![\"WittenbergChurch\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/10\/WittenbergChurch.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nLutheran church in Wittenberg, Germany where the Protestant Revolt began, with Martin Luther<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license<\/span>]<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n (10-14-11)<\/p>\n * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Nathan\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Dave, I appreciate your approach and your clarity with which you write, but at the same time, it seems to me that right from the get-go you have not been nuanced enough in your presentation.\u00a0 <\/b>You have, I believe unintentionally, misrepresented Chemnitz\u2019s true position.\u00a0 The problem is not elevating \u201cTradition and Church Authority higher in the scheme of things than they ought to\u201d.\u00a0 The problem is the improper use of Church Authority and the concept of Tradition, in violation of the Rule of Faith.<\/b><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Okay; I\u2019ll wait to see how you unpack that. I need particulars to grapple with before I can reply intelligently.<\/p>\n (at one point, Chemnitz says that some \u201cexcellent men in the church\u201d \u201cattributed too much beside the Scripture to the unwritten traditions\u201d, p. 278, so maybe this is where you got the idea for framing things the way you did).\u00a0 Again, there is no doubt that the church with its proper Rule of Faith (and Apostolic Ministry to, by the way \u2013 this is clearly something that Jesus established and we have no reason to assume that it will not exist until his return\u2026 Jesus approves Apostles who approve pastors who approve pastors who approve pastors\u2026) goes hand in hand with the Scriptures.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Catholic-Lutheran (or Catholic-Protestant) beef is not whether the Church (however defined) has authority at all<\/i>, but whether it has infallible<\/i> authority. Lutherans and Chemnitz reject the latter; we affirm it. I\u2019m either right or wrong about it. If I am right, then the discussion must proceed on that basis (disputing the parameters of infallibility). If I\u2019m wrong, then please show me where Chemnitz affirms an institutional, historical, infallible Church. When he talked about indefectibility, he simply defined that as the invisible, mystical Church, whereby anyone can assert just about anything, because it is not historical, objective analysis. He certainly rejected the authority of the existing (Roman) Catholic Church.<\/p>\n Having done that, he has to argue why that Church somehow ceased to be the Church (since there is only one such), and by the same token, why anyone should believe that a new movement begun in the 16th century somehow magically becomes \u201cthe Church\u201d to the exclusion of the historical one, or why the definition of \u201cChurch\u201d all of a sudden becomes purely mystical and invisible, when it had always included a visible, institutional, historical aspect. He can\u2019t do any of that. This is always the unsolvable problem that belief-systems run up against in trying to argue from Church history. There are a host of interconnected problems that I don\u2019t see can be resolved at all.<\/p>\n They are a whole, part and parcel of one another.\u00a0 The real problem, as Chemnitz would see it, is going beyond<\/i> that proper Rule of Faith, in the sense that this means insisting that certain traditions without sufficient Scriptural warrant (this does exist for infant baptism \u2013 it is unacceptable to deny the wealth of evidence implicit in Scripture, as well as the consensus of antiquity [save Tertullian] here) need to be adhered to with the same level of devotion as those revealed in the Scriptures (with the implication that, for those who know better, salvation is at stake if the Magisterium is refused). Furthermore, things become especially problematic when these said traditions clearly mitigate the Gospel comfort that God means to provide.\u00a0 In other words, this would, in effect, actually be mitigating the Rule of Faith itself, that central truth in the creed: that God, in His grace, promised to, and was, reconciling man to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, rescuing us from sin, death, and the devil by the confidence-creating proclamation of His forgiveness, life and salvation won by His life, death, and resurrection (the Gospel in its narrow sense, particularly comforting to Christians who are struggling against the sin that continues to best them [see Romans 7])<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Again, the charge has to be argued with regard to particular individual instances. I can\u2019t dispute these summary statements.We believe in Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient saving work on the cross (ours to receive by Grace Alone), just as you do. We only deny an extreme Faith Alone position (which does not deny Grace Alone, since they are distinct).<\/p>\n As to Tertullian seeking to ground all doctrine in Scripture, or harmonious with Scripture (meaning that there may not always be explicit proofs, as Chemnitz himself later concedes with regard to, e.g., infant baptism) we have no disagreement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t think Chemnitz is conceding anything here.\u00a0 That there may not always be explicit proofs is a key part of Chemnitz\u2019s point and method.<\/b>\u00a0 However saying that there need not always be explicit proofs does not mean that there can be no proof<\/i> \u2013 or proof that is less than strong and insurmountable.\u00a0 What is really essential about this quotation is that Tertullian really believed that all essential and binding doctrine should be grounded in Scripture.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So do Catholics; so do I. The question here is what is meant by \u201cgrounded.\u201d I already went through all this in the paper from which you drew this quotation of mine, and you have not refuted it in the slightest. Tertullian\u2019s view was documented and commented upon at great length (green font). You\u2019re still making bald summary statements rather than actually interacting with my arguments. Tertullian believed in the Catholic rule of faith: all doctrines must be in harmony with Scripture; not necessarily expressly stated in Scripture. Two sentences after my words above, I also stated:<\/p>\n Yet in this same work, Tertullian clearly opts for the binding authority of apostolic succession <\/span>and the Church<\/span>: exactly what Chemnitz and Lutherans <\/span>deny<\/span>: [followed by lengthy Tertullian citations]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I followed the lengthy citation with this comment:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> Chemnitz doesn\u2019t write like this; most Protestants do not. This is (again) Catholicism. It is perfectly permissible to say that truth is grounded in apostolic succession and the Church grounded therein. It is also true to say that truth is grounded in Holy Scripture. The two do not contradict. But they need not always be stated together. Chemnitz will only state them together while stressing over and over again that Scripture is over Tradition and the Church.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But Tertullian, Irenaeus, and other Fathers saw no need to dichotomize and categorize like that. They simply didn\u2019t think in those terms (as historians of doctrine have stressed). It requires revisionism and historical anachronism to make out that they thought like 16th century Lutherans on these issues. Chemnitz has the same exact problem, then, with Tertullian here, that he had with Irenaeus (since he made the same exact argument for both, and both are seen to not conform to his characterization).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I then cited historian J. N. D. Kelly at length, about Tertullian. That can be read in the other paper. Here are the most relevant two of the five paragraphs:<\/p>\n But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g., de praescr<\/span>. 21; 32; c. Marc<\/span>. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr. <\/span>28] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the \u2018rule of faith\u2019 (regula fidei<\/span>), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., in the Church [De praescr<\/span>. 19] . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t see the purpose of my simply having to repeat arguments I already made, that you are not interacting with, and passing by as if they weren\u2019t there. Your task is\u00a0 to overthrow my contentions, not merely state that they are wrong: which is mere bald assertion<\/i>.<\/p>\n In the introduction to the Examination of the Council of Trent<\/i>, translator Fred Kramer says that Chemnitz is the source of the \u201cformal principle of the Reformation\u201d: \u201cthat the Scriptures, and not tradition of a combination of the Scriptures and tradition, is the source and norm of doctrine in the Christian church\u201d (p. 22).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Obviously, Tertullian does not take the same view; therefore, Chemnitz could not reasonably enlist him for his side, just as he also could not \u201cclaim\u201d St. Irenaeus (dealt with in the same paper). They don\u2019t help his case. They only appear<\/i> to if they are cited hyper-selectively.<\/p>\n I think Kramer himself is not being nuanced enough!\u00a0 Remember, Chemnitz lists 8 kinds of tradition, only rejecting the eighth one<\/i>.\u00a0 Please note that in most modern interpretations of the formal principle of the Reformation, types 3-7 are typically rejected as well.\u00a0 Chemnitz, contra J.A.O. Preuss even (evidently) did not simply use the fathers as \u201cwitnesses\u201d to the Reformation doctrine, but they are sometimes essential in working out tradition #5: \u201cdogmas that are not set forth in so many words in Scripture but are clearly apparent from a sampling of texts\u201d.<\/b>\u00a0 So the question here is this: how<\/i> does Chemnitz go about using the Scriptures as the \u201csole source and norm\u201d?\u00a0 This can be seen in how he teaches infant baptism in his Enchidrion<\/i>. First, he says that it has been practiced in the church from the time of the Apostles: the writings of the fathers provide the proof for the practice and its defense. Notice that here the writings of the church fathers function as more than witnesses.\u00a0 They are pointing back to the apostolic interpretation of the applicable texts.\u00a0 After one has been exposed to this patristic testimony, when the texts are read again, their true meaning becomes clear (yes, even if the Baptist continues to deny it\u2026and no, the same cannot be said for the hierarchical distinctions between bishops and presbyters, as Jerome pointed out).\u00a0 This also goes beyond issues like Baptism into things like the Trinity and Christ\u2019s divine and human natures.\u00a0 Chemnitz elsewhere states that certain fathers explain certain concepts the most clearly of all, and that the fathers taught these concepts after clearly drawing them from Scripture (more on this below). (P. Strawn, Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz, in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wolfenbu\u201dttleler Forschungen, Bd. 85, Hrsg. v. David C. Steinmetz, Wiesbaden 1999213)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Okay; I have no particular reply. Chemnitz may do any number of things. That is not my primary interest, but rather, whether the fathers and the Bible support the Catholic or the Lutheran position (where we disagree). Whether Chemnitz is in perfect accord with the Lutheran confessions or not is as irrelevant (for the Lutheran dogmatic standpoint) as whether Luther in in accord with them. It may be interesting as an historical matter, but resolves nothing by way of comparing Lutheranism and Catholicism.<\/p>\n Now, it is true that one can label Chemnitz\u2019s view as \u201cSola Scriptura\u201d in a sense.\u00a0 He believed, as the Chemnitz-infused Formula of Concord would later say, \u201cWe receive and embrace with our whole heart the Prophetic and Apostolic Scripture of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel which is the only standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged\u201d (851, Triglot, Bente and Dau).\u00a0 Paul Strawn explains Chemnitz\u2019s view in more detail: \u201cthe Word of God, first given verbally to Adam, underwent a continuous process of corruption and restoration until the time of Moses\u201d [which explains God doing things in Tablets of Stone: the Word committed to writing preserved the true doctrine]\u2026 and \u201cChrist and the Apostles repeated the process with the production of the New Testament writings\u2026. Christ and the Spirit assisted Apostles who gave the Word verbally, and after a time the Apostles or their assistants committed the Word to writing to secure it from the dangers of verbal transmission.\u201d\u00a0 In sum: \u201cThe verbal and the written Word continued to exist side by side, but the latter always corroborated the former\u201d (P. Strawn, Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz, in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wolfenbu\u201dttleler Forschungen, Bd. 85, Hrsg. v. David C. Steinmetz, Wiesbaden 1999213)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is essentially asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture, which I and Catholics generally accept. Thus, this particular aspect of Lutheran teaching on authority, we have no gripe with.<\/p>\n Strawn concludes: \u201cChemnitz\u2019s enumeration of the Scriptures as the first of eight types of traditiones clearly reflected, and generated, an optimistic assessment of the non-apostolic writings of the church.\u00a0 The basis for such a construction, the pre-biblical, co-biblical, and post-biblical verbal transmission of the Word of God [I note: tradition #4 \u2013 Scripture\u2019s proper interpretation] assured a dynamic interaction between the verbally transmitted Word, and the Word committed to writing.\u00a0 The concepts of source and norm therefore do not violently tear the Scriptures away from the fabric of the theological writings of the Church, but in fact the opposite: they assure their continual interaction and help to retain the apostolic witness in its dominant position\u2026.\u201d (217).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Great. But there is still the issue of the denial of the infallibility of anything besides Scripture, that I delved into in the last installment.<\/p>\n Again, I would add that this looking back to the Scriptures is part and parcel of the Rule of Faith, and one we see clearly outlined in Scripture with the Bereans in Acts 17 (note also Isaiah 8:20 especially).\u00a0 Strawn, again, is very helpful here:\u00a0 \u201cobviously, the Bereans went searching the Scriptures because Paul\u2019s sermons contained ideas or concepts they had not formerly heard, understood, or realized.\u00a0 Paul introduced nothing new, however, just pointed to something that before had not been properly noticed.\u00a0 This interpretation of the Bereans\u2019 actions creates the possibility that the fathers could introduce \u2018new\u2019 concepts into the sixteenth century, i.e. those concepts that the reformers had not understood before reading the fathers, that were then affirmed by a rereading of Scripture.<\/b>\u201d\u00a0 (p. 215)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Interesting.\u00a0 We would only qualify this by saying that any such true concepts would have to be grounded in continuous Catholic teaching. St. Vincent of Lerins\u2019 \u201cdictum\u201d: \u201cbelieved always, everywhere, and by all\u201d (which is a strong generalization, but we get the point). Development of doctrine comes into play here. Things were present in kernel form at first, for many doctrines, and developed through the centuries.<\/p>\n I agree with this assessment.\u00a0 However, I want to see this challenged as well: what is there that I have not \u201cproperly noticed\u201d I wonder?\u00a0 (I can think of one that I am actually somewhat curious about, and open to hearing more about: the establishment of a head Apostolic Office by Divine rite, although in the sense of primacy of honor rather than by jurisdiction\u2026)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I think that is in the Bible itself, with a great deal of indication. See many articles about biblical evidences for the papacy on my Papacy and Infallibility web page. And it\u2019s more than just \u201chonor\u201d; it is jurisdiction<\/i> by divine and scriptural proclamation.<\/p>\n And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church . . . Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. (pp. 208-209)\u2026 We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which have no testimony from any period in the church . . . We also hold that no dogma [I say: note the word \u201cdogma\u201d \u2013 this is key] that is new in the churches and in conflict with all antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies of antiquity? . . . we search out and quote the testimonies of the fathers . . . (p. 258)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is Chemnitz right?<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n He is wrong about Lutheranism being \u201cgreatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church.\u201d The exact opposite<\/i> is the case (i.e., if we are comparing the relative strengths of Catholic and Lutheran doctrines where we disagree<\/i> \u2014 which is always my primary interest as an apologist). He is right about things not conflicting with \u201call antiquity,\u201d but I would say he is inconsistent <\/i>in the application<\/i> of that standard, as a Lutheran. As for \u201cnew dogma\u201d: that has to be carefully defined. Development of doctrine is intricately involved in all that.<\/p>\n So, for example, the Catholic would say that the initial kernel and essence of the Immaculate Conception is the sinlessness of Mary: almost universally held by the fathers (a tiny minority thought she committed a few sins), and the notion of the Second Eve (Mary said \u201cyes\u201d to God whereas Eve had said \u201cno\u201d, thus opening the way to the Incarnation; Eve was sinless; by analogy, so was Mary).<\/p>\n This essential kernel (that is indeed indicated in Scripture: I make no less than four distinct biblical arguments for that (see my dialogue with Dr. Gene Edward Veith), then develops over centuries, with much reflection, to the Immaculate Conception, which is a consistent development of sinlessness: merely extending it back to her conception and to original as well as actual sin. So if you or Chemnitz claim there is \u201cnothing\u201d in Scripture whatever about this doctrine, I strongly disagree, and demonstrate otherwise. The Assumption follows logically: if Mary is without sin, even original sin, then it follows that she would not necessarily have to undergo the decay of death: she becomes like Adam and Eve before the fall. Thus it is directly deduced from a doctrine that has much implicit indication in Scripture, which is completely in accord with material sufficiency.<\/p>\n David, first, I agree with you that it is not right to take \u201cgrace alone\u201d quotes and use them as if Catholics do not affirm grace alone in some sense (we must acknowledge our different definitions of grace here).\u00a0 Agreed.\u00a0 If, however, in any quote grace is put in opposition to works it would certainly be appropriate to use such quotes.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n St. Paul does the latter in Scripture, but it is in a particular sense: the \u201cworks\u201d of Jewish ritualism by which the Jews gained their unique identity (e.g., circumcision). This is the crux of the new perspective on Paul<\/a>, by Protestant scholars like James D. G. Dunn<\/a>, E. P. Sanders<\/a>, and N. T. Wright<\/a>.\u00a0 The Wikipedia article on the movement gives a description of the central motif:<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of \u201cworks of the law\u201d. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by \u201cworks of the law\u201d is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The old perspective interprets this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God\u2019s standards (Works Righteousness<\/a>). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works (note the New Perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation- the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).<\/p>\n By contrast, new perspective scholars see Paul as talking about \u201cbadges of covenant membership\u201d or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Apostle Paul doesn\u2019t oppose grace, faith, and works, and in fact, constantly puts them together, in harmony, as I have shown, with 50 of his passages and color-coding, to make it easy to spot each conceptual category. A few examples:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:10<\/span> But by the grace of God<\/span> I am what I am, and his grace toward me<\/span> was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them<\/span>, though it was not I, but the grace of God<\/span> which is with<\/span> me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2 Corinthians 6:1<\/span> Working together with him<\/span>, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God<\/span> in vain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Grace and works are for Paul, quite hand-in-hand, just as faith and works are. The new perspective on Paul \u201cgets\u201d this. I\u2019m glad to see it. We Catholics have maintained something like this for 2000 years, and have refused to dichotomize grace, works, and faith. We only pit grace against works insofar as we deny (with you) Pelagianism: man cannot save himself. Trent is very clear on that. We don\u2019t<\/i> teach works-salvation (we vigorously deny it), despite what the Lutheran confessions wrongly (and frequently) assert about us.<\/p>\n Second, if the Fathers did not perceive a clear challenge to the idea that a person was saved by grace alone and not \u201cone\u2019s own works performed in righteousness\u201d in the early church, we would not really expect to find explicit statements talking about imputed justification, since they would have been unnecessary<\/b>.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n That\u2019s one theory. I think\u00a0 a more plausible views is that they didn\u2019t discuss it because it wasn\u2019t part of apostolic doctrine in the first<\/i> place: being absent from Scripture<\/i>.<\/p>\n Analogously, Cyril of Alexandria\u2019s ideas about Christ\u2019s divine and human nature were somewhat \u201cnew\u201d (a new way of putting things) and only implicit in the writings of other early church fathers \u2013 not to mention few and far between.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To my knowledge, in the early fathers there is no \u201cexplicit\u201d Cyril-like talk about Christ\u2019s divine and human nature in the centuries before him (much like the situation with Luther and his understanding of the peace and confidence-creating power of justification).<\/b><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Yes, but that is the distinction between a development and a novelty. Scripture states all over the place in many different ways that Jesus is God and that he is also Man. The two natures develops what is clearly already there (describing how He can be both God and man, and the relationship). But Scripture doesn\u2019t <\/i>teach faith alone at all; thus the fathers do not, either. In fact, the only time the phrase appears in the Bible, it is expressly denied<\/i>:<\/p>\n James 2:24<\/b> (RSV) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul states:<\/p>\n Romans 3:28<\/b> For we hold that a man is justified by <\/b>faith apart from works of law. (cf. 3:20; 3:24: \u201cjustified by his grace as a gift\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But saying \u201cjustified by faith\u201d is different from saying\u00a0 \u201cjustified by faith alone<\/i>\u201c. The \u201cworks of the law\u201d he refers to here are not all works, but things like circumcision. In other words, we are saved apart from Jewish rituals required under Mosaic Law. Paul makes clear that this is what he has in mind, in referencing circumcision in 3:1, asking rhetorically, \u201cAre we Jews any better off? No, not at all\u201d (3:9), multiple references to \u201cthe law\u201d (3:19-21, 28, 31), and the following statement:<\/p>\n Romans 3:29-30<\/b> Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul is not against all \u201cworks\u201d per se<\/i>; he tied them directly to salvation, after all, in the previous chapter:<\/p>\n Romans 2:6-8 <\/b>For he will render to every man according to his works<\/i>: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing<\/i> seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life<\/i>; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey <\/i>the truth, but obey<\/i> wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.(cf. 2:13: \u201cthe doers of the law who will be justified\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So when Luther (or more so, Melanchthon and Calvin) introduce a novel notion of justification, there is no precedent; thus it is an instance corruption of doctrine; a heresy, rather than a consistent development of what came before.<\/p>\n The only difference here would be that Cyril\u2019s new way of putting old truth (and Athanasius\u2019 too, by the way) found wide acceptance among the faithful (though we see many break-offs here at this point as well), in a relatively speedy fashion,<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Yes, because it is true and a biblical doctrine; therefore it caught on. The Holy Spirit guides His Church.<\/p>\n whereas with Luther, he was taken up quickly only in some quarters, with the lion\u2019s share of the work to still be done, as the devil fights against this doctrine of justification with everything he has.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n It was new in his time precisely because it was a false doctrine, and unbiblical (some of the evidence of which I have shown above). If it had been a true doctrine it would have been present before in history, as opposed to supposedly being rescued from obscurity, being \u201clost\u201d and all the other self-justifying (pun half-intended) \u201cReformation\u201d rhetoric. It was obscure because it was a false doctrine! All heretical doctrines are \u201cobscure\u201d until someone dreams them up in their head. Pedigree and being able to be traced was always central in the patristic apologetic for Catholic orthodoxy. The \u201cdevil\u201d doesn\u2019t fight against justification by faith alone<\/i>; the Church<\/i> does, because it opposes what is novel and false and unbiblical.<\/p>\n Nothing personal<\/i>; this is our view of it . . .<\/p>\n Now, to preach justification rightly, one needs to take into account the purpose of the Word to comfort sinners and bring them real peace with God (Rom. 5:1, I John 5:12), and this brings us to the next three points\u2026.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Yep; regeneration, justification and peace with God are all crucial in the Christian life.<\/p>\n Third, the doctrine of \u201cFaith alone\u201d (found in the fathers and the Scriptures, insofar as Paul places faith and works in opposition)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s found in neither. I\u2019ve shown how Paul doesn\u2019t<\/i> place them in opposition; it\u2019s a fundamental misunderstanding of his teaching that is now (thankfully) finally being corrected in Protestant circles after centuries of rather elementary error.<\/p>\n is really useful when people do not feel like they have done enough \u2013 we do preach works, but for the purposes of pastoral comfort, we must acknowledge that the idea of \u201cfaith alone\u201d (see Romans 4:5 and Romans 7 here especially) is a crucial tool to have in the pastor\u2019s tool box.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s not crucial anywhere if it is a false doctrine.<\/p>\n Romans 4:5<\/b> And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Catholic interpretation is similar in many ways to the Lutheran; different in some other ways. Here is what the Navarre Commentary <\/i>states about this passage:<\/p>\n The act of faith is the first step towards obtaining justification (= salvation). The Magisterium of the Church teaches that, usually, those who are making their way towards faith predispose themselves in this sense: moved and helped by divine grace they freely direct themselves towards God because they believe in the truth of Revelation and, above all, believe that God, in his grace, justifies the sinner \u201cthrough the redemption which is in Christ Jesus\u201d (Rom 3:24). This first act of faith moves the person to recognize and repent of his sins; to put his trust in God\u2019s mercy and to love him above all things; and to desire the sacraments and resolve to live a holy life (cf. Council of Trent, De iustificatione<\/i>, chap. 6). God reckons this faith \u201cas righteousness,\u201d that is to say, as something which deserves to be rewarded. It is not, therefore, good works that lead to justification; rather, justification renders works good and meritorious of eternal life<\/b>. Faith opens up for us new perspectives. [bolding my own]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4, in emphasizing faith, over against the Jewish works of circumcision as a supposed means of faith and justification (hence, he mentions circumcision in 4:9-12, and salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews in 4:13-18).<\/p>\n Regular contributor to my blog, \u201cAdomnan\u201d offered some very helpful commentary on Romans 4:5:<\/p>\n . . . \u201cthe one who does not work but believes \u2014 I would translate \u201cbelieves\u201d rather than \u201ctrusts\u201d here \u2014 him who justifies the ungodly\u201d is not a generalization about all who believe, but refers specifically to Abraham. Paul sees Abraham at this point as typical of all Gentiles who believe, or perhaps as their exemplar or \u201cfather.\u201d However, Abraham is the sole person being spoken of.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Dave\u2019s note:<\/i> \u201ctrusts\u201d in RSV for Romans 4:5 is pisteuo<\/i> (Strong\u2019s word #4100),\u00a0 which is translated in the KJV \u201cbelieve\u201d or \u201cbeliever\u201d (1) or \u201cbelieving\u201d (1) 238 times out of\u00a0 246 total appearances, or 97% of the time (\u201ctrust\u201d also a few times) ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When Paul says that Abraham \u201cdoes not work,\u201d he isn\u2019t saying that Abraham has not done good works. In fact, Abraham had been justified since he responded to God\u2019s self-revelation in Ur and had done many good works worthy of being reckoned as righteous. Romans 4:5 is describing but one instance of a good work (an act of faith) that was reckoned as righteous.<\/p>\n In context, \u201cdoes not work\u201d means \u201cis not doing the works of the Law:\u201d that is, Abraham has not yet been circumcised and is still a Gentile. He does not do works of Jewish Law, works of Torah.<\/p>\n In Greek the phrase \u201cthe one who does not work\u201d could be translated \u2014 clumsily \u2014 as \u201cthe non-working one,\u201d non-working not in the sense of not doing good works but in the sense of not doing works of Torah. Paul\u2019s use of the definite pronoun suggests he has a definite person in mind (Abraham).<\/p>\n In the second part, \u201cbelieves on him who justifies the ungodly,\u201d the word \u201cungodly,\u201d in context, does not mean wicked. Abraham was not wicked at this stage in his life. He was already justified. It means \u201cGentile.\u201d \u201cUngodly\u201d in Greek is asebes<\/i>, a word that refers to the sphere of religious observance, and not to evil in a wider moral sense. Essentially, it means \u201cnon-observant\u201d of the Jewish Law, or \u201cimpious\u201d from the point of view of the Jewish Law (which would be the point of view of the Judaizers). We have no adequate word to render this concept in modern English, but \u201cGentile\u201d comes closest.<\/p>\n Paul is saying that someone \u2014 Abraham in this case \u2014 could be \u201cimpious\u201d from the point of view of the Jewish Law (i.e., a Gentile), but righteous from the point of view of God. \u201cJustifies the ungodly\u201d thus amounts to \u201cregards the Gentile Abraham as righteous.\u201d<\/p>\n In sum, Paul is saying that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham (not for the first time!) while he was still a Gentile<\/i>. And this is the same point that Paul makes throughout Romans 3 and 4; i.e., Gentiles don\u2019t have to become Jews to be judged righteous by God. They only have to respond to God\u2019s revelation with faith, as Abraham did while still as Gentile.<\/p>\n Or, to paraphrase all of Romans 4:5: \u201cAnd to Abraham before he had done any works of Torah but still believed in Him who regards the Gentile as righteous, his belief was credited as an act of righteousness.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Abraham\u2019s justification is also discussed in James 2, and there it is explicitly tied in with works, thus providing a perfect complementary (very \u201cCatholic\u201d) balance with Romans 4:<\/p>\n James 2:20-26<\/span> <\/b>Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren<\/b>? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?<\/b> [22] You see that faith was active along with his works<\/b>, and faith was completed by works<\/b>, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone<\/b>. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works<\/b> when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a wonderful cross-reference to Romans 4 in another respect: both cite the same Old Testament passage (Gen 15:6: seen in Rom 4:3 and James 2:23; also Gal 3:6). James, however, gives an explicit interpretation<\/i> of the Old Testament passage, by stating, \u201cand the scripture was fulfilled<\/i> which says, . . .\u201d (2:23). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this<\/i> is what James says \u201cfulfilled\u201d Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns distinctive Protestant and Lutheran soteriology by disagreeing the notion of \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the clearest way imaginable.<\/p>\n Scripture has to be interpreted as a harmonious whole. We Catholics can easily do that with these two passages: Roman 4 shows that the specific works of the Law that Jews lived by were not absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Abraham\u2019s faith was the key, while James 2 is discussing the organic connection between faith and works (in a general sense, using the willingness to sacrifice Issac as an example), thus showing how \u201cfaith alone\u201d is a meaningless and unscriptural concept: faith can never be totally separated from works, except in initial justification, since (in Catholic teaching as well as Protestant) no work we do can bring us initially to justification: that is all God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n If you have a superior explanation, I\u2019d love to hear it. James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to sanctification<\/i>, but that is not what the passage says<\/i>. It mentions \u201cjustified\u201d (dikaioo<\/i>: Strong\u2019s word #1344) three times<\/i> (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words ( hagiazo <\/i>\/ hagiasmos<\/i>: Strong\u2019s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).<\/p>\n Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin offers some great commentary about Abraham, and the multiple instances of his justification, as seen in these passages and others in Genesis:<\/p>\n But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul\u2019s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham \u201cbelieved God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d (Rom. 4:3). This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.<\/p>\n Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before <\/i>or after<\/i> Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both. First, the book of Hebrews tells us that \u201cBy faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going.\u201d (Hebrews 11:8) Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith\u2014the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)\u2014so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.<\/p>\n But when<\/i> did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it \u201cwhen he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive<\/i>.\u201d The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4\u2014three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.<\/p>\n But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, \u201cWas not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, \u2018Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,\u2019 and he was called the friend of God.\u201d (James 2:21-23)<\/p>\n James thus tells us \u201c[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified \u2026 when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?\u201d In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.<\/p>\n Abraham therefore received justification\u2014that is, a fuller fruition of justification\u2014when he offered Isaac. The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18\u2014seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.<\/p>\n Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.<\/p>\n As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer\u2019s life.<\/p>\n [Footnote: Protestants often object to this understanding of James 2, claiming that in that passage Abraham was said to be justified before men rather than before God. There are abundant exegetical reasons why this is not the case. Abraham was justified before God by offering Isaac, as will be shown in our chapter on progressive justification. But once the Protestant recognizes that the Bible teaches in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham was already justified before he was justified in Genesis 15:6, there is not nearly so much motive to try to twist James 2:21-23 into meaning something else. Hebrews 11:8 already showed that justification is a process, and James 2:21-23 merely confirms that fact.]<\/p>\n (Salvation Past, Present, and Future<\/a>; a somewhat expanded printed version of this argument occurs in his book, The Salvation Controversy<\/i><\/a> [San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001], 19-21)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for Romans 7: the human difficulties with sin described there find their solution in the redemption through Jesus that Paul describes in Romans 8: one of the most fabulous chapters in the Bible. And at the climax of that chapter Paul makes reference to necessary works:<\/p>\n Romans 8:16-17<\/b> it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him<\/b> in order that<\/b> we may also be glorified with him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We have to be willing to undergo voluntary suffering in order to receive this justification and salvation, which is a work. It\u2019s not doing nothing whatsoever<\/i> besides accepting the free gift; otherwise all the words after \u201cprovided\u201d wouldn\u2019t be there, because they make no sense: talking about doing something when it is a completely free gift. Other passages in the chapter imply works as well: \u201cwalk not according to the flesh\u201d (8:4), \u201cthose who live according to the Spirit\u201d (8:5), and \u201cif by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live\u201d (8:13)<\/p>\n This is all in accord with judgment passages. I found 50. All of them without exception discuss works as the criterion for eternal life and salvation, while faith alone is never mentioned. Faith <\/i>occurs a few times, but always in conjunction with works.<\/p>\n Justification is a one-time event in that it begins at a point in time, but it is to be applied perpetually until we die. We need the constant reassurance and actual forgiveness of God in Christ applied to us throughout our Christian lives. We need to know that we do have, in some very real sense, peace with God, as Romans says.\u00a0 Otherwise, our faith dies.\u00a0 Chemnitz says this well: \u201cGod does not confer and convey grace in this life just once, so that it is at once complete and perfect, so that as long as we are in this life God would will and convey nothing more, and that a person would need to receive nothing more from God; but God is always giving and man is always receiving, in order that we may be joined more and more fully and perfectly to Christ,<\/b> and may hold the forgiveness of sins or reconciliation more firmly, so that the benefits of redemption,\u00a0which have been begun in us, may be preserved and strengthened and may grow and increase.\u201d \u00a0\u2013 Examen II: 76,77.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The \u201capplied perpetually\u201d part makes it not much different from our view. We say that justification is described in the Bible as having a past (Rom 5:1-2, 1 Cor 6:11), present (Rom 5:9; Phil 2:12), and future orientation (Rom 2:13; 3:20; Gal 5:5). You say it is \u201ca one-time event\u201d that is \u201capplied perpetually.\u201d We say it is not a one-time event because it is multiple and perpetual. But it\u2019s not that different, since \u201cperpetual application\u201d is little different from \u201congoing\u201d or \u201cmultiple.\u201d If Scripture refers to it in three tenses, then multiple occurrence is a plausible interpretation.<\/p>\n Fourth, Lutherans believe in giving people the confidence of faith, but also talk about how you can lose your faith (we are not Calvinists) \u2013 there is nothing un-Lutheran about saying that \u201cwe walk in danger all the way\u201d, and that we must strive in faith<\/i> (faith has a passive and active element) to continuously cling to Christ, huddle up next to His side (where He is we will also be) as His sheep, and run to Him to repeatedly hear His life-giving words, etc.\u00a0 Again, if we do not, our faith dies.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n We agree.<\/p>\n Fifth, when it comes to the life of the believer, we simply do not believe in a separation of justification and sanctification.\u00a0 The simple child who lives in a relationship with God does not need to distinguish between justification and sanctification \u2013 they simply live as His child, and insofar as they are saints, they eagerly hear His voice and do what He commands (I once wrote the following: \u201cThe complicated systematic, theological \/ philosophical constructs that [we often depend on], though certainly able to influence the experiences of the few who think in their grooves, primarily derive from and serve to make sense of the general experiences of all believers, simple and sophisticated alike. Simple words which even children can understand shape Christian experience and are the foundation of the deeper systematic and theological \/ philosophical constructs, which also, certainly, serve useful purposes.\u201d) \u00a0\u00a0They happily and freely acknowledge that even though they are saved <\/span>by faith<\/i>, at the final judgment the Judge will judge them <\/span>according to works<\/i> before their neighbors.\u00a0 They learn that those who are tempted to stray from His ways and do may, at some point in the future, no longer desire His forgiveness for their wanderings \u2013 and hence, no longer desire Him.\u00a0 Further, there is no doubt that it is true that no one who is not sanctified will be saved, as Luther himself indicated.\u00a0 We believe in <\/span>distinguishing<\/i> between justification and sanctification only because Rome\u2019s understanding of it was so faulty and destroyed good pastoral practice (see above).<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Mostly common ground. If you want to show how Lutherans distinguish<\/i> the two from Scripture (and whatever it is in our understanding that is so \u201cfaulty\u201d according to you), then I\u2019ll be happy to show how we put them together<\/i>, based on Scripture.I have documented, myself, how Martin Luther stressed the necessity of good works and how he even espoused some notion of theosis; also his opposition to antinomianism. I also show, however, that he didn\u2019t understand Paul\u2019s use of \u201cworks of the law\u201d, in two papers. How he thoroughly misrepresented Catholic soteriology and fought many straw men in that respect would require a dissertation in itself.<\/p>\n I enjoyed this; especially the delving into Holy Scripture, which I always love with a passion. I found some things I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve noticed before, in the justification debate.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (vs. Nathan Rinne) Lutheran church in Wittenberg, Germany where the Protestant Revolt began, with Martin Luther\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons\u00a0\/\u00a0Creative Commons\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported\u00a0license] * * * (10-14-11) * * Nathan\u2019s words will be in blue. * * * Dave, I appreciate your approach and your clarity with which you write, but at the same time, it seems […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5847,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[415,50],"tags":[2004,2003,2001,2002],"class_list":["post-359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lutheranism","category-salvation-justification","tag-lutheran-soteriology","tag-lutheran-theology","tag-lutheranism-justification","tag-lutheranism-salvation"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n