February 1, 2018

February 1, 2018 By

Constructive, amiable Protestant-Catholic discussion on many key aspects of salvation.

[see the original, somewhat longer Facebook exchanges, with a few more helpful participants, too]

*****

This dialogue was kicked off when I cited Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the difference between Protestant and Catholic doctrines of original sin:

Catholics hold that Original sin is mainly an external evil, Protestants an internal. According to us, it is not propagated in the way of cause and effect, but by an act of the will of God, exerted and carried out on each child, as it is conceived. I repeat, this is not de fide, but it is what I conceive theologians teach. (Letters & Diaries, v. 19; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 15 June 1860)

Our doctrine of original sin is not that of Protestants. We do not hold infection of nature – but we place original sin in the absence of supernatural grace. (Ibid., v. 19; To William Wilberforce, 9 Dec. 1860)

Bethany Kerr is a very friendly and knowledgeable Protestant with whom I have enjoyed several constructive dialogues. Her words will be in blue.

*****

Can you explain what exactly what original sin is if not internal?

Big topic, so I’ll refer you to this good source: “Original Sin” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Obviously I haven’t had time to give the article a thorough read, but from the skimming I have done, I don’t see any clear explanation of what original sin actually is. There are lots of philosophical ideas surrounding the concept of original sin, and a lot of arguments against what it is not, but I don’t see clear explanation as to what original sin is, according to Catholic doctrine. Can you help me understand, in a simplified way perhaps, what you personally believe original sin is?

Here is a more concise definition:

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means. (Catholic Dictionary, from Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.; hosted at Catholic Culture)

The simplest way to put it is that many Protestants believe that original sin results in a fallen nature, whereas Catholics think it is more of a deprivation than a positive and profound evil.

So would I be correct in understanding that you believe it is a deprivation of the original good nature of Adam at creation?

No, Bethany. You are still talking about natures. It is the deprivation “of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned,” as Fr. Hardon stated in the linked short definition above.

To not possess something (supernatural life and preternatural gifts) is different from possessing a bad thing (an “evil nature”). That’s why the Calvinists developed total depravity from the latter notion, whereas even most Protestants (like myself, formerly), and Orthodox and Catholics reject that.

Okay thanks, I did say nature again, didn’t I? 

Why do you believe Paul speaks of the old and new natures throughout his epistles? He speaks about the old and new man, which struggle against each other in the body. From your understanding, what does that mean. Or “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature. All old things are passed away , all things have become new”. Or the passage which speaks of God taking our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh?  (All those questions are really one question.)

And my three replies are really one reply.  I think he is talking about regeneration and/or infused justification and/or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Catholics, too, believe that men still need all those things to be saved and made whole.

Do you believe we are given the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of salvation?

No; He is given to us to help us procure the salvation that we must persevere in obtaining, always and necessarily by means of His grace and power, but with our free will cooperation.

Can you bear with me and please explain how you reconcile that belief with Ephesians 1:13 -14 which says: “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”

I predicted in my head that you would cite that verse. :-)

I have more! :-) But I figure you’re aware of their existence. Obviously you’ve read the Scripture. But what you’re saying doesn’t work with the Scripture I’m reading.

I have more, too: entire books of it. The same Paul warns several times that we may fall from His grace; nothing is guaranteed. We must interpret Ephesians 1 in harmony with many other of his related statements:

1 Corinthians 9:27 (RSV) but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 4:8-9 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Galatians 5:1, 4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

2 Timothy 2:12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

And there are many more similar non-Pauline passages . . .

Remember, Jesus said He could remove folks’ names from the Book of Life:

Revelation 3:5 He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Where does Revelation 3:5 say that anyone’s name will be blotted from the book of life?

If Jesus talks about “not” doing something, it’s strongly implied that the thing is possible.

Revelation 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

“If you do X, I will not . . . ” Therefore, it seems to follow that “If you do not do x, I will . . . ”

No, it doesn’t always follow.  Look at Rev 17:8. “whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world.” When Jesus tells those who are not His to depart from him, he says “I never knew you”. He does not say, “I am saddened to say that you departed from me”.

Yes; well, God knows everything, so it’s true that such passages are anthropomorphic. From our perspective, we don’t know who is finally in the elect (even John Calvin agrees with that) or who will fall away from faith.

But that is part of my argument. We cannot know for sure what the future will bring; therefore, we can’t be absolutely*sure of final salvation. We can only examine ourselves and make sure that we are not involved in serious sin that separates us from God, and attain a “moral certainty or assurance.”

What we know for sure is that whomever God deems to be elect is elect. We just can’t know for sure who is in that category, because we’re not omniscient like God and don’t know the future. Our concern is to follow His will and do what He says.

We cannot be sure of other people’s election, but the scripture tells us to make our calling and election sure. We can know that we are elect because the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are heirs of eternal life.  What is the will of God? To believe on Him who he has sent.

If we “know” it why do we have to strive to make it “sure”? We can know we are in God’s graces and that if we continue in those, we will be saved in the end and go to heaven. To believe in God also means to obey Him.

Well, of course. You’re obeying him by believing. What did the people who were bitten by snakes in Exodus doing in order to be saved from death? They simply looked in faith at the snake on the cross. That symbolized Jesus, who took our sin (the snake represented this) upon himself. And those who “look” on him receive life instead of death.

And faith produces works. Faith is a verb. If it is the gift of God, and God causes the faith in us, he also causes the result of faith, which is our works. We are told to examine ourselves, whether we are really in the faith. We should study and see whether our actions and thoughts line up with what the scripture teaches will be the fruit of salvation.

There is a large sense in which all these arguments are futile. All Christians agree that we must do God’s will and obey Him; we must walk with Him day-by-day and seek righteousness. Good works must be present in the Christian life. We all agree that those who are saved, are saved by God’s grace and mercy and free gift of salvation, through the atoning work of our Lord Jesus on the cross. So we do those things, and all will be well. Why argue about whether we are certain or not, and who is in and out, etc.?

Your last comment shows the essential agreement. So why argue about the elect and predestination and all that?

Because Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Hebrew Roots, Islam, etc all make the same mistake- they base at least part of their salvation on what they do. The Christian believes that you do because you believe.

What you described there is what Catholics call the “examination of conscience.”

God has given us faith, which causes our works. What are they examining when they examine their conscience? Are they examining whether they are worthy, or whether God has changed them?
*
We don’t believe in works-salvation. That is the heresy of Pelagianism, which we condemned 1500 years ago. This is your mistake. We believe in salvation by grace, and that faith without works is dead; that works cannot be separated from faith and grace.
*
Are you saved through faith? Does God give you the faith?
*
We are examining whether we are doing God’s will or engaged in serious sin that will separate us from God.
*
If God gives you faith, which produces works, how can you be stronger than God and not have works with that faith? How can you resist what he puts within you? True saving faith always produces works in the believer. But a Catholic believes that you can receive faith but not act in accordance with that faith.
*
We can resist because God gave us free will. Irresistible grace is a falsehood, as I show at length in one of my books. We’re saved by God’s grace, through faith. God enables all grace and faith. There is no difference here. But many Protestants wrongly think there is.
*
Dave, does faith necessarily produce works?
*
Real faith does. But we can rebel and lose faith and grace. My concern now is to show you that Catholics reject works-salvation. Here is the Council of Trent on Justification:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

The Calvinist agrees with Canons I-III. The disagreement comes with Canon IV, because of their “either/or” thinking and denial of free will:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
This is what we believe: that we cooperate with God’s free grace and can also reject it.
*
Catholics believe in a synergistic cooperative justification…Christians like me believe that justification is an act of God only,- monergism.
*
Exactly. This is the heart of our disagreement. If you deny that we believe we are “saved by works” then you have not misrepresented us (as Calvin and Luther both habitually do).
*
The Catholic church indeed teaches that by your own merits, which are not just the merits of Jesus Christ, but your own, can merit an increase of grace, and eternal life (as long as you don’t lose your state of grace).
*
Correct. But all that goes back to God’s grace, as to cause. Hence, Augustine said that merit was merely God “crowning His own gifts.” Understood in this way, it remains salvation by grace alone. We merely cooperate with God. We’re not programmed robots.
*
The bottom line is that Catholics believe in “both/and” thinking. I believe this is demonstrably biblical, as pertains to salvation and justification.
You believe in “either/or” thinking: God must do all; we can do nothing. We are not able to resist His will. Calvinism is a self-consistent system, but based on false premises. I show how these premises are biblically false in my book, Biblical Catholic Salvation. It has 115 pages (seven chapters) devoted specifically to a critique of Calvinism and all five of the beliefs of “TULIP”.

***

What does the Ephesians 1 verse mean, in your opinion?

That we are sealed with and in the Holy Spirit for salvation, as long as we “continue in the faith” (Col 1:23) and “stand fast” (Gal 5:1); and don’t become “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27), “fall” (1 Cor 10:12), “turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits” (Gal 4:9), become “severed from Christ” (Gal 5:4), “depart from the faith” (1 Tim 4:1), “stray after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15), or “deny him” (2 Tim 2:12).

Dave, in biblical times, whenever the word seal is used, can it be revoked? Once a king sealed something, could it ever be unsealed?

Why do you believe that Paul is referring to salvation when he refers to being disqualified from the prize of the upward call in Christ? First of all, that would be saying that heaven is our reward for good works- as a “prize” is a reward. That would show that as a catholic you do in fact believe in works salvation. 

Secondly, how do you reconcile this with Paul’s claim that to die is to be with the Lord? Or his claims of his inheritance waiting for him in heaven? How could he both have assurance of these things, but also lack assurance of these things?

We have a moral assurance, insofar as we examine ourselves and are not involved in mortal sin: sins that the Bible states will bar us from salvation and heaven. I gave a link to a long paper of mine about that, above.

We lack assurance insofar as we don’t absolutely know the future. The classic observation of the error of Calvinism or eternal security is when a Calvinist falls into serious sin, Calvinists say, “he never was saved.” They don’t know that. It’s circular reasoning. Since the Bible speaks repeatedly of apostasy, it’s much more reasonable to assert that the person was in God’s grace and fell away after rejecting it.

John 6, which I know as a Catholic, you are very familiar with, gives assurance that I do not believe Catholics take literally-

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

1. His father gave Him certain who would come to him. 
2. Of those that would come to Him, He would lose none of them.
3. He will raise those the father has given him on the last day. 
4. Whoever believes in Him will never be cast out. 
5. These people will be raised on the last day. 
6. Whoever looks on the Son and believes in Him possesses eternal life and will be raised on the last day. No conditions mentioned outside of looking and believing (eating flesh and drinking blood). 

Do you believe that since you have eaten His flesh and drank his blood, that you have eternal life, that he will raise you on the last day, and that he will never cast you out or lose you?

From: Society of Evangelical Arminians: “Perseverance of the Saints Part 12: Examining Passages Commonly Appealed to by the Advocates of Unconditional Eternal Security”

Eph.1:13, 14; 4:30

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory….Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Much has been made of the “sealing” of the Holy Spirit by defenders of unconditional eternal security. The “sealing” of the Holy Spirit is clearly conditional since we can “grieve”, and eventually “insult” the Sprit of Grace, which constitutes total apostasy without remedy (Eph. 4:30, and Heb. 10:29). The Holy Spirit is received by faith (Gal. 3:2, 14) and can only seal us as we remain in Christ through faith. We are, in fact, sealed in Christ, by the Holy Spirit, as a direct result of faith (Eph. 1:13). The sealing of the Holy Spirit presupposes the possession of the Holy Spirit, and only believers can possess the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9). He is therefore the guarantee of an inheritance for believers and not unbelievers.

There may be a parallel with circumcision which was also a “seal” for those under the old covenant (Rom. 4:11). We know that that seal was broken and guaranteed nothing when those who were circumcised broke the covenant and were cut off from the people of God (Rom. 2:25). The seal was conditioned on continued faith and obedience (2:26-29). The Holy Spirit marks us as children of the new covenant through faith in Christ, but if we abandon the faith then the Spirit of God no longer remains in us and we are no longer sealed in Christ (partakers of the covenant blessings that are found in Him alone- Eph. 1:3, 7, 10,11). Only those that continue in obedient faith remain sealed (Acts 5:32, Jn. 14:15-17; Rom. 8:5, 6, 9).

Notice that the sealing of the Holy Spirit is coupled with a warning not to “grieve” Him in Ephesians 4:30. This would seem to indicate that there is danger in grieving the Spirit who seals us and the reference to sealing may be for the primary purpose of reminding the Ephesians that to grieve the Spirit is to grieve the one who unites us to Christ. This makes the warning far more emphatic and cautions the believer to watch how he lives lest the sins which grieve Him lead to unbelief through which the seal is broken and the Spirit is finally “insulted.” The sealing of the Holy Spirit, therefore, applies only as long as we do not “grieve” (Eph. 4:30), and finally “insult” (Heb. 10:29) the “Spirit of Grace” through continued disobedience, culminating in outright apostasy.

There is no Biblical reason to see the sealing of the Holy Spirit as unconditional or irrevocable, while there are plenty of reasons to see it as conditioned on continued faith. Indeed, warnings against apostasy alone imply the conditionality of the seal.

***

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Navarre Bible Commentary:

10–12. The calling to holiness which every Christian receives is not a reward for personal merit: it comes from God’s initiative; God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (cf. 1 Tim 2:4), that is, to know God himself. The Apostle bears witness to this when he says that “Christ Jesus has made me his own.” However, he also says that, in order to grow in knowledge of Christ and enjoy God in heaven, one needs to strive to share in Christ’s sufferings. “The Christian is certainly bound both by need and by duty to struggle with evil through many afflictions and to suffer death; but, as one who has been made a partner in the paschal mystery and has been configured to the death of Christ, he will go forward, strengthened by hope, to the resurrection” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 22). This struggle, which sometimes calls for heroism, is usually pitched in the incidents of one’s ordinary day. Heroism in the everyday battle proves the sincerity of our love and is a sure way to holiness.

“Certainly our goal is both lofty and difficult to attain. But please do not forget that people are not born holy. Holiness is forged through a constant interplay of God’s grace and man’s response. As one of the early Christian writers says, referring to union with God, ‘Everything that grows begins small. It is by constant and progressive feeding that it gradually grows big’ (St. Mark the Hermit, De lege spirituali, 172). So I say to you, if you want to become a thorough-going Christian — and I know you do, even though you often find it difficult to conquer yourself or to keep climbing upwards with this poor body — then you will have to be very attentive to the minutest of details, for the holiness that our Lord demands of you is to be achieved by carrying out with love of God your work and your daily duties, and these will almost always consist of ordinary little things” (J. Escrivá, Friends of God, 7).

“That if possible I may attain the resurrection of the dead”: St. Paul is referring here to the glorious resurrection of the just, whom the power of the risen Christ will rescue from the domain of death. At the second coming of the Lord, both the souls of the blessed in heaven and the souls of those who are still in purgatory undergoing the temporal punishment due to sins they committed will be re-united with their now glorified bodies. The reprobate will also rise, but their destiny is to suffer for ever the pains of hell in body and soul (cf. Second Council of Lyons, Profession of faith of Michael Paleologue).

Man’s supernatural last end consists in knowing God as he is and enjoying him in heaven. When he attains this, man finds complete fulfilment. His life on earth has been a route leading to this perfection, a perfection which can only be fully attained by resurrection in glory. The Apostle recognizes that he needs the help of grace to be “perfect” (that is, faithful unto death) and thereby attain the prize promised by God: perseverance right to the end is not entirely a function of the merit a person has built up; it is a gift from God (cf. De iustificatione, chap. 13). However, God does not dispense man from generously responding to grace in order to attain holiness. As St. Teresa of Avila says. “It matters a great deal, it is essential […], that one have very great, very determined, resolution not to halt until one attains it, come what may, whatever happens, however much one suffers, however much people may gossip, whether I get there or not, even if I die on the way or am not able to face all the effort involved, even if the world collapses around me” (Way of Perfection, 35, 2).

12–14. Growth in holiness always demands an effort. St. Paul here uses a vivid comparison — races in the stadium. He describes ascetical struggle in terms of enjoyable supernatural sport. Realizing that he has not reached perfection, he strains to win: Christ already made him his own (cf. v. 12) by entering his life on the Damascus road; from that moment onwards he has striven single-mindedly to serve God.

Our Lord helps everyone to discover his or her particular supernatural vocation. In response to that calling a person should seek to serve God in such a way that “everything good he does, interiorly or externally, he does for the glory and pleasure of God, like a loyal slave who gives everything he gets to his master. Moreover,” St. John of Avila goes on, “even though he has worked as a servant for many years past, he is not easy-going or careless […]. He always has that ‘hunger and thirst for righteousness’ (Mt 5:6): he puts little weight on everything he has done, thinking of how much he has received and how much is due to the Lord he serves” (Audi, filia, 92).

In making one’s way towards perfection it is important to be always trying to advance spiritually. “What does walking mean?,” St. Augustine asked himself; “I shall answer very briefly: it means going forward […]. Examine yourself. You should always be unhappy with what you are, if you want to attain what you are not yet. For when you were content with yourself, you stayed where you were, because if you say ‘Enough’, you are finished that very minute. Always grow, always walk on, always advance; do not stop on the way, do not tum back, do not go off course. One who does not advance is standing still; one who returns to the things he already abandoned is going backwards; one who goes off course commits apostasy. It is better to hobble along the road than run on any other route” (Sermon 169, 15, 18).

 

As for the relationship of the Eucharist to salvation, this is from my book on the Eucharist (section: “Presbyterian Theologians Charles Hodge’s Objection: Is the Catholic Eucharist Absolutely Necessary for Salvation?”):

Charles Hodge writes,

Romanists teach that spiritual life is as necessary to the experience of the benefits of the sacrament, as natural life is to the body’s being nourished by food [Catechismus Romanus, II. iv. 40]. They further teach that baptism, which precedes the eucharist, conveys all the saving benefits of Christ’s redemption; they therefore cannot make the eucharist essential, and consequently they cannot, without contradicting Christ or themselves, interpret John 6:48-65 as referring to the Lord’s Supper. (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, 682 ff.)

Hodge is correct about Catholic sacramental beliefs, but wrong as to the alleged contradiction vis-a-vis John 6 and “Romanist” theology. Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Hodge and other Protestants argue that if this is interpreted as a reference to the Lord’s Supper, then the Lord’s Supper is necessary for eternal life, but that this idea is inconsistent with the other Catholic beliefs.

Also, Jesus said, “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). It is argued that if this is taken as a reference to the Lord’s Supper, then absurd conclusions immediately follow: anyone who partakes of Holy Communion or the Eucharist has eternal life and Jesus will raise that person up at the last day.

But Hodge and those who argue as he does are interpreting Jesus’ words in an improperly universal sense which allows of absolutely no exceptions, in any way, shape, or form. Biblical language rarely works in such a woodenly literalistic way. Jesus (especially) and other biblical writers often speak proverbially or hyperbolically. This was a Hebrew use of language utilized in order to express emphasis. Thus:

Matthew 5:22 . . . “whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.”

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away . . .

Matthew 21:21-22 “. . . even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will be done.  [22] And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

Luke 14:26 “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

Even John 3:16 and 3:36 or Romans 10:9, if taken hyper-literally, would exclude Old Testament saints and all those who have never heard of Jesus or the gospel, through no fault of their own, from salvation. Thus, Hodge’s “difficulty” vanishes. On the other hand, Protestants are left with these forceful verses, and would be well advised to take them very seriously, as the biblical text warrants.

The Eucharist does indeed cleanse us from sin (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1391-1395, especially #1393). However, it is more a “preventive measure,” so to speak. We receive grace for the avoidance of future sin. If one takes communion in mortal sin, it does not wipe out that serious sin, and in fact it is a further grave sin to partake in that state.

A Catholic must confess a mortal sin to a priest and receive absolution before approaching the Lord’s Table. It contributes to our salvation insofar as it helps (by the supernatural grace imparted) to remove the sin that bars us from salvation and heaven and a right relationship with God.

Okay; I understand your line of reasoning even though I disagree with the conclusions. I have one more question since you brought up mortal sin. 

Catholics appear to believe that baptism brings you to a state, like before the fall, except with the effects of sin remaining. You believe there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. That the lesser sins do not condemn you, but the mortal ones would send you straight to hell were you to die immediately after committing them. 

What I’m not understanding about this is that if this were true, wouldn’t that mean God has lowered his standard of holiness? 

Adam, when in his original state, committed what to us humans seems very small- he simply ate a piece of fruit when he was told not to. I have no reason to believe his intentions were malicious. Eve gave to him, and he ate. Her intentions were that she saw it and it appeared good so she ate. But this seemingly tiny sin carried immense consequences. It brought the consequence of eternal death. And it also brought sin into the world.

The Bible says that if we keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, we are guilty of all. Yet, Catholic teaching would have us believe that certain sins do not have this effect anymore. That God sees some as not as bad as the mortal sins, and they do not carry the same consequences as mortal sins. 

Please tell me this. If someone were to sin a sin comparable to Adam’s first sin, in both intent and action, and was to carry this sin to his priest in confession, would the priest tell him he was guilty of mortal sin? 

I believe the answer would be no- it is venial. 

If not, this means the Catholic Church teaches that Gods standard of holiness has been lowered, since Gods standard is perfection in the Bible. (This is why only Jesus could pay his debt for us).

Here you are assuming that Adam’s sin was “small”; in fact it was not just eating the fruit, but choosing himself over God and His express commands. So your premise is wrong. You have an incomplete understanding of the horrendous nature of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve, and all of us “in” them, as the Bible states.

Dave, is it not true that in any sin we commit, we are choosing ourselves over God?  I am not misunderstanding the horrendous nature of Adams sin. I am saying that all our sins are equally horrendous in God’s sight.

What is your denomination?

I don’t really have a denomination but I am Reformed if that helps.

John Calvin has a far more “severe” view of original sin than Catholics, because he thinks it affected man’s very nature.But you think it was a minor thing; what we would call a “venial sin”. So you are in conflict with your own Reformed theology there. With no denomination to guide you, this is the sort of thing that can happen.

I am saying that from a human perspective it seems small. I am saying that if you were to go to a priest, he would call a comparable sin venial. I am saying that is fallacious.

If I told a priest that I rejected God’s direct command, as Adam and Eve did, and intended to go my own way instead of God’s he would certainly say that was mortal, not venial sin.

My question was not based on what my beliefs are. My question was directed to what appears to be an inconsistent understanding of the seriousness of sin by the Catholic Church. So if you told a priest that you lusted in your heart after a woman, but then felt sorry, he would say you were guilty of mortal sin? 

If it was sustained lust with full consent of the will, yes.

What if you told your priest that you lost your temper and used profanity?

I don’t want to go through a whole laundry list. Your premises are wrong. You deny that sins are lesser or greater.

No, I deny that all sins do not make us guilty before a righteous God. There are varying degrees of sin, but there is no sin that does not separate us from God, and make us worthy of eternal condemnation.

This is untrue, according to the Bible. We know that because the Bible specifically states that very serious sins (not all sins) will lead to hell and condemnation (noted above: 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 1:8; 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-6; Heb 12:16; Rev 21:8; 22:15). It names them, so we know what they are; and these line up with Catholic notions of mortal sin.

If what you say is true, it seems to me that the above passages wouldn’t make sense. Rather than name specific sins, it would simply say that “every sin — even a white lie about stealing a cookie — leads to hell and everlasting fire.”

Also, from my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths [KJV used]:

1 John 5:16-17 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. [17] All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (RSV: “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal”)

Some non-Catholic Christians think that all sins are exactly alike in the eyes of God: everything from a white lie or a child stealing a cookie to mass murder. This mistaken notion is decisively refuted by the above passage. Scripture provides several indications of this difference in seriousness of sin, and in subjective guiltiness for it:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (RSV: “. . . whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire”)

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. . . .

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (RSV: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains”)

John 19:11 . . . he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (RSV: “The times of ignorance God overlooked,”)

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (RSV: “to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;”)

1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (RSV: “if we sin deliberately . . .”)

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (RSV: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness”)

The Bible also refers to (mortal) sins which — if not repented of — will exclude one from heaven (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 1:8; 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-6; Heb 12:16; Rev 21:8; 22:15). Objectors to these notions bring up James 2:10 (RSV): “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” This doesn’t prove that all sins are the same, equally destructive and worthy of judgment, because the passage is dealing with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter, such as 3:1 (above). In James 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16, RSV), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.

[see also the following related section]:

GRACE: QUANTIFIABLE DIFFERENCES

Acts 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

Ephesians 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (cf. 1 Pet 5:5)

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (RSV: “May grace and peace be multiplied to you”)

1 Peter 4:10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (RSV: “good stewards of God’s varied grace”)

2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. . . .

Regarding the proof text of 1 John 5:16, you must make the assumption and read into the text that he was speaking of eternal condemnation. It is simply not there. Most of the other scripture is taken out of its intended context to support what your belief, based on this one passage, teaches.

***

Sorry, I just noticed something. Not trying to be annoying. I have a million questions I could ask but trying to narrow it down because I know you are probably busy. 

You posted 1 John 3:9. Do you believe that God’s nature abides in one who is born of a God?

The believer progressively becomes more and more like God (sanctification); what is known in theology as theosis:

The chief New Testament reference to theosis or deification is 2 Peter 1:4: . . . (AV : “partakers of the divine nature”; NEB: “come to share in the very being of God). Certainly John 17:23 is to the point: “The glory which Thou gavest Me I have given to them, that they may be one, as We are one; I in them and Thou in Me, may they be perfectly one” (NEB, upper case added). This at once suggests the divine nuptial mystery (Ephesians 5:25-32; one may compare 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:26-27), with its implied “wondrous exchange.” That the final “transfiguration” of believers into “conformity” . . . with Christ’s glorious body (Philippians 3:21; one may compare 1 Corinthians 15:49) has begun already in the spiritual-sacramental life of faith, is clear from “icon” texts like Romans 8:29, Colossians 3:10, and especially 2 Corinthians 3:18: “thus we are transfigured into His likeness, from splendor to splendor” . . . One may also wish to compare 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:14-19.

So you believe in sanctification as a lifelong process through which God conforms us to His Son’s image? If so, I would agree with this. I believe that faith produces an inner change in us in which we have new desires and God’s Spirit dwells in us and guides us into holiness.

Agreed 100%! But salvation can be lost, as the Bible repeatedly states. Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants through history (and almost all the Church Fathers, with the notable exception of Augustine) have believed that. Only Calvinists and those who believe in eternal security (Baptists, fundamentalists, etc.) teach otherwise.

I wish I had more time to discuss this but I’m going to walk out the door. Thank you for your patience and maybe we can talk more soon. :-)

Bethany, we could go round and round forever on this issue. I’ve been arguing it for over 30 years.  The Bible and apostolic tradition teach us that it is possible to fall away from salvation. It’s called “apostasy.” I’ve given tons of biblical proofs. The eternal security believer always has some reply, but I find them thoroughly unconvincing and arbitrarily [biblically] selective. I’m happy to let readers who are on the fence look over the biblical arguments I have made and compare them to yours, and decide which is more plausible and coherent and biblical.

***

I think the much more relevant and important topic is, “how can we better live day-by-day as disciples of Jesus Christ and do those things which all Christians agree are good and righteous, and avoid sin?” That is the Christian life. The other discussion is ultimately philosophical abstraction, that may be fun, but in the end doesn’t accomplish much. I’ll do it for a time, but I quickly tire of it, for those reasons.

As always, it is a rare pleasure to dialogue with you in a friendly manner. You’re a wonderful Christian, and I’m proud to be your friend. We disagree on this, but one happy day all of us will know all truth with absolute certainty, when God reveals it on judgment day.

I appreciate so much your taking the time to discuss this with me.

***

(originally 4-13-15)

Photo credit: Image by “geralt” (Sep. 2017) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

January 27, 2018

January 27, 2018 By

TrinityLight

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely transcendent. He is eternal; He is the Creator.

Words of “Tom” will be in blue.

***

My general opinion is that the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine. There is clearly a degree of subordinationism within the Bible (and the pre-Nicene Fathers). I do not think the Bible suggests that Christ’s –ousia is inferior to the Father’s –ousia, but I do not think that God’s divinity or Christ’s divinity in the Bible is ever said to be a product of their (one or shared or possessed or different or …) ousia. Of course the Bible never uses “ousia” to mean the substance of the Father or the shared divine substance. Thus, what the Bible does do is subordinate Christ to His Father and not comment on the relative equivalence or lack of equivalence of their –ousia.

Jesus’ Own Words:

MATTHEW 10:40 (KJV). . . he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

JOHN 5:17-21 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth {them}; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

JOHN 10:30-33 I and {my} Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 

JOHN 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father {is} in me, and I in him.

JOHN 12:44-45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 

JOHN 14:7-10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. (9) Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou {then}, Shew us the Father? (10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

JOHN 17:10-11 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we {are}.

NT Apostolic Witness:

JOHN 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Monogenes (“Only Begotten”) The phrase “only begotten (Son)” (also used in Jn 3:16,18 and 1 Jn 4:9) is the Greek monogenes, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, “unique, only member of a kind.” It does not mean “created,” as some (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) falsely interpret it. Christ is the eternal Son of God, and as such, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood, just as a human son partakes fully of humanness.

ACTS 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

COLOSSIANS 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether {they be} thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 

COLOSSIANS 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

TITUS 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; {RSV,NIV: “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”}

2 PETER 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: [RSV, NIV: “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ”]

I personally believe that God is three and God is one and we are to become gods.

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely transcendent. He is eternal; He is the Creator; He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and perfectly holy in and of Himself. None of these characteristics can ever apply to man. We are creatures, not eternal; we did not create the world, and lack all of the other characteristics above. We are fallen. We need a Savior. God doesn’t need a savior because He is perfectly holy.

God was not once one of us, as Mormons teach. We will not be “one of Him” either, because of the essential differences outlined above. Scores of biblical passages spell all these things out.

The exact manner of aligning those three Biblical truths is not specified in the Bible such that there is little room for differing opinions.

I profoundly disagree, and I have the biblical passages all laid out in my two papers detailing biblical proofs for the Holy Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

I build upon “God is love” into a Social Trinity model (like many Protestants and some Catholics). This seems to me to be the most straight forward way of interpreting the Bible. The only place that I am aware of that offers information on HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE is when Christ prays for the Apostles to be one like He and His Father are one. Surely this will not be a oneness like Athanasius and Augustine meant when they said “homoousian.” It is also surely true that the Apostles were homoousian as Eusebius (the historian not the Nicene dissenter) and the majority of the Bishops at Nicea conceived of the term, even before Christ offered His prayer. 

To me the Trinity when used as a stick to beat upon LDS is associated with a meaning of homoousian that Athanasius and Augustine shared. This meaning was generally rejected during the Sabellian heresy. It was not preserved in the Council of Chalcedon. And it was not held by the majority of Bishops as Nicea. But, such technical designations IMO are extra Biblical and clearly so. In fact the moderate party at Nicea said they wished to only use Biblical language, but this was rejected because it would not adequately protect against the Arian heresy.

So, my point is that I think you are quite incorrect when you suggest that there is some straightforward way of developing Nicene orthodoxy to the exclusion of many other Trinity constructions from the Bible alone. 

I’ve provided plenty of Scripture already (both above and in the links I provided), and that is only the tip of the iceberg. You are welcome to provide Scripture for your beliefs, if you are convinced that multiple “trinitarian” viewpoints can be found in the Bible.

***

No doubt most Mormons are sincere, good, well-meaning people, with good morals and traditional values. But according to the definition of historic Christianity, they cannot possibly qualify as a species of it.

I think one of the clearest ways for a Catholic to decide who to apply the title “Christian” to is via the acceptance or rejection of the baptism of purported Christians. I am far more comfortable when a Catholic says that because of the way the magisterium has ruled on LDS baptism, I am not a Christian.

I have indeed used that argument, but also the one from Vatican II that presupposes belief in a Triune God, as part and parcel of being a Christian. And this precludes the radically unbiblical Mormon belief that God was once man, and man (men) will be God(s).

Correct baptism also presupposes a trinitarian formula, so the Trinity is key to the equation any way you look at it.

On the surface there are scriptural assertions that appear to contradict one another.

And “appear” is the key word.

When trying to take scripture as a whole, there are decisions that must be made concerning how to address these apparent contradictions. God’s oneness, the divinity of Christ, and the distinction between the Father and the Son create an apparent contradiction that must be resolved for a reasoned theology.

I don’t see any, in the way that orthodox trinitarianism ties everything together.

Nicene orthodoxy is one method that has some points in its favor.

No other schema is coherent, by a long shot. It explains the Bible in a coherent, self-consistent manner and takes into account all of the biblical data, not just tiny portions of it: and those, misinterpreted.

***

The early Church fathers regularly spoke of men becoming gods.

What I did not see you respond to was my statement about –ousia. The Bible NEVER uses –ousia as it was used at Nicea. When the Bible claims that the Son and the Father are one, it never uses –ousia (or hints at –ousia) as the HOW of this oneness.

So what? How is that relevant to anything? Obviously, councils develop the original kernel of biblical revelation, and so different words are employed. Famously, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible either. This is neither here nor there.

But you say they are apostate anyway, which is another huge issue.

What I demonstrated was that oneness of God the Father and Jesus is apparent in Scripture. All essential characteristics possessed by God the Father are also possessed by Jesus. The only difference are things like Jesus having a body / the Incarnation, which do not represent essential differences, but only difference of role or action.

Deification / theosis (which I am well familiar with; see a Catholic explanation of it) is not at all like the Mormon concept. it retains God’s transcendence (and for that matter, monotheism) in a way that Mormon theology does not. It means “unity” with God; not equation with God or gods.

***

(originally 2-4-10)

Photo credit: Image by “spirit111” (October 2017) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

October 22, 2017

October 22, 2017 By

Luther-26

This is one of my many critiques of the book entitled, Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation, by evangelical Protestant theologian Kenneth J. Collins and Anglican philosopher Jerry L. Walls (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017).

*****

Kenneth Collins, in his chapter 17: “Justification Roman Style” writes:

What’s so remarkable about the treatments in both Vatican II documents and the Catechism is that the exact phrase “free grace” . . . is not mentioned at all.

To the contrary, the concept is certainly there. The Catechism states:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1308 . . . the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election . . .

1722 Such beatitude surpasses the understanding and powers of man. It comes from an entirely free gift of God: whence it is called supernatural, as is the grace that disposes man to enter into the divine joy.

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight. [Trent]

406 . . . Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life . . .

I don’t see any difference there. Looks like a “distinction without a difference” to me. Collins continues:

[T]he Roman Catholic tradition has balked at employing the language of sola fide (by faith alone).

Yes, of course, we have, because it’s not biblical (whereas grace alone is)! Since we’re searching for and tallying up words, we ought to also take note that “faith alone” never occurs in Holy Scripture (I am searching in RSV). Well, I take that back. It does occur once:

James 2:24  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Protestants pride themselves on being so “biblical” (and they usually think they are infinitely more so than us Catholics). But what’s so biblical about “faith alone”? The only time it appears in the Bible it is expressly denied! Collins asserts:

[B]oth justification and the new birth are sheer gifts of the Almighty and therefore must be received by grace through faith alone.

We agree that they are free gifts and through grace alone. We disagree with “faith alone.” And again, that concept is not a biblical phrase; neither is “justified by faith alone.” “Justified by faith,” however, is biblical (Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:24). And Catholics agree with that. We simply don’t isolate it, since Scripture doesn’t. Hence, the Catechism states:

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.”

Protestants repeat the mantra of “justification / salvation faith alone” (an unbiblical phrase). Catholics talk about observing the Commandments also, since this is what Jesus told the rich young ruler with regard to what is required for salvation: keeping Commandments, and in his case, selling all he had and giving it to the poor (a good work, not merely faith). I already dealt with this passage in my critique #8. It hasn’t yet been removed from the Bible (last time I checked).

And Catholics talk about being saved / regenerated by baptism, since Scripture talks about that, too. We’re simply taking all of biblical teaching into account, not just selected prooftexts. But if we’re talking about initial justification, there is hardly any difference at all between us. Catholics believe in justification by grace through faith, as well:

1992 . . . they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. [Rom 3:21-26 cited in the footnote]

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. . . .

We’re not excluding grace or faith at all. It’s the Protestants who are being most unbiblical by excluding works, which the Bible again and again (above all, our Lord Jesus Himself) teaches are necessary in the Christian life overall and as part of faith (otherwise faith is dead and not really faith).

In footnote 42 at the end of the chapter, Collins eschews the “Finnish school of interpretation of Luther studies,” whereby Luther’s “understanding of justification was quite broad and in fact embraced the Eastern Orthodox notion of theosis.” He finds this “problematic, especially since it is overly dependent on his early writings. That is, it cannot embrace Luther’s mature understanding of this crucial matter.”

This is incorrect. I have dealt with this question, heavily citing the fascinating article, “Luther and Theosis,” by Kurt E. Marquart, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary (Fort Wayne, Indiana) This was published in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 64:3, July 200, pp. 182-205. The evidence he presents is not all “early Luther”; it encompasses sermons from 1525 and 1526, and Lectures on Galatians from 1535 (Luther died in 1546). Here are those selections:

And that we are so filled with “all the fulness of God,” that is said in the Hebrew manner, meaning that we are filled in every way in which He fills, and become full of God, showered with all gifts and grace and filled with His Spirit, Who is to make us bold, and enlighten us with His light, and live His life in us, that His bliss make us blest, His love awaken love in us. In short, that everything that He is and can do, be fully in us and mightily work, that we be completely deified [vergottet], not that we have a particle or only some pieces of God, but all fulness. Much has been written about how man should be deified; there they made ladders, on which one should climb into heaven, and much of that sort of thing. Yet it is sheer piecemeal effort; but here [in faith] the right and closest way to get there is indicated, that you become full of God, that you lack in no thing, but have everything in one heap, that everything that you speak, think, walk, in sum, your whole life be completely divine [Gottisch]. [Sermon of 1525, WA 17 1:438; “In ipsa,” 54.]

God pours out Christ His dear Son over us and pours Himself into us and draws us into Himself, so that He becomes completely humanified (vermzenschet) and we become completely deified (gantz und gar vergottet, “Godded-through”) and everything is altogether one thing, God, Christ, and you. [Sermon of 1526; D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 58 volumes (Weimar, 1883- ), 20:229,30 and following, cited in Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, volume 1 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962),175-176. Marquart altered the translation given there in order to make it more literal]

[Y]ou are so cemented [conglutineris] to Christ that He and you are as one person, which cannot be separated but remains attached [perpetuo adhaerescat] to Him forever and declares: “I am as Christ.” And Christ, in turn, says: “I am as that sinner who is attached to Me, and I to him. For by faith we are joined together into one flesh and one bone.” Thus Ephesians 5:30 says: “We are members of the body of Christ, of His flesh and of His bones,” in such a way that this faith couples Christ and me more intimately than a husband is coupled to his wife. [Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40 1:285-286; LW 26:168; “In ipsa,” 51.]

The one who has faith is a completely divine man [plane est divinus homo], a son of God, the inheritor of the universe. . . . Therefore the Abraham who has faith fills heaven and earth; thus every Christian fills heaven and earth by his faith. . . [Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40 I:182,390; LW 26:1001 247-248.]

The fanatical spirits today speak about faith in Christ in the manner of the sophists. They imagine that faith is a quality that clings to the heart apart from Christ [excluso Christo]. This is a dangerous error. Christ should be set forth in such a way that apart from Him you see nothing at all and that you believe that nothing is nearer and closer to you than He. For He is not sitting idle in heaven but is completely present [praesentissimus] with us, active and living in us as chapter two says (2:20): “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,” and here: “You have put on Christ. . . .”

Hence the speculation of the sectarians is vain when they imagine that Christ is present in us “spiritually,” that is, speculatively, but is present really in heaven. Christ and faith must be completely joined. We must simply take our place in heaven; and Christ must be, live, and work in us. But He lives and works in us, not speculatively but really, with presence and with power [realiter, praesentissime et eficacissim]. [Lectures on Galatians, 1535, WA 40 1:545-546; LW 26:356-357; “In ipsa,” 39-40.]

There are many additional false and ultimately unbiblical assertions in the chapter about justification and sanctification (as always in Protestant treatments). I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony: not knowing where to go first (to refute them), with so many abundant opportunities! But I will let the above be sufficient for now. Readers desiring to learn more of the Catholic view of these matters (with a high emphasis always on biblical arguments) may wish to consult many scores of papers on my Salvation and Justification web page, or my book, Biblical Catholic Salvation (2010), in which (among many other things), I take on all five portions of the Calvinist “TULIP” from Holy Scripture. It’s available for as low as $2.99 in e-book format (mobi / Kindle or ePub).

***

Photo credit: Portrait of [older] Martin Luther (c. 1570-1580), by Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

October 14, 2017

October 14, 2017 By

LutherWorms3

(8-14-14)

***

Earlier today I noted that the Orthodox were having a field day misrepresenting a meme I posted about the Crusades, and engaging in ludicrous attempts at reading my mind and thoughts. Now on the Catholic Answers board a paper of mine about Martin Luther is being unfairly pilloried. Oh, how I long for actual rational argument when folks disagree with me! It’s like asking for elephants to fly, I reckon.

The paper in question is this one: 50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated).

This is not just a bare list that I pulled out of a hat. It was a summary of Luther’s own opinions, that I meticulously cite (30 quotations straight from him) from two of his three great treatises from 1520: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

A guy who goes by “Topper17” cited my paper as to reasons why Luther was excommunicated. Then “EvangelCatholic”: a Lutheran, started saying stupid stuff about the paper (as usual, not dealing with it and the actual arguments and documentation in it. Anything but the subject at hand . . .). So he writes:

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. (Comment #292, 8-11-14)

Then in comment #295 (8-11-14):

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

To the contrary, the information was gathered in a very matter-of-fact way, from Luther’s two treatises (again, 30 quotes from them). All I did was later summarize in 50 points what he stated, as I just showed from his own words. This Lutheran gentleman is more than welcome — indeed, highly encouraged — (here or on my blog) to try to challenge anything I have asserted, and whether Luther in fact did not believe any given thing on the list and whether he did not think any of them were contrary to the Catholic Church. Luther certainly intended to oppose all these things that he believed were false Catholic teachings and practices. But all this guy can do is moan and groan about alleged dishonesty and quotes out of context (the oldest “no answer” diversionary tactic in the book of sophistry and empty rhetoric).

Luther believes this stuff. The burden of proof for the critics is to demonstrate that he did not in fact believe any of the 50 things. Moreover, the point wasn’t to run down Luther; it was a direct reply to those who say that Luther was run out of the Church for no reason, and not allowed to have his say.

In order to show the falsity and irrationality of that claim, I “turned the table” and simply documented the sorts of things that Luther was talking about in 1520, before the Diet of Worms: stuff that he was asked to retract and was unwilling to do so. I was showing how no institution would ever countenance a lone guy coming in and saying, “here are 50 things that you guys have all wrong, and I know better. Now, change these things, to be in accord with my opinions and that of the Bible . . . “

Nor is it “calumny and detraction” to attempt to understand what Luther was opposing, and to document it so people know the sorts of things that were “on the table” at the famous Diet of Worms” (you know, “here I stand” and all that . . .). Unless it is “blatant dishonesty” to cite Luther’s own words . . . Gee whiz; I’m citing the words of “EvangelCatholic” here; so now I am guilty of “blatant dishonesty” against him too?

My list was derived directly from Martin Luther. I make other lists of Martin Luther, too, of a much more favorable sort, such as: Luther on Theosis and Sanctification and on how Luther believes that Good Works Prove Authentic Faith.

Topper then made the following delightful (and very kind) remark (comment #313, 8-12-14):

If you or anyone else would like to say that Armstrong’s list of 50 things is ‘spurious’ or ‘blatantly dishonest’, or any such other false and generalized [sic] I would suggest that you go on to his blog and make the accusation directly. But if you do, please let us all know first because I want to watch. As the author of more than 40 books, and as one who is not afraid to tell the truth, he has had to deal with those who challenge his honesty often. It always turns out the same way, so like I said, please give us notice.

As of yet, I’ve seen no sign of anyone coming over to challenge me directly, with actual arguments, as opposed to empty, flatulent rhetoric and insulting catch-phrases. But that was only two days ago, so . . .

“JonNC” (Lutheran: Missouri Synod) offered some badly needed moderation and balance (comment #321, 8-13-14):

While I have not read the book, Dave Armstrong has always appeared on his blog to be a fair, though quite strident, Catholic apologist. He has many good things to say about Martin Luther, as well. The problem with the list offered has more to do with lack of context, catch phases that do not explain Luther’s views thoroughly.

The paper has been available online these past eight years. The name was given on the site by Topper. Anyone can find it online and read it. The link is above. But “EvangelCatholic” doesn’t do that, or else he would see that I gave 30 Luther quotes and then summarized what his beliefs in the quotes were. If they want more context with the quotes, those works of Luther are available online. Knock your socks off, guys! I would love to actually debate any of this. The water’s warm . . .

I think there are many thoughtful, bright, spiritually committed Lutherans who could have a good constructive discussion about this and hold their own. I know them. But they’re not all active online.

I actually joined the Catholic Answers forum to directly challenge the slanderer who wanted to accuse me of dishonesty. After essentially posting the above, I also added the following:

Here are online editions of the two treatises of Martin Luther from 1520 that I drew my list of 50 things from:

To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Now, you . . . who claim I have engaged in “complete and intentional distortion” and “blatant dishonesty” and “character assassination” and “yellow journalism” : prove it, by demonstrating that I nefariously misrepresented anything or took anything out of context. Put up or shut up. I suggest in all charity, for your sake, that you retract and take the latter course.

Or you can do nothing, and I think that will speak loudly enough, too, if you choose that path. Or you can insult me (and Topper) more (sans rational argumentation or documentation, as you have been doing). Your choice. God knows the truth of the matter.

Note: the Luther texts I used in both instances were from the paperback Three Treatises: itself drawn from the 55-volume Luther’s Works. I have that entire set in hardcover in my own library, and even one of the recent additions to it (Vol. 59). The two versions I linked to above are from earlier editions (1910 and 1930, respectively), so there will be some difference in wording.

***

Almost needless to say, my accuser never responded. All in a day’s work of Catholic apologetics . . .

Anglican Church historian Dr. Edwin Woodruff Tait certainly has a very different take on my argument here. I just ran across this comment of his underneath my original blog post:

Great post, Dave. I might argue with you as to whether all of the points you list are contrary to binding Catholic teaching . . . But you’re certainly right that they were all contrary to received Catholic understanding. And your main point is indisputably right. This is one of the emptiest and most frustrating Protestant arguments. A lot of folks in Lutheran/Reformed circles have a lot invested in denying Luther’s radicalism. What particularly frustrates me is that they often use the work of my doktorvater, David Steinmetz, to support their position, when in fact Steinmetz’ work does no such thing (his essay on Luther and the Councils demonstrates how radical and unorthodox Luther was on the question of Church authority).

***

Photo credit: Luther at the Diet of Worms [1521] (bet. 1887-1891), by Ernst Wilhelm Hildebrand (1833-1924) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

October 12, 2017

October 12, 2017 By

Luther-24

(2-28-10)

***

[The blue highlighting is my own]

***

So what is my own “take” on all this business of Luther’s teachings and current events in Germany and among the early Lutherans, during the earliest period of Protestantism? I think causes of historical events are always extraordinarily complex, just as causes of human behavior in general are. That has always been my position, as long as I can remember. I despise simplistic attempts of positing single causes for things as obviously complex as our topic of the social / theological situation of Germany in the 16th century.Cynical, misinformed critics, however, ridiculously caricature “my position” as the following:

1) Luther (a man who was an evil scoundrel, madman, foul loudmouth, and fanatic) wrote a bunch of dumb, heretical stuff that had no redeeming value whatever.

2) Folks therefore responded in kind and doctrinal and moral chaos resulted entirely because of Luther’s teaching.

In actuality, my position is far more nuanced than knee-jerk anti-Catholic opponents or quick-to-judge Lutherans unfamiliar with my overall collection of writings on Luther (including many where I agree with him), imagine:

1) Luther was a man with good intentions, who sought to follow God. He was prone to extremely fiery, unhelpful anti-Catholic rhetoric, but he was not mad, and far less fanatical and heretical than the Protestant sects that broke away from his own; including John Calvin’s.

2) His teachings were a mixture of previous Catholic tradition (particularly regarding Mary, baptism, and the Eucharist), and novel error.

3) Luther taught the absolute necessity of good works in the Christian life, as an inevitable manifestation of an authentic faith. He didn’t separate justification and sanctification to the degree that Calvin (or even his successor Philip Melanchthon) did.

4) But Luther also did a very poor job of communicating the subtleties of his “faith alone” (sola fide) soteriology to the masses: most of whom were incapable of analyzing the fine distinctions entailed (a state of affairs which is largely true even to our present time). In his extreme rhetoric of separation of faith and works, the necessary continuing connections that Luther in fact maintained in his theology, rightly understood, were lost in the public mind. In this sense, he showed himself to be rather excessively naive, as to the likely misunderstandings that would result and how many people would act in ways that he neither condoned nor envisioned.

5) As a result, there was a strong tendency at first towards antinomianism and anarchism (neither sanctioned by Luther) among the populace, as evidenced by an increase of immorality (noted often by Luther himself) and the Peasants’ Revolt.

6) Luther always had the last resort of recourse to the devil as the end-all explanation of any problems in his own ranks. This sort of hypothesis or theory was impervious to any possible falsification: being entirely subjective and speculative. All heretical breakaway groups through history have rationalized persecution or vehement disagreement from others by holding that it was inevitable, just as Jesus and the prophets and the early Christians were also persecuted. This allowed Luther to isolate himself from any possible criticism of his faulty teaching or faulty teaching methods of both false and true aspects of his teaching, as at least a partial cause of the difficulties. He was God’s man of the hour, delivering the “Gospel” (as if Catholics didn’t already have it); therefore, he couldn’t possibly be wrong in any major way. It was unthinkable to him.

[Luther’s own words follow]

***

Thus we have the teaching of nature and of reason regarding the sin of men’s ingratitude toward one another. How much greater the evil, how much more shameful and accursed, when manifested toward God who, in his infinite and ineffable goodness, conferred upon us while yet enemies to him and deserving of the fires of hell—conferred upon us, I say, not ten dollars, not a hundred thousand dollars even, but redemption from divine wrath and eternal death, and abundantly comforted us, granting us safety, a good conscience, peace and salvation! These are inexpressible blessings, incomprehensible in this life. And they will continue to occupy our minds in yonder eternal life. How much more awful the sin of ingratitude for these blessings, as exemplified in the servant mentioned in the Gospel passage for today, to whom was forgiven the debt of ten thousand talents and who yet would not forgive the debt of his fellow-servant who owed him a hundred pence! (p. 333)

Is it not incredible that there are to be found on earth individuals wicked enough to manifest for the highest and eternal blessings such unspeakable ingratitude? But alas, we have the evidence of our own eyes. We know them in their very dwelling-places. We see how the world abounds with them. Not only are the ingrates to be found among deliberate rejecters of the acknowledged truth of the Gospel, concerning God’s grace, an assured conscience and the promise of eternal life, terrible as such malice of the devil is, but they are present also in our midst, accepting the Gospel and boasting of it. Such shameful ingratitude prevails among the masses it would not be strange were God to send upon them the thunders and lightnings of his wrath, yes, all the Turks and the devils of hell. There is a generally prevalent ingratitude like that of the wicked servant who readily forgot the straits he experienced when, being called to account for what he could not pay, the wrathful sentence was pronounced against him that he and all he possessed must be sold, and he be indefinitely imprisoned. Nor have we less readily forgotten how we were tortured under the Papacy; how we were overwhelmed, drowned as in a flood, with numberless strange doctrines, when our anxious consciences longed for salvation. Now that we are, through the grace of God, liberated from these distresses, our gratitude is of a character to increasingly heap to ourselves the wrath of God. So have others before us done, and consequently have endured terrible chastisement. Only calculate the enormity of our wickedness when, God having infinitely blessed us in forgiving all our sins and making us lords over heaven and earth, we so little respect him as to be unmindful of his blessings; to be unwilling for the sake of them sincerely to forgive our neighbor a single slighting word, not to mention rendering him service. We conduct ourselves as if God might be expected to connive at our ingratitude and permit us to continue in it, at the same time conferring upon us as godly and obedient children, success and happiness. More than this, we think we have the privilege and power to live and do as we please. Indeed, the more learning and power we have and the more exalted our rank, the greater knaves we are; perpetrating every wicked deed, stirring up strife, discord, war and murder for the sake of executing our own arbitrary designs, where the question is the surrender of a penny in recognition of the hundreds of thousands of dollars daily received from God notwithstanding our ingratitude. (pp. 333-334).

The world remains the devil’s own. We must remember we shall not by any means find with the world that Christian heart pictured by the apostle; on the contrary we shall find what might be represented by a picture of the very opposite type —the most shameless ingratitude. But let the still existing God-fearing Christians be careful to imitate in their gratitude the spirit of the apostle’s beautiful picture. Let them give evidence of their willingness to hear the Word of God, of pleasure and delight in it and grief where it is rejected. Let them show by their lives a consciousness of the great blessing conferred by those from whom they received the Gospel. As recipients of such goodness, let their hearts and lips ever be ready with the happy declaration: “God be praised !” For thereunto are we called. As before said, praise should be the constant service and daily sacrifice of Christians; and according to Paul’s teaching here, the Christian’s works, his fruits of righteousness, should shine before men. Such manifestation of gratitude assuredly must result when we comprehend what God has given us. (p. 338) (from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol.4.2, edited by John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, pp. 330-342; available online also in the Sermon on the Twenty-Second Sunday After Trinity [Philippians 1:3-11]: revised translation from the 1827 Erlangen edition of Luther’s writings by Socrates Henkel, in Dr. Martin Luther’s Church Postil: Sermons on The Epistles, New Market, Virginia: New Market Evangelical Lutheran Publishing Company, 1869)

. . . they who do as the gospel teaches, are true Christians. However, very few of these are found; we see many hearers, but all are not doers of the Gospel. (p. 104)

But who are they that love God, and cleave not to gold and worldly possessions? Take a good look at the whole world, also the Christians, and see if they despise gold and riches. It requires an effort to hear the Gospel and to live according to it. God be praised, we have the Gospel; that no one can deny, but what do we do with it? We are concerned only about learning and knowing it, and nothing more; we think it is enough to know it, and do not care whether we ever live according to it. However, on the other hand, one is very anxious when he leaves lying in window or in the room a dollar or two, yea, even a dime, then he worries and fears lest the money be stolen; but the same person can do without the Gospel through a whole year. And such characters still wish to be considered Evangelical. Here we see what and who we are. If we were Christians, we would despise riches and be concerned about Gospel that we some day might live in it and prove it by our deeds. We see few such Christians; therefore we must hear the judgment that we are despisers of God and hate God: the sake of riches and worldly possessions. Alas! That fine praise! We should be ashamed of ourselves in our inmost souls; there is no hope for us! What a fine condition we are in now! That means, I think, our names are blotted out. What spoiled children we are! (pp. 105-106)

Now the world cannot conceal its unbelief in its course outward sins, for I see it loves a dollar more than Christ; more than all the Apostles, even if they themselves were present and preached to it. I can hear the Gospel daily, but it does not profit me every day; it may indeed happen if I have heard it a whole year, the Holy Spirit may have been given to me only one hour. Now when I enjoyed this hour I obtained not only five hundred dollars, but also I riches of the whole world; for what have I not, when I have the Gospel? I received God, who made the silver and I gold, and all that is upon the earth; for I acquired the Spirit by which I know that I will be kept by him forever; that much more than if I had the church full of money. Examine now and see, if our heart is not a rogue, full of wickedness and unbelief. If I were a true Christian, I would say: In the hour the Gospel is received, there comes to me a hundred thousand dollars, and much more. For if I possess this treasure, I have all that is in heaven and upon earth. But one must serve this treasure only, for no man can serve God and mammon. Either you must love God and hate money; or you must hate God and love money; this and nothing more. (pp. 106-107) (from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3.1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, pp. 102-117. It is readable online as Second Sermon for the Fifteenth Sunday After Trinity [Matthew 6:24-34] from the book, The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, Vol. 14, edited by John Nicholas Lenker, Minneapolis, Lutherans in All Lands Co., 1905, 118-126. From Walch edition, Vol. XII, 1234 and Vol. XI, 2171)

To my kind and dear mistress of the house, Luther’s Catherine von Bora, a preacher, a brewer, a gardener, and whatever else she is capable of doing- Grace and peace! Dear Katie!

John surely will tell you everything pertaining to our journey; I am not yet certain whether he should stay with me, but Doctor Caspar Cruciger and Ferdinand, of course, will tell you. Ernst von Schönfeld has treated us graciously at Löbnitz, and Heintz Scherle at Leipzig even more so.

I would like to arrange matters in such a way that I do not have to return to Wittenberg. My heart has become cold, so that I do not like to be there any longer. I wish you would sell the garden and field, house and all. Also I would like to return the big house to my Most Gracious Lord. It would be best for you to move to Zölsdorf as long as I am still living and able to help you to improve the little property with my salary. For I hope that my Most Gracious Lord would let my salary be continued at least for one [year], that is, the last year of my life. After my death the four elements at Wittenberg certainly will not tolerate you [there]. Therefore it would be better to do while I am alive what certainly would have to be done then. As things are run in Wittenberg, perhaps the people there will acquire not only the dance of St. Vitus or St. John, but the dance of the beggars or the dance of Beelzebub, since they have started to bare women and maidens in front and back, and there is no one who punishes or objects. In addition the Word of God is being mocked [there]. Away from this Sodom! If Leeks Bachscheisse, our other Rosina, and [her] seducer are not yet imprisoned, then help as much as you can to see that this scoundrel loses what he has gained. While in the country I have heard more than I find out while in Wittenberg. Consequently I am tired of this city and do not wish to return, May God help me with this.

The day after tomorrow I shall drive to Merseburg, for Sovereign George has very urgently asked that I do so. Thus I shall be on the move, and will rather eat the bread of a beggar than torture and upset my poor old [age] and final days with the filth at Wittenberg which destroys my hard and faithful work. You might inform Doctor Pomer and Master Philip of this (if you wish), and [you might ask] if Doctor Pomer would wish to say farewell to Wittenberg in my behalf. For I am unable any longer to endure my anger [about] and dislike [of this city].

With this I commend you to God. Amen. (Luther’s Letter to His Wife Katie Regarding the State of Wittenberg: 28 July 1545, in  Luther’s Works, Vol. 50, 273-278)

* * *

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1546), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017 By

French Cover (555 x 838)

[La traduction en français par Benoit Meyrieux s’est terminée le 13 avril 2017 et a été publiée à Lulu le même jour. 268 pages]

[French translation by Benoit Meyrieux completed on 13 April 2017 and published at Lulu on the same day. 268 pages]

[see information for the original 2013 English version]

[conception de couverture par Dave Armstrong]

[Pour plus d’informations sur l’achat, allez au bas de la page]

*****

BRÈVE DESCRIPTION
*
Mon objectif est de permettre une recherche rapide de réponses bibliques à des questions théologiques de perpétuelle importance. Je présuppose l’inspiration et l’infaillibilité de la Bible, et ce livre est destiné aux chrétiens qui acceptent ces notions. Ce volume fournit des passages de la Bible (généralement un verset, parfois plusieurs) qui sont (à mon avis) les meilleures “réponses” à un grand nombre de questions simples. Le format rappelle celui du fameux jeu télévisé “Jéopardy”, dans lequel les participants reçoivent un élément de réponse et information et doivent trouver la question correspondante. En rédigeant ce livre, j’ai considéré des passages bibliques et ai élaboré des questions auxquels les passages «répondaient». Le livre est constitué de 18 grandes catégories et de 200 sous-catégories numérotées. Les merveilleux trésors de la Bible nous attendent: la révélation inspirée par l’Esprit de Dieu.
*
INTRODUCTION
*
La Bible est une longue et complexe collection de 73 livres. Mon objectif – simple en théorie mais compliqué à mettre à exécution – est de faciliter la recherche de réponses bibliques à des questions théologiques de perpétuelle importance. Je présuppose l’inspiration et l’infaillibilité de la Bible et ce livre est adressé aux chrétiens qui acceptent ces notions.
*
Cet effort est plus catéchétique (ce que nous croyons comme catholiques) qu’apologétique (pourquoi nous croyons cela), bien que, dans une certaine mesure, cette dimension est aussi présente puisque les « preuves bibliques » fournissent des éléments en faveur d’une position plutôt qu’une autre. La dimension apologétique apparaît aussi dans la façon dont les différents thèmes ont été choisis et organisés. Le plus souvent, les questions considérées sont spécifiquement catholiques, et sujettes à controverse de la part des chrétiens non-catholiques. Je n’ai pas ici dans ce livre la prétention de « prouver » la doctrine catholique. Je ne fais que de fournir une source de référence et des éléments de réflexion.
*
Une de mes spécialités en tant qu’apologiste catholique est de présenter «la preuve biblique du catholicisme» (c’est le nom de mon blog). L’idée de cet ouvrage m’est venue soudainement alors que j’essayais de trouver une nouvelle façon de présenter les fondements bibliques, non seulement du catholicisme mais aussi de la théologie chrétienne en général. Ce livre est donc une forme de compendium des meilleurs exemples des preuves bibliques parmi les centaines fournis dans la quarantaine d’ouvrages que j’ai écrits jusqu’à aujourd’hui.
*
Ce qui m’est venu à l’esprit était simplement de fournir des passages bibliques (typiquement un verset, parfois plusieurs) qui seraient (à mon humble avis en tout cas) les meilleures «réponses » à un grand nombre de questions.
*
Ce format ressemble au jeu télévisé Jéopardy, dans lequel les participants reçoivent une réponse et doivent trouver la question correspondante. En rédigeant ce livre, j’ai pris des versets bibliques et ai élaboré des questions auxquels ces passages « répondaient ».
*
Je confesse volontiers que les questions elles-mêmes impliquent un élément de subjectivité, à savoir ma conception des questions et mon choix des « meilleurs passages » y répondant. C’est l’aspect ludique de ce projet et ce qui fait que ce livre est différent et unique en son genre.
*
Je pense qu’inconsciemment j’ai eu pour référence l’ouvrage écrit par mon mentor, aujourd’hui décédé, le père John A. Hardon, s.j., The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (éditions Doubleday Image, 1981). Il a organisé son livre en grandes catégories, puis en sous-catégories et finalement en 1701 questions. Ses réponses sont composées d’éléments de catéchèse relativement simples présentant l’enseignement de base de la foi catholique.
De façon analogue, mon livre est constitué de 18 larges catégories (nombre romains) et de 200 sous-catégories numérotées dans lesquelles se trouvent les 1001 questions et leurs réponses par un passage biblique.
*
Le format numérique est simple. C’est le nombre de la section (parmi les 200), suivi d’un tiret et du nombre de la question dans cette section (par exemple 32-13). Je suppose que l’on pourrait ajouter un nombre pour les larges catégories et obtenir une référence similaire à celle employée par saint Thomas d’Aquin dans sa Somme Théologique : III, 32-13.
*
Toutes les questions présupposent que la réponse vient de la Bible; il est inutile par conséquent de répéter maintes fois « où trouve-t-on dans la Bible… ? » ou bien « qu’est-ce que l’Écriture enseigne à propos de … ?», etc. Je me suis efforcé de formuler les questions de telle façon qu’elles soient le plus simples et le plus directes possible, et qu’elles se limitent à un sujet précis.
*
Une objection pourrait être soulevée contre cet ouvrage, à savoir qu’il emploie des « preuves bibliques », une pratique qui a souvent une connotation négative et associée à une tendance de citer les Écritures hors contexte pour renforcer des opinions déjà établies sur d’autres fondements. Voici comment je répondrais à cette objection :
*
1) La théologie systématique (ainsi que les encycliques papales et les documents conciliaires) inclut des citations de versets bibliques (comme dans ce livre). Quelqu’un peut toujours objecter telle ou telle citation puisqu’en citant un passage on présuppose qu’il s’applique au sujet que l’on traite. Il peut parfois y avoir de vrai désaccord sur ce point.
*
2) Les ouvrages visant à simplifier la théologie pour le plus grand nombre (cela inclut les catéchismes et les livres de type catéchétique) tendent à résumer. La question est de savoir si simplifier est une bonne ou une mauvaise chose. Je pense qu’il est indéniable que cela est une bonne chose. Il y a toujours la possibilité d’approfondir telle ou telle question lorsque celui qui étudie et recherche fait des progrès dans la compréhension de la théologie. Dans ma collection de 40 ouvrages, je consacre des livres entiers à des sujets uniques (par exemple l’Eucharistie, la doctrine du salut, Marie ou la communion des saints). J’ai écrit deux livres et ai consacré de longs passages dans d’autres ouvrages à la fausse doctrine de sola Scriptura (« l’Écriture est la seule autorité infaillible »). Le lecteur peut toujours consulter ces ouvrages ou d’autres similaires.
*
3) Une preuve textuelle peut être citée adéquatement ou non et cela est un important sujet de discussion en soi. Une citation est inappropriée lorsque le verset biblique est sorti de son contexte ou interprété de façon erronée lorsqu’on considère les autres passages abordant le même sujet ainsi que l’enseignement de l’Église. Une telle interprétation serait hétérodoxe. Je considère que j’ai interprété les passages cités dans ce livre de façon adéquate et en accord avec l’enseignement de notre sainte mère l’Église.
*
4) Voici un exemple de « preuve textuelle » incorrecte. Les protestants, en particulier les évangéliques, citent constamment le passage suivant comme « preuve » selon eux de la doctrine de sola Scriptura :
*
2 Tim 3,16 « Toute l’Écriture divinement inspirée est utile pour enseigner, pour reprendre, pour corriger, pour instruire dans la justice, »
*
Ce serait une longue discussion mais pour résumer (ayant plus écrit sur ce sujet que sur d’autres questions), à aucun endroit dans ce verset trouve-t-on la notion que seule l’Écriture est infaillible ou qu’elle représente la seule norme pour la théologie ou pour la doctrine. L’Écriture elle-même affirme clairement l’autorité apostolique et de l’Église (comme je le montre dans ce livre et dans d’autres).
*
Ainsi, un catholique affirme qu’utiliser ce passage comme « preuve » de la doctrine de sola Scriptura est la pire expression d’une « preuve textuelle ». Le verset est arraché du contexte de la Bible dans son ensemble et de l’enseignement biblique de la règle de foi. Cette interprétation viole l’orthodoxie historique, à savoir ce qui a toujours été enseigné et ceci jusqu’au 16ème siècle lorsque le protestantisme a introduit de nouvelles doctrines. Insérer de cette façon dans un texte une signification qui ne s’y trouve pas s’appelle eisegèse. Cette interprétation subjective du texte biblique se situe à l’opposé de l’exégèse qui part du texte pour en trouver l’explication.
*
Dans cet ouvrage, je suggère que j’ai cité 2 Tim 3,16 de façon adéquate puisque mon interprétation est en accord avec l’enseignement apostolique et historique chrétien et ne contredit pas ce que la Bible enseigne dans d’autres passages. Je n’ajoute rien au texte. Cet ouvrage est organisé ainsi :
*
I. Bible et Tradition (Autorité)
4. Autorité infaillible de L’Écriture Sainte
4-6 L’Écriture est-elle inspirée par Dieu ?
*
Le passage enseigne clairement l’inspiration de l’Écriture, ce que tout chrétien sérieux accepte volontiers. Mais il n’enseigne pas la doctrine de sola Scriptura, un concept qui est inséré par certains dans le texte en raison d’un parti pris et d’une prédisposition formée par des postulats protestants.
*
J’espère que le lecteur trouvera ce livre agréable, éducatif et édifiant, trois qualités que je m’efforce de conjuguer dans mes écrits théologiques. Les merveilleux trésors de la Bible, la révélation de la Pensée de Dieu laexprimée au travers des auteurs bibliques nous attendent.
*
TABLE DES MATIERES
Dédicace ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 3
Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 4
*
I. Bible et Tradition (Autorité)
*
1. Tradition apostolique ………………………….. …………….. 22
2. Tradition orale ………………………….. ………………………. 24
3. Anciennes traditions orales citées dans le Nouveau Testament… 25
4. Autorité infaillible de la Sainte Écriture ……………….. 26
5. Jugement privé ………………………….. ……………………… 28
6. Clarté de l’Écriture ………………………….. ………………… 28
7. Herméneutique / Interprétation de l’Écriture …………. 29
8. Traditions humaines ………………………….. ………………. 30
9. Racines juives du Christianisme ………………………….. 31
10. Livres deutérocanoniques ………………………….. …….. 34
11. Développement de doctrine ………………………….. ….. 37
*
II. Doctrine de l’Église (Ecclésiologie)
*
12. Unité ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 39
13. Sainteté ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 40
14. Catholique (Universelle) ………………………….. ………. 42
15. Succession apostolique ………………………….. ………… 44
16. Autorité ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 46
17. Visibilité ………………………….. ………………………….. … 47
18. Indéfectibilité ………………………….. ……………………… 48
19. Sans défaut ………………………….. …………………………. 49
20. Conciles faisant autorité ………………………….. ……….. 50
21. Prêtres / Sacrement de l’Ordre ………………………….. . 52
22. Évêques ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 54
23. Pardon (Sacrement de Réconciliation)………………… 56
24. Autorité de donner une pénitence ………………………. 57
25. Indulgences (Rémission de la peine temporelle) ….. 58
26. Célibat : un appel héroïque avec moins de distraction… 59
27. Excommunication et anathèmes ………………………… 60
28. Papauté ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 61
29. Dénominationalisme et sectarisme, Division ……….. 66
30. Pécheurs dans l’Église ………………………….. …………. 69
31. Belles et/ou coûteuses églises ………………………….. .. 75
*
III. Théologie du salut (Sotériologie)
*
32. Le salut est fondamentalement par la grâce seule …. 77
33. Le salut n’est pas par la foi seule ……………………….. 77 [Lire sur Facebook]
34. Le salut n’est pas par les oeuvres seules (Pélagianisme)… 79
35. Grâce + Foi+ OEuvres + Obéissance = Salut ………… 80
36. Centralité des oeuvres dans le salut final ……………… 80
37. Péché véniel et péché mortel………………………….. …. 82
38. Différence quantitative de la grâce …………………….. 83
39. Action méritoire rendue possible par la grâce de Dieu… 84
40. Collaboration avec Dieu / Synergie ……………………. 85 [Lire sur Facebook]
41. Participation dans la distribution de la grâce et du salut… 86
42. Dieu rend possible une véritable justice humaine …. 88
43. Des hommes sont décrits comme étant « justes » …. 88
44. Justification initiale par la foi seule ……………………. 89
45. Justification infuse / Sanctification …………………….. 90
46. La foi et les oeuvres : deux dimensions indissociables… 93
47. Le salut est un processus ………………………….. ………. 94
48. Assurance morale du salut ………………………….. ……. 97
49. Élection divine de ceux qui sont sauvés ……………… 97
50. Fausseté de la doctrine calviniste de la corruption totale… 98
51. Fausseté de la doctrine calviniste de la rédemption limitée… 102
52. Fausseté de la doctrine calviniste de la grâce irrésistible… 104 [Lire sur Facebook]
53. Fausseté de la doctrine d’assurance absolue du salut… 106
54. Apostasie (s’écarter de la grâce et du salut) …………. 107
55. Salut rendu possible par la mort de Jésus sur la Croix… 109
56. Théosis – Divinisation ………………………….. …………. 111
57. Inhabitation du Saint Esprit ………………………….. ….. 112
58. Relation personnelle avec Jésus …………………………. 113
59. Nature de l’Évangile ………………………….. ……………. 115
60. Fausseté de la prédestination à l’enfer ………………… 116
61. Péché originel………………………….. ……………………… 118
*
IV. Purgatoire
*
62. Indices d’un processus de purification après la mort… 120
63. Processus de purification sur la terre ………………….. 121
64. Prière pour les morts ………………………….. ……………. 124
65. Nécessité de la sainteté pour entrer au ciel ………….. 125
66. Analogie du Sheol/Hades (troisième état après la mort)… 127
*
V. Pénitence
*
67. Peine temporelle/ Expiation pour le péché ………….. 130
68. Expiation pour les autres ………………………….. ………. 131
69. Jeûne et abstinence / Cendres ………………………….. .. 131
70. Mortification corporelle ………………………….. ……….. 133
71. Partager les souffrances du Christ ………………………. 134
72. Souffrance rédemptrice pour d’autres …………………. 136
*
VI. Sacrement de la Sainte Eucharistie
*
73. Dernière Cène ………………………….. …………………….. 139
74. Transsubstantiation ………………………….. ……………… 141 [Lire sur Facebook]
75. Réalisme eucharistique de l’évangile de Jean chapitre 6… 142
76. Adoration eucharistique ………………………….. ……….. 143
77. Communion sous une espèce ………………………….. … 144
*
VII. Sacrifice de la Messe
*
78. Nature intemporelle de la Messe (Jésus est mort une fois pour toutes)… 145
79. Analogie du système sacrificiel et sacerdotal de l’Ancien Testament… 147
80. Utilisation des catégories sacerdotales par saint Paul… 149
81. Jésus l’Agneau Pascal immolé (sacrifié) …………….. 149
82. La lettre aux Hébreux………………………….. …………… 150
83. L’autel céleste ………………………….. …………………….. 151
84. Participation chrétienne à la mort de Jésus ………….. 152
*
VIII. Sacrement du Baptême
*
85. Régénération baptismale/ Baptême et salut …………. 153
86. Baptême des enfants ………………………….. ……………. 155
87. Baptême et « être né de nouveau » …………………….. 156
88. Les enfants font partie du Royaume et de l’Alliance… 157
*
IX. Sacrement de Confirmation
*
89. Descente du Saint-Esprit sur des personnes…………. 158
90. Jésus baptise dans le Saint-Esprit ………………………. 159
91. Être « rempli » du Saint-Esprit ………………………….. 159
92. Le Saint-Esprit et l’imposition des mains ……………. 160
93. Marqués du « sceau » du Saint-Esprit…………………. 160
94. Onction d’huile pour recevoir le Saint-Esprit ………. 161
95. Le Saint-Esprit reçu à travers des personnes ayant autorité… 161
*
X. Sacrement de l’onction des malades
*
96. Les prêtres utilisent l’onction d’huile pour guérir … 161
97. Imposition des mains pour la guérison ……………….. 162
98. Bienfaits spirituels de la guérison ………………………. 162
*
XI. Sacramentaux, dévotions et prières
*
99. Prière liturgique et adoration………………………….. …. 163
100. Chapelet ………………………….. ………………………….. . 165
101. Eau bénite………………………….. …………………………. 165
102. Bougies et encens ………………………….. ………………. 166
103. Lieux saints / Terre sainte ………………………….. …… 167
104. Objets saints et sacrés ………………………….. ………… 168
105. Musique dans la liturgie ………………………….. ……… 169
106. Bénédictions sacerdotales ………………………….. …… 171
107. Examen de conscience ………………………….. ……….. 172
108. Aumône ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 172
109. Génuflexion………………………….. ………………………. 173
110. Objets physiques facilitant l’adoration de Dieu ….. 174
111. Présence spéciale de Dieu dans des objets physiques… 174
112. Jours saints ………………………….. ……………………….. 175
113. Obligation de participer à la messe dominicale ….. 176
114. Culte dominical / Principe du Shabbat ………………. 176
*
XII. Les anges et la communion des saints
*
115. Les saints défunts retournent sur terre ………………. 177
116. Communication divines dans des songes …………… 179
117. Invocation des saints (pour leur intercession) …….. 179
118. Invocation des anges (pour leur intercession) …….. 180
119. Vénération et imitation des saints …………………….. 181
120. Vénération des anges et des hommes en tant que représentants de Dieu… 182
121. Intercession des saints ………………………….. ………… 183
122. Intercession des anges ………………………….. ………… 184
123. Anges gardiens ………………………….. ………………….. 185
124. Vénération des images ………………………….. ……….. 186
125. Adorer Dieu en s’agenouillant devant des statues faites de main d’homme… 187
126. Adoration de Dieu au travers une image ……………. 187
127. Crucifix ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 188
128. Reliques………………………….. ………………………….. .. 189
129. Enfer ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 190
130. Erreur de l’universalisme ………………………….. ……. 191
*
XIII. La Sainte Vierge (Mariologie)
*
131. Sans péché ………………………….. ………………………… 193
132. Immaculée Conception ………………………….. ………. 194
133. Virginité perpétuelle ………………………….. …………… 195
134. « Mère de Dieu » (Theotokos) …………………………. 195
135. « Épouse du Saint-Esprit » ………………………….. ….. 196
136. Analogies de l’Assomption corporelle au ciel ……. 197
137. Reine du ciel ………………………….. …………………….. 197
138. Mère spirituelle des hommes ………………………….. . 198
139. Médiatrice ………………………….. ………………………… 198
*
XIV. Jésus Christ (Christologie)
*
140. Égal avec le Père ………………………….. ……………….. 199
141. Créateur ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 200
142. Eternel et incréé ………………………….. ………………… 201
143. Adoré ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 202
144. Tout puissant ………………………….. …………………….. 204
145. Omniscient ………………………….. ……………………….. 204
146. Omniprésent ………………………….. ……………………… 204
147. Pardonne les péchés en son nom ………………………. 204
148. Est prié ………………………….. ………………………….. … 205
149. Sans péché / Impeccable ………………………….. …….. 206
150. Appelé Seigneur (Kurios) ………………………….. …… 206
151. Appelé Dieu (Theos) ………………………….. ………….. 207
152. Reçoit des titres divins au même titre que le Père . 208
153. Image (Icône) du Père invisible ……………………….. 211
154. Primauté du nom de Jésus ………………………….. …… 211
155. Affirme être le Messie ………………………….. ………… 212
156. Affirme être Dieu ………………………….. ………………. 212
157. Affirme être le Sauveur du Monde ……………………. 213
158. Juge du monde ………………………….. ………………….. 214
159. Obéit volontairement en tant que Messie…………… 214
*
XV. Dieu le Père
*
160. Dieu est Un (Monothéisme) ………………………….. … 214
161. Créateur ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 215
162. Éternel ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 215
163. Immatériel (Esprit invisible) ………………………….. .. 215
164. Adoré exclusivement ………………………….. ………….. 216
165. Tout puissant ………………………….. …………………….. 216
166. Omniscient ………………………….. ……………………….. 216
167. Omniprésent ………………………….. ……………………… 216
168. Hors du temps ………………………….. …………………… 217
169. Souverain ………………………….. …………………………. 217
170. Ses pensées sont au-delà de la compréhension humaine… 218
171. Anthropomorphisme et anthropopathisme …………. 218
172. Immuable ………………………….. …………………………. 219
173. Impassible (sans « passion » ni émotion) ………….. 219
174. Existe par lui-même / Simple (non composé) …….. 219
175. Monarchia / Principatus (Inengendré) ……………… 220
*
XVI. Le Saint-Esprit (Pneumatologie) / Trinitarisme
*
176. Passages incluant les trois Personnes divines …….. 220
177. Attributs personnels du Saint-Esprit …………………. 221
178. Divinité / Attributs divins du Saint-Esprit …………. 223
179. Procession du Saint Esprit du Père et du Fils …….. 223
180. Circumincession: les Personnes divines se compénètrent mutuellement… 225
*
XVII. Sacrement de Mariage
*
181. Analogie du mariage entre Jésus Christ et son Église… 225
182. Indissolubilité d’un mariage valide/ Interdiction du divorce… 227
183. Déclaration de nullité de mariage …………………….. 228
184. Interdiction des relations sexuelles en dehors du mariage… 230
185. La contraception est un péché ………………………….. 232
186. Avoir de nombreux enfants est une bénédiction …. 234
187. Les enfants dans le sein de leur mère sont des personnes… 235
188. L’avortement est un meurtre et est interdit ………… 236
189. Le sacrifice d’enfants est une abomination ………… 237
*
XVIII. Sujets divers
*
190. Apologétique (Défense rationnelle du christianisme)… 238
191. OEcuménisme ………………………….. …………………….. 241
192. Ignorance invincible………………………….. …………… 245
193. Végétarisme ………………………….. ……………………… 246
194. Athéisme ………………………….. ………………………….. 248
195. Alcool ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 249
196. Légitimité de la guerre juste ………………………….. .. 252
197. Légitimité de la peine capitale …………………………. 255
198. Jugement des nations ………………………….. …………. 260
199. « Science moyenne » de Dieu ………………………….. 265
200. « Baptiser » les pratiques païennes …………………… 267
*
Options d’achat / Purchase Options
Broché (Liste: $ 18.95 / 25% de remise permanente Lulu: $ 14.21)
Paperback (List: $18.95 / 25% Permanent Lulu Discount: $14.21) 
*
Dernière révision le 11 mai 2017
Last revised on 11 May 2017
*****
April 14, 2017

April 14, 2017 By

Jesus47

Christ in the Wilderness (1872), by Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoi (1837-1887) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(3-28-08)

***

From the Coming Home Network board. I’ll paraphrase the initial questions in blue.

* * * * *

March 25

The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Commonly called Lady Day

from Butler’s Lives of the Saints for March 25, page 674:

. . . the mystery of love and mercy promised to mankind thousands of years earlier, foretold by so many prophets, desired by so many saints, is accomplished upon earth. In that instant the Word of God becomes for ever united to manhood: the soul of Jesus Christ, produced from nothing, begins to enjoy God and to know all things, past, present and to come: at that moment God begins to have a worshipper who is infinite, and the world a mediator who is omnipotent: and to the working of this great mystery Mary alone is chosen to co-operate by her free assent.

Was Jesus in two (or all) places at once during His earthly life? Was He omnipresent?

According to the Church, in His human nature, Jesus was not omnipresent, but in His divine nature (that was always present alongside His human nature) He continued to be omnipresent. This is an aspect of the Hypostatic Union. In the Incarnation, Jesus took on human nature, but He retained His divine nature (which was necessarily the case, since God in His essence cannot change, and Jesus is God).

It gets extremely heavy, but here is how Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes this aspect of Christology, the communicatio idiomatum:

The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh . . . It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, and rose again . . . (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 144)

Christ’s Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)

As Christ’s Divine Person subsists in two natures, and may be referred to either of those two natures, so human things can be asserted of the son of God and Divine things of the Son of Man.

[ . . .]

The nature of the Hypostatic Union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and Human nature can be attributed to the person of Christ, on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature [Lutherans fall into this error]. Since concrete terms (God, Son of God, Son of Man, Christ the Almighty) designate the Hypostasis and abstract terms (Godhead, humanity, omnipotence) the nature, the following rule may be laid down: communicatio idioamatum fit in concreto, non in abstracto. The communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones. So, for example: The Son of Man died on the Cross; Jesus created the world. The rule is not valid if . . . the concrete term is limited to one nature. Thus it is false to say “Christ has suffered as God.” “Christ created the world as a human being.” It must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature, body and soul are referred to the nature, whose parts they are. Thus it is false to say: “Christ’s soul is omniscient,” “Christ’s body is ubiquitous.”

Further, predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones, as nothing may be denied to Christ which belongs to Him according to either nature. One, therefore, may not say: “The Son of God has not suffered,” “Jesus is not almighty.” (ibid., , pp. 160-161; italics added)

So Jesus has a soul? If so, where is His soul now?

He’s in heaven at the right hand of God. Jesus continues to be one Divine Person (God the Son) with a human nature and a divine nature. He rose from the dead and possessed (unlike the Father or Holy Spirit) a glorified human body, that continues to exist forever. Along with His human nature and body is also human intellect and a human soul. The soul is a human thing: the immaterial and immortal part of a human being: the portion that continues when the body dies, and where our identity really lies. So when Christ took on human nature He also acquired a soul. God the Father doesn’t have a soul, nor does God the Holy Spirit.

For more on this, see: Catholic Encyclopedia: “Knowledge of Christ”.

How do Catholics distinguish between “soul” and “spirit”?

From Catholic Encyclopedia: “Spirit”:

(Latin spiritus, spirare, “to breathe”; Gk. pneuma; Fr. esprit; Ger. Geist). As these names show, the principle of life was often represented under the figure of a breath of air. The breath is the most obvious symptom of life, its cessation the invariable mark of death; invisible and impalpable, it stands for the unseen mysterious force behind the vital processes. Accordingly we find the word “spirit” used in several different but allied senses: (1) as signifying aliving, intelligent, incorporeal being, such as the soul; (2) as the fiery essence or breath (the Stoic pneuma) which was supposed to be the universal vital force; (3) as signifying some refined form of bodily substance, a fluid believed to act as a medium between mind and the grosser matter of the body.

. . . In Theology, the uses of the word are various. In the New Testament, it signifies sometimes the soul of man (generally its highest part, e.g., “the spirit is willing”), sometimes the supernatural action of God in man, sometimes the Holy Ghost (“the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive”). The use of this term to signify the supernatural life of grace is the explanation of St. Paul’s language about the spiritual and the carnal man and his enumeration of the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, . . .

(cf. Catholic Encyclopedia: “Soul”)

Was Butler implying that Jesus Christ was created?

We mustn’t ever say “creation of Jesus Christ.” That is the Arian heresy (now held by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians) that reduces Jesus to a mere creature. What was created was Jesus’ human body and soul and human intellect. That was the new thing: “God became man.” The quote in Butler (above) was:

. . . the soul of Jesus Christ, produced from nothing . . .

God gained a worshiper at the Incarnation that He didn’t have before? Huh?

The worship of Jesus towards His Father is a bit different insofar as this is one member of the Godhead paying homage to another, whereas our worship is that of the fundamentally and essentially lesser or inferior creature towards the infinite Creator (adoration). With Jesus and His Father, it is the relationship of subordination that Jesus willingly took on when He became man (Philippians 2:5-11: what is called the kenosis). In that sense he “worships” His Father, while at all times remaining equal to Him in essence.

Accordingly, I submit that this distinction may be the reason why I haven’t been able to find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus “worships” the Father (Greek: proskuneo), or “the Son worshiped the Father,” etc. If anyone finds such a verse, please let me know. The Greek word (usually “worship” in English translation) is frequently applied to people worshiping Jesus or the Father.

But, of course, as an observant Jew, Jesus attended temple and synagogue services and worshiped the Father insofar as the services involved that. One might say this was similar to His getting baptized, even though He had no sin to get rid of. It was more of a love relationship and the submission of Son to Father within the trinitarian Godhead, without implying inequality. Jesus also “submitted” to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51) and He certainly wasn’t inferior to them.

See also: Catholic Encyclopedia: “Christian Worship”.

Is it true and correct to assert that Jesus was not fully divine from eternity?

The heresy of Nestorianism claimed that Jesus grew in consciousness to figure out that He was God. This is in direct contradiction to the orthodox Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but it is very common in liberal theological circles and even (mostly unwittingly) in more orthodox Protestant realms.

The Butler quote merely stated that the soul of Jesus had a beginning; was created. That’s perfectly orthodox and doesn’t deny His divinity in the least. To say that Jesus was created, on the other hand, is the heresy of Arianism.

The Incarnation was something new, that had a starting-point in time. But the divinity of Jesus never had a beginning anymore than the divinity of God the Father or the Holy Spirit did. All three Persons are eternal, and God. The Hypostatic Union was the development in Christology that sought to explain the relationship of the Divine and Human Natures in Jesus. He acquired the latter but always possessed the former, from eternity.

Lots of folks today either don’t understand these things or outright deny them. This is why we have the Church, to guide us into correct theology, because, as with a journey to another town, a mere foot in the wrong direction initially can lead to being 500 miles off-target later on.

* * *

Does 1 Corinthians 15:28 suggest worship of the Father from the Son?

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

(RSV, as throughout; Rheims / KJV: “all in all”)

Also, Jesus says:

John 8:28–29 When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 14:28 The Father is greater than I.

* * *

I’d still have to say, though, that those come under the general area of “submission” rather than worship per se. I would note, too, that we have the motif of Jesus submitting to the Father, but there are also indications of something roughly (but probably not quite) the opposite of that. You noted 1 Corinthians 15:28: “that God may be all in all” but there is also Colossians 3:11: “. . . Christ is all, and in all.”

Note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses distort this verse (1 Cor 15:28) and also John 14:28 to “prove” that Jesus was a created being and lesser than God. The following passages round out the “biblical picture” a bit:

John 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

John 16:23-24 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

 

* * *

Orthodox Christology depends very much on how we phrase things (just like the old conciliar discussions of homoousion). As a human baby, Jesus did not understand all things. His human nature was limited and so He had to learn within that nature, like anyone else. But the Divine Nature was also present at all times, side-by-side with the human, and in the Divine Nature He did understand all things, being omniscient. And what is said of the Divine Nature can be said of Jesus the Person. It’s tough to discuss because the categories (like the Holy Trinity) are foreign to our own experience. But we have no choice. This is how God has revealed Himself.

Explain how Jesus could be present in heaven as God while He was also present here on earth? This is difficult for us to grasp.

Jesus was a Spirit (the Logos / Word) before He became a man. He didn’t cease to become a divine spirit when He became man, because God is a Spirit, and God is omniscient. On the other hand, Jesus’ unique role in the Holy Trinity is to be a flesh-and-blood man, so in a sense He is “completed” at the Incarnation, and so I think we can say that the “whole Jesus” as He would be henceforth for eternity (in a glorified sense) was present on the earth when He was here with us, in the first century.

It’s no more implausible or difficult to accept, I think, that Jesus could be bodily on the earth (as Messiah and God the Incarnate Son) and spiritually in heaven (as Logos) at the same time, as it is to believe that God can be three Persons simultaneously and remain one God, with the Son on earth praying to the Father in heaven (and both being the one God), the Father sending the Son, the Holy Spirit indwelling all believers, etc. It’s another mystery, for sure, but no more so than what we are already familiar with.

Orthodox Christians emphasize that the entire Incarnation, and Jesus’ entire life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension saves us, as opposed to Jesus’ death on the cross alone, and that human nature is raised to partake in a sense in divine nature (theosis or divinization).

I love theosis, and have written about it. It’s true that the East emphasizes this more, but it is contrary to nothing in Western Christianity, and the Catechism mentions it several times (#398, 460, 1129, 1265, 1812, 1988).

In fact, our emphasis on things like the Mediatorship of Mary could be defended by analogy on these grounds (as I have done). God makes us more like Him and so He chooses to distribute grace through Mary. That’s because God has raised human beings (and especially the Blessed Virgin) to such a high state due to the Incarnation.

* * *

The citation from Ott is very abstract and heavy. I always have to read it several times myself to make sure I grasp it (as all truly good philosophy requires one to do). The key is the following portion:

As Christ’s Divine Person subsists in two natures, and may be referred to either of those two natures, so human things can be asserted of the son of God and Divine things of the Son of Man.

To say, for example, “Jesus is omnipresent,” is perfectly fine, because Jesus is the Person Who has the Two Natures. Whatever is true in either Nature can be said of the Divine Person, Jesus. A dim analogy would be our possessing both a body and a soul. What is true of either can be referred to us as a person:

“My (i.e., this person, Dave Armstrong’s) soul cannot be physically harmed or destroyed.”

“I (i.e., my body) can be physically harmed or killed.”

When I say “I will live forever” that is primarily referring to my immaterial soul (though we will receive resurrection bodies too). If I say “I will die, just like every other person,” then I am referring to the limitations of a physical body. Death, in fact, is literally the separation of soul and body. It is not the destruction of the soul (as in the false view of annihilation or denial of immortality of the soul). Therefore, death by definition must refer to only one part of us ceasing to exist (our body) but not the other part, the soul. But we generally simply say, “I will eventually die.”

With Jesus it is a little more complex, because He is both God and Man, and He has a Divine Nature and a human nature side-by-side, and these are not identical. We can assert, “Jesus is omnipresent” because in His Divine Nature He is. We can also say “Jesus learned like a man” or “Jesus was in one place at one time while on the earth” because those statements are referring to His human nature (without saying it: it is the unspoken premise).

We can even say (somewhat surprisingly at first glance) that “God died.” That is orthodox Catholic theology, because Jesus was God. God became Man, and this Divine Person and Man died (i.e., in His human nature). Therefore, God died.

What we can’t do is confuse the natures with each other, and say something like “In His human nature, Jesus was omnipresent.” That is untrue. We can’t say, “Jesus as the Eternal Word / Logos before the Incarnation was spatially limited.” He (as Logos) isn’t in space at all, because He is a spirit. And as an eternal Spirit, He wasn’t in time, either, so to even refer to “was” in this context is inaccurate (which is why Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I am” — John 8:58).

The reasoning is also similar in the theology of Mary as Theotokos, or “Mother of God” or “God-bearer.” We can say that because Jesus is God! Mary didn’t just give birth to the human nature of Jesus, but to the Divine Person, Jesus. Therefore, we can assert that she was the Mother of God. She bore, of course (another unspoken, assumed premise) the incarnate God (as opposed to the eternal Spirit Who cannot be conceived and given birth to, being both Spirit and eternal and ungenerated), but He was still God.

As another way of looking at it, we don’t describe human mothers in the following ways: “she gave birth to a soul” or “Sue gave birth to yet another human body at 4:03 AM today.” We say, “Jane gave birth to a healthy baby boy, Bocephus, at 4:03 AM today.” We say this, knowing that the soul is a direct creation of God. Birth is not creation, but procreation. Parents played a role in the physical bodies of their offspring (by genetics and reproduction) but not the souls. Yet we always refer to the person born, who is composed of both body and soul.

Thus, we could state, “Jane gave birth to Bocephus, who possesses an eternal soul made in the image of God.”

Another (quite imperfect) analogy would be our struggle between “flesh” and “spirit.” They are two parts of us that war against each other. We are fallen creatures and children of Adam, yet when regenerated we become children of God. When we’re led by the Indwelling Spirit we are doing what we are created to do, but when led by the flesh or the devil, through concupiscence and temptation, we are following another spirit.

All these analogies are trying to show instances of one person who has more than one part. In Jesus’ case (Two Natures or Hypostatic Union) they always work together and are harmonious, though distinct. The same applies to the distinction of Persons within the Holy Trinity.

Created human beings have a body and a soul, and a flesh and a spirit (in the spiritual sense). The huge and essential difference in our case is that we have internal conflict, whereas God does not. But the analogies help us to comprehend how Jesus could have both a Divine Nature and a human nature.

I love “analogical argument.” I hope this has been helpful and not further confusing. It helps me, too, to better understand the Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union, even while I am writing.

April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017 By

UphillStruggle

Image by “jalandas0” (3-23-16) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

*****

Erik is a thoughtful, amiable Calvinist who claims he has never had a constructive theological discussion with a Catholic. Hopefully, this will be his first time. I enjoyed it on my end! He commented under my blog paper, “Reply to Calvin” #3: Synergism, Grace Alone, & the Elect. His words will be in blue.

*****

I believe you are correct that Calvinism and Catholicism (especially Thomism) have a virtual overlap in terms of soteriology. Officially, that is. And I believe that is why the Catholic participants in ECT could so easily use the terminology of Sola Fide. From a Protestant prospective, Sola Fide is there as a hedge around Sola Gratia. From our perspective, it is nonsensical to speak of the two separately. Deny one, you deny the other. Again, from our perspective, Sola Fide has utterly no logical connection with Antinomianism. (From a common Catholic perspective, on the other hand, they are synonymous.)

The educated Catholic or apologist knows that sola fide is not antinomianism. I have several papers along those lines:

Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith

John Calvin: Good Works Manifest True Saving Faith

Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism

*****

To my mind, our unanimity on justification depends on what any given Catholic means by “Spirit-wrought works of love.” Are these works Spirit-assisted or Spirit-ACCOMPLISHED? Are both our cooperation AND the cooperative grace which assists it graciously accomplished (from start to finish) by the self-same Spirit? After all, as St. Paul observed: “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).

David Anders gives the illustration of a man rolling a wheel barrow up a hill. His young son puts out his hand to help “push” it up the incline. But, of course, he adds not one iota to the task’s accomplishment. This is the proper recipe. Cooperation without justificatory merit. Sola Gratia.

My impression, however, is that very few Catholics believe in Sola Gratia without de-sola-izing it. Why else would they cringe at the phrase “by grace alone THROUGH FAITH ALONE on account of Christ alone for the glory of God alone”? Makes no sense to me. They adamantly affirm that justification is by faith AND works.

Well, the difference is that we think in terms of “both/and” and not “either/or.” So with the faith and works issue, we say that we do a thing, and God also does it. This is biblical and Hebrew paradox, which is very common.

The Calvinist doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend that God and a person can do the same thing, and both take credit (God, of course, far more). This is how we interpret 1 Corinthians 15:10 above (thanks for citing that). Paul is not saying that he did nothing whatsoever. He says, “I laboured more abundantly than they all.”

That’s real labor and work. Yes, God gives the grace. He enables absolutely every good thing we do by His grace (that’s Catholic teaching, right from Trent). It doesn’t follow, however, that we don’t cooperate.

Even your little boy pushing the wheel barrow up the hill is not doing nothing. He is actually helping, just as everyone in a tug-of-war is helping, while the stronger ones do much more work proportionately.

In that sense, we deny sola fide / faith alone.

There is plenty in Scripture about all of these things:

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit

Reflections on Common Ground Between Catholics and Protestants (Particularly, Good Works)

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages)

Exposition on the Scriptural Relationship Between Grace, Faith, Works, and Judgment

Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation (Always Enabled by God’s Grace)

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification)

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation

Paul vs. Calvin: “Doers of the Law” Will be Justified

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone: Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)?

The “Obedience of Faith” in Paul and its Soteriological Implications (Justification and Denial of “Faith Alone”) [from Ferdinand Prat, S. J.]

Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies

Final Judgment Always Has to Do with Works and Never with “Faith Alone”

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler)

“Work Out Your Own Salvation” & Protestant Soteriology (vs. Ken Temple)

*****

But whose works are we talking about? The Spirit’s works? If so, then we are left again with only faith, itself a gift. For justification IS A TOTAL GIFT: Sola Gratia.

I don’t believe any educated Protestant will call Catholics semi-Pelagian. There is an academic definition, and Catholics don’t fit it. I do believe, however, that the way Catholicism is sometimes practiced is “Pelagianizing” in its effects. Much as Arminianism does in Protestantism, it ascribes to the work of believers what should only be ascribed to God.

Once again, you seem to be thinking in paradigms that are not particularly biblical, at least not in these particular terms. You want to connect the Holy Spirit and “works” as if men’s works are not ours at all, and only those of the Spirit.

I got curious to see how that lined up in Scripture: the relationship of “Spirit” and “works.”

When I searched “Spirit” and “work[s]” in conjunction in the RSV, I got no connection.

When I searched the phrase “Spirit works” I got absolutely nothing.

Likewise, with “works of the Spirit” and “works of the Holy Spirit”. So those two thoughts cannot be said to be particularly “biblical”: at least insofar as the term “works” itself is concerned, as connected with the Spirit. When “works” are discussed, it is the usually works of man.

There are at least a few “hits” for “works of God”.

And for “works of the Lord”.

Also, there is one time that “God works” appears (Rom 8:28) and one time, “The Lord works” (Ps 103:6).

None of this is to deny (at all!) that God the Father or the Holy Spirit work. Of course they do. But we are talking about the relationship of man’s work to God’s work: does the latter wipe out the former, when it is referring to the same exact work?

I say no: the Bible doesn’t teach that.

The second thing to note is that when the Bible does discuss “God’s work” it is usually His alone, and has nothing to do with man. It’s just something He does, as God.

On the other hand, there is the motif of “workers with God”: which precisely supports my contention: we do the works, and God also does, in the enabling sense:

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; . . .

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

*****

As far as assurance is concerned, I am likewise convinced that there is very little difference between our respective paradigms. We simply draw the fulcrum (between despair and presumption) at alternate spots on the balance. You accuse us of presumption. We accuse you of despair.

It’s healthy to wonder if we are where we need to be in terms of our walk of faith. We need to make our calling sure. It is unhealthy to be totally in the dark as to whether we are in God’s good graces. We should not be doubting his work in our lives.

I agree that there is a lot of common ground here, too, and have written about it:

Bible on the Moral Assurance of Salvation (Persevering in Faith, with Hope)

John Calvin holds that we can’t know for sure who is of the elect. That puts a big qualification on [absolute?] “assurance”.

March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017 By

+ Documentation That White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite (J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff)

MaryAssumption5

Assumption of the Virgin (1637), by Guido Reni (1575-1642) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(9-7-05)

***

James White wrote a book called, Mary — Another Redeemer? His words will be in blue.

***

Evidence of the Mary Mediatrix doctrine in a primitive, relatively undeveloped sense, is seen in aspects of St. Irenaeus’ teaching. St. Irenaeus (130-202), in his famous Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:

“. . . so also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”

(3, 22, 4; from W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 1, p. 93, #224)

“. . . for in no other way can that which is tied be untied unless the very windings of the knot are gone through in reverse: so that the first joints are loosed through the second, and the second in turn free the first . . . Thus, then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied
through the obedience of Mary.”

(Against Heresies, III, 22,4; from William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954, 25)

William Most comments:

“Mary, says St. Irenaeus, undoes the work of Eve. Now it was not just in a remote way that Eve had been involved in original sin: she shared in the very ruinous act itself. Similarly, it would seem, Mary ought to share in the very act by which the knot is untied — that is, in Calvary itself.”

(in Most, ibid., 25)

“Just as the human race was bound over to death through a virgin, so was it saved through a virgin: the scale was balanced — a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience.”

(Against Heresies, V, 19, 1; cited in Most, ibid., 274)

 

Protestants like White often act as if this is extraordinary special pleading to see in remarks such as these a kernel of the notion of mediatrix or the always vastly misunderstood term, “co-redemptrix”. Funny, then, that the well-known Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly doesn’t think so (he precisely agrees with me):

The real contribution of these early centuries, however, was more positively theological, and consisted in representing Mary as the antithesis of Eve and drawing out the implications of this. Justin was the pioneer, although the way he introduced the theme suggests that he was not innovating . . . Tertullian and Irenaeus were quick to develop these ideas. The latter, in particular, argued [Against Heresies, 3, 22, 4; cf. 5, 19, 1] that Eve, while still a virgin, had proved disobedient and so became the cause of death both for herself and for all mankind, but Mary, also a virgin, obeyed and became the cause of salvation both for herself and for all mankind. “Thus, as the human race was bound fast to death through a virgin, so through a virgin it was saved.” Irenaeus further hinted both at her universal motherhood and at her cooperation in Christ’s saving work, describing [Ibid, 4, 33, 1] her womb as “that pure womb which regenerates men to God.”

(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition of 1978, 493-494, emphases added)

Even Bishop White is not a Church historian, so if it comes down to a conflict of historical fact between White and Kelly, it is obvious who has the advantage and who can be trusted for the facts. And that is not all one can find by way of Protestant historians. How about Philip Schaff? He writes:

The development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century in an allegorical interpretation of the history of the fall, and in the assumption of an antithetic relation of Eve and Mary, according to which the mother of Christ occupies the same position in the history of redemption as the wife of Adam in the history of sin and death [Rom 5:12 ff., 1 Cor 15:22] . . . Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a “mother of all living” in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, as Eve by her disobedience was the fountain of sin and death.

[Footnote: “Even St. Augustine carries this parallel between the first and second Eve as far as any of the fathers . . . “]

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974; reproduction of fifth edition of 1910, 414-415, emphases added. This work is available in its entirety online, too)

But James White makes the following profoundly ignorant historical summation:

…the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary. [pp. 75-76 of his book]

An old wise proverb says that “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” but maybe White can somehow pretend that these notions were absent from history, when they clearly were not, according to Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (two of the very best and most-cited, at that). Best wishes! I don’t envy him. And I think we can already see one reason why Bishop White won’t come out from behind his word-processor and defend his own historical absurdities from his book.

Furthermore, Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan (who converted to Orthodoxy after the following was written), observed the true focus of patristic and Catholic Mariology, during St. Irenaeus’ time:

. . . as Christian piety and reflection sought to probe the deeper meaning of salvation, the parallel between Christ and Adam found its counterpart in the picture of Mary as the Second Eve . . . in is fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.

For it mattered a great deal for christology whether or not one had the right to call Mary Theotokos [Mother of God] . . . an apt formula for their belief that in the incarnation deity and humanity were united so closely . . . It was a way of speaking about Christ at least as much as a way of speaking about Mary.

(The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. I: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), University of Chicago Press, 1971, 242-243)

The concept (in early development) of mediatrix was there in the quotes themselves and in the summary of Irenaeus’ teaching by Kelly and Schaff, where they actually relate it to “redemption” and “salvation” and use words like “mediate” and “instrumental” with regard to Mary’s place in the economy of redemption. The word no more has to be present than the word “Trinity” has to be in the Bible, in order to think that the teaching is there.

Co-redemptrix is also implicit in the concept of Second Eve, by its very nature, as shown above. It’s not just development (though that is a crucial component of this discussion), but the fact that the concept of New Eve was already in full force at this early stage (as early as Justin Martyr, who died in 165 — and Kelly says it looks like he was just passing on what he received).

It is not necessary to have a “Roman Catholic notion of development of doctrine” in order to accept this development, but to have whatever kind of development Schaff and Pelikan and Kelly accept (since they are not Catholics). This is the whole point. It’s not a “Catholic thing”; it is an “historical thing.” Schaff detests the very doctrines he is describing, and makes no bones about it, but he is also (invariably) an honest historian who presents the facts — whatever he thinks of them.

White detests the doctrines, too, but then tries to vainly pretend that they were absent from patristic history. This is the difference, and this is one of a multitude of reasons why I have long maintained that White is a sophist and special pleader. He himself accepts development in one area but denies it in another, and his criteria for doing so are completely arbitrary, self-contradictory, and instances of glaring double standards.

Development of Mariology is no different than development of any other doctrine. One may quibble with it because it is supposedly so “unbiblical,” but then one would have to also toss out the canon of Scripture, which is absolutely unbiblical. Etc. I’ve made all the arguments.

As far as I am concerned, so far, not one thing I have contended has been overthrown or refuted. It was claimed (by White and his defenders) that St. Irenaeus taught not a thing about Mary Mediatrix. I responded with Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (and a bit indirectly), Pelikan, who thought quite otherwise. It was claimed that I was demanding people to accept a presupposed Catholic version of development of doctrine. I showed how that was not the case, and my extensive reasoning for why I think that, in the review itself, needs to be dealt with.

In fighting heresy, one may express points of Mariology, just as he might express various aspects of christology, soteriology, anthropology, theology proper, etc. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If you are fighting heretical theology, you have to give orthodox theology to counter it (in fact, fighting error is often the occasion for some of the most elaborate expositions of orthodox theology, as a counterpoint; e.g., St. Augustine’s reactions to the Manichees and Donatists and Pelagians).

And if Mary is mentioned in any “theological” way, that is Mariology, pure and simple. It may be very primitive and undeveloped (of course it is, in the second century (Irenaeus’ era), though it is remarkably and surprisingly well-developed, given Protestant hostile assumptions about how little it should be by this time), but it remains Mariology because it offers some theology and interpretation of Mary.

Catholics have always stated that Mariology is christocentric, and that this was its primary purpose. It was to safeguard the deity and incarnation of Jesus. This is precisely why I cited Jaroslav Pelikan, in agreement with Catholic theology and perspective:

[I]n its fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.

White hasn’t proven that to argue about Christ necessarily excludes discussion of Mary, as if the two are like oil and water or two magnetic poles.  Mariology was (and is) a subset of christology. This is how Irenaeus approaches it, and how the Catholic Church does, as well.

Secondly, when people are presenting a primitive, undeveloped form of a doctrine, they don’t themselves know how far it will be developed in the future, by definition. If they did, there would be no development! But there is development, of every doctrine. The canon of Scripture developed; so did original sin, and the Hypostatic Union, and trinitarianism, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and Mariology, and sacramentology, and the doctrine of the atonement, and eucharistic theology. Irenaeus would have been incapable of presenting, e.g., the full intricate doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which was fully-developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

This is not just Catholic “special pleading” and “anachronistically reading our ‘papist’ views back into the 2nd century. I cited J.N.D. Kelly arriving at the same exact same conclusion about this very passage:

Irenaeus further hinted both at her universal motherhood and at her cooperation in Christ’s saving work, describing her womb as ‘that pure womb which regenerates men to God.’

So how is it that I am somehow the unreasonable one even though I can cite one of the leading Protestant patristic experts in exact agreement with my interpretation of Irenaeus?

Schaff (repeat!) also asserts a “universal motherhood” as an early patristic belief:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a ‘mother of all living’ in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, . . .

St. Irenaeus  wrote in Against Heresies, III, 21, 7:

7. On this account also, Daniel, foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what “without hands” means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.” So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.

Miravalle gives the Latin of the relevant phrase: sola Maria cooperante dispositioni.

James White claims that mediation and co-redemption are “completely absent” from “the early Church.” But Kelly, writing about Irenaeus’ Mariology, uses descriptive words like “cause of salvation,” “through a virgin it was saved,” “universal motherhood,” “cooperation in Christ’s saving work,” and “[her womb] regenerates men.” Schaff uses words like “The development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century,” “redemption,” ‘mother of all living’,” and “mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race.” What more does one need?

Furthermore, a few centuries later, these concepts became extremely explicit in some of the Fathers (precisely as we would expect from the nature of development itself). So. e.g., St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) wrote:

Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world — operata est mundi salutem – and when she conceived the redemption of all — concepit redemptionem universorum.

(in Mark I. Miravelle, ditor, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations, Santa Barbara, Califiornia: Queenship Publishing, 1995, p. 14; from Epist. 49,2; ML 16, 1154)

And:

She engendered redemption for humanity, she was carrying, in her womb, the remission of sins.

(in Miravelle, ibid., p. 14; from De Mysteriis III, 13; ML 16,393; De instit. Virginis 13,81; ML 16,325)

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) called Mary the “dispensatrix of all goods.” (in William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1963, 48)

Basil of Seleucia (died c. 458) referred to her as the “Mediatrix of God and men.” (in Most, ibid., 48)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote:


“Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved [sozetai].

(in Miravelle, ibid., p. 13; from MG 77, 992, and 1033; from the Council of Ephesus in 431)


The expression Mediatrix or Mediatress was found in two 5th-century eastern writers, Basil of Seleucia (In SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 444AB) and Antipater of Bostra (In S. Joannem Bapt., PG 85 1772C. The theory developed in the work of John of Damascus (d.c. 749; see Homilia I in Dormitionem, PG 96 713A) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.c.733; see Homilia II in Dormitionem, PG 98 321, 352-353).

(see Miravelle, ibid., 134-135)

The Protestant reference Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. F. L. Cross, 2nd ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 561), states concerning Patriarch Germanus:


“Mary’s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and her universal mediation in the distribution of supernatural blessings, are his two frequently recurring themes.”


St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the “Mediatrix of the law and grace” and also stated that “she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.”

(Nativ. Mariæ, Serm. 1 and Serm. 4, PG 97, 808, 865; in Miravelle, ibid., 283)

St. John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the “office of Mediatrix.”

(Hom. S. Mariæ in Zonam, PG 98, 377; in Miravelle, ibid., 283)

But remember, James White has informed us on pp. 75-76 and 137 of his book:

In fact, not only is the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.

[T]he push to define Mary as Coredemptrix flows out of the piety seen so plainly in Alphonsus Ligouri [sic] and Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort. It does not come to us from Scripture, nor does it come from history.

White consistently misspells Liguori as “Ligouri”. That saint lived from 1696-1787. White appears to date this theological development to him, but he is more than 1200 years off the mark, since, as shown, the very terms mediatrix or mediatress were being used in the 5th century by at least two writers, and the concept in kernel can be traced as far back as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. So much for Bishop White’s historiographical abilities . . . they are almost as deficient as his theological methodologies and conclusions.

Of course, he might want to argue that the 5th century (when St. Augustine and St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria lived) was not the time of the “early Church.” It wouldn’t be the oddest thing he has argued.

We need to avoid amateur historians like James White who is clearly in over his head when trying to discuss early Mariology. I’m no historian, either, but it is very easy for me to find substantiation from the best Protestant historians of Church history and the history of doctrine, for my point of view.

I thought it would be fun to search James White’s site in order to find out what he thinks of the scholarly abilities of Kelly and Schaff. This is what I found:

1) Article: “Exegetica: Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics” (3-4-02)

White cites “Protestant church historian” Kelly once with regard to whether Rome had a single bishop or a group of bishops in the second century (the same era as Irenaeus).

2) Article: “Did The Early Church Believe In the LDS Doctrine of God?” (7-27-00)

White, arguing against Mormonism, cites Kelly at length, introducing him as “One of the greatest patristic scholars”. And he is the only historian White cites, in an article about the “early Church”.

3) Article: The Pre-existence of Christ In Scripture, Patristics and Creed” (7-27-00)

Again, in an article dealing in part with patristics, White cites only Kelly as a scholar in his section “Patristic Interpretation.” And then in the following footnotes, look who he mentions:

“25) For the text of the Nicene Creed, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp. 215-216 and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28.

26) Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1:30.”

4) Article: “A Test of Scholarship” (11-13-98)

Again, Kelly is proclaimed as “One of the greatest patristic scholars” and White notes after a very long citation from Kelly: “I am appending a selection of quotations from the early Fathers that substantiates the conclusions of . . . Kelly quoted above.” White writes later:

“. . . J.N.D. Kelly’s fine work, Early Christian Doctrines (1978), a work that occupies a space close to my desk (for frequent reference).”

Jaroslav Pelikan’s comments on the notion of theosis in the early Church are also cited at length.

5) Article: “How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History?: An Example in a Recent Edition of This Rock Magazine” (7-25-00) [no longer online]

Kelly is cited three times as an expert on early Church ecclesiology. It stands to reason, that if Kelly can be used in an effort to show that Catholic Answers’ history on a certain disputed point is inaccurate, he can also be used in such a fashion against James White. After all, Kelly is obviously White’s favorite patristics scholar and historian of the early Church.

6) Article: “A Debate Between Professor James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Brother John Mary, Representing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” (7-24-00) [no longer online]

Kelly is cited as an expert about the very Church Father under consideration:

“I note that J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493).”

Note: Kelly sees no contradiction between Irenaeus’ belief in a non-sinless Mary and a Mary who is involved in co-redemption. He asserts that Irenaeus believed both things about Mary. So this is no disproof of the question at hand, but rather, a strong proof, since Kelly is obviously not an advocate of specifically “Catholic” dogma.

Philip Schaff is also cited pertaining to the question of whether Pope Sylvester called the Council of Nicaea.

7) Article: “The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology” (7-21-00)

White cites “noted patristic authority J.N.D. Kelly” with regard to the Council of Chalcedon and Christology, and his work is recommended for further reading on the Council.

Philip Schaff is mentioned even more times on White’s site (29 compared to 11 for Kelly):

8) “An In Channel Debate on Purgatory” (2-21-02)

White cites Schaff twice with regard to the views of Pope Gregory the Great.

9) “Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example” (4-11-00)

Schaff is cited interpreting a letter from Pope Zosimus.

10) “Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History” (10-25-00)

Schaff is mentioned twice with regard of the history of the proceedings of Vatican I.

11) “Whitewashing the History of the Church” (8-31-00)

Schaff is cited with regard to Cyril’s views and the Council of Florence. This provides us with more delightful irony (never lacking when one deals with the illustrious Bishop White), since if Schaff can be cited as a “witness” to alleged Catholic “whitewashing” of history, he can be utilized to show White engaging in this practice (with White’s full consent!).

12) “Truths of the Bible or Untruths of Roman Tradition? James White Responds to Tim Staples’ Article, “How to Explain the Eucharist” in the September, 1997 issue of Catholic Digest” (7-25-00) [no longer online]

Schaff is cited twice with regard to historical debates on transubstantiation.

 

November 15, 2016

November 15, 2016 By
LutherWorms2
Luther at the Diet of Worms [1521] (1877), by Anton von Werner (1843-1915) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*****
(2-28-10)
*****
Recently, I made this statement in a post about Luther:

Luther taught the absolute necessity of good works in the Christian life, as an inevitable manifestation of an authentic faith. He didn’t separate justification and sanctification to the degree that Calvin (or even his successor Philip Melanchthon) did.

But Luther also did a very poor job of communicating the subtleties of his “faith alone” (sola fide) soteriology to the masses: most of whom were incapable of analyzing the fine distinctions entailed (a state of affairs which is largely true even to our present time). In his extreme rhetoric of separation of faith and works, the necessary continuing connections that Luther in fact maintained in his theology, rightly understood, were lost in the public mind. In this sense, he showed himself to be rather excessively naive, as to the likely misunderstandings that would result and how many people would act in ways that he neither condoned nor envisioned.

As a result, there was a strong tendency at first towards antinomianism and anarchism (neither sanctioned by Luther) among the populace, as evidenced by an increase of immorality (noted often by Luther himself) and the Peasants’ Revolt.

 

Now onto Luther’s own words (all the words below, with my blue highlighting and a few added bracketing Scripture references, mostly drawn from other Table-Talk versions). What he states below is scarcely different (if at all) from what St. Paul taught. There are errors elsewhere in his soteriology, assuredly, but I see none here, from an orthodox Catholic perspective.

* * * * *

St Paul says: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” etc. [Romans 8:3-4] That is, Christ is the sum of all; he is the right, the pure meaning and contents of the law. Whoso has Christ [1 John 5:12], has rightly fulfilled the law. But to take away the law altogether, which sticks in nature, and is written in our hearts and born in us, is a thing impossible and against God. And whereas the law of nature is somewhat darker, and speaks only of works, therefore, Moses and the Holy Ghost more clearly declare and expound it, by naming those works which God will have us to do, and to leave undone. Hence Christ also says: “I am not come to destroy the law.” [Matthew 5:17] Worldly people would willingly give him royal entertainment who could bring this to pass, and make out that Moses, through Christ, is quite taken away. O, then we should quickly see what a fine kind of life there would be in the world! But God forbid, and keep us from such errors, and suffer us not to live to see the same.
*

We must preach the law for the sake of evil and wicked, but for the most part it lights upon the good and godly, who, although they need it not, except so far as may concern the old Adam, flesh and blood, yet accept it. The preaching of the Gospel we must have for the sake of the good and godly, yet it falls among the wicked and ungodly, who take it to themselves, whereas it profits them not; for they abuse it, and are thereby made confident. It is even as when it rains in the water or on a desert wilderness, and meantime, the good pastures and grounds are parched and dried up. The ungodly out of the gospel suck only a carnal freedom, and become worse thereby; therefore, not the Gospel, but the law belongs to them.

(Table-Talk, translated by Henry Hazlitt, CCLXXXVI, CCLXXXVII)
*

The cause that I at the first so harshly spake and wrote against the law was this; the Christian Church was grievously burdened with manifold superstitions and false believings, and Christ was altogether darkened and buried. Therefore I was desirous (through the grace of God, and the Word of the Gospel) to deliver good and godly hearts from such tormenting of consciences; but I never rejected the law.

(Table-Talk, “Extracts Selected by Dr. Macaulay,” p. 58, cf. Google Reader Bell / Lauterbach / Aurifaber version, p. 197)
*

Anno 1541, certain propositions were brought to Luther as he sat at dinner, importing that the Law ought not to be preached in the church, because we are not justified thereby: at the sight whereof he was much moved to anger, and said, “Such seducers do come already among our people, while we yet live: what will he done when we are gone?” “Let us,” said he, “give Philip Melancthon the honour due unto him; for he teacheth exceeding well and plainly of the right difference, use, and profit of the Law and Gospel. I, also, teach the same; and have thoroughly handled that point in the Epistle to the Galatians. . . . he that taketh the doctrine of the Law out of the church, doth rend and tear away both political and household government; and when the Law is cast out of the church, then there is no more acknowledging of sins in the world: for the Gospel reproveth not sin, except it maketh use of the office of the Law, which is done spiritually in describing and revealing sins that are committed against God’s will and command.”

(Table-Talk, translated by Henry Bell in 1650 from the Anthony Lauterbach / Joannes Aurifaber version; “Certain Principle Doctrines of the Christian Religion” section; from the year 1541, pp. 197-198)
*
Whether we should preach only of God’s Grace and Mercy, or not.

Philip Melancthon demanded of Luther whether the opinion of Calixtus were to be approved of, namely, that the Gospel of God’s Grace ought to be continually preached. For thereby, doubtless, said Melancthon, people would grow worse and worse. Luther answered him and said: We must preach Gratiam, notwithstanding, because Christ hath commanded it. And although we long and often preach of grace, yet when people are at the point of death they know but little thereof. Nevertheless we must also drive on with the Ten Commandments in due time and place.

The ungodly, said Luther, out of the Gospel do suck only a carnal freedom, and become worse thereby; therefore not the Gospel, but the Law belongeth to them. Even as when my little son John offendeth: if then I should not whip him, but call him to the table unto me, and give him sugar and plums, thereby, indeed, I should make him worse, yea, should quite spoil him.
*

The Gospel is like a fresh, mild, and cool air in the extreme heat of summer, that is, a solace and comfort in the anguish of the conscience. But as this heat proceedeth from the rays of the sun, so likewise the terrifying of the conscience must proceed from the preaching of the Law, to the end we may know that we have offended against the Laws of God.

Now, said Luther, when the mind is refreshed and quickened again by the cool air of the Gospel, then we must not be idle, lie down and sleep; that is, when our consciences are settled in peace, quieted and comforted through God’s spirit, then we must show also and prove our faith by such good works which God hath commanded. But so long as we live in this vale of misery, we shall be plagued and vexed with flies, with beetles, and with vermin, etc., that is, with the devil, with the world, and with our own flesh; yet we must press through, and not suffer ourselves to recoil.
*
Against the Opposers of the Law.

I do much condemn, said Luther, the Antinomians, who, void of all shame, reject the doctrine of the Law, whereas the same is both necessary and profitable. But they see not the effect, the need, and the fruit thereof. St. Austin did picture the strength, the office and operation of the Law, by a very fit similitude, namely, that it discovereth our sins, and God’s wrath against sin, and placeth them in our sight; for the Law is not in fault, but our evil and wicked nature, even as a heap of lime is still and quiet until water be poured thereon, but then it beginneth to smoke and to burn, not that it is the fault of the water, but it is the nature and kind of the lime, which will not endure water; but if oil be poured upon it, then it lieth still and burneth not. Even so it is with the Law and Gospel. It is an exceedingly fair similitude.

(Table-Talk, translated by Henry Bell in 1650 from the Anthony Lauterbach / Joannes Aurifaber version; “Of the Law and the Gospel” section; from the year 1541)
*

For thus do the Anabaptists teach, that baptism is nothing except the person do believe. Out of this principle must needs follow, that all the works of God be nothing if the man be nothing. But baptism is the work of God, and yet an evil man maketh it not to be the work of God. . . . Who seeth not here, in the Anabaptists, men not possessed with devils, but even devils themselves possessed with worse devils? . . .

If one heresy die, by and by another springeth up, for the devil doth neither slumber or sleep. I myself, which, although I be nothing, have been now in the ministry of Christ about twenty years, can truly witness that I have been assailed with more than twenty sects, of the which some are already destroyed, . . . But Satan, the god of all dissension, stirreth up daily new sects, and last of all (which, of all other, I should never have foreseen or once suspected), he hath raised up a sect of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church, and that men should not be terrified with the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ . . . Such is the blindness and presumption of these frantic heads, which even by their own judgment do condemn themselves. . . . let the minister of Christ know that so long as he teacheth Christ purely, there shall not be wanting perverse spirits, yea, even of our own, and among ourselves, which shall seek, by all means possible, to trouble the church of Christ. . . . Yea, let him rejoice in the troubles which he suffereth by these sects and seditious spirits, continually springing up one after another.

(Commentary on Galatians, Lafayette, Indiana, Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc., 2002, Preface, pp. xxi-xxii)

Related Reading:

Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith [4-16-08]

Luther on Theosis & Sanctification [11-23-09]

*****

Meta Description: Catholics need to be careful to not distort Luther’s true teachings about what “faith alone” means (i.e., it is not antinomianism).

Meta Keywords: Martin Luther, Luther, Mosaic Law, law & grace, Luther’s soteriology, antinomianism, extrinsic justification, Faith Alone, Faith and Works, imputed justification, infused justification, initial justification, Justification, justification by faith alone, Luther & justification, Pelagianism, Protestant soteriology, Salvation, sanctification, semi-Pelagianism, snow-covered dunghill, Sola Fide, soteriology

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
We Should Take Hell Seriously
A Little Bit of Nothing
2
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
3
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
4
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
This Month in Life May 2024
Apologetics: What Is It Good For? Some Say,...
6 Things You Can Actually Do to Help...
Vs. James Swan #2 Re Luther’s Mariology, Pt....
Many Ways To Worship God
A Yard Full of Gifts
view all Catholic blogs