:6) and that saves us.

This is so well stated. Neither from a Lutheran nor Catholic perspective, I would like to offer some additional thoughts regarding the Law. While we can not keep the Law fully (Ten Commandments), this law still serves the faithful believer as a rule whereby one measures one self; it acts as road signs for us as we travel through this life, and it keeps us focused on the Gospel for while the Law condemns us, the Gospel saves us.

This is why I think we can agree for the most part on this. The biggest difference from our two understandings in the past is What Paul meant by "works of the law". This can be debated somewhat ( I view this primarily as meaning ritual laws of purification and so on such as circumsicsion as Gal and Romans has some good evidence for.) Other say its the whole law of Moses. Certainly the moral laws never cease but the ritual ones can. But I think overall it all comes down to the law of moses not being able to save us because Christ fulfills moses and is superior so Christ is the New Moses ie the New Law giver and we see his Gospel saving us by his grace and a living faith that works in love.

Does that help?

It does help.

There is little for us to argue here, but I would like to offer a few thoughts related to new vs. old obedience...

I believe that one who has faith is compelled by that faith to keep the Ten Commandments (even though we all fail often).

Ritual law, ceremonial law, laws of purification and so fourth are not bad in and of themselves, unnecessary, but not bad. These I would personally consider as "adiaphora". Where problems arise is when these things are viewed as essential. If one feels compelled, by their faith to keep these laws, they can be edifying and a blessing. Such is the case with many Messianics; yet there are a few Messianics who, despite their faith, and disregard the Pauline Scriptures. In their case the Law is often treated as required for the efficacy of the Gospel. In which case, I believe that the law may still condemn.

I look forward to hearing form you soon. God bless you.

Athanasais

I wish to thank you for this continuing prayerful discussion; may God bless us both as we explore our faith so that we may delight in His Will, and walk in His ways, to the glory of His Holy Name.

Amen.

 

[Athanasias]

I am certainly no expert and could be in error. If so I will adhere to whatever the church will correct me on here but I believe that one thing Catholics may differ on with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters is that we believe that Christ gives us the ability by his supernatural grace to be able to keep the commandments. We often fail because of our abuse of free will or because at times our will can be tied by habit or addiction. But its a principle of Catholic theology that grace does not destroy nature but builds on it and perfects it. So to my limited understanding the Catholic Church teaches that by Christ grace we can do all things as Paul would say(Phil 4:13) this includes keeping the commandants and staying free of mortal sin. Christ himself seems to teach this is at least possible and commands one that one must keep the commandments to enter eternal life this comes out especially in Matthew and Johns writings( Matt 19:16-24 primarily) but its also seen in (Jn 14:15, 1 Jn 5:3).

One of our differences is that Catholics are obliged to keep the ten commandments not because they are of the mosaic law but because at least 9 out of ten of them are found in the natural law that God created us in and this evidence can also be found in other faiths which reflect these same principles. So we are bound by natural law and then for the other one commandment(keeping holy the Lords day) we are bound by Church law. At least that is our view?

Does that help. I hope some of the dialogs soon will get to discuss the understanding of sola scriptura or an infallible church. I think more then justification that issue is a huge one and would be fun to talk about.

God bless you brother.

Chris

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am certainly no expert and could be in error. If so I will adhere to whatever the church will correct me on here but I believe that one thing Catholics may differ on with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters is that we believe that Christ gives us the ability by his supernatural grace to be able to keep the commandments. We often fail because of our abuse of free will or because at times our will can be tied by habit or addiction. But its a principle of Catholic theology that grace does not destroy nature but builds on it and perfects it. So to my limited understanding the Catholic Church teaches that by Christ grace we can do all things as Paul would say(Phil 4:13) this includes keeping the commandants and staying free of mortal sin. Christ himself seems to teach this is at least possible and commands one that one must keep the commandments to enter eternal life this comes out especially in Matthew and Johns writings( Matt 19:16-24 primarily) but its also seen in (Jn 14:15, 1 Jn 5:3).

One of our differences is that Catholics are obliged to keep the ten commandments not because they are of the mosaic law but because at least 9 out of ten of them are found in the natural law that God created us in and this evidence can also be found in other faiths which reflect these same principles. So we are bound by natural law and then for the other one commandment(keeping holy the Lords day) we are bound by Church law. At least that is our view?

Hi Chris, so good to be able to resume this dialogue.

With what you have written above and certainly in light of the references given, Confessional Lutheranism is in agreement in essence, context is another thing. The distinction of mortal and venial sin is a concept foreign to Lutheran theology; all sin, from what we humans would see as a most horrendous act to what we might see as a harmless little white lie or a fib are mortal sins, and we teach and believe that the Ten Commandments show us this. Any sin, not matter how great or how large condemns; the Law, condemns. As you state above, Grace does build us up and gives us the ability to desire to keep the Commandments. Our human nature which includes, ans Luther calls it "the old Adam", the stain of original sin; we can not fully keep the law, either on our own or with the grace of God; as you wrote "We often fail because of our abuse of free will or because at times our will can be tied by habit or addiction." Yes, we can often keep the commandments, but just as often we fail to keep keep them. Some do it better than others, but no one can ever attain perfection in this life. While the Law condemns us completely, the Gospel (Christ and His Grace) saves more completely. It is only through repentance that comes only from faith in the salvaic grace of Christ.

Some have accused both your Church and mine of promoting "cheap grace" and that confession and absolution amount to no more than a license to sin. Without contrition, one's confession is just worthless words of men with which we condemn ourselves. Through faith and a desire (a desire rather than a promise, as there is no we could keep such a promise) to ammend our sinful ways, our words hare received by our Lord in gracious compassion; and through His holy Grace, as we hear in the Absolution, our sin is covered.

Through faith, we have a desire to obey the law; through faith this desire does result, as the quote from the AC above states "faith is bound to bring forth good fruits,". We teach and believe that these good fruits do not earn us merit; merit comes only through grace, as Luther states in his explanation of the first article of the Apostles Creed: "without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him."

Does that help. I hope some of the dialogs soon will get to discuss the understanding of sola scriptura or an infallible church. I think more then justification that issue is a huge one and would be fun to talk about.

God bless you brother.

Chris

Thanks again Chris for your insightful reply; It seems that one or another "sola" comes into play in each of our discussions. In this one, from out perspective, we see Fide, Gracia, and Sola Deo Gloria coming through. I agree that dedicated discussions on these topics would be both interesting and fun.

Above I wrote:

The distinction of mortal and venial sin is a concept foreign to Lutheran theology

If you are agreeable, I would like to deepen my understanding of this Catholic teaching regarding the distinction; would you mind, in your next post, taking this thread in that direction?

Blessings and peace to to you as we prepare to celebrate the Feast of Christ the King (Sunday of the Fulfillment) Tomorrow.

Your friend and brother in Christ,

Mark

 

[Athanasias]

Hi Mark,

Peace to you on this feast of Christ the King. I would be happy to explain the Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sin. Hopefully I can at least make it understandable LOL pray for me. Oh Before I begin one thing did stand out in your last response to me that was this quote on merit when you said:

We teach and believe that these good fruits do not earn us merit; merit comes only through grace, as Luther states in his explanation of the first article of the Apostles Creed: "[/COLOR]without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him."

I realize it has been about 5 or 6 months since we last did our dialog on the 3 different forms of merit(Strict, Congruous and Condign) and justification and I also understand we may use terms differently in our theology so I understand this statement. It may help to go back and reveiw our earlier dialogs on this for both of us so both of us do not misread each other. We too teach that good fruit is the evidence of Gods grace and a true faith in Christ Jesus. When we use the term merit in regards to human actions it is never in the understanding that we can "earn" something strictly by our actions. The Condign merit that humans beings have in our understanding simply means that God has given us His supernatural grace to obey him, and when we use our freewill aided by his grace and life in us and obey Him He then promises to issue a reward based on his Grace and mercy. So the condign merit is merely God rewarding his own handi-work in us as St. Augustine would say. His grace always precedes our actions and our condign merit or our "reward" is always based on 2 things. 1). His supernatural grace that we call sanctifying grace and 2) His Promise to reward us in divine Revelation due to that obedience.


With that being said lets dig into Mortal and Venial sin. I will open the can of worms so to speak and then allow for your objections and try to answer them as best as I can when they come. So in that way I will give you the basics and allow you to set the pace to go deeper if you wish. I hope that is ok?

Mortal sin is a sin in Catholic understanding that cuts one off from the friendship and supernatural communion or life with God. If one dies unrepentant in this state one goes to Eternal Hell and is separated from God from all eternity.

Venial sin is sin that damages ones relationship with God but it not as severe and so does not cut one off from friendship with God or cause one to loose sanctifying grace. One can die and still make it to heaven with venial sin on thier soul. They may need to be cleaned up and suffer temporary punishments/sanctification in purgatory first but their punishments are very different from those who die with unrepentant mortal sin on the soul.

Why do Catholics hold to this? Well for a few reasons. We believe that both sacred scripture and the constant authoritative and binding oral Apostolic tradition of the early Church has taught this distinction of both mortal and venial sin.

The most obvious author of the Holy Writ to teach this explicitly is St. John in his epistle 1 Jn 5:16-17:

“ If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

So that is one passage that look too in our understanding. It show that some sins are mortal and some are not. The ones that are not we call venial or lesser.

There is also a good example of both venial and mortal sin in Mathews Gospel if you read chapter 5 in context.

“Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".(Matt 5:19)

Notice here there are “least commandments” one can break or lesser“sins” one can commit and they will still be in the kingdom of heaven in Gods friendship if they die but they will be called least. Their punishment so to speak is not eternal hellfire. Now keep reading the same chapter and get down just a few verses later in context in verses 22 and 28-29 and those sins can send you to hell and cut your relationship off with God.

Those to us Catholics and to the early Church are 2 great passages(John and Matthew) that show us the reality of both mortal and venial sins.

In the early church apostolic tradition you find that this was just naturally held to. St. Jerome one of the finest and earliest scripture scholars the Church had mentions these truths held by the early church in his writing against the heretic Jovinian:

Jerome
"There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another" (Against Jovinian 2:30 [A.D. 393]).

Now I should say one thing. The Church pastorally in the confessional trains her priest when counseling others to look at a few conditions to see if a person is indeed culpable for mortal sin or not. This is based on 3 things according to the CCC. 1). Grave matter, 2) Full knowledge 3). Deliberate consent of the will

Thank you so much for allowing me to explain the Catholic position on this from scripture and apostolic tradition. I will allow you now to go as deep with this as you like.



May God bless you my friend.

In Jesus through Mary,

Chris