Martin Luther

GratiaCorpusChristi · Jan 25, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
Absolutely right!

Sanctification and continuance within a state of justification by meritorious works are not the apostolic preaching.

BeforeThereWas · Jan 25, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
Absolutely right!

Discovering this is what sent me into 3 years of intensive study and prayer that eventually led me into the Catholic Church, the last place on earth I expected to ever find myelf. . . . . .

How'd you lose yourself in the firstl place?

Therein probably lies the answer as to how you ended up in the rcc.

Besides, there's no way for anyone to verify that the Lord truly had anything to do with your being where you are with the rcc. Lots of people have credited the Lord for things He had nothing whatsoever to do with. Our feelings are elusive and unreliable.

Too many people try using the ancient trump card of "The Lord led me to this..." to try and silence any and all challenges to the decisions they made on the merits of their own feelings and thinking.

I hope you can appreciate my lack of any desire to blindly believe that the Lord had anything at all to do with your being in the rcc, unless you have a genuine prophet who can verify your words.

BTW&DM

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
This is a nonsensical argument to use on a Lutheran. The reason for the divisions within Protestantism is that, as you say, no two groups within Protestantism agree on the 'plain sense of Scripture.'

But these Protestant groups are not using Scripture to correct traditions within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (as we Evangelical Catholics intended to do). They are using Scripture as a blueprint to reconstruct the church from skratch.

While it is true today that are using Scripture as a blueprint to reconstruct the church from skratch, that was not so true at the beginning, though which each division after Luther, we moved more and more down this road of using private interpretation of scripture to replace more and more of apostolic Christianity . . .

So for instance, the Reformed see infants baptized in household baptisms and parallels between baptism and circumcision in the New Testament, whereas Baptists don't see infants being baptized at all, and so they disagree on the blueprint.

Exactly. Baptism is an excellent case in point.

Lutherans, on the other hand, while we might agree with the Reformed position (or not at all), see nothing in Scripture to contradict tradition, and therefore the tradition remains- even if the Scriptures don't say anything about infant baptism whatsoever and we could make no Scriptural argument for it.

And here is a difference in how we approach interpretation of scripture: where you say you donot see the bible saying anything about infant baptism, what is really the case is there is no explicit evidence of infant baptism, nothing that is plainly and clearly stated.

Yet, we see implicit evidence for infant baptism . . so we do not see the scriptures being silent on the matter at all, just that to understand what scripture does say, one must understand the teaching of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles on the matter.

Lutheran epistemology is quite different from Protestant epistemology. Please don't lump them in.

Protestantism is a big, huge lable for anything that is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox . . . and as such, within Protestantism, there is no agreement on fundamental issues such as salvation, etc . . I can appreciate why you would not want Lutheran's associated with such a label, yet there are also other Protestant groups who do not want to be associated with such a label either, for different reasons.

There is no one "Protestant" epistemology . . .

As someone who as fled from Protestantism and the happy-clappy baptigelical Arminian dispensationalist of my parents and my own youth, I can personally attest to a love for tradition where tradition is authentically apostolic (as known by its fidelity to the Scriptures).

When the scriptures are held up as the final authority, then what is held up is one's private interpretation as the final authority . . . for the scriptures must be interpreted, and what one understands to be authentic apostolic teaching, if held to the scritures as the ultimate standard, is really the result of one's personal interpretation of scripture . . .

And once again we come round to the question of personal inspiration vs. church teaching authority.

Yes we have. And since the scriptures denounces private interpretation of scripture, where does that leave us?

One again, the simple fact is that church doctrine does not suddenly appear from the papal office or the episcopacy.

Yes that is true . . it never has appeared "suddenly" in the Catholic Church.

The papacy and the episcopacy confirm the individual interpretations of scholars and saints at ecumenical councils and declair their personal interpretation valid and true.

Yes and no . . . it is Sacred Tradition, protected by the Holy Spirit through the Magesterium which is the plumbline we are given to test private interpretation against.

So how come Hildebert of Tours' understanding of the Eucharist was given a fair hearing at the Fourth (Great) Lateran Council, where Luther's was not? (admitedly this is a silly argument since this happens several hundred years before Luther was born; but since Luther did not question the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist, but only the Aristotelean metaphysic that explained how Christ became present, why couldn't the doctrine be brought up for review?)

Luther made physical elements of bread and wine, created elements, consubstantial with the Trinity. Consubstantiality is a Divine Attribute. Created elements do not have divine attributes. Theologically speaking, to say that bread and wine are consubstantial with the Divine Christ is to make bread and wine part of the Trinity, God.

So how come Thomas Aquinas' understanding of justification and merit and infused righteousness were givien a fair hearing at the Deit of Worms or the Council of Trent, where Luther was not? Why was not a single Lutheran allowed to represent their own position?

I am not aware that Luther was not allowed to represent his own position.

Who was the great heretic, Arius or Martin Luther? And yet Arius' position was given a fair hearing and represented by its own adherents at Nicea, whereas Dr. Luther was silenced.

Arius lived before the Trinity was formally dogmatically declared. There was great debate that led to the formal declaration of right Trinitarian belief and denouncing Arius' error . .

From that time, we have about 1200 years to Luther, in which deepening understanding of doctrines occured in the Church . . .there was no debate in the Church over Luther's issues as there was over Arius' . most of the East had already followed Arius and his beliefs were thretening to tear the Empire apart . . the Council was called to resolve the matter . . .

Not so with Luther . . . a totally different situation.

Tell me, what do these verses mean?

Romand 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Am I misreading something here? Is my personal interpretation so fallible that I can't understand the plain meaning of Scripture??

Yes, I think so if I follow where you are going with this . .

"works OF THE LAW" . . the MOSAIC LAW is what Paul has in mind here . . he was constant defending against Judaizers who were trying to get believers to become bound to the MOSAIC LAW which was now obsolete and passing away.

Works of the LAW are not the same as Good Works required for a saving faith and spoken of by James . . .and we get to your next comment:

And of course, lets say you come back with James 2:24. Lets even ignore the fact that verse 18 implies that James is talking about evidence of justification, not the establishment of justification.

That is simply your personal interpretation. It ignores HOW James speaks as works likening them to the SPIRIT which GIVES LIFE to the body, and to faith as the body which is dead without the spirit . .

It is the SPIRIT which gives life to the body . . not the other way around . . and LIFE of the body RESULTS FROM the spirit being fused with the body . . .

And so James' analogy firmly places causality of spiritual life with GOOD WORKS being fused with faith MAKING it LIVING

And that faith without Good Works is DEAD LIKE A CORPSE . . this is much deeper than mere evidence . . . it is cause and effect. Life and Death . . .

Lets even ignore the fact that verse 25, by mentioning Rahab, implies that James is talking not about justification before God, but justification before the covenant community.

Again, this is nothing more than your personal interpretation speaking . . it is divorced from the teaching of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles on the matter, Luther's personal interpretation having been substituted . . . .

Please see what I just had to say above.

Even still, show me in Scripture the Catholic concept of infused righteousness. Show me in Scripture the Catholic concept that the presence of faith makes the works of the faithful a credit unto righteousness. Show me in Scripture.

When it comes to initial and countined justification and sanctification by faith alone, by grace alone, without works, the plain meaning of Scripture is quite plain.

What a distortion of scripture . . . I am sorry . ..

Scripture says it is not by faith alone, grace alone without works . . the passage in James alone proves this hands down! In fact, James is very clear, that faith, if it hath not works, being alone, cannot save . .. . . .

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

A rhetorical question whose answer is obviously NO!

.
.

Punchy · Jan 25, 2007

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Sanctification and continuance within a state of justification by meritorious works are not the apostolic preaching.

Good Works in Sanctifying Grace are Necessary for Salvation

Neh. 13:14, Psalm 11:7,28:4, Isa. 3:10, 59:18, Jer. 25:14, 50:29, Ezek. 9:10, 11:21, 36:19, Hos. 4:9, 9:15, 12:2, Sir. 16:12,14 - The 2,000 year-old Catholic position on salvation is that we are saved by Jesus Christ and Him alone (cf. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5). But by the grace of Christ, we achieve the salvation God desires for us through perseverance in both faith and works. Many Protestants, on the other hand, believe that one just has to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior to be saved, and good works are not necessary (they just flow from those already saved). But these verses, and many others, teach us that our performance of good works is necessary for our salvation. Scripture also does not teach that good works distinguish those who are eternally saved from those who are not saved.

Sir. 35:19; Luke 23:41; John 3:19-21, Rom. 8:13, 2 Tim 4:14, Titus 3:8,14, Rev. 22:12 - these verses also teach us that we all will be judged by God according to our deeds. There is no distinction between the "saved" and the "unsaved."

1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as many Protestants believe, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?

Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God's grace during our lives.

Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved.

Matt. 16:27 – Jesus says He will repay every man for what he has done (works).

Matt. 25:31-46 - Jesus' teaching on the separation of the sheep from the goats is based on the works that were done during their lives, not just on their acceptance of Christ as Savior. In fact, this teaching even demonstrates that those who are ultimately saved do not necessarily have to know Christ. Also, we don’t accept Christ; He accepts us. God first makes the decision to accept us before we could ever accept Him.

Matt. 25:40,45 - Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to Me." We are judged and our eternal destiny is determined in accordance with our works.

Mark 10:21 - Jesus says sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. This means that our salvation depends upon our works.

Luke 12:43-48 - these verses teach us that we must act according to the Lord's will. We are judged based upon what we know and then do, not just upon what we know.

Luke 14:14 – Jesus says we are repaid for the works we have done at the resurrection of the just. Our works lead to salvation.

Luke 23:41 - some Protestants argue that Jesus gave salvation to the good thief even though the thief did not do any good works. However, the good thief did in fact do a good work, which was rebuking the bad thief when he and others were reviling Jesus. This was a "work" which justified the good thief before Jesus and gained His favor. Moreover, we don't know if the good thief asked God for forgiveness, did works of penance and charity and was reconciled to God before he was crucified.

Rom. 2:6-10, 13 - God will judge every man according to his works. Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God's grace.

2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

2 Cor. 9:6 – Paul says that he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully, in connection with God’s judgment.

2 Cor. 11:15 - our end will correspond to our deeds. Our works are necessary to both our justification and salvation.

Gal. 6:7-9 – whatever a man sows, he will reap. Paul warns the Galatians not to grow weary in doing good works, for in due season they will reap (the rewards of eternal life).

Eph. 6:8 – whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again from the Lord.

Col. 3:24-25 - we will receive due payment according to what we have done. Even so, Catholics recognize that such payment is a free unmerited gift from God borne from His boundless mercy.

1 Tim. 6:18-19 – the rich are to be rich in good deeds so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed, that is, eternal life.

2 Tim. 4:14 – Alexander the coppersmith did Paul great harm, and Paul says the Lord will requite him for his deeds.

Heb. 6:10 - God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for His sake. God rewards our works on earth and in heaven.

Heb. 12:14 – without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Holiness requires works of self-denial and charity, and does not come about simply by a profession of faith.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judges us impartially according to our deeds. We participate in applying the grace Jesus won for us at Calvary in our daily lives.

Rev. 2:5 - Jesus tells the Ephesians they have fallen from love they used to have, and orders them to do good works. He is not satisfied with their faith alone. They need to do more than accept Him as personal Lord and Savior.

Rev. 2:10 – Jesus tells the church in Smyrna to be faithful unto death, and He will give them the crown of life. This is the faith of obedience to His commandments.

Rev. 2:19 - Jesus judges the works of the Thyatirans, and despises their tolerance of Jezebel, calling them to repentance.

Rev. 2:23 - Jesus tells us He will give to each of us as our works deserve. He crowns His own gifts by rewarding our good works.

Rev. 2:26 - Jesus says he who conquers and keeps my works until the end will be rewarded in heaven. Jesus thus instructs us to keep his works to the very end. This is not necessary if we are "once saved, always saved."

Rev. 3:2-5,8,15 – Jesus is judging our works from heaven, and these works bear upon our eternal salvation. If we conquer sin through faith and works, He will not blot our names out of the book of life. This means that works bear upon our salvation. Our “works” do not just deal with level of reward we will receive, but whether we will in fact be saved.

Rev. 3:15 – Jesus says, “I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot. Because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Jesus is condemning indifferentism, which is often based on our works.

Rev. 14:13 - we are judged by the Lord by our works – “for their deeds follow them!” Our faith during our life is completed and judged by our works.

Rev. 20:12 – “the dead are judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.”

Rev. 22:12 – Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done.”

Sirach 16:12,14 – we are judged according to our deeds, and will receive in accordance with our deeds.

I Am Being Saved (present event)

1 Cor. 1:18 - for the word of the cross is folly to those perishing, but for to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process of perseverance through faith, hope and love.

2 Cor. 2:15 - for we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved. Salvation is a continual process.

Phil. 2:12 - we are working out our salvation through fear and trembling. Salvation is an ongoing process.

1 Peter 1:9 - you obtain the salvation of your souls as the outcome of your faith. Working out our salvation in fear and trembling is a lifelong process.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

Shlomo.

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

BeforeThereWas said:
How'd you lose yourself in the firstl place?

Therein probably lies the answer as to how you ended up in the rcc.

Besides, there's no way for anyone to verify that the Lord truly had anything to do with your being where you are with the rcc. Lots of people have credited the Lord for things He had nothing whatsoever to do with. Our feelings are elusive and unreliable.

Too many people try using the ancient trump card of "The Lord led me to this..." to try and silence any and all challenges to the decisions they made on the merits of their own feelings and thinking.

I hope you can appreciate my lack of any desire to blindly believe that the Lord had anything at all to do with your being in the rcc, unless you have a genuine prophet who can verify your words.

BTW&DM

You can believe whatever you want! I really don't care!

I do not need your approval regarding where I know God has led me and the truth He has permitted me, at long last, to know.

Be as skeptical as you want!

.

Punchy · Jan 25, 2007

It seems that Protestantism is more influenced by Western rationalism than Scripture itself.

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Sanctification and continuance within a state of justification by meritorious works are not the apostolic preaching.

I think you are throwing around big sounding words in ways that makes it difficult for others to actually understand what you are trying to say . ..

How I understand you, which could be different than how you intend, I would say you are absolutely 100% wrong . . .

.

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

BeforeThereWas said:
Uhh......yeah......ok......

Kinda like the dogma that the earth was allegedly flat

LOLOL! Horsefeathers!
What "dogma" that the earth was flat! ?

There ain't no such thing! Never has been, never will be!

If you actually knew anything about what you are talking about, you would have never suggested such a thing.

Doctrine and dogma have to do with issues of faith and morals .. . science is not an issue of faith and morals and the Church has NEVER had any dogma, let alone a doctrine, that the earth is flat.

Someone has been feeding you a bunch of hoey . . I am simply going to skip over more of this hoey . .

If the rcc were truly the model the Lord intended, then there'd be no need for His return to rule with a rod of iron.

Horsefeathers! He is ruling over the Kings of the earth right now! Din't you know that? What are you talking about "His return to rule with a rod of iron" ???

He is not returning to rule with a rod of iron . . There is no such thing as a millenial reign of Christ on earth from Jerusalem . . (I assume this is what you mean) . . that is fantasy . .

The scriptures say He is ruling over the Kings of the Earth NOW and has been for almost 200 years!

Who do you think He is ruling THROUGH? Yes .. the CHURCH!

I'm neither, and am completely unified and at peace with those who confess Christ Jesus as their only Lord, their only Savior, and only intercessor.

ONLY Intercessor? ? ? Adding to the scripture now are we? Such an interpretation is OPPOSED TO THE COMMAND OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF!

And from someone whose final authority is scripture!

I am shocked . . truly I am!

What is intercession?

Intercession
INTERCES'SION, n. [L. intercessio, from intercedo. See Intercede.]

The act of interceding; mediation; interposition between parties at variance, with a view to reconciliation; prayer or solicitation to one party in favor of another, sometimes against another.

Your intercession now is needless grown;

Retire and let me speak with her alone.

He bore the sin of many, and made intercession

for the transgressors. Isa 53.

Prayer for another is INTERCESSION:

COMMANDS in scripture for believers to BE INTERCESSORS . . to INTERCEDE . . to PRAY FOR others:

Luk 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

1Th 5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

Heb 13:18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

Jam 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

And the verse you provided said nothing about Jesus being the ONLY intercessor .. that is your fabrication . . . . :

Hebrewa 7:25 Wherefore He (Christ Jesus) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Whew! That sure is reassuring, and I don't need some dude wearing a funny looking robe or collar to interpret the clear language of those passages. They speak for themselves quite well.

BTW&DM

I wouldn't want my faith to be based on what you suppose to be the "clear" langauge of scripture which doesn't even say what you try to make it say . . .

.

Punchy · Jan 25, 2007

There is no Scriptural basis for Protestant doctrine.

God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer

1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf. But before Paul's teaching about Jesus as the "one mediator," Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why?

1 Tim 2:3 - because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites us to participate in Christ's role as mediator.

1 Tim. 2:5 - therefore, although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators).

1 Cor. 3:9 - God invites us to participate in Christ's work because we are God's "fellow workers" and one family in the body of Christ. God wants His children to participate. The phrase used to describe "fellow workers" is "sunergoi," which literally means synergists, or cooperators with God in salvific matters. Does God need fellow workers? Of course not, but this shows how much He, as Father, loves His children. God wants us to work with Him.

Mark 16:20 - this is another example of how the Lord "worked with them" ("sunergountos"). God cooperates with us. Out of His eternal love, He invites our participation.

Rom. 8:28 - God "works for good with" (the Greek is "sunergei eis agathon") those who love Him. We work as subordinate mediators.

2 Cor. 6:1 - "working together" (the Greek is "sunergountes") with him, don't accept His grace in vain. God allows us to participate in His work, not because He needs our help, but because He loves us and wants to exalt us in His Son. It is like the father who lets his child join him in carrying the groceries in the house. The father does not need help, but he invites the child to assist to raise up the child in dignity and love.

Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation.

1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. We are therefore subordinate priests to the Head Priest, but we are still priests who participate in Christ's work of redemption.

Rev. 1:6, 5:10 - Jesus made us a kingdom of priests for God. Priests intercede through Christ on behalf of God's people.

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

1 Tim 2:5-6 - therefore, it is because Jesus Christ is the one mediator before God that we can be subordinate mediators. Jesus is the reason. The Catholic position thus gives Jesus the most glory. He does it all but loves us so much He desires our participation.

New Testament

Matt. 5:44-45 - Jesus tells us to pray for (to mediate on behalf of) those who persecute us. God instructs us to mediate.

Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31 – deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3). Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.

Matt. 26:53 – Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints – and He obviously would not have been worshiping them in so doing – then so can we, who need their help infinitely more than Jesus, and without engaging in idolatry. And, in Matt. 22:30, Jesus says we will be “like angels in heaven.” This means human saints (like the angel saints) can be called upon to assist people on earth. God allows and encourages this interaction between his family members.

Matt. 27:47,49; Mark 15:35-36 – the people believe that Jesus calls on Elijah for his intercession, and waits to see if Elijah would come to save Jesus on the cross.

Matt. 27:52-53 - at Jesus' passion, many saints were raised and went into the city to appear and presumably interact with the people, just as Jesus did after His resurrection.

Mark 11:24 - Jesus says that whatever we ask in prayer, we will receive it. It is Jesus, and also we through Jesus, who mediate.

John 2:3 - Jesus knew the wine was gone, but invites and responds to Mary's intercession. God desires our lesser mediation and responds to it because He is a living and loving God.

John 2:5 - Mary intercedes on behalf of those at the wedding feast and tells them to do whatever Jesus tells them. Because Mary is our perfect model of faith, we too intercede on behalf of our brothers and sisters.

John 2:11 - in fact, it was Mary's intercession that started Jesus' ministry. His hour had not yet come, yet Jesus responds to Mary's intercession. Even though He could do it all by Himself, God wants to work with His children.

Acts 12:7 – an angel strikes Peter on the side and wakes him up, freeing him from prison. The angel responds to Peter’s prayers.

Rom. 15:30 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for him. If we are united together in the one body of Christ, we can help each other.

2 Cor. 1:11 - Paul even suggests that the more prayers and the more people who pray, the merrier! Prayer is even more effective when united with other's prayers.

2 Cor. 9:14 - Paul says that the earthly saints pray for the Corinthians. They are subordinate mediators in Christ.

2 Cor. 13:7,9 - Paul says the elders pray that the Corinthians may do right and improve. They participate in Christ's mediation.

Gal. 6:2,10 - Paul charges us to bear one another's burdens, and to do good to all, especially those in the household of faith.

Eph. 6:18 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for each other.

Eph. 6:19 - Paul commands that the Ephesians pray for him. If there is only one mediator, why would Paul ask for their prayers?

Phil. 1:19 - Paul acknowledges power of Philippians' earthly intercession. He will be delivered by their prayers and the Holy Spirit.

Col. 1:3 - Paul says that he and the elders pray for the Colossians. They are subordinate mediators in the body of Christ.

Col. 1:9 - Paul says that he and the elders have not ceased to pray for the Colossians, and that, by interceding, they may gain wisdom.

Col. 4:4 - Paul commands the Colossians to pray for the elders of the Church so that God may open a door for the word. Why doesn't Paul just leave it up to God? Because subordinate mediation is acceptable and pleasing to God, and brings about change in the world. This is as mysterious as the Incarnation, but it is true.

1 Thess. 5:11 - Paul charges us to encourage one another and build one another up, in the body of Christ. We do this as mediators in Christ.

1 Thess. 5:17 - Paul says "pray constantly." If Jesus' role as mediator does not apply subordinately to us, why pray at all?

1 Thess. 5:25 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for the elders of the Church. He desires our subordinate mediation.

2 Thess. 1:11 - Paul tells the family of God that he prays for us. We participate in Christ's mediation because Christ desires this.

2 Thess. 3:1 - Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for Him, Silvanus and Timothy so that they may be delivered.

1 Tim. 2:1-3 - Paul commands us to pray for all. Paul also states that these prayers are acceptable in the sight of God.

2 Tim. 1:3 – Paul says “I remember you constantly in my prayers.”

Philemon 22 - Paul is hoping through Philemon's intercession that he may be able to be with Philemon.

Heb. 1:14 – the author writes, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?”

Hebrews 13:18-19 - the author strongly urges the Hebrews to pray for the elders so that they act desirably in all things.

James 5:14-15- James says the prayer of the priests over the sick man will save the sick man and forgive his sins. This is a powerful example of men forgiving sins and bringing a person to salvation with the sacrament of the sick.

James 5:16 - James instructs us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another so that we may be healed.

James 5:17-18 - James refers to God's response to Elijah's fervent prayer for no rain. He is teaching us about the effectiveness of our earthly mediation.

1 John 5:14-15 - John is confident that God will grant us anything we ask of God according to His will.

1 John 5:16-17 - our prayers for others even calls God to give life to them and keep them from sinning. Our God is a personal and living God who responds to our prayers.

3 John 2 - John prays for Gaius' health and thus acts as a subordinate mediator.

Rev. 1:4 – this verse shows that angels (here, the seven spirits) give grace and peace. Because grace and peace only come from God, the angels are acting as mediators for God.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 – in heaven an angel mingles incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God, and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers “rise up” before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his children’s requests, whether made by his children on earth or in heaven.

Old Testament

Gen. 20:17 - God responds to Abraham's intercession and heals Abimelech, and also his wife and slaves.

Gen. 27:29; Num. 24:9 - blessed be everyone who blesses you. If we bless others in prayer, we are also blessed.

Exodus 32:11-14, 30-34; 34:9; Num. 14:17-20; 21:7-9 - these are many examples of God's response to Moses' saintly intercession.

1 Sam. 12:23 - Samuel says that he would be sinning against God if he didn't continue to intercede for the people of Israel.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the deceased prophet Samuel appears and converses with Saul, which is confirmed by Sirach 46:13,20).

1 Sam. 28:7; 1 Chron. 10:13-14 - Saul practiced necromancy. He used a medium, not God, to seek the dead and was therefore condemned. Saul's practice is entirely at odds with the Catholic understanding of saintly mediation, where God is the source and channel of all communication, and who permits His children to participate in this power.

2 Chron. 30:27 - the prayers of the priests and Levites came before God's holy habitation in heaven and were answered.

Tobit 12:12,15 - angels place Tobit and Sarah's prayers before the Holy One. This teaches us that the angels are also our subordinate mediators. We pray to the angels to take up our prayers to God.

Job 42:7-9 - Job prayed for three friends in sin and God listened to Job as a result of these prayers.

Psalm 34:7 – the angel of the Lord delivers those who fear him.

Psalm 91:11 – God will give His angels charge of you, to guard you in all your ways.

Psalm 103:20-21; 148:1-2 – we praise the angels and ask for their assistance in doing God’s will.

Psalm 141:2 - David asks that his prayer be counted as incense before God. The prayers of the saints have powerful effects.

Isaiah 6:6-7 - an angel touches Isaiah's lips and declares that his sin is forgiven. The angel is a subordinate mediator of God who effects the forgiveness of sins on God’s behalf.

Jer. 7:16 - God acknowledges the people's ability to intercede, but refuses to answer due to the hardness of heart.

Jer. 15:1 – the Lord acknowledges the intercessory power of Moses and Samuel.

Jer. 37:3 - king Zedekiah sends messengers to ask Jeremiah to intercede for the people, that he might pray to God for them.

Jer. 42:1-6 - all the people of Israel went before Jeremiah asking for his intercession, that he would pray to the Lord for them.

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. They can intercede on behalf of the people of God.

Dan. 9:20-23 - Daniel intercedes on behalf of the people of Israel confessing both his sins and the sins of the people before God.

Zech. 1:12-13 - an angel intercedes for those in Judea and God responds favorably.

2 Macc. 15:12-16 – the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html

Shlomo.

Melethiel · Jan 25, 2007

Luther made physical elements of bread and wine, created elements, consubstantial with the Trinity. Consubstantiality is a Divine Attribute. Created elements do not have divine attributes. Theologically speaking, to say that bread and wine are consubstantial with the Divine Christ is to make bread and wine part of the Trinity, God.

This is not true. Luther played around with the term, but ultimately rejected it as being too dogmatic. His later view, which Lutherans agree with, is that the Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ, without any fancy definitions.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jan 25, 2007

Some comments on some posts in this thread:

Private Interpretation: Perfect and infallible for me, absurd and silly if you do the same thing

Private intepretation is a Catholic thing. It embraces and insists on the most radical and extreme form of it known to me in all the history of Christianity. I've found it puzzeling how those who embrace private interpretation and arbitration more extremely than anyone can then turn around and rebuke it - but the issue seems to be WHO is doing it. It's silly when others do it, infallibly perfect and absolutely appropriate when the CC is doing it, or so it seems to me.

Imputing my bias: Infallible and Perfect if I do it, absurd and silly if anyone else does the same thing:

Yes, I agree, the CC DOES "see" much in Scripture that no one else sees, so that they DO conclude that their views ARE biblical and MUCH is implicit in the Word. This is because their own teachings are a "lens" for the reading of Scripture, ANY 'interpretation' that does not confirm and affirm the teachings of the CC - no matter how textually valid - must be rejected as wrong, and an interpretation that confirms the teachings of the CC is correct. If the text doesn't actually say what the CC teaches, it meant to and the "lens" of the teachings supplies it. In all my conversations with my Catholic brothers and sisters, we never once - not once - disagreed on what the words are in the text. It was those invisible words that my Catholic friend "saw" there via the "lens" of Catholic Tradition, that seemed to always be the issue of disagreement. Thus, MY conclusion is that our disagreement usually wasn't an issue of interpretation or hermeneutics but rather these invisible words. I found that Catholics firmly believe that thier bias is not only something to embrace but to imput into Scripture - an infallible thing, whereas I saw my bias as something I need to try to lay aside so that God speake - a fallible thing. Very different perspective.

Consubstantiation?

"Consubstantiation" as I understand it is a term Luther used a few times early on, but it is NOT the theology of the Lutheranism and never has been (nor did Luther retain the uses of that term). Lutherans and Catholics (as well as Anglicans, Orothodox and traditionally Methodist) have the same view of the Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. We all believe that the Eucharist IS His true, literal, physical Body and Blood in both natures. It's called Real Presense and we all agree on that. Where the Catholic Church departs from all the rest and from historic Christianity is with respect to the bread and wine. The rest of all (and the CC prior to 1215) left the "presense" of the bread and wine to mystery; they are "there" in SOME sense but we don't get dogmatic about the physics here - we leave such to mystery (seems moot anyway). The CC however, altogether uniquely, departed from that in 1215 by embracing as Dogma Aristotle's theory of "accidents" thus declaring - as a matter of highest importance and certainty - that the bread and wine are an "accident" (right from Aristotle) and thus stress the "appearance" (also right from Aristotle) of the bread and wine. Lutherans may certainly accept this theory as pious opinion (and some do) but Lutherans do not teach Aristotle's theory as Christian Dogma. Only the CC does. It's what divides us on the Eucharist.

Dr. Martin Luther

A Catholic monk, awarded a Doctorate by a Catholic University (VERY rare and esteemed in that day), considered one fo the world's greatest experts in the biblical languages, and often very insightful - he was, nonetheless, a mere mortal. SOME Catholics seems to think Lutherans think otherwise and consider him to be an Infallible Pope. We don't. Never have. That's a Catholic concept that we don't embrace. He was a mortal - and a sinful one at that. He is NOT our authority and never has been. He was a student of God's holy inerrant written Word - nothing more, nothing less. And he asked to be held accountable to that Word - and we did and we do. Thus, this "Look what Luther said!!!" propensity of some Catholics accomplishes nothing (we probably already know and frankly it's moot).

Thank you!

Pax!

- Josiah

.

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

Melethiel said:
This is not true.

Yes it is. And you then admitted that he did so!

Luther played around with the term, but ultimately rejected it as being too dogmatic.

He didn't 'play around' with the term, he used it at least at one time. But whether or not he ultimately rejected the "term", he did not reject its concept which is the Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist.

His later view, which Lutherans agree with, is that the Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ, without any fancy definitions.

Ummm . . no . . . I am sorry, but I find such attempts to deny the teaching of Lutheranism to distance it from what Luther taught to be sad.

Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged”

(The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/what_are_transubstantiation_and_consubstantiation

(the above site does not hold to the doctrine of the real presence, but I included it as an online source for the quote from The Oxford Dictionary and it is accurate as to the Lutheran idea of the Lord's Supper)

THe Lutheran position is that the Lord's Supper is the Body and Blood of our Lord "in, with and under the bread and wine,"

This means that the bread and wine remain unchanged., yet joined to the Body and Blood of Jesus.

The REAL PRESENCE is worthy of worship, for this is JESUS HIMSELF before you in the Eucharist.

However, if you believe He is really present, and you worship Him in His presence "in, with and under the bread and wine" you have to bow down to the bread and wine, created elements, also, thus elevating them to the level of divinity.

Sorry, but this is the problem we have with the Lutheran position on the Real Presence and why we can't accept it . . it would result in idolatary of the bread and wine for us, for we worship the Real Presence.

Whether you want to use a term to label what you believe or not is really irrelevant; what it amounts to is the concept of consubstantiation that Luther introduced. It is still "in, with and under the bread and wine" . . the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of our Lord in Lutheran theology.

Lutheran theology puts the Real Presence IN the bread and wine . . . WITH the bread and wine . . . UNDER the bread and wine . . . . The substance of bread and wine WITH - CON - the substance of the body and blood of Jesus . .

CON-SUBSTAN[CE] - [t]iation

Further on Luther's view that establishes this point:

Sacramental Union (Latin, unio sacramentalis; German, sakramentliche Einigkeit) is the Lutheran theological view of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Christian Eucharist. It is asserted to be a unique union to differentiate it from other "unions" in theology like the "personal union" of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the "mystical union" of Christ and his Church, and the "natural union" in the human person of body and soul. In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Chirst by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements" —the consecrated bread and wine—really eat and drink the physical body and physical blood of Christ as well. Lutherans believe that the manducatio indignorum ("eating of the unworthy") that even unbelievers eating and drinking in the Eucharist really eat and drink the body and blood of Christ[1] is an important component of this eucharist view. This view was put forward by Martin Luther in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper:

Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[2]

It is asserted in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 and in the Formula of Concord.[3] The Formula of Concord couples the term with the circumlocution ("in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine") used among Lutherans to further define their view:

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated.[4]

This view is sometimes identified as consubstantiation in that it asserts the simultaneous presence of four essences in the Eucharist: that of the consecrated bread, the Body of Christ, the consecrated wine, and the Blood of Christ; but it differs in that it does not assert a "local" (three dimensional, circumscribed) presence of the Body and Blood in the sacramental bread and wine respectively, which is rejected as "gross, carnal, and Capernaitic" in the Formula of Concord.[5] The term "consubstantiation" has been associated with such a "local" inclusion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine as has the term "impanation." Lutherans have also rejected the designation of their position as consubstantiation because it mainly denotes a philosophical explanation of the Real Presence as they believe transubstantiation does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_Union

Those who claim we have the same view as Lutherans are in error, for while we both believe the Eucharist is the Real Presence, we do not both believe that the bread and wine remain or are joined in any way to the Real Presence for the reasons I stated above.

This is an extremely significant theological difference.

.

A. believer · Jan 25, 2007

stumpjumper said:
Indeed!

Except that would require an entirely different mindset.

BigNorsk · Jan 25, 2007

Thank you theresa,

As your posts have pointed out the Lutheran and Catholic positions are indeed different.

And as your last post pointed out sacramental union would be a much better term than consubstatiation for the Lutheran view. It seems that the early usage of consubstantiation came about because of the emphasis on using Latin and the Lutherans were pressured to have a simple Latin term for their position similar to the Catholic transubstantiation.

And your complaint about idolatry of the bread and wine is actually quit consistent with Luther's position. He did indeed see the elevation of the host as idolatry and he did away with the elevation of the host as he was able to do so.

The major problem with consubstatiation is it is probably a bit too precise for the Lutheran position and that it was also in use to describe other things, like the Son being Consubstantial with the Father, or the humanity of Jesus being Consubstantial with his divinity.

Using the same word for the sacramental union is thereby open to error for the unions are not, as far as we know, definitely the same.

Hence we end up with the Lutheran in, under and with, which is not designed to primarily be precise but is actually intended to convey that we do not exactly know. The bread and wine remain, and they are also the body and blood of our Lord. One passage can be used to show both.

1Co 10:15-16 NET.
(15) I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say.
(16) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

If we focus on the bread, we see the element, after institution, referred to as bread, we also see the text demand that we recognize it as the body of Christ. Hence, to agree with the text, you must agree that it is both.

Consubstantiation is often used for that position, but due to the problems I already talked about, I would prefer sacramental union, just as the Book of Concord used the term in the quotes by theresa.

Marv

thereselittleflower · Jan 25, 2007

BigNorsk said:
Thank you theresa,

As your posts have pointed out the Lutheran and Catholic positions are indeed different.

And as your last post pointed out sacramental union would be a much better term than consubstatiation for the Lutheran view. It seems that the early usage of consubstantiation came about because of the emphasis on using Latin and the Lutherans were pressured to have a simple Latin term for their position similar to the Catholic transubstantiation.

And your complaint about idolatry of the bread and wine is actually quit consistent with Luther's position. He did indeed see the elevation of the host as idolatry and he did away with the elevation of the host as he was able to do so.

The major problem with consubstatiation is it is probably a bit too precise for the Lutheran position and that it was also in use to describe other things, like the Son being Consubstantial with the Father, or the humanity of Jesus being Consubstantial with his divinity.

Using the same word for the sacramental union is thereby open to error for the unions are not, as far as we know, definitely the same.

Hence we end up with the Lutheran in, under and with, which is not designed to primarily be precise but is actually intended to convey that we do not exactly know. The bread and wine remain, and they are also the body and blood of our Lord. One passage can be used to show both.

1Co 10:15-16 NET.
(15) I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say.
(16) Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

If we focus on the bread, we see the element, after institution, referred to as bread, we also see the text demand that we recognize it as the body of Christ. Hence, to agree with the text, you must agree that it is both.

Consubstantiation is often used for that position, but due to the problems I already talked about, I would prefer sacramental union, just as the Book of Concord used the term in the quotes by theresa.

Marv

Thank you Marv.

I perfectly understand why Lutherans do not wish to use the term consubstantiation for the reasons you outlined above.

May I ask you this however, Is not Jesus, who is Really and Truly Present in the Eucharist, wrothy of being worshipped in His Real Presence in the Eucharist?

.

tulc · Jan 25, 2007

There is no Scriptural basis for Protestant doctrine.

Wow. I thought only Protestants cut and pasted like that! Two points: 1) could you post the actual scriptures next time not just what they think they mean? It's a small thing but can save a lot of arguing back and forth. and 2) I'm not seeing anything in those scriptures proving Protestants wrong.
tulc(just a couple of thoughts)

Melethiel · Jan 25, 2007

TLF, I think you're reading too much into the term "in, with, and under". It is just a label to try and put words to what is more traditionally, in Lutheran theology, left a mystery: that the elements indeed ARE the Body and Blood of Christ, while remaining bread and wine. (Yes, there is a distinct difference from the RCC view here.) "Consubstantiation" is rejected as being to dogmatic, plus the confusion with other usages of the term. "Sacramental union" is a bit more acceptable.

(On a side note, could you please not use colors in your posts? I find them very difficult to read that way.)

E.C. · Jan 25, 2007

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
And people wonder why I don't want to call myself a Protestant...

I think I see what you mean. Lutherans seem to be "mild" Protestants.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
I don't know of any Protestant groups that disagree with councils 1-6...

And those that disagree with 7 are, well, wrong.

And agreed, if I had to point to the church founded by Christ, I would point to Orthodoxy (I say this in agreement with the presented idea that Orthodoxy wrote the New Testament). I'm just glad I don't have to, because A. I think without Rome, the ecclesial patriarchy is broken and B. I think that the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) deviates from the limits of apostolic orthodoxy, namely in the matter of justification through faith alone by grace alone.

And if it weren't for B, I probably would be Orthodox. But, alas, I see Orthodoxy as deviating from the apostolic doctrine on this core issue and laid out truest and earliest in the New Testament.

Its not that some disagree with the councils, its just that some don't even acknowledge them! The Synod of Jerusalem was met because of the Reformation. The Orthodox had heard about the reformers and were not sure what to think of them and their doctrines and so forth, so they met at Jerusalem and discussed things.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Jan 25, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
I think you are throwing around big sounding words in ways that makes it difficult for others to actually understand what you are trying to say . ..

Actually I'm using technical terms to convey precise concepts. Certainlly a Thomist Catholic wouldn't begrudge me using complex terminology.

I wouldn't want to say 'justification through faith alone by grace alone' because that might imply that we were talking about the initial point of justification- on which Lutherans and Catholics agree, as stated in the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification.

The point of contention between us is not on how a person becomes justified in the first place, but how one continues to be justified, and also how one is sanctified. So, continuance within a state of justification and sanctification.

It's not like we're dealing with simple concepts like clapping in church....

thereselittleflower said:
where you say you donot see the bible saying anything about infant baptism, what is really the case is there is no explicit evidence of infant baptism, nothing that is plainly and clearly stated.

Yet, we see implicit evidence for infant baptism . .

Actually that's not what I'm saying. If you reread my post, I actually allude to the fact that I agree with the Reformed analysis- that there is evidence of apostolic infant baptism in households and a parallel between baptism and circumcision. By point was simply to say that even if that wasn't there, church tradition alone would be enough to continue the practice, because where Scripture is silent we follow church tradition.

And since the scriptures denounces private interpretation of scripture, where does that leave us?

I see no Scriptural citations here. Where do they denounce it? And are you making Scripture the final authority in the matter?

Tautological...

That is simply your personal interpretation. It ignores HOW James speaks as works likening them to the SPIRIT which GIVES LIFE to the body, and to faith as the body which is dead without the spirit . .

It is the SPIRIT which gives life to the body . . not the other way around . . and LIFE of the body RESULTS FROM the spirit being fused with the body . . .

And so James' analogy firmly places causality of spiritual life with GOOD WORKS being fused with faith MAKING it LIVING

And that faith without Good Works is DEAD LIKE A CORPSE . . this is much deeper than mere evidence . . . it is cause and effect. Life and Death . . .

I'm afraid this entire line of thinking is lost on me. Please cite your verses and explain your reasoning.

Again, this is nothing more than your personal interpretation speaking . . it is divorced from the teaching of Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles on the matter, Luther's personal interpretation having been substituted . . . .

And I contend that the Catholic Church's dogmatic decree is not the authentic apostolic teaching. You're not going to convince anyone that infused righteousness or meritorious works are apostolic are the apostolic preaching by merely disavowing personal interpretation and placing the dogmatic declarations of Trent in it's place- especially when Trent stands in tension with the much earlier (1000 years earlier) declaration of the Council of Orange on the matter.

My reasoning is simple: When James speaks of showing his faith through works (verse 18), he is speaking of the evidence of his justification; the establishment or grounds of justification are not in mind here at all. And moreover, I see no reason to think that James is here speaking of justification by God. And his mention of Rahab (verse 25) implies that he's speaking of justification before the covenant community. But even if we ignore this, there's still no reason to think he's talking about justification before God.

Come to think of it, this makes a lot of sense given that A. we don't need evidence before an omniscient God, and B. the central act of worship in the covenant community, the Eucharist, requires repentance and good standing before we come to it (1 Corinthians 11:28-31).

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
A rhetorical question whose answer is obviously NO!

This is absolutely true. The reformers and their intellectual descendents never, ever said that a 'dead faith' can save. And a living faith will naturally, innevitably produce good works. A dead faith- the mere intellectual assent to proposition truths such as the demons possess (verse 19)- is not what the reforms confessed as the grounds of justification. It is a living faith placed in the heart through the hearing of the gospel and through baptism- a living faith that naturally resuts in good works.

"works OF THE LAW" . . the MOSAIC LAW is what Paul has in mind here . . he was constant defending against Judaizers who were trying to get believers to become bound to the MOSAIC LAW which was now obsolete and passing away.

Works of the LAW are not the same as Good Works required for a saving faith and spoken of by James . . .and we get to your next comment:

This fundamentally misunderstands the place of the Mosaic law in Second Temple Judaism.

I'll admit, in Galatians, this argument certainly has the upper hand. Paul is responding to Judaizers who demand that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews and that to participate in the blessings one must become part of the renewed covenant community through circumcision and remain a part through Israel 'national bagdes'- kosher, Torah, temple, Sabbath, etc.

And contemporary Protestant scholarship (Sanders, Wright) has done a great deal to show that this Catholic interpretation is correct. Luther absolutely read his own personal problems with meritorious works back into Paul, whereas Paul's problems with the Judaizers was not meritorious works since (and here's the whole New Perpsective on Paul) in Second Temple Judaism, there was no concept of meritorious works.

Paul's basic point in Galatians is that these national badges, or demarcating lines between Jew and Gentile, where no longer relevant because people were assigned a place in the covenant community by faith. And for Paul, this is premised on the idea that what Jesus Christ did was not restore the people of God to their status as Mosaic Israel (as so many self-proclaimed remnant communities expected), but had reconsisted them as the foundation of a worldwide community envisioned in the Abrahamic covenant that we know as the church catholic.

But

Although this is the case in Galatians (one of Paul's earliest writings), Paul seems to have later developed a more comprehensive understanding of faith and salvation that is explained in the central writing of his 'middle period,' Romans.

So when Paul says in Romand 3:28, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the law," is he speaking of the Mosaic law?

Well, how does Paul characterize 'the law' in Romans?

First of all, Paul's entire letter begins with the central assertion that God can righteousness condemn Gentiles because they too are aware of God and his law (all of 1:18-2:11). Is this the Mosaic law? No! The natural law etched on the human heart is not the Mosaic law by which Israel remains in the land under the terms of the Mosaic covenant. Or are Gentiles faulted by God because they have, since the foundation of the world, had implicit knowledge of the Mosaic precepts which didn't arise until the second millennium BC? The natural law is the eternal, moral law, and this is meaning that colors Paul's use of 'law' throughout Romans.

Paul continues in this line of thinking and this is especially clear in 4:4. Here Paul speaks reward of good works as the wages. This is not the Mosaic law, because there's no concept of works-righteousness in the Mosic law. People are not declared righteous before God by works of the Mosaic law; the wages, or due, of the one who keeps the national badges of Judaism is not personal righteousness. No, Paul is speaking of a different concept entirely.

Now I understand if you might then say, "But Paul was speaking about how we initially become justified, not how we remain justified and are sanctified." And of course, we agree that man is initially justified (declared righteous) solely on account of his faith, and this on account of the terms of God's gracious new covenant.

And here, you might either say that Scripture is silent on the matter (of continued justification and sanctification) and so we revert to church teaching, or that you reject the evidentiary interpretation of James and that James therefore (perhaps only by some Thomistic 'spiritual' sense accesibly only by the magesterium) has in mind works-righteousness.

There are three problems, however.

The first is logical and concerns continuance within a state of justification. First of all, neither of us believe 'once saved always saved' or even the Calvinist 'perseverence of the saints.' Lutherans believe that we can lose salvation, just as Catholics do. But as Lutherans understand it, only the rejection of faith in the gospel (that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, who became incarnate, died, and rose for our salvation and will come again) can warrant a loss of salvation.

For Catholics, one can lose the declaration of righteousness (justification) by comitting a mortal sin. After comitting this mortal sin, they must go to confession (we agree here) and, in order to be fully reinstated with God, work an act of penance (and we don't agree here).

Now it makes sense that an act of penance would be requires to reestablish justification before the covenant community and so be allowed to come before the Eucharistic table. This makes sense, because good works are the evidence of living faith which establishes justification before God, and obviously those who are not justified before God cannot come into Eucharistic fellowship. So a lack of confession and penance makes perfect sense when talking about excommunication.

However, if comitting a mortal sin takes the believer outside a state of justification before God, then they are essentially the same as a pagan. But if they're at this state of ground zero, then they are in need of being initially justified. And since it's already been established that initial justification is by faith alone (and again, the Catholic Church teaches this), then there readmittance to God's grace cannot therefore be based on their work of penance, but about their faith alone. This is why Paul in Romans 7:4 and 8:1 can say 'You also have died to the law through the body of Christ,' and 'There is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.'

The second problem is Scriptural, and again concerns continunace within justification. Having gone through every one of the Scripture verses in Punchy's post (#63), I see not one verse where Christ or his apostles are speaking to the elect and say that their individual sins warrant a seperation from justification. And I will go through each verse individually in a seperate post, so no need to take my word for it.

The third and last problem is Scriptural, and this time concerns sanctification (or the actual increase of righteousness in the individual underneath the legal declaration of righteousness). I'll admit, Catholics and proponents of the New Perspective have some warrant when they say that the Protestant understanding of justification involves God in a 'legal fiction.' However, this assumes that Protestants don't have any doctrine of sanctification (the authentic infusing of righteousness); this could not be further from the truth.

Historic Protestants have always confessed that the end goal of (baptismal) rebirth is the actual transformation of the human heart. But as Protestants understand Scripture, this begins and ends with God's initiative.

First of all, look at the entirety of Romans 8. It is the Spirit in believes that effects change, regeneration, life, and perseverance. We do not ourselves merit any righteousness, but are transformed by the working of the Spirit in us.

Second, consider such verses as 'And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work (justification) in you will bring it (sanctification) to completion (glorification) at the day of Jesus Christ,' (Phil 1:6) and the idea of Galatians 5:22, that the good works of the believer are the fruit of the Spirit- and not that good works that originate from the believer and are for some reason counted as righteousness. These are not happy platitutdes out of which to make cross-stitch; they are Scripture, and Scriptures that speak to the initiative of God in sanctification and in the good works flowing from the believer.

Continued in next post:

GratiaCorpusChristi · Jan 25, 2007

....continued from previous post:

I would like to make clear a few things, however.

First, I am not saying that sins do not detract from our sanctification. While I do not believe the Scriptures state that sin seperates us from God's declaration of righteousness, it is absolutely true that sin detracts from our sanctification- our growth in actual righteousness. I am only saying that our good works don't merit us any additional personal 'goodness,' because they are the outgrowth of the Spirit and living faith alone. But sin is absolutely serious, because although it doesn't remove us from the legal status of reconcilliation with God, it seperates us from the intimacy we share with him.

Second, I'm not saying condemnation of sin shouldn't have a place within the covenant community. Unresolved sins cast our living faith into doubt, and without confession and penance we cannot share in the central act of fellowship between each other and God, the Eucharist. And in order to approach the Eucharist, being the truest source of our sanctification, we are required to be purified from actual sins. If this is what we mean when we saw that our works merit sanctification- that by working God and shunning evil we do not actually merit righteousness but are allowed to come before the truest source of all sanctification and righteousness, the Eucharist- then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. But that is not the declaration of Trent.

Third, I would like to reemphasize that the historic Protestant doctrine is not license. We confess that although faith alone is the grounds of our justification, it is not a faith that stands alone. A living faith necessarily leads to good works. We are not 'easy believists' and do not confess 'once saved, always saved.' We confess Lordship salvation- that one cannot simply say that Jesus Christ is Savior, but must accept him as the Lord and King who commands the just ordering of our lives by his law.

Fourth and last, I would like to upset a lot of my fellow Protestants by saying that because I do no interpret Galatians to be against the idea of meritorious works, I do not regard Catholics as under Paul's anathema of 1:6-12. While I regard justification as a core doctrine of the faith and that justification (initial and continued, and sanctification) is through faith alone by grace alone, I do not regard the anathema of Galatians as being directed against Semi-Pelagianism. We are not justified by faith alone by believing in justification by faith alone, we are justified by faith alone by believing in Jesus Christ- and this Catholics certainly do.

Martin Luther

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Seasoned Warrior

Well-Known Member

Punchy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Punchy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Punchy

Guest

Miserere mei, Domine

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Miserere mei, Domine

Well-Known Member

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency