Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[fhansen]

The gospel is the common ground that unites all Nicene Christianity. All of those areas of division are simply contestable matters that have led to people declaring themselves as belonging to one faction or another.

Many of those areas are quite crucial: whether or not man can lose his salvation is a matter of soteriology and affects how one approaches God and lives their lives. Double predestination presents us with a very different God from one who creates none to perish while valuing man’s freedom to choose good over evil, even with the help of grace. Does God love all, or only some? If man’s justice consists of having faith alone, does future sin matter for a believer? Is salvation a journey, or a one-time event? Is man obligated to love, or is that just an optional side-effect of relationship with Him at best? Just a few questions caused by the doctrinal confusion begun with Sola Scriptura.

If you are seriously conflating the Reformers and other protestant groups with a group that relies heavily on the personal revelation of a man named Joseph Smith who taught that Jesus came to the Americas, then I can only conclude that your assessment is based on dishonest evaluation.

Joseph Smith was heavily influenced by the fervent religious world around him including the Great Awakening of the early 19th century, and became concerned about the conflict and confusion between the varying denominations. So he made another one, to make a long story short, based on Scripture and his visions. Honesty can't help but acknowledge the connection between them and other protesters, including JWs who were "sola scripturalists", and on to the Nicene Christians who picked and chose what they might retain of the ways and teachings that had preceded them, some retaining more while some less, all throwing off what they deemed to be unbiblical or ahistorical for whatever reason but all still in error to one degree or another.

Except those "higher up idiot brats" were the face of the church and what they taught was widely considered to be what the church taught.

Oh, they certainly scandalized the church, that's for sure, although more in some parts of the west than others. The church still taught the same basics as it always had, however, while nonetheless losing respect of many by the abusive actions of many leaders.

Yes, though while Trent was a positive step forward it is essentially an admission that the Reformer's were justified in their criticism. and whether it went far enough in its reforms is a matter of debate, a debate that weighs in favor of "no" considering that the next several centuries saw further reform in the direction that the Reformer's attempted to take the church and a revisitation in Vatican II.

I'm not sure if many Protestants would see Trent as a positive step. It objectively addressed and analyzed the Reformers positions, anathemizing many of their core doctrines while more clearly and precisely laying down the Catholic teachings. And, yes, reforms were made but mainly for ensuring that teachers were well trained and disseminating the faith correctly. Vat II pleased many while disquieting many, both inside the CC and outside of it. It was a pretty bold step for any part of Christianity to make, and one that reflects centuries of growth in the practical understanding of the Christian message IMO, a maturation and refining that was definitely impacted by the Reformation, alright. And the Reformers sense of something being wrong, out of balance, was not at all uncalled for. It served as a strong wake up call in any case.

My primary position in our discussion is not about forwarding positive statements of belief, so I'm drawing on a wide basis of critical avenues rather than attempting to build a case. This is especially because I don't deny the RCC as an authentic expression of the Christian church, I simply deny its exclusivity as "the Church" since it seems to me that "the Church" must include all of the branches in schism since the gospel is preached in all of them and there are Christians who fellowship in all of them. So the only aspect of RCC teaching that must be held false is the overall authority of the Rome, which from the agreements made at the 7 ecumenical councils and statements from bishops such as Gregory the Great seems to be fairly historically demonstrable as being a false claim that developed over time coming to a head in the Photian controversy. So while it may appear that I take a shotgun approach, it is purely because my role in our discussion is as a skeptic and not forwarding cataphatic positions.

And the CC affirms that Nicene Christians are part of that same church. But to insist that all the churches necessarily possess the full truth as God would have us know it is to draw the doctrinal line far back in the sand, out of convenience apparently. The differences between the Protestant denominations are by no means insignificant. I witness them almost daily on these forums. Again, even if one denies universal authority of the papacy, the Eastern churches would still by far have the most supportable claim for orthodox practice and teachings.

 

[Fervent]

Many of those areas are quite crucial: whether or not man can lose his salvation is a matter of soteriology and affects how one approaches God and lives their lives. Double predestination presents us with a very different God from one who creates none to perish while valuing man’s freedom to choose good over evil, even with the help of grace. Does God love all, or only some? If man’s justice consists of having faith alone, does future sin matter for a believer? Is salvation a journey, or a one-time event? Is man obligated to love, or is that just an optional side-effect of relationship with Him at best? Just a few questions caused by the doctrinal confusion begun with Sola Scriptura.

They're important to a degree, but they're high minded theory that doesn't change the gospel itself. We often make far more of things that are speculative than we should, but believing in double predestination or any other soteriological model doesn't alter the gospel message that God became man, died on the cross, and was risen from the dead. There's room to debate the finer points, but why emphasize what separates us instead of focusing on what unites us?

Joseph Smith was heavily influenced by the fervent religious world around him including the Great Awakening of the early 19th century, and became concerned about the conflict and confusion between the varying denominations. So he made another one, to make a long story short. Honesty can't help but acknowledge the connection between them and other protesters, including JWs who were "sola scripturalists" themselves, and on to the Nicene Christians who picked and chose what they might retain of the ways and teachings that had preceded them, some retaining more while some less, all throwing off what they deemed to be unbiblical or ahistorical for whatever reason but all still in error to one degree or another.

JWs are a bit more of an issue, but to highlight someone who came with whole new personal revelation and the following he inspired with people who earnestly investigate history and conclude that the claims of the RCC simply don't reflect what transpired is not an honest assessment, and certainly not a charitable one. But even with JWs they had to produce a theologically driven translation in order to justify their beliefs, rather than relying on the Bible as is so neither mormons nor JWs can be held to be sola scriptura folks since they placed something else above Scripture.

Oh, they certainly scandalized the church, that's for sure, although more in some parts of the west than others. The church still taught the same basics as it always had, however, while nonetheless losing respect of many by the abusive actions of many leaders.

I just don't see how you can separate what the church teaches from what the leaders of the church teach, both by word and by action. There simply isn't a clear distinction between the two, unless you're being selective and seeking out remnants within the church as being what the church taught.

I'm not sure if many Protestants would see Trent as a positive step. It objectively addressed and analyzed the Reformers positions, anathemizing many of their core doctrines while more clearly and precisely laying down the Catholic teachings. And, yes, reforms were made but mainly for ensuring that teachers were well trained and disseminating the faith correctly. Vat II pleased many while disquieting many, both inside the CC and outside of it. It was a pretty bold step for any part of Christianity to make, and one that reflects centuries of growth in the practical understanding of the Christian message IMO, a maturation and refining that was definitely impacted by the Reformation, alright. And the Reformers sense of something being wrong, out of balance, was not at all uncalled for. It served as a strong wake up call in any case.

There are a lot who seek to drive a further wedge between the reformation offshoots and the RCC, but I don't see how anyone could say that Trent wasn't a forward step for the RCC even if it repudiated what the RCC understood many of the reformer's positions to be. From my reading of it, it wasn't always on target and many of it's anathemas are aimed at caricatures of the reformer's positions, but the reforms present were a major step forward. The main thing is, while the reformer's objections weren't totally adopted it's clear from Trent and Vat. II that many of their objections were salient points in need of being addressed, whether or not they were addressed how the reformer's would have had them addressed.

And the CC affirms that Nicene Christians are part of that same church. But to insist that all the churches necessarily possess the full truth as God would have us know it is to draw the doctrinal line far back in the sand, out of convenience apparently. The differences between the Protestant denominations are by no means insignificant. I witness them almost daily on these forums. Again, even if one denies universal authority of the papacy, the Eastern churches would still by far have the most supportable claim for orthodox practice and teachings.

And here we've hit on our point of contention, because you hold that one church above all the rest holds the full deposit of faith and all others are deficient. I hold that none hold the full truth, and that we must be eclectic and engage with all mainstream Christian denominations accepting that there is a wide lattitude of understanding. Rome certainly has a lot going for it regarding historic doctrines, but it also has engaged in a revisionist history especially regarding the papacy and clericalism in general. Which for me is the critical issue, because it seems to me the Roman church creates an undue division within the body of Christ between the laity and clerics.

 

[fhansen]

They're important to a degree, but they're high minded theory that doesn't change the gospel itself. We often make far more of things that are speculative than we should, but believing in double predestination or any other soteriological model doesn't alter the gospel message that God became man, died on the cross, and was risen from the dead. There's room to debate the finer points, but why emphasize what separates us?

Well, we could just say, "We believe in God" and leave it at that, agreeing with an even broader range of religions. Why compromise or minimize important truths? Those denominations often divided from the ancient faith-and each other-over these very matters which were either settled or were never even controversial long ago!

JWs are a bit more of an issue, but to highlight someone who came with whole new personal revelation and the following he inspired with people who earnestly investigate history and conclude that the claims of the RCC simply don't reflect what transpired is not an honest assessment, and certainly not a charitable one. But even with JWs they had to produce a theologically driven translation in order to justify their beliefs, rather than relying on the Bible as is so neither mormons nor JWs can be held to be sola scriptura folks since they placed something else above Scripture.

The point shouldn't even be debatable: people decided they knew better than the ancient church, and overthrew it, with a wide variety of results.

I just don't see how you can separate what the church teaches from what the leaders of the church teach, both by word and by action. There simply isn't a clear distinction between the two, unless you're being selective and seeking out remnants within the church as being what the church taught.

I study the actual church teachings, and trace them back into history. I don't consider abuses of some of those teachings to be teachings, just... abuses. For example, the church taught that almsgiving- to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, ransom the captive, bury the dead, shelter the stranger, comfort the sick, and clothe the naked-were acts of mercy- faith working through love in response to grace-that increases a person's justice and right standing before God. Greed caused certain churchmen to endeavor to exploit this teaching for profit. Whether it might ostensibly be for a good cause for the church, or rather for personal gain, doesn't change the fact that such activity is wrong. The same for more obvious outright sins: fornication, theft, jealousy, etc, which some participated in.

There are a lot who seek to drive a further wedge between the reformation offshoots and the RCC, but I don't see how anyone could say that Trent wasn't a forward step for the RCC even if it repudiated what the RCC understood many of the reformer's positions to be. From my reading of it, it wasn't always on target and many of it's anathemas are aimed at caricatures of the reformer's positions, but the reforms present were a major step forward. The main thing is, while the reformer's objections weren't totally adopted it's clear from Trent and Vat. II that many of their objections were salient points in need of being addressed, whether or not they were addressed how the reformer's would have had them addressed.

Not at all if you're talking about doctrine. I'd read those sources again, carefully. Trent, for example, worded the Reformer's positions dead on accurately-it wasn't some major task just to understand them-and then addressed them from there, remaining consistent with historic Catholic teachings. That should not be difficult to ascertain. Might want to argue less and study more on that one.

And here we've hit on our point of contention, because you hold that one church above all the rest holds the full deposit of faith and all others are deficient. I hold that none hold the full truth, and that we must be eclectic and engage with all mainstream Christian denominations accepting that there is a wide lattitude of understanding. Rome certainly has a lot going for it regarding historic doctrines, but it also has engaged in a revisionist history especially regarding the papacy and clericalism in general. Which for me is the critical issue, because it seems to me the Roman church creates an undue division within the body of Christ between the laity and clerics.

The RCC does not consider the Eastern churches to be heretical, but in schism, yet with a common "union of faith and sacramental life" with the West. That was from the Vat II document, Unitatis Redintegratio. It continues on:

"Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged."

So, for its part, the Catholic church recognizes true church in the Eastern Orthodox and others on that side of the world, regardless of whether or not the East possesses similar sentiments about the CC. Overtures have been made by both sides, however, and while it would be a hard, difficult climb, who knows-it might happen someday. As far as the Protestant churches, more work would be required as greater differences exist there between us. Eclecticism cannot mean compromising truth-Christian truth is not arrived at by democratic vote, nor is Christianity meant to be a cafeteria religion.

 

[Fervent]

Well, we could just say, "We believe in God" and leave it at that, agreeing with an even broader range of religions. Why compromise or minimize important truths? Those denominations often divided from the ancient faith-and each other-over these very matters which were either settled or were never even controversial long ago!

Who God is is critical, but theories about how God saves and the like are secondary. It's about doing theological triage.

The point shouldn't even be debatable: people decided they knew better than the ancient church, and overthrew it, with a wide variety of results.

And it's not debateable, because the groups have to change Scripture in order to preserve their theologies. The only other option is forceful suppression, and I don't recall Jesus authorizing any disciples to use force as a means of gaining religious compliance.

I study the actual church teachings, and trace them back into history. I don't consider abuses of some of those teachings to be teachings, just... abuses. For example, the church taught that almsgiving- to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, ransom the captive, bury the dead, shelter the stranger, comfort the sick, and clothe the naked-were acts of mercy- faith working through love in response to grace-that increases a person's justice and right standing before God. Greed caused certain churchmen to endeavor to exploit this teaching for profit. Whether it might ostensibly be for a good cause for the church, or rather for personal gain, doesn't change the fact that such activity is wrong. The same for more obvious outright sins: fornication, theft, jealousy, etc, which some participated in.

Sounds like you're playing a game of cherry picking teachings you agree are the church teachings and calling that the church teachings, while ignoring what those within the church actually taught. It's an arbitrary separation.

Not at all if you're talking about doctrine. I'd read those sources again, carefully. Trent, for example, worded the Reformer's positions dead on accurately-it wasn't some major task just to understand them-and then addressed them from there, remaining consistent with historic Catholic teachings. That should not be difficult to ascertain. Might want to argue less and study more on that one.

I've read Trent, it didn't accurately reflect the Reformer's positions on a lot of issues. The nuance the Reformer's taught is almost entirely absent and what Trent lays out are caricatures of what the Reformer's taught.

The RCC does not consider the Eastern churches to be heretical, but in schism, yet with a common "union of faith and sacramental life" with the West. That was from the Vat II document, Unitatis Redintegratio. It continues on:

"Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged."

So, for its part, the Catholic church recognizes true church in the Eastern Orthodox and others on that side of the world, regardless of whether or not the East possesses similar sentiments about the CC. Overtures have been made by both sides, however, and while it would be a hard, difficult climb, who knows-it might happen someday. As far as the Protestant churches, more work would be required as greater differences exist there between us. Eclecticism cannot mean compromising truth-Christian truth is not arrived at by democratic vote, nor is Christianity meant to be a cafeteria religion.

I'm aware of this, but to regard the church as being in schism is to regard it as deficient if the RCC maintains that it is the true church, especially with the focus that the RCC places on papal authority. Though here we're hitting on an inconsistency within the RCC where it offered a diplomatic statement that doesn't line up with other areas of its teaching, nor with its historic position.

 

[fhansen]

Who God is is critical, but theories about how God saves and the like are secondary. It's about doing theological triage.

Yes, guess so. Its about where one draws the line anyway, between what constitutes more, or less, essential truths.

Sounds like you're playing a game of cherry picking teachings you agree are the church teachings and calling that the church teachings, while ignoring what those within the church actually taught. It's an arbitrary separation.

I just know what the church actually taught as the basic faith. Trent, for one, session 6, is a good place to gain understanding Catholic teachings on justification, a subject which was at the heart of Reformation objections. The modern catechism clarifies even more: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2

I've read Trent, it didn't accurately reflect the Reformer's positions on a lot of issues. The nuance the Reformer's taught is almost entirely absent and what Trent lays out are caricatures of what the Reformer's taught.

Trent simply addressed the various ideas that were floating around-and which gelled into various theologies. There isn't really a lot of room for caricature. Maybe an example would help.

I'm aware of this, but to regard the church as being in schism is to regard it as deficient if the RCC maintains that it is the true church, especially with the focus that the RCC places on papal authority. Though here we're hitting on an inconsistency within the RCC where it offered a diplomatic statement that doesn't line up with other areas of its teaching, nor with its historic position.

True church is defined by the RCC a certain way, with certain criteria. Schism and heresy are different items, of course, and schism simply means that division has taken place within the church. While that's not at all a good situation, it doesn't mean that "churchhood" has been lost, just that relationship has been wounded. Historic positions were often kneejerk reactions often influenced by culture and politics, and even then reconciliation was sought after because each side still valued the other as church and it's understood that disunity is just plain wrong. We've entered a time where the light of Christ has matured, grown brighter within the church, reflected in Vat II for one, even as darkness also grows. So why bother denouncing more mature and objective and informed positions, with the motive of seeking unity, now?

 

[Fervent]

Yes, guess so. Its about where one draws the line anyway, between what constitutes more, or less, essential truths.

Yeah, basically.

I just know what the church actually taught as the basic faith. Trent, for one, session 6, is a good place to gain understanding Catholic teachings on justification, a subject which was at the heart of Reformation objections. The modern catechism clarifies even more: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2

Trent was the beginning of an ossification of the church, prior teachers had a lot more wiggle room so identifying specifically what the church taught prior to Trent is far thornier than simply picking out teachers who seem to agree with what Trent clarified.

Trent simply addressed the various ideas that were floating around-and which gelled into various theologies. There isn't really a lot of room for caricature. Maybe an example would help.

In it's anathemas, particularly the one that is aimed at sola fide, there seems to be a lack of understanding of what the doctrine actually entailed and instead a reaction to the slogan alone.

True church is defined by the RCC a certain way, with certain criteria. Schism and heresy are different items, of course, and schism simply means that division has taken place within the church. While that's not at all a good situation, it doesn't mean that "churchhood" has been lost, just that relationship has been wounded. Historic positions were often kneejerk reactions often influenced by culture and politics, and even then reconciliation was sought after because each side still valued the other as church and it's understood that disunity is just plain wrong. We've entered a time where the light of Christ has matured, grown brighter within the church, reflected in Vat II for one, even as darkness also grows. So why bother denouncing more mature and objective and informed positions, with the motive of seeking unity, now?

The politics and cultural issues tend to be far more important in the reformation, as well. Most of the RCC reaction came because the power of the bishops was threatened by the reformation, and the secular governments drove a further wedge between the positions. The theological issues are largely a gloss for the real issues at hand, and what you see as "maturation" I see as an undue stiffening to preserve an improper power dynamic(though Vat. II did make concessions in this area since the previous power structure was no longer possible). I see Rome as primarily responsible for the various schisms, because they all largely come down to disputes over Rome's late claim of supremacy over the rest of the church.

 

[fhansen]

Trent was the beginning of an ossification of the church, prior teachers had a lot more wiggle room so identifying specifically what the church taught prior to Trent is far thornier than simply picking out teachers who seem to agree with what Trent clarified.

I'd go back again to the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange, 1500 years earlier. While Trent laid down doctrine more clearly than ever before, the foundations were received and being laid from the beginning. And these teachings just "happen" to align well with Eastern teachings even if the West is probably more prolific in its documentation. But we know what the churches teach, by early writers as well as by their sacraments, and liturgies, for example.

In it's anathemas, particularly the one that is aimed at sola fide, there seems to be a lack of understanding of what the doctrine actually entailed and instead a reaction to the slogan alone.

They responded to pretty much all the Reformer's errant concepts. I'm not sure what is not covered. The following anathematized beliefs are espoused to this day by many people. And if there's no anathema, there's no disagreement anyway. Aside from that, the correct understanding of justification is set forth prior to the canons.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

The politics and cultural issues tend to be far more important in the reformation, as well. Most of the RCC reaction came because the power of the bishops was threatened by the reformation, and the secular governments drove a further wedge between the positions. The theological issues are largely a gloss for the real issues at hand, and what you see as "maturation" I see as an undue stiffening to preserve an improper power dynamic(though Vat. II did make concessions in this area since the previous power structure was no longer possible). I see Rome as primarily responsible for the various schisms, because they all largely come down to disputes over Rome's late claim of supremacy over the rest of the church.

The divisions were caused by differences of opinion. Read Part Three of the modern catechism, a product of Vat II, especially on the Dignity of Man, Freedom and Responsibility, The Moral Law, and Grace and Justification where merit and holiness are also dealt with. The Reformers would steadfastly disagree with much of it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3

www.scborromeo.org

 

[Fervent]

I'd go back again to the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange, 1500 years earlier. While Trent laid down doctrine more clearly than ever before, the foundations were received and being laid from the beginning. And these teachings just "happen" to align well with Eastern teachings even if the West is probably more prolific in its documentation. But we know what the churches teach, by early writers as well as by their sacraments, and liturgies, for example.

Again, selecting specific instances that line up doesn't dismiss the variety that existed within the church. The dispute didn't happen in a vacuum, and what the church taught offered a lot more nuance than what Trent laid down.

They responded to pretty much all the Reformer's errant concepts. I'm not sure what is not covered. The following anathematized beliefs are espoused to this day by many people. And if there's no anathema, there's no disagreement anyway. Aside from that, the correct understanding of justification is set forth prior to the canons.

Trent's response was a mischaracterization of the reformer's positions, which the canon's you quote demonstrate.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

And where did a reformer teach this?

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

And in what way is this not just an anathema of atonement via satisfaction?

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

And where did reformer's teach this to be the case?

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Again, where did a reformer teach this?

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

Where do reformer's teach that repentance is absent from the justified?

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

Again, where do reformer's teach that they are absolved because of their belief at being absolved?

The divisions were caused by differences of opinion. Read Part Three of the modern catechism, a product of Vat II, especially on the Dignity of Man, Freedom and Responsibility, The Moral Law, and Grace and Justification where merit and holiness are also dealt with. The Reformers would steadfastly disagree with much of it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3

www.scborromeo.org

The differences of opinion were dressing for the political struggles, which became deepened due to polemics of the various sides leading to a greater entrenchment. Most of the differences of opinions are matters of phrasing and what it emphasizes rather than actual content differences, since when the nuances are explored the distance between the original combatants is far less than what has developed over the centuries from participants deciding to dictate what their opponents must believe rather than actually reading them charitably and looking for points of agreement to build upon.

 

[fhansen]

Trent's response was a mischaracterization of the reformer's positions, which the canon's you quote demonstrate.

No, Trent characterized the various ideas floating around quite well, and quite objectively. And, if they don’t apply, or where they don’t apply, or to whom they don’t apply, then no foul anyway. But they all hit the mark somewhere along the line.

And where did a reformer teach this?

You, yourself, maintain, as Luther did, that justification means a vicarious righteousness imputed to us when we come to believe. As to the will, that is speaking of the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. You can also read Luther’s Bondage of the Will on the matter.

Also, the ideas expressed in the canon are not altogether new. Some in the NT were already expressing the idea that faith absolves them from the need to be obedient and chap 2 of Jame’s letter was addressing that fact.

And in what way is this not just an anathema of atonement via satisfaction?

The first part of the sentence opposes Pelagianism or any other attempt to be just outside of Christ while the second part identifies what that justice is, that it’s not vicarious only, but imparted to us. IOW, “formally just” designates what justice actually means or consists of for a person, the essence of that justice.

And where did reformer's teach this to be the case?

That is the basis of Luther’s “simul iustus et peccator”, and that one’s sins do not affect one's just status before God as long as they believe that their sins are forgiven due to the merits of Christ. That’s why unbelief in Luther’s view is the ultimate sin, the only sin that separates us from God. As long as one believes that they are forgiven, then they are forgiven.

“Men are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.” The Augsburg Confession

“A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone” The Babylonian Captivity

Again, where did a reformer teach this?

Read above.

Where do reformer's teach that repentance is absent from the justified?

Same concept of Luther’s. Read him. He speaks of repentance but the answer, the reason for absolution given, is simply reassurance that the person’s sins are forgiven as long as he believes they are forgiven.

"All people who are Christians and baptized have this power. In this way they praise Christ, and the words are put into their mouths, so that they can say, whenever they want and as often as it is necessary: “Look, dear man! God offers you His grace and forgives all your sins. Be comforted, your sins have been forgiven. Only believe it and you surely have it.” Martin Luther 1524 sermon: “The Power to Forgive Sins on Earth.”

Again, where do reformer's teach that they are absolved because of their belief at being absolved?

Again, read above.

The differences of opinion were dressing for the political struggles, which became deepened due to polemics of the various sides leading to a greater entrenchment.

Not at all, Trent simply laid out the Catholic position while identifying current concepts that were in conflict with it. Much study and dialogue were involved in exploring this matter. It’s not all that complicated-or nefarious.

Most of the differences of opinions are matters of phrasing and what it emphasizes rather than actual content differences, since when the nuances are explored the distance between the original combatants is far less than what has developed over the centuries from participants deciding to dictate what their opponents must believe rather than actually reading them charitably and looking for points of agreement to build upon.

The problem is that the concepts themselves are confused or lend themselves to confusion. When one insists that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is all one needs to be right in the eyes of God, and therefore worthy of heaven, then they’ve succeeded in divorcing faith from morality. Then, even to turn around and say that the born again person will receive righteousness and act accordingly or that faith naturally results in said righteousness anyway so that the bases are covered either way, is to speak out of both sides of one’s mouth. Which is it? Do we enter heaven as a sinner or are we required to overcome sin and do good, reflecting the gift of love that constitutes full true justice in Catholic teaching such that, again, the CC can rightfully teach:

“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.”

So the main question involves what justice/righteous actually consists of for man. Can he, and must he, be personally righteous, to whatever degree God deems proper for that individual, in order to enter heaven? Now, yes, based on charity and a worthy desire for unity there have been many attempts at ecumenism or attempts to reconcile the differences, most notably between Lutherans and Catholics perhaps. And, yes, there is common ground. Hopefully there will be enough common ground found to tip the scales in favor of unity someday. But no one, in the process, wants to compromise the truth as they conceive it to be.

 

[Fervent]

No, Trent characterized the various ideas floating around quite well, and quite objectively. And, if they don’t apply, or where they don’t apply, or to whom they don’t apply, then no foul anyway. But they all hit the mark somewhere along the line.

No, it doesn't characterize them well. And certainly not objectively.

You, yourself, maintain, as Luther did, that justification means a vicarious righteousness imputed to us when we come to believe. As to the will, that is speaking of the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. You can also read Luther’s Bondage of the Will on the matter.

Except they don't hold that the will isn't cooperative, I understand this was aimed at total depravity but it misses the mark because it doesn't directly attack total depravity but mischaracterizes what Luther and Calvin taught in setting the will as uncooperative in the act. The individual will cooperates in the act, but it is only able to do so by first being empowered by God. So rather than actually addressing something that the reformer's taught, it ends up missing entirely and anathematizing something no one taught.

Also, the ideas expressed in the canon are not altogether new. Some in the NT were already expressing the idea that faith absolves them from the need to be obedient and chap 2 of Jame’s letter was addressing that fact.

The canon doesn't address what James is addressing, which has nothing to do with whether or not the will cooperates.

The first part of the sentence opposes Pelagianism or any other attempt to be just outside of Christ while the second part identifies what that justice is, that it’s not vicarious only, but imparted to us. IOW, “formally just” designates what justice actually means or consists of for a person, the essence of that justice.

Again, in what way is the second part not simply a repudiation of atonement by vicarious satisfaction?

That is the basis of Luther’s “simul iustus et peccator”, and that one’s sins do not affect one's just status before God as long as they believe that their sins are forgiven due to the merits of Christ. That’s why unbelief in Luther’s view is the ultimate sin, the only sin that separates us from God. As long as one believes that they are forgiven, then they are forgiven.

It's not, it's a misrepresentation of Luther by treating a single element as if it exists in a vacuum, rather than being framed in a larger theological picture. It again misses its target because it is too wooden of a reading entirely devoid of the nuance that is in Luther's overall theology. Faith isn't simply conviction that sins are forgiven, in fact such a position is counter to Luther's overall objection because that would be a basis by which a person merits their salvation and puts God in their debt.

“Men are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.” The Augsburg Confession

“A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone” The Babylonian Captivity

Neither of those quotes mean what you seem to think they mean, they are simply statements that there is no sin which Christ's death is not sufficient to cover. If there is no sin that could prevent Christ from initially accepting us, then there is no degree of sin that could lead to Him refusing us. But it is not because they believe that they are saved, it is because Christ's death is a completed offering lacking nothing. They are not saying that justifying faith is nothing but mental assent or belief in Christ's forgiveness of sins, but that justification is a gift offered by Christ that no man receives on the basis of his merit.

Read above.

Read above.

Same concept of Luther’s. Read him. He speaks of repentance but the answer, the reason for absolution given, is simply reassurance that the person’s sins are forgiven as long as he believes they are forgiven.

Nope, again it is a mischaracterization of Luther rather than an accurate depiction of his position. It is a highly uncharitable caricature of Luther's theology. The Reformer's did not teach that believing your sins forgiven was a necessary condition in order for God to forgive us, because that would simply turn faith into a work and create a situation where the person merits salvation for the strength of their belief. The reason the absolution is given is because God is gracious, with no respect to the sinner's sinfulness or merit. None shall boast before God.

"All people who are Christians and baptized have this power. In this way they praise Christ, and the words are put into their mouths, so that they can say, whenever they want and as often as it is necessary: “Look, dear man! God offers you His grace and forgives all your sins. Be comforted, your sins have been forgiven. Only believe it and you surely have it.” Martin Luther 1524 sermon: “The Power to Forgive Sins on Earth.”

None of that says that the sins are forgiven because the person believes they are forgiven, because God offers His grace and forgiveness regardless of whether the person accepts it. But belief is necessary because God will not force His grace and forgiveness upon someone, and so all they must do to accept God's freely given grace is to accept it. It is 100% because God has acted, completely independent of how we respond.

Again, read above.

So as I stated originally, it is because their positions are misrepresented into something that they're not actually saying. Since no reformer taught that our sins are forgiven because we believe, but that our sins are forgiven because God has chosen to freely offer forgiveness to sinners through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Not at all, Trent simply laid out the Catholic position while identifying current concepts that were in conflict with it. Much study and dialogue were involved in exploring this matter. It’s not all that complicated-or nefarious.

Except they misrepresented their opponents, because they were defining what they must be teaching without input from the people they were aiming the anathemas at. It's not complicated or nefarious, sure, but it is polemic and political rather than illuminating.

The problem is that the concepts themselves are confused or lend themselves to confusion. When one insists that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is all one needs to be right in the eyes of God, and therefore worthy of heaven, then they’ve succeeded in divorcing faith from morality. Then, even to turn around and say that the born again person will receive righteousness and act accordingly or that faith naturally results in said righteousness anyway so that the bases are covered either way, is to speak out of both sides of one’s mouth. Which is it? Do we enter heaven as a sinner or are we required to overcome sin and do good, reflecting the gift of love that constitutes full true justice in Catholic teaching such that, again, the CC can rightfully teach:

"Required?" This is exactly it, no one meets the requirements for entering heaven except Christ. Everyone who makes it, makes it as a beggar. We were born in sin, and we will die in sin. But we will be transformed to glory in an instant. No matter how much farther we are along than the worst sinner in the world, we are still infinitely far from meeting the bare minimum of God's requirements. It is, and always will be, a gift freely offered by God and accepted by the faithful. Doing good doesn't bring us closer to meeting God's requirements, it puts us deeper into His debt. So while the justified will be sanctified, both justification and sanctification are gifts freely offered by God and not matters of human effort. Whether the theoretical issues that Luther raised are correct and justification is indeed a separate matter from sanctification, or if sanctification and justification are intimately linked in relationship is certainly a worthwhile question but Luther's emphasis on justification by faith was a necessary stand for bringing a "church" that was extorting its congregation for promises of reduced suffering in the afterlife away from those practices.

“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.”

As much as you seem to like that quote, it really doesn't say much or have much of any bearing on what we're discussing.

So the main question involves what justice/righteous actually consists of for man. Can he, and must he, be personally righteous, to whatever degree God deems proper for that individual, in order to enter heaven? Now, yes, based on charity and a worthy desire for unity there have been many attempts at ecumenism or attempts to reconcile the differences, most notably between Lutherans and Catholics perhaps. And, yes, there is common ground. Hopefully there will be enough common ground found to tip the scales in favor of unity someday. But no one, in the process, wants to compromise the truth as they conceive it to be.

And this is exactly where you seem to go wrong, because you seem to be teaching that those who enter heaven will deserve to go to heaven based on their personal merit. And you do so by lowering the standard of righteousness to whatever bar you personally can achieve, rather than elevating it to the perfection that is in Christ. Christ didn't say "be good enough." He said "be perfect."

 

[RileyG]

What about the early Church that had no New Testament? They relied on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and word of mouth (oral tradition).

 

[Fervent]

What about the early Church that had no New Testament? They relied on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and word of mouth (oral tradition).

Are you saying the documents that formed the NT were written later in church history? Simply because they weren't collated and canonized doesn't mean the documents were absent.

 

[RileyG]

Are you saying the documents that formed the NT were written later in church history? Simply because they weren't collated and canonized doesn't mean the documents were absent.

Yes, they were written after the death and resurrection of Christ. Specifically the Gospels were written much later. The Gospel was preached via word of mouth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you saying the documents that formed the NT were written later in church history? Simply because they weren't collated and canonized doesn't mean the documents were absent.

The narrative seems to be similar to that of the development of the Q'Ran. For those who might be unfamiliar with that narrative, it goes something like this: Following the ascension of Mohammed into heaven his true followers gathered up the large number of quotations (surahs) which had been spoken by Mohammed and written on palm leaves (Mohammed himself was illiterate). They sorted through them and decided to eliminate what they determined were the "Satanic verses" (the basis for Salmon Rushdie's famous book) and burned them. The rest they compiled into the Q'Ran.

The RCC narrative seems to be similar. No New Testament existed prior to the RCC Council of Nicea where the folks from Rome flipped through various writings and determined which, indeed, were actually worthy of being compiled into their New Testament. Rather than burning the rejected documents, they ignored them, leaving them for future generations to debate, along with the multiple writings of the ECF's. Thus, until the RCC stepped up to the plate, there was actually nothing in the least bit reliable concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ or of the early church.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, they were written after the death and resurrection of Christ. Specifically the Gospels were written much later. The Gospel was preached via word of mouth.

So you're saying while the apostle's were alive and writing under the inspiration of God, people were reliant on oral tradition rather than the writings of the apostle's? At what point did this oral tradition coalesce into the documents that were canonized, before or after the apostle's wrote them under the inspiration of God?

 

[RileyG]

The narrative seems to be similar to that of the development of the Q'Ran. For those who might be unfamiliar with that narrative, it goes something like this: Following the ascension of Mohammed into heaven his true followers gathered up the large number of quotations (surahs) which had been spoken by Mohammed and written on palm leaves (Mohammed himself was illiterate). They sorted through them and decided to eliminate what they determined were the "Satanic verses" (the basis for Salmon Rushdie's famous book) and burned them. The rest they compiled into the Q'Ran.

The RCC narrative seems to be similar. No New Testament existed prior to the RCC Council of Nicea where the folks from Rome flipped through various writings and determined which, indeed, were actually worthy of being compiled into their New Testament. Rather than burning the rejected documents, they ignored them, leaving them for future generations to debate, along with the multiple writings of the ECF's. Thus, until the RCC stepped up to the plate, there was actually nothing in the least bit reliable concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ or of the early church.

Hmmm….Are you thinking of the Synod of Hippo and Council of Rome? The Council of Nicea was about Christ’s divinity and the nature of the trinity followed by the council of Constantinople.

 

[RileyG]

So you're saying while the apostle's were alive and writing under the inspiration of God, people were reliant on oral tradition rather than the writings of the apostle's? At what point did this oral tradition coalesce into the documents that were canonized, before or after the apostle's wrote them under the inspiration of God?

Synod of Hippo and Council of Rome to answer your question. There was no canon of Scripture for the first 400 years of Christianity.

 

[Fervent]

Synod of Hippo and Council of Rome to answer your question. There was no canon of Scripture for the first 400 years of Christianity.

So the books didn't exist until they were canonized? Are you saying the NT was created at those local councils, or did those councils merely affirm the books that existed and were given authority within the church already to distinguish them from recently created spurious works?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So the books didn't exist until they were canonized? Are you saying the NT was created at those local councils, or did those councils merely affirm the books that existed and were given authority within the church already to distinguish them from recently created spurious works?

Please see my previous post.

 

[RileyG]

So the books didn't exist until they were canonized? Are you saying the NT was created at those local councils, or did those councils merely affirm the books that existed and were given authority within the church already to distinguish them from recently created spurious works?

Yes, they affirmed which books were inspired and canonical.

The earliest gospel wasn’t written until around the 50s. The last gospel was written around 90 or so.