Is the Reformation dead?

[Ken Rank]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

Culture is certainly affecting the church. But ultimately, God is in control and the Reformation was a step in a direction, as there have been many steps throughout time. It was a revival, an awakening... and there were others (early 1800's/Cane Ridge KY, for example) and there is yet to be one more. We are awaiting the great awakening, some even believe it has begun? Regardless, the Reformation isn't dead, per se, it was simply a step in a direction that ultimately leads to the final awakening.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The fault of the Jews was that they failed to fulfill the law, because they failed to love, which we all do. That's the basic message beginning with Eden, where Adam first disobeyed God, until today. But God was preparing mankind to ultimately accomplish that very thing in us. The first step is simply coming to know that we can't do it on our own. so Paul tells us in Rom 7 and elsewhere that the law is holy, spiritual, and good. But that it cannot justify. And so he tells us that the law serves as a tutor, teaching us that we cannot fulfill it, on our own.

I'm not from Missouri but still, please show me where it says that the law cannot justify.

 

[fhansen]

Sounds just like a Lutheran style wording this time.

Hmm, don't know for sure. But there is some overlapping you know, especially with them. They're not wrong about everything LOL. And I could post the teachings from the catechism but that is basic Catholic teaching in any case.

 

[Halbhh]

Hmm, don't know for sure. But there is some overlapping you know, especially with them. They're not wrong about everything LOL. And I could post the teachings from the catechism but that is basic Catholic teaching in any case.

Possibly I've learned more of the Lutheran view and Catholic view than most. There's zero difference on that post, at least from the sources and preaching and bible studies I've heard from. Of course, anyone could find some individual viewpoint to make an exception, but you summarized the Lutheran viewpoint I've heard/read quite well there in that post.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not from Missouri but still, please show me where it says that the law cannot justify.

Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20. Just read Rom 7:7 and forward.

 

[Wordkeeper]

If I could reword, and possibly make more clear, the intended meaning was simply that we cannot truly follow all the law perfectly enough, such as the "love your neighbor as yourself" in the way we should on our own, without His rebirthing us, making us new, putting a new heart in us, and then helping us, including when we stumble (to repent), and...like a parent helping a toddler by holding their hand.

Or...hey, better than my reword:

3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses [such as gossiping against a certain neighbor, or fill in the blank over and over...], made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2 ESV
(perhaps best of all starting from verse 1)

This is in the context of the Gentiles who thought that they had replaced the Jews as God's favourite because their religious efforts were better than that of the latter.

Paul taught:

Gentiles were saved as a result of God's gift: He predestined Israel to be a vessel of dishonor. Paul recognises Israel is not to be blamed, they were set up so that Gentiles could be included, but who was the pot to demand what the Potter decided?

The salvation which saved was a Salvation By Grace Type Salvation, through faith, loyalty to God's nature, not by works, a contract with God, which all religions are based on. So the religious terms and conditions which Gentiles imposed on themselves did not contribute to their salvation, there was no basis for boasting on those grounds.

Please recognize these ideas in Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

[Halbhh]

This is in the context of the Gentiles who thought that they had replaced the Jews as God's favourite because their religious efforts were better than that of the latter.

Paul taught:

Gentiles were saved as a result of God's gift: He predestined Israel to be a vessel of dishonor. Paul recognises Israel is not to be blamed, they were set up so that Gentiles could be included, but we who was the pot to demand what the Potter decided?

The salvation which saved was a Salvation By Grace Type Salvation, through faith, loyalty, not by works, a contract with God, which all religions are based on. So the religious terms and conditions of the Gentiles did not contribute to their salvation, there was no basis for boasting on those grounds.

Please recognize these ideas in Ephesians 2:8-10.

Seems you are agreeing with me, but perhaps that's not clear?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Seems you are agreeing with me, but perhaps that's not clear?

Salvation is never by works, even if it was possible. It's always through faith, first by swearing allegiance (lip service) and then perfected by SOME ACTION that demonstrated that loyalty(deed) . That's what gets us into Rest, into Christ, the real Sabbath rest, excluding further exertion, rest from our works. In Christ, who was without sin so that He could be made a sin offering, we can become the righteousness of God, His way of making us a blessing to the world.

These are very dense ideas, each expandible into chunky books!

 

[Halbhh]

Salvation is never by works, even if it was possible. It's always through faith, first by swearing allegiance (lip service) and then perfected by SOME ACTION that demonstrated that loyalty(deed) . That's what gets us into Rest, into Christ, the real Sabbath rest, excluding further exertion, rest from our works. In Christ, who was without sin so that He could be made a sin offering, we can become the righteousness of God, His way of making us a blessing to the world.

These are very dense ideas, each expandible into chunky books!

ah, I see. It's better to simply read fully through all of the New Testament, taking one's time, and really listening, and then continue doing so again. That's a humble attitude -- that we have more to learn from Him. But it's the reality too -- the word is "living", and we continue to learn if we listen, over time. One learns even reading the gospels for 4th or 7th time (I've found out), long after one thinks they must have gotten it all before. He has more to teach, if we will listen.

 

[fhansen]

For myself the confusion comes in, stemming from the doctrine of Sola Fide, as to whether or not man is still obligated to be righteous, not just behave righteously but to be, ontologically, righteous- and also whether or not that's even possible. Does faith replace righteousness for man, or stand in for it? Is it the equivalent of righteousness for man? Or does God intend faith to be the means to authentic righteousness?

We're saved by faith, via faith, through and on the basis of faith as Phil 3 puts it. Unto righteousness, but a righteousness that comes by grace, not by the law, not by my own efforts IOW, as if I already possessed a righteousness of my own and could adequately demonstrate such by my actions. Instead "justified by faith" is the same as saying that we're made righteous by turning to God and relying on Him to make that happen. Adam had thought otherwise for all practical purposes. We're here to learn how wrong he was.

 

[fhansen]

The reason Israel was called a hired hand was because she asked for a contract that would protect her:

Exodus 20
19"Speak to us yourself and we will listen," they said to Moses. "But do not let God speak to us, or we will die."

God never meant for a pre-nup to come between Him and His people.

Even after giving it, the previous offer was still open:

Jeremiah 7
21Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. 22“For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.23“But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24“Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels andin the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward. 25“Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them. 26“Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers.

Sounds right to me. God knew they wouldn't be ready, of course, as He knows all things. The time wasn't ripe yet for His Son to come, for man to begin to accept the light of the gospel.

 

[Concord1968]

Imputed righteousness - Wikipedia

 

[fhansen]

This might be of interest from the catechism too-on Law and Grace:Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 1

 

[hedrick]

I’ve spent a bit of time looking at Calvin, but it’s surely possible I’ve missed something. In the sections I could locate in the Institutes, he is pretty hard core that justification is by faith alone, and not works.

One of his answers to questions of serious sin is that people tend to underestimate just how serious their sin is. He considers even the things that make us consider sinning a sign of sin in themselves, because they come from our fallen nature. So from his point of view we’re all pretty much in a continual state of sin.

The only thing that can help us is God’s forgiveness.

It’s interesting to see, however, that he seems to abandon his usual understanding when treating 1 Cor 6:9. In that treatment he says that although repentance isn’t the ground of pardon, none can be pardoned who don’t repent. (Remember that for Calvin, justification is synonymous with forgiveness of sins, so this actually is about justification.) He doesn’t explicitly limit this to the specific list of sins in the passage, and when read together with Gal 2:21 I don’t believe he intends any such limitation. Taken together, as Calvin notes, it's hard to believe that anyone isn't excluded from the Kingdom. I *hope* he’s speaking of repentance as a general attitude, not repentance for every specific sin, but it’s not so clear from what he says.

Late medieval theology certainly understood that salvation is a result of grace, and that our actions aren’t the ground of it. However they maintained that we had to do a reasonable job of repentance before grace came into play. If his comments are taken literally, that’s exactly what Calvin is saying. And it still leaves Luther in his original situation, because he knows only too well that there are always sins we’re in denial about or haven’t fully repented of.

I would say that there are two kinds of unrepentant sinner. One doesn’t care what God’s standards say. The other does, but either is in denial about a particular sin or hasn’t managed to repent successfully. I agree that the first is condemned. But they don’t have faith. The second, I believe, is covered by justification by faith.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I’ve spent a bit of time looking at Calvin, but it’s surely possible I’ve missed something. In the sections I could locate in the Institutes, he is pretty hard core that justification is by faith alone, and not works.

One of his answers to questions of serious sin is that people tend to underestimate just how serious their sin is. He considers even the things that make us consider sinning a sign of sin in themselves, because they come from our fallen nature. So from his point of view we’re all pretty much in a continual state of sin.

The only thing that can help us is God’s forgiveness.

It’s interesting to see, however, that he seems to abandon his usual understanding when treating 1 Cor 6:9. In that treatment he says that although repentance isn’t the ground of pardon, none can be pardoned who don’t repent. (Remember that for Calvin, justification is synonymous with forgiveness of sins, so this actually is about justification.) He doesn’t explicitly limit this to the specific list of sins in the passage, and when read together with Gal 2:21 I don’t believe he intends any such limitation. Taken together, as Calvin notes, it's hard to believe that anyone isn't excluded from the Kingdom. I *hope* he’s speaking of repentance as a general attitude, not repentance for every specific sin, but it’s not so clear from what he says.

Late medieval theology certainly understood that salvation is a result of grace, and that our actions aren’t the ground of it. However they maintained that we had to do a reasonable job of repentance before grace came into play. If his comments are taken literally, that’s exactly what Calvin is saying. And it still leaves Luther in his original situation, because he knows only too well that there are always sins we’re in denial about or haven’t fully repented of.

I would say that there are two kinds of unrepentant sinner. One doesn’t care what God’s standards say. The other does, but either is in denial about a particular sin or hasn’t managed to repent successfully. I agree that the first is condemned. But they don’t have faith. The second, I believe, is covered by justification by faith.

Quote
I would say that there are two kinds of unrepentant sinner. One doesn’t care what God’s standards say. The other does, but either is in denial about a particular sin or hasn’t managed to repent successfully. I agree that the first is condemned. But they don’t have faith. The second, I believe, is covered by justification by faith.

All Christians fall into the second category. The standard, the mark, is to succeed in all areas.

James 2
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

However, what really obtains grace, is sufficient, is the DESIRE TO BE PERFECT. And grace is what covers imperfections, makes perfect. Grace is the kaporeth, the covering over of the mercy seat, that which makes acceptable in front of God, because only the pure can see God.

2 Corinthians 12
9But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses.

 

[fhansen]

I would say that there are two kinds of unrepentant sinner. One doesn’t care what God’s standards say. The other does, but either is in denial about a particular sin or hasn’t managed to repent successfully. I agree that the first is condemned. But they don’t have faith. The second, I believe, is covered by justification by faith.

So the difference is that one cares, while the other doesn't-but they both continue in sin? It seems to me this doesn't quite hit the mark, and while caring might mean something I don't think this model stands up to the task of preserving the faith alone doctrine- or gives it too much license? It seems to be it needs to be looked at from a different angle in any case to avoid contradiction.

With conversion/justification we're given a gift, of grace, of the Spirit of God, of justice, even if only in seedling form, not merely forgiveness. And we're then expected to "invest" this gift, our "talents" and to gain something from it, not just rest on our laurels, remaining the same as before which would be comparable to burying our talents. We're to be moving forward overall and overcoming and doing the right thing in some capacity when the Master returns, compared to where we began. And if we sin seriously, against love of God and neighbor, then change of heart and repentance is possible and available if we're sincere. And then at the end He judges, knowing the heart, what we've done with what we've freely received.

So we're justified freely, graciously, and then we're expected to embrace and own it, to increasingly love God and the love He's shown and given to us-and to spread it like He does.

 

[Radagast]

I’ve spent a bit of time looking at Calvin

Was Calvin actually a Calvinist?

 

[hedrick]

Was Calvin actually a Calvinist?

As you're probably aware, it's a matter of debate. He wasn't explicit about one of the 5 points. But more seriously, his idea of Christianity centered on what he called the "mystical union" with Christ (as also Paul's did). Later Calvinists shared ideas with him, but I think the focus changed. His theology of the atonement was also surprisingly sophisticated.

Calvin is cited all the time by PCUSA theologians. Later Calvinists not so much.

 

[Radagast]

Calvin is cited all the time by PCUSA theologians. Later Calvinists not so much.

That's interesting, because I think in the PCA it's the other way around.

 

[hedrick]

That's interesting, because I think in the PCA it's the other way around.

One other thing about Calvin: His Biblical commentaries are really good. In some ways Luther was the more creative theologian. There's nothing wrong with Calvin. In many ways he's more reliable. But Luther had moments of insight.

In Biblical interpretation, though, Calvin runs rings around Luther, and I'm not aware of any real competition to his commentaries for quite some time. Modern commentators have obvious advantages. We know a lot more about the 1st Cent context, the history of Israel, and even about Greek and Hebrew. We've lived with the critical approach (which he certainly practiced) for a lot longer. But a few times I will take his interpretation over modern ones. (I have a full set of his commentaries in Logos.)