Faith alone and the Catholic church

[Lukaris]

St. Paul said we must repent & do works worthy of repentance ( Acts of the Apostles 26:20 ). St. John the Baptist said this also in Luke 3 ( especially Luke 3:8 ). The Lord said repent ( Matthew 4:17 ) & later lays out our basic way to live in faith with prayer & charity ( Matthew 6:1-15 ).

More basics are found in keeping the commandments ( Matthew 19:16-19, Romans 13:8-10 etc.). This involves ongoing review of our shortcomings ( 1 John 1:5-10 etc. ) which corresponds to what the Lord says in John 14:15-18 etc.

It is never to late to do this as the thief on the Cross demonstrates ( Luke 23:39-43 ).

We have to see as much of the Gospel as we can & from where we are at when we give ourselves to the Lord ( Romans 10:9-13 etc.). We know there is hope for those who may not have truly heard or understood the Gospel but lived in ways God will judge according to his will ( Romans 2, Romans 9:14-18

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's what the video seemed to show.... You've really got to jump through some hoops to have James meaning something opposite to what he says very clearly. It makes more sense to be more critical of how Paul is interpreted. It's not a matter of saying faith alone Vs works alone.
And 'works' doesn't have to be taken as following all the Jewish food laws and circumcision etc., etc., that's what it seems Paul is getting at, not being a good person in general. The way I'm interpreting it right now, the Bible seems to be saying that faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary to be saved, and that is a gift unearned, but, you must also strive to be good and that is also necessary if you are to avoid punishment, even though none is perfect but God.
Otherwise James is being interpreted in a way that is frankly implausible... He's really very clear.
There is more room to manoeuvre with what Paul is saying unless you are really attached to a particular interpretation.

In a sense, one of the Lutheran hermeneutical principles tends to be that Homolegomena > Antilegomena, and the clear and overall biblical consensus rules over the outliers. This might need some explaining, but basically the Homolegomena refers to those books of the New Testament which had universal acceptance from nearly the beginning, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, 1 Peter and 1 John. The Antilegomena or "disputed writings" covers all the books which were disputed in antiquity, many eventually were included in the New Testament over time, but others weren't. These include the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and the Revelation of John; but it also includes the Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and sometimes the (non-heretical) Revelation of Peter. This is why, for example, some ancient biblical codices such as Codex Sinaiticus include Clement, but not the Revelation of John.

So the basic principle is that the Homolegomena carries more "weight" in a sense, likewise, consensus and clarity is more important than outliers. If we see X over and over again, and then in one place it looks like it says Y, we don't then dismiss X in favor of what Y may look like; instead the question is how are both X and Y true?

If we see, time and again, that we are justified by God's grace alone, through faith, apart from our works; but then in James we read that we are justified by our works, do we then do away with justification by grace alone through faith in favor of justification by our works? Or do we see how the two can be reconciled together?

To that end, speaking from a Lutheran position, either:

1) James is not contradicting Paul and the general biblical consensus, and thus must be read in light of it or
2) James is contradicting Paul and the general biblical consensus, in which case James' position must be rejected.

The Lutheran approach has been the first one, rather than the second. Though Martin Luther himself, at least for a time, took the second, hence (in)famously accusing James of being an "epistle of straw".

Either Paul and James are in disagreement, in which case we go with Paul instead of James; or else Paul and James are in agreement, and James must be read in light of Paul. But Paul is never to be read in light of James.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tellyontellyon]

in which case we go with Paul instead of James; or else Paul and James are in agreement, and James must be read in light of Paul. But Paul is never to be read in light of James.

Why?

 

[zippy2006]

...why have Lutherans placed James in the "Antilegomena"?

(The odd thing about Lutheranism is that it seems to derive the essence of Christianity not from the homolegomena noted, but from a subset of Paul's writings, which is a very small slice of the Bible. N.T. Wright and others would argue that even that subset is misinterpreted.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why?

Well, for one, because the letters of Paul are homolegomena, the Epistle of James is antilegomena.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

...why have Lutherans placed James in the "Antilegomena"?

We didn't, James is among the books disputed or absent in the canonical lists of antiquity, e.g.:

"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, and also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." - Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, 25.3

It is absent from the list contained in the Muratorian Fragment.

It is, however, seemingly accepted by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and onward.

By calling it Antilegomena the point isn't to attack it, but to point out that it is among those works disputed in antiquity.

(The odd thing about Lutheranism is that it seems to derive the essence of Christianity not from the homolegomena noted, but from a subset of Paul's writings, which is a very small slice of the Bible. N.T. Wright and others would argue that even that subset is misinterpreted.)

It is perhaps accurate to say that Lutheranism is rather flamboyantly Pauline. But then, Paul's writings do, in fact, make up the bulk of the New Testament.

But we don't take what Paul says and ignore everything else, indeed our argument is that our faith is the faith of the ancient and holy fathers. Remember, we aren't ex-Catholics, we are faithful Catholics, the ancient fathers are our fathers. Out dispute is not with the ancient and holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, since that is our Church (though, yes, as a Roman Catholic you would dispute this assertion).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

We didn't, James is among the books disputed or absent in the canonical lists of antiquity, e.g.:

"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, and also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." - Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, 25.3

It is absent from the list contained in the Muratorian Fragment.

It is, however, seemingly accepted by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and onward.

Ah okay, thanks. The concept of an explicitly tiered canon is curious to me. Do you know if that is present in other Protestant denominations?

It is perhaps accurate to say that Lutheranism is rather flamboyantly Pauline. But then, Paul's writings do, in fact, make up the bulk of the New Testament.

But we don't take what Paul says and ignore everything else, indeed our argument is that our faith is the faith of the ancient and holy fathers. Remember, we aren't ex-Catholics, we are faithful Catholics, the ancient fathers are our fathers. Out dispute is not with the ancient and holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, since that is our Church (though, yes, as a Roman Catholic you would dispute this assertion).

-CryptoLutheran

If I were Lutheran I would be wary of the fact that my religion is based on a 16th-century interpretation of Paul. For example, if Pauline scholarship proceeds in a certain direction the roots of Lutheranism would be invalidated. Granted, one might then abandon sola scriptura in favor of Augustinian-Lutheran doctrine, but I imagine that would be a difficult task for a Protestant.

I suppose Christianity is naturally susceptible to counterfactual contingencies, and that any substantial reform/break movement opens itself to that danger, but it is still one of the reasons I favor Catholicism. Even if we make a mistake and fall down a few rungs, our ladder is long. The Orthodox with their softer understanding of infallible doctrine are probably even better off according to such a criterion.

 

[hedrick]

I think the issue is what you mean by faith.

No one, Protestant or Catholic, believes that you can earn salvation. To do that you’d have to be perfect, and no one is. That’s one of Paul’s arguments, and I don’t think anyone has countered it.

At that point views diverge. If you can’t earn salvation, that how is anyone saved? I would say you don’t have to, because God loves you anyway. Although I think that’s pretty clear in Jesus’ teaching, this viewpoint isn’t very popular.

Traditional Protestant theology says you are saved because you are one of Christ’s people. As one of his people, he died for you. You can’t earn that status, not by works and not by faith. But the badge that shows you are one of his people is faith. The problem with using works for that is (1) our works can never be enough, and (2) anyone, even non-Christians, can do good things. What makes us Christians is that we are committed to Christ, and any works we do are in response to him.

Many Protestants think it’s legitimate to ask whether once one is committed to Christ, some kind of response is necessary. Many Protestants will say that while we aren’t saved by works, if someone is truly Christ’s, it should show in their lives, and if it doesn’t, it is quite likely that they aren’t actually saved.

When rightly interpretered, the Protestant tradition tries to focus on motivation, seeing good works as following from a changed heart. You can see this quite clearly in Jesus’ teaching about ethics. They always focus on intent. If you don’t do that, you end up with an approach that cares more about rules than the actual good of people. In the end, that becomes toxic. Hence, in principle being Christ’s produces a changed heart, which is what faith is, and actions come from that. On the other hand, if this doesn’t actually show itself in how someone lives, it’s not likely that they are actually changed. Of course this change is relative, since being a Christian certainly doesn’t make some perfect.

I’m not so convinced that modern Catholic practice actually differs from this significantly, though traditional doctrine is strong enough that you’ll see hear arguments over faith and works.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ah okay, thanks. The concept of an explicitly tiered canon is curious to me. Do you know if that is present in other Protestant denominations?

I wouldn't describe it as a tiered canon. Though I would argue that since in Lutheranism there has never been a formal closing of the Canon (hence why we have no official position on the canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books), then there remains an open ambiguity toward those books which have been historically disputed. In essence, using 2 Peter in agreement with the rest of Scripture is good, but it would be problematic to use 2 Peter in order to attempt to establish doctrine that is unknown in the rest of Scripture and foreign to the historic teachings of the Church.

As far as I'm aware, basically all Protestant bodies, sans Lutheranism, have affirmed a sixty-six book Canon in their confessional texts and statements of faith. Even the Church of England's 39 Articles references a Canon of sixty-six books, which I believe stems from a Reformed influence.

If I were Lutheran I would be wary of the fact that my religion is based on a 16th-century interpretation of Paul. For example, if Pauline scholarship proceeds in a certain direction the roots of Lutheranism would be invalidated. Granted, one might then abandon sola scriptura in favor of Augustinian-Lutheran doctrine, but I imagine that would be a difficult task for a Protestant.

One might say the same thing about an 11th century interpretation of Paul vis-a-vis the Anselmian/Thomist Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. But then the counter would be that both Anselm and Aquinas were working from and building off of the teachings that came before them; likewise we Lutherans say the same about our understanding of Justification.

I suppose Christianity is naturally susceptible to counterfactual contingencies, and that any substantial reform/break movement opens itself to that danger, but it is still one of the reasons I favor Catholicism. Even if we make a mistake and fall down a few rungs, our ladder is long. The Orthodox with their softer understanding of infallible doctrine are probably even better off according to such a criterion.

In the same way that your understanding of Catholicism is through the unbroken ladder down through the centuries through the fathers, to the apostles, and finally to Christ--the same is true for us Lutherans. That is, you don't see your church as having begun in 1054 with the Great Schism, neither do we believe our church began in 1517 with the posting of the 95 theses. We were are simply continuing and practicing the holy, catholic, and apostolic religion founded by Jesus Christ--the same faith as the apostles, the ancient and holy fathers, and onward through the centuries. It's the same Church, the same faith.

This seems strange, because of the Lutheran identity as "Protestant", and the usual narrative is that Protestants protested and left the Catholic Church in the 16th century. But that's simply never been the way Lutherans understand the Reformation and our relationship to historic Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

I wouldn't describe it as a tiered canon.

But Lutherans clearly give the homolegomena more weight than the antilegomena according to your description above... That was the basis for your adjudication between the competing texts.

One might say the same thing about an 11th century interpretation of Paul vis-a-vis the Anselmian/Thomist Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. But then the counter would be that both Anselm and Aquinas were working from and building off of the teachings that came before them; likewise we Lutherans say the same about our understanding of Justification.

But Anselm's theory of the Atonement really is an arbitrary date for Catholics. Our Church does not rise or fall with Anselm. On the other hand 1517 is anything but an arbitrary date for Lutherans. We could theoretically decide that Anselm's theory was totally erroneous and revise our doctrine accordingly. But could Lutherans do that with Luther's theology? Is it really true to say that Martin Luther was not the founder of your denomination?

In the same way that your understanding of Catholicism is through the unbroken ladder down through the centuries through the fathers, to the apostles, and finally to Christ--the same is true for us Lutherans. That is, you don't see your church as having begun in 1054 with the Great Schism, neither do we believe our church began in 1517 with the posting of the 95 theses. We were are simply continuing and practicing the holy, catholic, and apostolic religion founded by Jesus Christ--the same faith as the apostles, the ancient and holy fathers, and onward through the centuries. It's the same Church, the same faith.

This seems strange, because of the Lutheran identity as "Protestant", and the usual narrative is that Protestants protested and left the Catholic Church in the 16th century. But that's simply never been the way Lutherans understand the Reformation and our relationship to historic Christianity.

It seems strange because you are making this analogy...

Pre-Schism Christianity : Post-Schism Catholicism :: Pre-Reformation Christianity : Post-Reformation Protestantism
​

That's not true, though. Catholicism's relation to the Schism and Protestantism's relation to the Reformation are completely different (and the relation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is different from the relation between Catholicism and Protestantism). Lutheranism does not represent a movement of Christian continuity. It represents--even self-consciously--a decisive break combined with the recovery of the "purer" faith of an earlier time.

 

[hedrick]

One development of the last few decades has been finding just how much the Reformers actually followed trends in the late medieval church. I'm not a historian, so I'm not the one to explain this. Both Lutheran and post-break Roman Catholics took up things that were there already. For those Protestants still involved in refighting the Reformation, the position is that Lutherans were the legitimate continuation of the existing Catholic church, and the Roman Church detached itself from the Catholic tradition when it excommunicated the true church.

For those of us not interested in refighting the Reformation, this is largely irrelevant. Protestants are now a separate family of traditions, with hundreds of years of shared experience and theology. We have different ways of making decisions than the Catholic Church, and different concepts of what the Church is. If Protestants and Catholics agreed tomorrow on justification by faith, that would have little effect on this.

Protestants are not going to fold back into the Catholic Church. For those concerned about unity, the way forward is to acknowledge that we're all part of the Church and develop relationships among us.

Personally I view the Reformation as God's judgement on a Church that had for too long confused its organizational needs with God's Kingdom. It was like Babel, both a punishment and a precaution to prevent reoccurrence.

 

[Andrewn]

Lutheranism does not represent a movement of Christian continuity. It represents--even self-consciously--a decisive break combined with the recovery of the "purer" faith of an earlier time.

We tend to not talk much about the Catholic Reformation or Revival, which perhaps culminated in Vatican II.

Counter-Reformation | Summary, Facts, & Significance
Roman Catholicism - The church since Vatican II

There were Reformation movements that rejected the Papacy and others that affirmed it. The first group were called heretics and the second frequently considered saints. The modern Catholic beliefs regarding salvation are probably not very different from traditional Protestant beliefs.

 

[hedrick]

Is it really true to say that Martin Luther was not the founder of your denomination?

Yes, it is true. Reform was in the air. It had been for a century or move, e.g. with the concilliarist movement. Luther happened to be the spark in Germany, but it would have happened in Switzerland anyway, and I'd guess in Germany in some other way.

I think the real creator of Lutheran Reformation was the Elector of Saxony. There had been people like Luther for a long time. They just got assimilated or executed. What changed in the 16th Cent is that key civil governments stopped being willing to kill reformers.

 

[zippy2006]

We tend to not talk much about the Catholic Reformation or Revival, which perhaps culminated in Vatican II.

It gets plenty of press in Catholic circles, and it centered on the Council of Trent, not Vatican II.

 

[hedrick]

Another view of the Lutheran Reformation is the its author was the Pope. He didn’t understand the changes in politics, and thus thought he had more power than he did. The Catholic Church throughout its history had plenty of diversity, and plenty of reform movements. There’s a reasonable chance it could have assimilated Luther, though it would have required care. Whether that would have stopped a break is less clear though. There were more radical leaders that couldn’t have been assimilated.

 

[Albion]

Another view of the Lutheran Reformation is the its author was the Pope. He didn’t understand the changes in politics, and thus thought he had more power than he did. The Catholic Church throughout its history had plenty of diversity, and plenty of reform movements. There’s a reasonable chance it could have assimilated Luther, though it would have required care. Whether that would have stopped a break is less clear though. There were more radical leaders that couldn’t have been assimilated.

It's often contended that both Luther and Henry VIII came along at a time when the Papacy was at a very low level (the Renaissance Popes, following the Avignon Captivity, plus the natural disasters of the very late Middle Ages), meaning that the Popes of the 16th century could have taken a totally different view of the challenges facing them than they did.

Francis of Assisi, by comparison, had been potentially much more of a threat than Henry was by wanting an annulment similar to the one already granted by the Papacy to the king of France...but times had changed and it was difficult for the 16th century Popes to retreat further, regardless of the issues themselves.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Well, for one, because the letters of Paul are homolegomena, the Epistle of James is antilegomena.

Eh?

 

[Albion]

The Popes of Luther's and Henry's day might not have been intransigent towards the fairly reasonable issues that the two of them and others raised...except that the Papacy itself had by that time lost a lot of the credibility and authority it once had enjoyed.

Several centuries earlier, a really unusual reformer, Francis of Assisi, did his thing without being criticized by the Church. Francis was potentially much more of a boat-rocker than Luther and Henry were, but he was tolerated because the Papacy at that time was riding high and feeling secure.

 

[zippy2006]

Francis was potentially much more of a boat-rocker than Luther and Henry were, but he was tolerated because the Papacy at that time was riding high and feeling secure.

You've said that twice, but it's still not true. Comparing Francis to Henry (or even Luther) is really strange. There were all sorts of factional troubles plaguing the Church of Francis' time, and Francis certainly didn't get a free pass. Francis had Ugolino's aid, which proved to be a double-edged sword, but he was guided in a way that the hierarchy approved of. The idea that Francis ever had the opportunity or capacity to do the things that Henry and Luther did is just wrong. He could have stirred up some trouble in the way that some of his contemporaries did, but he could not have created continental schisms that split Europe into warring factions.

 

[Albion]

You've said that twice, but it's still not true.

I was asked to explain or clarify my earlier post, Zippy. And yes, it's all true.

There were all sorts of factional troubles plaguing the Church of Francis' time, and Francis certainly didn't get a free pass.

That was the time of the Church's greatest power and standing. Things plummeted in the several centuries following.

And as for a free pass, yes, that actually is a good way for you to put it.

Francis literally did get a free pass. When he was interviewed by the Pope and his staff, the latter decided to let Francis have his ministry since he seemed so sincere--and deferential to the Pope, of course--that they probably could excuse Francis' controversial religious ideas or run the risk at any rate.

He could have stirred up some trouble in the way that some of his contemporaries did, but he could not have created continental schisms that split Europe into warring factions.

You say that because you know what happened after the Papacy stonewalled Henry and Luther, neither of whom wanted anything that couldn't have been easily agreed to by the Pope...except, as said, the Pope's back was to the wall and he could not, in the 16th century,risk looking any weaker. As for how the Reformation then took off, well, that did not have to happen.