Reflections on Augsburg

[Philip]

We need to define grace

I did some reading online and think I have an idea of what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong. (Remember, these come from online sources.)

gratia infusa (infused grace),

This seems to refer to an ability placed in believers to do good/God's will. It sometimes seems to suggest that through this new ability, one can be justified before God. Some authors connect it to Catholic theology, and some to Pentacostal/Charismatic theology.

gratuitis Dei favor (God's benevolence to a fallen mankind; Lutheran definition),

This seems to refer to God's love and willingness to help sinners. In someway, it seems to refer to the "relationship" God has with sinners. Obviously, this is connected with Lutheran theology. I have not been able to determine what, if any, role the believer plays in this relationship. Is he free to accept or reject this grace? I get the impression that he is not, but this seems to run into problems with predestination.

or something else?

As is often the case when comparing Eastern and Western theologies, this is probably the correct choice. I think that our idea of grace may at the same time fall both between and outside these two definitions.

Let me know if I am on the right track. Once I understand these definitions, I can try to explain our understanding of grace.

 

[theologia crucis]

Phillip, that's not too bad. I hope to be able to right my response soon (dang real life getting in the way of discussing theology! ). I think I can answer your questions, though, if I can get some free time!



James, I appologize if I hijacked your thread! I'll probably put my response in a new thread. I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!

I have a habbit of stepping on toes , I will wait patiently for your response Theologia.

 

[JVAC]

James, I appologize if I hijacked your thread! I'll probably put my response in a new thread. I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!

No need to apologize, I am enjoying the discource, quite educational. I like to, sometimes, sit back and watch. No need for another thread either, this thread has enough room for everyone's post.

(I think no one else is responding because they might be afraid this is a trap [wink])

-James

 

[Philip]

(I think no one else is responding because they might be afraid this is a trap [wink])

Yes, I have just where I want you.

In the East, grace is an attribute (technically, an energy) of God. We try to use the phrase "experience the grace of God" rather than "receive the grace of God" as this is more consistent with our definition of grace. By experiencing His grace, we become more like God. When we do good works*, we experience His grace and are drawn closer to Him. This is the goal of the Christian life: to regain, by the guidence, protection, and power of the Holy Spirit, the communion with God that was lost at the Fall. Salvation is the completion of this, when we enter into communion with God. I think this process is closer to the Western idea of Sactification rather than Justification.


*By "good works", I mean those that are born out of Christian love as a result of the Holy Spirit working in us. "Good works" do not include works done out of some ceremonial/legalistic obligation or works done to try to earn favor.

 

[theologia crucis]

I'm MAD! I almost had my response worked up, but I hadn't saved it yet. And then my computer locked up and I had to reboot without being able to recover it!!! ARGHH!!!

I'll try and rewrite it this week, but with Holy Week upon us, I'm not sure when I'll get it done now!

However, I'm going to do some quick cutting and pasting from a document worked up by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations after the JDDJ was signed, and it discusses grace to a degree (not quite the way I had been working on!). It may not directly deal with the Augsburg Confession, but these are the same issues both sides have been arguing over for nearly 500 years.

In short, if Christianity is ever going to truly get anywhere in ecumenical discussions, they are going to have to define theological terms, and use those definitions to come up with truy doctrinal and inward unity, not the outward appearance of unity.

So: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

Unresolved issues:
Justification, Grace, Faith, Original Sin

4. JDDJ does not settle the major disagreement between Lutheran theology and Roman Catholic theology on justification. Lutherans teach that justification is essentially a declaration of “not guilty” and “righteous” pronounced by God on a sinner because of Christ and His work. Roman Catholics teach that justification involves an internal process in which a believer is transformed and “made” more and more righteous. The non-settlement of this issue forms the chief defect of JDDJ.

5. Correspondingly, JDDJ fails to define clearly the word grace. Content to use the term “justification by grace,” the document does not resolve the classic question whether such grace is God’s undeserved favor (Lutheran) or whether it is a spiritual power poured or “infused” into the soul that enables one to love God and merit salvation (Roman Catholic). Rome’s view of grace as infused stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process.

6. Although JDDJ uses the biblical phraseology “through faith” or “by faith,” at critical points it speaks of justification “in faith.” This new wording is ambiguous and allows for the Roman Catholic idea of infused grace. It does not clearly state that faith’s role in justification is exclusively to receive Christ’s benefits given to sinners by God in His grace. Therefore, it fails to make clear that the cause of justification is God’s saving work in Christ, not ourselves or anything in us.

7. JDDJ contains an expression of the Lutheran position that original sin, which remains after baptism, is really sin. It also includes the Roman Catholic view that original sin is eradicated by baptism, and that the desire to sin that remains after baptism is not really sin. JDDJ leaves this historic disagreement, like other disagreements mentioned above, unresolved.

Failures of the Declaration:
A Confessional Lutheran Perspective

1. Justification: Forensic or Transformational?

The foremost defect of the document is that it does not come clean on the most glaring conflict between Augsburg and Trent. For Lutherans, justification is essentially forensic, that is, God declares the sinner righteous on account of and in Christ. Roman Catholics define justification as an internal transformation of the believer, a “process,” which Lutherans place in the area of sanctification, about which too there are different understandings. Roman Catholics have understood grace as if it were almost a substance, gratia infusa, which is poured into the soul initially by Baptism. Lutherans, with Paul, see justifying grace as the favor Dei, God’s gracious attitude whereby He accepts sinners. The title of paragraph 4.2, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous,” to be sure, could be understood in a Lutheran way. The famous paragraph 72 of Apology IV makes it clear that faith “being made righteous” in justification means only receiving “the forgiveness of sins.” Clearly this is not what is meant in the Joint Declaration. However, the Formula of Concord expressly rejects the view that justifying righteousness “consists of two pieces or parts, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins and, as a second element, renewal or sanctification” (SD, III, 48).

2. Sola Gratia: No Real Advance

The present Declaration is willing to grant sola gratia simply because the Lutheran and Roman parties had different understandings of “grace.” If saving grace is God’s undeserved favor, as in Rom. 4:4 and 11:6, then, in the article of justification, grace and works (Law) are clearly mutually exclusive. Justification is either by grace or by works, but not both. But if grace now means infused grace, a spiritual power poured into the soul by which we love God and merit salvation, then such infused grace and works in justification are related as “both/and.” Neither the Joint Declaration nor the background dialog have come to terms with these contradictory meanings of “grace.” This would have unraveled the illusory “consensus” on justification.

4. Original Sin?

Behind the Lutheran-Roman Catholic differences on justification are equally fundamental differences on how original sin is understood. Differences on one doctrine mirror differences in others. Lutherans hold that original sin is really sin and that it remains after Baptism. Roman Catholic doctrine holds that original sin is eradicated by Baptism and that concupiscence is not really sin.

Rome’s view of grace as an infused substance, gratia infusa, stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process. Lutherans hold that justification is first of all a universal, world-embracing act and judgment of God in Christ, which is received by faith alone: “The first and chief article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, ‘was put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification’ (Rom. 4:25)” (Smalcald Articles, II/I/1). “Indeed, the entire Gospel that we preach depends on the proper understanding of this article. Upon it all our salvation and blessedness are based, and it is so rich and broad that we can never learn it fully” (Large Catechism, Creed, Second Article, 33). The Formula of Concord (SD, III, 25) lists four “essential and necessary elements” of justification: 1. the grace of God; 2. the merit of Christ; 3. the Gospel; and 4. faith.

15. “A Call for Discussion” notes that Trent sees “justification as a process of growth in holiness empowered through the gift of grace given in the sacraments. Grace is understood as an infused causal power that transforms the soul.” Aristotle’s four causes are taken into the Tridentine definition. Predisposing or helping grace [first cause] turns the sinner from sin to “the church’s ‘instrumental cause’ of justification, which is baptism [second
cause]. In baptism, the cleansing of original sin and the remission of actual sin (up to the time of baptism) are received, together with the infusion of grace which renews the soul and enables the observance of the commandments. This is supplemented by the rite of penance for post-baptismal sin [third cause] and by the necessary but always uncertain grace of perseverance in holiness of life until the end [fourth or final cause], when, for those who persevere, God grants eternal life both as a further gift and as reward promised for good works.”

I do fully intend to post my own writing, so please bear with me, and thanks for being so patient (a gift from God!).

 

[Philip]

Quick question: What is JDDJ?

 

[theologia crucis]

Quick question: What is JDDJ?

I was going to explain that in my post before I lost it last night, but "JDDJ" is the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", signed the Eve of All Saints, 1999, between the Roman Catholic Church (The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) and the Lutheran World Federation (the largest Lutheran group in the world, of which the LCMS is not a member).

 

[theologia crucis]

Okay, I actually have to give thanks to Microsoft. I forgot about the autorecovery stuff in Word, and I recovered what I typed!!! I've still got to finish the Lutheran discussion of grace, but I don't have to start over! Woo hoo!

I don't have time to finish tonight, but I'll get back to it as soon as possible (Friday, perhaps?). I've got an elder's meeting tomorrow night at church, and after I get home, I want some quality time with my daughter. And Thursday night is church, and I gotta practice trumpet for easter afterwards. Friday, I intend to take off work and go to the noon Good Friday service, so maybe that morning or afternoon... Thanks for being patient (if anyone's still interested)...