Faith alone and the Catholic church

[hedrick]

Eh?

He's speaking of a distinction made by Lutherans between books that are undisputed parts of the canon and books that are disputed. To my knowledge, only Lutherans currently make that distinction officially, and conservative Lutherans seem to be backing off from it.

Mainline / liberal denominations make the distinction informally. E.g. most of us doubt that books like 1 Timothy or 2 Peter were actually written by the claimed author, and I at least would treat them as historical background but not a source for doctrine.

 

[zippy2006]

I was asked to explain or clarify my earlier post...

By who?

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...

Your history is just factually incorrect. Francis requested permission from Innocent III to found an Order and was rejected. He was sent back with the Pope's blessing and encouraged to continue his work, but was not official recognized. Later on the group was officially recognized, but only after a probatory period.

--and deferential to the Pope, of course--

Which is obviously very different from Henry and Luther.

 

[Albion]

Your history is just factually incorrect.

I disagree.

Francis requested permission from Innocent III to found an Order and was rejected. He was sent back with the Pope's blessing and encouraged to continue his work, but was not official recognized. Later on the group was officially recognized, but only after a probatory period.

I didn't deny any of that, but the point still stands and is correct that he, who is now seen as a beloved figure, was seen early on by the ecclesiastical authorities as a non-conformist, a freelancer, a daydreamer, and not very comfortable with the established order of clergy.

BUT they let it pass because they could afford do.

By comparison, Luther and Henry wanted nothing very remarkable out of the Papacy but were stonewalled.

So why the difference? The Papacy was strong in the 12th century but reeling in the 16th.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree.


I didn't deny any of that, but the point still stands and is correct that he, who is now seen as a beloved figure, was seen early on by the ecclesiastical authorities as a non-conformist, a freelancer, a daydreamer, and not very comfortable with the established order of clergy.

BUT they let it pass because they could afford do.

By comparison, Luther and Henry wanted nothing very remarkable out of the Papacy but were stonewalled.

So why the difference? The Papacy was strong in the 12th century but reeling in the 16th.

The popes of the 13th century tolerated a daydreamer therefore the popes of the 16th should have bent to the wills of Henry and Luther? That's your argument?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Eh?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the ancient Church spoke of two classes of writings, those which had been received universally to be read in the churches, the homolegomena (which can be translated as the "common writings" those which were the same in all the churches everywhere) and the antilegomena (which can be translated as "disputed writings", those which were accepted by some but not by all).

The New Testament we have today, consisting of 27 books, consists both of the homolegomena and a number of books from the antilegomena; so with time some books of the antilegomena did gain the general consensus of acceptance throughout the Christian world. In some cases this took a very long time, e.g. even as late as the 7th century the book of the Revelation (aka the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John) was still disputed among some of the eastern churches, for example it was still notably absent from the Syriac Bible (known as the Peshitta).

The development of the Christian Bible didn't come about by some fiat or universal decree, but rather developed over time through the growing consensus of the Christian Church over the centuries. Which is why even today there are disputes over those books known as the Deuterocanonicals (the books found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but not usually found in Protestant Bibles).

Because the Bible is, in its historical function in the Christian Church, a part of our worship or liturgy--those books which were read as part of the regular readings in Christian worship. As it is important to keep in mind that until the invention of the moveable-type printing press the idea of individual Christians having a copy of the Bible to read for themselves personally was simply impossible. For the first ~1,500 years of Christian history the relationship of regular Christians with the Scriptures was by hearing the Scriptures read out loud when they gathered together for worship. Unless one was an academic or scribe, having access to the Bible for personal study just wasn't possible for most of history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

By who?



Your history is just factually incorrect. Francis requested permission from Innocent III to found an Order and was rejected. He was sent back with the Pope's blessing and encouraged to continue his work, but was not official recognized. Later on the group was officially recognized, but only after a probatory period.



Which is obviously very different from Henry and Luther.

Luther began quite deferential to the Pope, as can be seen in both the original 95 Theses and in his letter to Archbishop Albrecht. Luther didn't wake up one morning angry at the Pope, that was the result of church authorities clamoring to have him eradicated and eventually excommunicated for ideas that, as far as he could tell, were simply and clearly what the Church had always believed. Luther was pushed into a corner by an unrelenting bureaucracy that would rather silence him or even put him to death then allow even the possibility to permit for a frank and open conversation about these ideas.

The idea that Luther came out of the gates attacking the authority of the Pope simply isn't true. If it had been up to Luther, there would have been a general council convened which would then allow for an open conversation and discussion on the subject--but that never happened. Instead the Evangelicals were charged with heresy, accused of being enemies of the Church, and a bounty was put on Luther's head.

Was Luther hot-headed and antagonistic? Sure, Luther had more than his share of problems that we can point out as problematic. But to blame the schism that occurred between the Evangelicals and Rome upon Luther or the Evangelical party alone is to ignore the fact that the powers that be in Rome were clearly more interested in maintaining power than they were interested in theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

the homolegomena (which can be translated as the "common writings" those which were the same in all the churches everywhere) and the antilegomena (which can be translated as "disputed writings", those which were accepted by some but not by all).

I understand that for you the antilegomena are kind of deuterocanonical books in the NT. And I understand your reasoning. The more important question is: Do you find in them (other than Revelation, which is subject to misinterpretation) doctrines that are objectionable?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I understand that for you the antilegomena are kind of deuterocanonical books in the NT. And I understand your reasoning. The more important question is: Do you find in them (other than Revelation, which is subject to misinterpretation) doctrines that are objectionable?

I don't object to any of them. I like the Epistle of James. The only thing I object to is using James to attack the doctrine of justification as a free gift.

St. James says that "even the demons believe" which, at least to me, suggests a different meaning of "faith" than what St. Paul means when he speaks of justifying faith. For St. Paul saving faith is a gift by which God converts us and by which we trust in Christ; it's the difference between faith as a bold trust and faith as intellectual belief. The demons do not trust in Christ, they believe in Christ in that they certainly know who He is and what He is; but they do not have faith in Christ which is why their "faith" means nothing.

The question then is what does James mean by being justified by works, especially since Paul says that we are not justified by our works.

As a Lutheran I can read James as speaking of our sanctification, or what in Lutheranism is known as the New Obedience, and that it falls under the idea of our righteousness coram mundus ("before the world") rather than our righteousness coram Deo ("before God"). We are righteous before God solely and exclusively by what Christ has done, which is ours exclusively by the grace and gift of God; but our righteousness before the world is about our works, our loving our neighbor, our clothing the naked, our obedience to God's command, that's what the New Obedience is. Whereby when we were faithless and dead in our trespasses our works amounted to nothing, we have by the grace of God the new man which is spurred toward good works by the empowering of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and thus are a people created in Christ Jesus for good works which were prepared for us that we might walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).

Thus these are two kinds of righteousness, that righteousness which is the gift of God through faith which is Christ's own righteousness; and that righteousness which is for the sake of the world for which we were created and called to live in as a people of God, a people of faith. Thus faith which is from God behooves us to good works, not to earn merit before God, but for the good of our neighbor. God doesn't need my good works, but my neighbor does, it is my neighbor that is hungry, my neighbor that is thirsty, my neighbor that is cold and naked, in prison, in need of medicine, and who is the immigrant that I am to welcome. And thus it is God's call and command that I love my neighbor that I am called to live not for myself, but for others.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

I don't object to any of them. I like the Epistle of James. The only thing I object to is using James to attack the doctrine of justification as a free gift.

Are there any other seeming contradictions with the antilegomena?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are there any other seeming contradictions with the antilegomena?

I'd probably point out that the use of the Apocalypse of St. John to argue for the Chiliast position is an example of using antilegomena to establish an entire theological argument--and would again point to needing to read the Apocalypse in light of the rest of Scripture, not the rest of Scripture in light of the Apocalypse.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

I'd probably point out that the use of the Apocalypse of St. John to argue for the Chiliast position is an example of using antilegomena to establish an entire theological argument--and would again point to needing to read the Apocalypse in light of the rest of Scripture, not the rest of Scripture in light of the Apocalypse.

This is certainly true.

Thus these are two kinds of righteousness, that righteousness which is the gift of God through faith which is Christ's own righteousness; and that righteousness which is for the sake of the world for which we were created and called to live in as a people of God, a people of faith. Thus faith which is from God behooves us to good works, not to earn merit before God, but for the good of our neighbor. God doesn't need my good works, but my neighbor does, it is my neighbor that is hungry, my neighbor that is thirsty, my neighbor that is cold and naked, in prison, in need of medicine, and who is the immigrant that I am to welcome. And thus it is God's call and command that I love my neighbor that I am called to live not for myself, but for others.

I really like the way you explained this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've heard mention of lukewarm Christians.... what makes a Christian lukewarm? They are still called Christian in the Bible, so they must have a basic level of faith. They must believe in Christ and his sacrifice for them...
.... so why aren't they saved?

The reference comes from the Apocalypse of St. John (aka the book of the Revelation), the text is addressed to seven Christian communities located in the Roman province of Asia Minor (in what is modern day Turkey). In the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the text Jesus has John write down His words to these seven churches, one of them is the church in Laodicea, in which Jesus rebukes the Laodicean Christians of being lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, and thus He would spit them out of His mouth. The allusion is to lukewarm water, cold fresh water is refreshing, and hot water can be useful, but lukewarm water is worthless and gross. As a coffee drinker a modern allusion could be made to coffee, both hot coffee and ice cold coffee are pleasant, but let either sit out until they are lukewarm and it is unpleasant to drink

The warning being given is that they boast claiming they are rich, when in reality they are poor, and thus He calls them to ask Him to purchase gold refined by fire. This perhaps alludes to the fact that while their sister churches in Asia were suffering for their faith, enduring oppression and hardship, the Laodicean church was doing well, perhaps even enjoying affluence. He reminds them that He still loves them, and that He disciplines those whom He loves, and that He has not abandoned them, but rather He stands at the door and knocks. It is a call to repentance for their complacency.

We can only guess what exactly the circumstances were, but I think the above can be probably gathered at least by implication. Here's what's written in entirety (note that it's very likely that the "angel" here isn't an angel at all, but is the church's bishop who would then have read the contents to the congregation, the Greek word aggelos means "messenger"),

"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'" - Revelation 3:14-22

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

I've heard mention of lukewarm Christians.... what makes a Christian lukewarm? They are still called Christian in the Bible, so they must have a basic level of faith. They must believe in Christ and his sacrifice for them...
.... so why aren't they saved?

They may be among the saved. The term simply refers to a person who is a Christian in a formal sense but doesn't seem to be very religious.

All of the world's religious can count such people among their adherents.

 

[Andrewn]

I've heard mention of lukewarm Christians.... what makes a Christian lukewarm? They are still called Christian in the Bible, so they must have a basic level of faith. They must believe in Christ and his sacrifice for them... .... so why aren't they saved?

This subject is so interesting that I considered responding a new thread. There has already been 2 responses and I agree with them. Just wanted to add the following:

From the letter to the church in Laodicea and from history we know that people there were materially rich, kind of like most of us in the affluent West. Jesus' letter reminds them that they are in fact spiritually poor, which is really what counts in the Kingdom of God. The most important part, in my view, is the Lord's prescription to the spiritually-poor Laodiceans in Rev 3:18

1) I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich,

2) and white clothes so that you may dress yourself and so the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed,

3) and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Notice that these poor people cannot afford any of these items. They get them as free gifts by opening the door to Jesus (Rev 3:20-21).

What are the gold coins, white cloaks, and eye ointment that are required to heal their spiritual poverty?

 

[Tellyontellyon]

What are the gold coins, white cloaks, and eye ointment that are required to heal their spiritual poverty?

What is the accepted view of what these mean?

 

[Andrewn]

What is the accepted view of what these mean?

Thank you for asking. I found the best answer in the Collected Works of Watchman Nee. I'll start by posting his explanation of the gold coins:

"What they should buy are three things. First is "gold refined by fire." If they are willing to buy the gold of Christ, they will be turned immediately from poverty to riches. If they are willing to exchange their riches with the Lord, they will lose the deceitful mammon and will gain the real thing. What they have is, of course, merely money produced by their self-righteous filthy garments, which cannot withstand fire. Only the Lord has the gold refined by fire. If they are willing to give up their riches before men, they will be rich before God (Luke 12:33).

"What is the significance of "gold refined by fire" here? Gold in the Bible symbolizes God's holiness, but here it does not mention gold only, but "gold refined by fire." Hence, it must mean something else. Gold refined by fire means a faith that has been proved. "So that the proving of your faith, much more precious than of gold which perishes though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:7). For this reason James told us, "Did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He promised to those who love Him?" (James 2:5). Only those who are truly poor in the world will be rich in faith, for only they can possibly be proved and can demonstrate the riches of their faith through this proving.

"The faith spoken of here is not the initial faith with which we believe in the Lord; Laodicea has that faith already. The faith spoken of here is the faith with which the believers suffer for the Lord. This is what the Lord Jesus was referring to when He spoke of gold refined by fire. The Lord desires to see His people give up everything practically to follow Him and to suffer for Him. The Lord desires to see His people lose their scum in the furnace of suffering and shine and sparkle in the day of His appearing. The Laodicean believers should not have any hope for rapture or reigning. But if some among them would forsake everything to suffer for the Lord, so that their faith would become rich through their trials and they would turn from backsliding, the Lord will make them regain their lost rapture (with reference to Peter's word) and kingdom (with reference to James' word). May we have more faith to go through the sufferings!"

 

[Andrewn]

That's interesting, a purification by fire perhaps. Resisting the desire for worldly pleasures may burn, but that is a refining heat. Like the alchemical calcinatio?

Exactly, you give an excellent word picture.

"'And white garments that you may be clothed and that the shame of your nakedness may not be manifested.' This is the second thing that they should buy. This, of course, refers to the goodness and righteousness of the saints' conduct. These white garments are not the righteousness of the Lord Jesus, because the Laodicean believers have that already. The white garments here refer to the righteousness practiced by the believers in their living after they have believed in the Lord and received God's righteousness. This is clearly pointed out to us by the Holy Spirit. Revelation 19:8 says, "And it was given to her that she should be clothed in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of the saints." The righteousness of the worldly people and the righteousness of the believers are two different things. The righteousness lived out by the believers is based on the righteousness they received from God, while the worldly people are practicing something merely according to the power of the flesh. This fact is related to the last point covered. Although they have put on the righteousness of the Lord Jesus, their faith is still not too living. This is why the Lord first counsels them to buy the living faith, to remove all filth, and to labor with love. They are still naked and shameful spiritually because they lack the practice. They are the fruitless trees. This is why the Lord charges them to draw near to Him, so that they may have good works through His grace and bear fruit of justification by faith.

"Our garment is our outward appearance before men. We must differentiate between the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the saints. However, we must not separate the two. Christ as our robe of righteousness is a matter of our appearance before God. The righteous works of the saints are the righteousnesses practiced by the saints after they have believed and been justified. They are the white garments of the saints manifested before men and at the judgment seat of Christ. If saints have only believed and been justified, but have not practiced righteousness, they may not need to feel ashamed before the Father. But will the world say that they are good men just because they have believed in Christ? Will the judgment seat which bases its judgment on works consider such ones a glory to the Lord? As soon as a believer is void of white garments, the world will know about it, and Christ will also judge it. A believer who does not have the white garment is a believer who is naked before the world and Christ; he is a deeply shameful person. Among the present so-called believers, there are two kinds of errors. The first is to try desperately to perform righteousness and think that goodness before men means righteousness before God. The second is to consider justification before God as all that counts and that nothing else matters. Those who look to their own work and who do not trust in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus will not be saved. However, those who trust in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus but have no practical righteousness will not be rewarded. But then, one should also be careful about the practical righteousness that comes after justification. These are white garments; they are not the work of the flesh. White is the color of light, and light is the nature of God. Hence, the white garments are works that bear God's nature. Leviticus must come before Numbers. All those who have not seen God's holiness in the Holy of Holies cannot walk with God in the world.

"The result of having the white garments is to have the shame covered. This means that there is no more shame. When Christ comes again, many will be ashamed before His seat (1 John 2:28). These are the ones who had much strength and many opportunities to practice righteousness."

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Among the present so-called believers, there are two kinds of errors. The first is to try desperately to perform righteousness and think that goodness before men means righteousness before God. The second is to consider justification before God as all that counts and that nothing else matters. Those who look to their own work and who do not trust in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus will not be saved. However, those who trust in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus but have no practical righteousness will not be rewarded. But then, one should also be careful about the practical righteousness that comes after justification.

So trying to be righteous in our own eyes, through worldly eyes is not satisfactory with God. So a truly righteous act for one who has the Spirit would be to follow the command of the Spirit ? To discern what God wants and obey? Like Abraham was willing to trust and obey?

 

[Andrewn]

So trying to be righteous in our own eyes, through worldly eyes is not satisfactory with God. So a truly righteous act for one who has the Spirit would be to follow the command of the Spirit ? To discern what God wants and obey? Like Abraham was willing to trust and obey?

You're quite right. Trying to be righteous in our own eyes, through worldly eyes has its merits but is never complete because the world still believes in the power of Mars, the god of war, Mammon, the god of money, and Aphrodite, the goddess of erotic love. To discern what God wants one needs to have fellowship with Him.

"'And eye salve to anoint your eyes that you may see.' This is the third thing that these ones should buy with a price. What they lack is spiritual sight. Otherwise, they would not have become so self-contented. They need a self-realization. Everyone who knows himself realizes that in his flesh there is no goodness dwelling. Only those who do not understand the corruptness and hopelessness of the nature they received from Adam think that they "have need of nothing." If the heart is satisfied with the old creation, it must surely have grown fat! These need the spiritual sight to know the holiness of the Lord. They have never realized how holy God is and how unapproachable, untouchable, and unimaginable is His holiness. That is why they are satisfied with what they have. They are also lacking in the revelation concerning the Lord's coming and His kingdom. If they were not lacking in this, they would not have accumulated riches and would not have boasted of these riches, which bar them from the kingdom. They must yet see how they are in the position of the creature and how they must trust in the Creator for all gifts. If the messengers in heaven have to trust in this way, how much more do we the sinners have to do the same? If we realize the position of God and of man, what other thoughts can we hold except to beg for grace and receive grace?

These are the ancient Pharisees! "But now that you say, We see; your sin remains" (John 9:41). Those who know that they are blind will receive healing from Christ. As He opened man's physical eyes with the clay and the spittle, in the same way He will now heal man's spiritual blindness with eyesalve. But why would those who say that they are not sick look for the physician? Once their eyes are opened, they will have the self-realization. This will save them from being astonished by their own blindness when enlightened by the flaming eyes at the judgment seat in that day.

One famous writer once said, "The most precious spikenard eyesalves come from Laodicea, the champion of all cities in Asia." However, the Lord told them to buy eye salve from Him. The Lord sent Ananias to Saul so that he could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). From that time on, Saul was to have a new sight, a sight of the Holy Spirit to discern all things. The talent, mind, and ability of Laodicea were all great, but it did not give any ground to the Holy Spirit. Apart from the Holy Spirit there is no spiritual sight. John told the little ones in the house of God, "And you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know....And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you; but as His anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, abide in Him" (1 John 2:20, 27). The Holy Spirit is the anointing, the eye salve. Unless we humble ourselves before the Holy Spirit and allow Him to reveal ourselves and God's coming glory to us, we will not be able to know. Wisdom and prudence are useless here."

Online Publications from Living Stream Ministry, Books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee

 

[SeekingGloryOnThisJourney]

Hi.
I'm still wondering about this question of faith alone.
I came across this video and it seemed to have good arguments in it.
If anybody is willing to watch the video, I would be interested in your views. I feel now, after watching this, that the Lutheran doctrine of faith alone is questionable.
Please watch and let me know what you think. Thank you.

Faith gives birth to works.
Faith without works is dead.
When I began as a Christian, I only had Faith. It was all I knew for a start; I didn’t know enough for works.
Now as I have been maturing in Faith, I try to do Good Works when I’ve got a chance.
It goes hand in hand.