March 18, 2020

Chapter 11 of my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (July 2004 / 3rd revised edition July 2015, 335p), co-authored with Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier (Byzantine Catholic), pp. 275-302.

***

In Chapter Five, I briefly alluded to the fact that theosis (profound union with God) is just as much a part of Western tradition as it is in the Eastern tradition (yet it is often oddly claimed that this is not the case at all). I cited just one of St. John of the Cross’ many statements concerning this wonderful teaching of Catholic and Orthodox spirituality, and also related ones from St. Thomas Aquinas. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes reference to it:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”(2 Pet 1:4): “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God” (Irenaeus) . . . “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (Athanasius).

1996 Our justification come 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.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life” (Council of Trent). The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due…Our merits are God’s gifts” (Augustine).

Presently, I shall cite St. Augustine on the topic, and fourteen Catholic mystics (whose notable utterances I recently compiled in my book, Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives).

For this thing God does, out of sons of men He makes sons of God: because out of Son of God He has made Son of Man. See what this participation is: there has been promised to us a participation of Divinity: . . . For the Son of God has been made partaker of mortality, in order that mortal man may be made partaker of divinity. . . . He that to you has promised divinity, shows in you love. (Explanations of the Psalms, 53:3 [53, 5] )

Let human voices be hushed, human thoughts still: let them not stretch themselves out to incomprehensible things, as though they could comprehend them, but as though they were to partake of them, for partakers we shall be….Partakers then we shall be: let none doubt it: Scripture says it. And of what shall we be partakers, as though these were parts in God, as though God were divided into parts? Who then can explain how many become partakers of one single substance? . . . it is good that he confess weakness, who desires to attain to the divine nature. (Explanations of the Psalms, 147:5 [147, 9] )

And the Son of God came and was made the Son of man, that He might re-create us after the image of God . . . (On the Trinity, iv, 4, 7)

[W]e should love that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and by believing in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in the spirit through faith, that we should be justified by being made one in the one righteous One; and that we should not despair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself, when we consider that the one Head had gone before us the many members; in whom, being now cleansed through faith, and then renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cleave to the One, to feast upon the One, to continue one. (On the Trinity, iv, 7, 11)

For there is but one Son of God by nature, who in His compassion became Son of man for our sakes, that we, by nature sons of men, might by grace become through Him sons of God. For He, abiding unchangeable, took upon Him our nature, that thereby He might take us to Himself; and, holding fast His own divinity, He became partaker of our infirmity, that we, being changed into some better thing, might, by participating in His righteousness and immortality, lose our own properties of sin and mortality, and preserve whatever good quality He had implanted in our nature perfected now by sharing in the goodness of His nature. For as by the sin of one man we have fallen into a misery so deplorable, so by the righteousness of one Man, who also is God, shall we come to a blessedness inconceivably exalted. (City of God, xxi, 15)

[T]he Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity. (City of God, xxi, 16)

O pure and holy love! most sweet and blessed affection! O complete submission of a disinterested soul; most perfect in that there is no thought of self; most sweet and tender in that the soul’s whole feeling is divine! To attain to this, is for the soul to be deified; as a small drop of water appears lost if mixed with wine, taking its taste and colour; and as, when plunged into a furnace, a bar of iron seems to lose its nature and assume that of fire; or as the air filled with the sun’s beams seems rather to become light than to be illuminated. So it is with the natural life of the Saints; they seem to melt and pass away into the will of God. For if anything merely human remained in man, how then should God be all in all? It is not that human nature will be destroyed, but that it will attain another beauty, a higher power and glory. (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Love of God, ch. 10)

He who with full face looks to this propitiatory by looking upon Him suspended on the cross in faith, hope, and charity, in devotion, wonder, exultation, appreciation, praise, and jubilation, makes a passover – that is, the phase or passage [Exod. 12:11] with Him – that he may pass over the Red Sea by the staff of the cross from Egypt into the Desert, where he may taste the hidden manna . . . In this passage, if it is perfect, all intellectual operations should be abandoned, and the whole height of our affection should be    transferred and transformed into God. This, however, is mystical and most secret, which no man knoweth but he that hath received it [Apoc. 2:17], nor does he receive it unless he desire it; nor does he desire it unless the fire of the Holy Spirit, Whom Christ sent to earth, has inflamed his marrow. And therefore the Apostle says that this mystic wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit. . . . If you should ask how these things come about, question grace, not instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the wholly flaming fire which will bear you aloft to God with fullest unction and burning affection. This fire is God, and the furnace of this fire leadeth to Jerusalem; and Christ the man kindles it in the fervor of His burning Passion, . . . (St. Bonaventure, The Mind’s Road to God, ch. 7)

[W]e are taken possession of by the Holy Ghost, and we take possession of the Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son, and the whole Divine Nature: for God cannot be divided. . . . In that very moment in which man turns away from sin, he is received by God in the essential unity of his own being, at the summit of his spirit, that he may rest in God, now and evermore. And he also receives grace, and likeness unto God, in the proper source of his powers, that he may evermore grow and increase in new virtues. . . . For whosoever lives without sin, he lives in likeness unto God, and in grace, and God is his own.  (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, Bk. II, ch. 59-60)

[S]ince the spirit is now like unto God, and means and loves God alone above all gifts, it will no longer be satisfied by likeness, nor by a created brightness; . . . the spirit is enkindled into fruition, and it melts into God as into its eternal rest; for the grace of God is to God even as the sunshine is to the sun, and the grace of God is the means and the way which leads us to God. And for this reason it shines within us in simplicity, and makes us deiform, that is, like unto God. And this likeness perpetually merges itself in God, and dies in God, and becomes one with God, and remains one, for charity makes us one with God, and causes us to remain one and to dwell in the One. (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, Bk. II, ch. 63)

[S]uch enlightened men are, with a free spirit, lifted up above reason into a bare and imageless vision, wherein lives the eternal indrawing summons of the Divine Unity; and, with an imageless and bare understanding, they pass through all works, and all exercises, and all things, until they reach the summit of their spirits. There, their bare understanding is drenched through by the Eternal Brightness, even as the air is drenched through by the sunshine. . . . the created image is united above reason in a threefold way with its Eternal Image, which is the origin of its being and its life; and this origin is preserved and possessed, essentially and eternally, through a simple seeing in an imageless void: and so a man is lifted up above reason in a threefold manner into the Unity, and in a onefold manner into the Trinity. Yet the creature does not become God, for the union takes place in God through grace and our homeward-turning love: and therefore the creature in its inward contemplation feels a distinction and an otherness between itself and God. (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Book of Supreme Truth, ch. 11)

[T]he more disengaged and abstracted the self-egression of such souls is, the more free will be their soaring exaltation; and the more free their exaltation, the deeper will be their penetration into the vast wilderness and unfathomable abyss of the unknown Godhead, wherein they are immersed, overflowed, and blended up, so that they desire to have no other will than God’s will, and that they become the very same that God is: in other words, that they be made blessed by grace as He is by nature. (Bl. Henry Suso, A Little Book of Eternal Wisdom, Pt. I, ch. 12)

For the annihilation of the spirit, its passing away into the simple Godhead, and all its nobility and perfection, are not to be regarded as a transformation of man’s created essence into God, in virtue of which all that he is is God, only that he does not perceive it through his grossness, or, in other words, that he has become God, and his own essence is annihilated; but they are to be understood of a going out of self, and a contempt for self, such as has been described. And thus it is that the spirit of a man is taken out of itself and passes away duly and rightfully, and then for the first time it is well with him. For God has now become all things to him, and all things have become, as it were, God to him; for all things present themselves to him now in the manner in which they are in God, and yet they all remain each one what it is in its own natural essence. (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 52)

In this merging of itself in God the spirit passes away, and yet not wholly; for it receives indeed some attributes of the Godhead, but it does not become God by nature. . . . it is unclothed of all created modes, though without ceasing to retain its own proper mode of existence as a creature. (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 56)

This entry of the spirit into God strips it of all images, forms, and multiplicity, and it loses consciousness of itself and all things, and Becomes merged with, the three Persons in the abyss of their indwelling simplicity, and enjoys there its highest and truest bliss. Here all striving and seeking cease, for the beginning and the end have become one, and the spirit, being divested of itself, has become one with them, . . . (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 57)

If a man could only once in his life thus turn to God, it would be well for him. Those men whose God is so powerful, and Who has been so faithful to them in all their distress, will be answered by God with Himself. He draws them so mysteriously unto Himself and His own blessedness; their spirits are so lovingly attracted, while they are at the same time so filled and transfused with the Godhead, that they lose all their diversity in the Unity of the Godhead. These are they to whom God makes their work here on earth a delight; so that they have a real foretaste of that which they will enjoy for ever. (Johannes Tauler, The Inner Way, Sermon 10)

This prayer is the entrance into union of the created spirit with the uncreated Spirit of God, and is the result of a design formed by the Holy Godhead throughout eternity. These men are the true worshippers of God, who worship God the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . All has been poured forth into God and has become one spirit with God; as St Paul says: “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” [1 Cor 6:17] What that is and how it comes to pass, it is easier to experience than to describe. All that has been said of it is as poor and unlike it as the point of a needle is to the heavens above. (Johannes Tauler, The Inner Way, Sermon 36)

The third sort, which is as perfect Contemplation as can be had in this life, consisteth both in knowing and affecting; that is, in knowing and perfect loving of God, which is when a man’s soul is first reformed by perfection of virtues to the image of Jesus, and afterwards, when it pleaseth God to visit him, he is taken in from all earthly and fleshly affections, from vain thoughts and imaginings of all bodily creatures, and, as it were, much ravished and taken up from his bodily senses, and then by the grace of the Holy Ghost is enlightened, to see by his understanding Truth itself (which is God) and spiritual things, with a soft, sweet, burning love in God, so perfectly that he becometh ravished with His love, and so the soul for the time is become one with God, and conformed to the image of the Trinity. The beginning of this Contemplation may be felt in this life, but the full perfection of it is reserved unto the bliss in heaven. Of this union and conforming to our Lord speaks St Paul thus: Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est cum eo; [1 Cor. 6:17]. that is to say, he who by ravishing of love is become united to God, God and that soul are not now two, but both one. (Walter Hilton, The Scale [or, Ladder] of Perfection, Bk. I, Pt. I, ch. 8)

Highly ought we to rejoice that God dwelleth in our soul, and much more highly ought we to rejoice that our soul dwelleth in God. Our soul is made to be God’s dwelling-place; and the dwelling-place of the soul is God, Which is unmade. And high understanding it is, inwardly to see and know that God, which is our Maker, dwelleth in our soul; and an higher understanding it is, inwardly to see and to know that our soul, that is made, dwelleth in God’s Substance: of which Substance, God, we are that we are. And I saw no difference between God and our Substance: but as it were all God; and yet mine understanding took that our Substance is in God: that is to say, that God is God, and our Substance is a creature in God. For the Almighty Truth of the Trinity is our Father: for He made us and keepeth us in Him; . . . the high Goodness of the Trinity is our Lord, and in Him we are enclosed, and He in us. We are enclosed in the Father, and we are enclosed in the Son, and we are enclosed in the Holy Ghost. And the Father is enclosed in us, and the Son is enclosed in us, and the Holy Ghost is enclosed in us: Almightiness, All-Wisdom, All-Goodness: one God, one Lord. And our faith is a Virtue that cometh of our Nature-Substance into our Sense-soul by the Holy Ghost; in which all our virtues come to us: for without that, no man may receive virtue. For it is nought else but a right understanding, with true belief, and sure trust, of our Being: that we are in God, and God in us, Whom we see not. (Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, ch. 54)

Oh, abyss of love! What heart can help breaking when it sees such dignity as Yours descend to such lowliness as our humanity? We are Your image, and You have become ours, by this union which You have accomplished with man, veiling the Eternal Deity with the cloud of woe, and the corrupted clay of Adam. For what reason?—Love. Wherefore, You, O God, have become man, and man has become God. (St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, “A Treatise of Discretion”)

[B]y following His doctrine with the affection of love, you are united with Him, and, being united with Him, you are united with Me, because We are one thing together. And so it is that I manifest Myself to you, because We are one and the same thing together. (St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, “A Treatise of Discretion”)

Above thyself thou art: for why, thou attainest to come thither by grace, whither thou mayest not come by nature. That is to say, to be united to God, in spirit, and in love, and in accordance of will. Beneath thy God thou art: for why, although it may be said in manner, that in this time God and thou be not two but one in spirit—insomuch that thou or another, for such onehead that feeleth the perfection of this work, may soothfastly by witness of Scripture be called a God—nevertheless yet thou art beneath Him. For why, He is God by nature without beginning; . . . only by His mercy without thy desert are made a God in grace, united with Him in spirit without departing, both here and in bliss of heaven without any end. So that, although thou be all one with Him in grace, yet thou art full far beneath Him in nature. (The Cloud of Unknowing: ch. 67)

Wherefore God took human nature or manhood upon Himself and was made man, and man was made divine. (Theologia Germanica, ch. 3)

Behold! albeit no man may be so single and perfect in this obedience as Christ was, yet it is possible to every man to approach so near thereunto as to be rightly called Godlike, and “a partaker of the divine nature.” [2 Pet 1:4] And the nearer a man cometh thereunto, and the more Godlike and divine he becometh, the more he hateth all disobedience, sin, evil and unrighteousness, and the worse they grieve him. (Theologia Germanica, ch. 16)

Let Your presence wholly inflame me, consume and transform me into Yourself, that I may become one spirit with You by the grace of inward union and by the melting power of Your ardent love. (Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ,  Bk. IV, ch. 16)

A heart which finds itself in God sees all created things beneath itself, not through pride or conceit of self, but by reason of its union with God, which makes all that is God’s appear to be its own, and beside him it sees, knows, and comprehends nothing. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Spiritual Dialogue, Pt. III, ch. 8)

God receives her into himself, where she is transformed by his burning love, and thus transformed remains in him forever. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Spiritual Dialogue, Pt. III, ch. 13)

I behold such a great conformity between God and the soul, that when he finds her pure as when his divine majesty first created her he gives her an attractive force of ardent love which would annihilate her if she were not immortal. He so transforms her into himself that, forgetting all, she no longer sees aught beside him; and he continues to draw her toward him, inflames her with love, and never leaves her until he has brought her to that state from whence she first came forth, that is, to the perfect purity in which she was created. . . . And when this is accomplished, she rests wholly in God. Nothing of herself remains, and God is her entire being. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Treatise on Purgatory, ch. 9-10)

[T]he soul . . . is inflamed with so burning a desire to be transformed into God, that in it she finds her purgatory. Not, indeed, that she regards her purgatory as being such, but this desire, so fiery and so powerfully repressed, becomes her purgatory. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Treatise on Purgatory, ch. 11)

How this, which we call union, is effected, and what it is, I cannot tell. Mystical theology explains it, and I do not know the terms of that science; nor can I understand what the mind is, nor how it differs from the soul or the spirit either: all three seem to me but one; though I do know that the soul sometimes leaps forth out of itself, like a fire that is burning and is become a flame; and occasionally this fire increases violently—the flame ascends high above the fire; but it is not therefore a different thing: it is still the same flame of the same fire. . . . What I undertake to explain is that which the soul feels when it is in the divine union. It is plain enough what union is—two distinct things becoming one. . . . one moment is enough to repay all the possible trials of this life. The soul, while thus seeking after God, is conscious, with a joy excessive and sweet, that it is, as it were, utterly fainting away in a kind of trance: breathing, and all the bodily strength, fail it, so that it cannot even move the hands without great pain; the eyes close involuntarily, and if they are open, they are as if they saw nothing; nor is reading possible,—the very letters seem strange, and cannot be distinguished,—the letters, indeed, are visible, but, as the understanding furnishes no help, all reading is impracticable, though seriously attempted. The ear hears; but what is heard is not comprehended. The senses are of no use whatever, except to hinder the soul’s fruition; and so they rather hurt it. It is useless to try to speak, because it is not possible to conceive a word; nor, if it were conceived, is there strength sufficient to utter it; for all bodily strength vanishes, and that of the soul increases, to enable it the better to have the fruition of its joy. Great and most perceptible, also, is the outward joy now felt. . . . Let us now come to that which the soul feels interiorly. Let him describe it who knows it; for as it is impossible to understand it, much more is it so to describe it. When I purposed to write this, I had just communicated, and had risen from the very prayer of which I am speaking. I am thinking of what the soul was then doing. Our Lord said to me: It undoes itself utterly, My daughter, in order that it may give itself more and more to Me: it is not itself that then lives, it is I. As it cannot comprehend what it understands, it understands by not understanding. He who has had experience of this will understand it in some measure, for it cannot be more clearly described, because what then takes place is so obscure. All I am able to say is, that the soul is represented as being close to God; and that there abides a conviction thereof so certain and strong, that it cannot possibly help believing so. (St. Teresa of Ávila, Autobiography, ch. 18)

One day, in prayer, I felt my soul in God in such a way that it seemed to me as if the world did not exist, I was so absorbed in Him. (St. Teresa of Ávila, Autobiography, Relation 9)

[I]f this is genuine union with God, the devil cannot interfere nor do any harm, for His Majesty is so joined and united with the essence of the soul, that the evil one dare not approach, nor can he even understand this mystery. This is certain, for it is said that the devil does not know our thoughts, much less can he penetrate a secret so profound that God does not reveal it even to us. . . .  These heavenly consolations are above all earthly joys, pleasure, and satisfaction. As great a difference exists between their origin and that of worldly pleasures as between their opposite effects, as you know by experience. . . . If we did not see it, how can we feel so sure of it? That I do not know: it is the work of the Almighty and I am certain that what I say is the fact. I maintain that a soul which does not feel this assurance has not been united to God entirely, . . . (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. V, ch. 1)

So mysterious is the secret and so sublime the favour that God thus bestows instantaneously on the soul, that it feels a supreme delight, only to be described by saying that our Lord vouchsafes for the moment to reveal to it His own heavenly glory in a far more subtle way than by any vision or spiritual delight. As far as can be understood, the soul, I mean the spirit of this soul, is made one with God Who is Himself a spirit, and Who has been pleased to show certain persons how far His love for us extends in order that we may praise His greatness. He has thus deigned to unite Himself to His creature: He has bound Himself to her as firmly as two human beings are joined in wedlock and will never separate Himself from her. . . . Perhaps when St. Paul said, ‘He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit,’ [1 Cor 6:17] he meant this sovereign marriage, which presupposes His Majesty’s having been joined to the soul by union. (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. VII, ch. 2)

[D]oubtless by its becoming one with the Almighty, by this sovereign union of spirit with spirit, the soul must gather strength, as we know the saints did, to suffer and to die. (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. VII, ch. 4)

[I]n order to reach the summit of this high mount, it must have changed its garments, which, through its observance of the first two things, God will change for it, from old to new, by giving it a new understanding of God in God, the old human understanding being cast aside; and a new love of God in God, the will being now stripped of all its old desires and human pleasures, and the soul being brought into a new state of knowledge and profound delight, all other old images and forms of knowledge having been cast away, and all that belongs to the old man, which is the aptitude of the natural self, quelled, and the soul clothed with a new supernatural aptitude with respect to all its faculties. So that its operation, which before was human, has become Divine, which is that that is attained in the state of union, wherein the soul becomes naught else than an altar whereon God is adored in praise and love, and God alone is upon it. (St. John of the Cross,  Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. I, ch. 5)

In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God’s sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness. (St. John of the Cross,  Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. II, ch. 5)

[W]hen the memory is transformed in God, it cannot receive impressions of forms or kinds of knowledge. Wherefore the functions of the memory and of the other faculties in this state are all Divine; for, when at last God possesses the faculties and has become the entire master of them, through their transformation into Himself, it is He Himself Who moves and commands them divinely, according to His Divine Spirit and will; and the result of this is that the operations of the soul are not distinct, but all that it does is of God, and its operations are Divine, so that, even as Saint Paul says, he that is joined unto God becomes one spirit with Him. Hence it comes to pass that the operations of the soul in union are of the Divine Spirit and are Divine. . . . all the first motions of the faculties of such souls are Divine and it is not to be wondered at that the motions and operations of these faculties should be Divine, since they are transformed in the Divine Being. . . . as Saint Paul says, the sons of God who are transformed and united in God, are moved by the Spirit of God, that is, are moved to perform Divine work in their faculties. And it is no marvel that their operations should be Divine, since the union of the soul is Divine. (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. III, ch. 2)

The tenth and last step of this secret ladder of love causes the soul to become wholly assimilated to God, by reason of the clear and immediate vision of God which it then possesses; when, having ascended in this life to the ninth step, it goes forth from the flesh. These souls, who are few, enter not into purgatory, since they have already been wholly purged by love. Of these Saint Matthew says: Beati mundo corde: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. And, as we say, this vision is the cause of the perfect likeness of the soul to God, for, as Saint John says, we know that we shall be like Him. Not because the soul will come to have the capacity of God, for that is impossible; but because all that it is will become like to God, for which cause it will be called, and will be, God by participation. (St. John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul, Bk. II, ch. 20)

When the soul has lived for some time as the bride of the Son, in perfect and sweet love, God calls it and leads it into His flourishing garden for the celebration of the spiritual marriage. Then the two natures are so united, what is divine is so communicated to what is human, that, without undergoing any essential change, each seems to be God — yet not perfectly so in this life, though still in a manner which can neither be described nor conceived. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXII)

For as the understanding of the soul will then be the understanding of God, and its will the will of God, so its love will also be His love. Though in heaven the will of the soul is not destroyed, it is so intimately united with the power of the will of God, Who loves it, that it loves Him as strongly and as perfectly as it is loved of Him; both wills being united in one sole will and one sole love of God. Thus the soul loves God with the will and strength of God Himself, being made one with that very strength of love with which itself is loved of God. This strength is of the Holy Spirit, in Whom the soul is there transformed. He is given to the soul to strengthen its love; ministering to it, and supplying in it, because of its transformation in glory, that which is defective in it. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXXVIII)

This is a certain faculty which God will there give the soul in the communication of the Holy Spirit, Who, like one breathing, raises the soul by His divine aspiration, informs it, strengthens it, so that it too may breathe in God with the same aspiration of love which the Father breathes with the Son, and the Son with the Father, which is the Holy Spirit Himself, Who is breathed into the soul in the Father and the Son in that transformation so as to unite it to Himself; for the transformation will not be true and perfect if the soul is not transformed in the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in a clear manifest degree. This breathing of the Holy Spirit in the soul, whereby God transforms it in Himself, is to the soul a joy so deep, so exquisite, and so grand that no mortal tongue can describe it, no human understanding, as such, conceive it in any degree; for even that which passes in the soul with respect to the communication which takes place in its transformation wrought in this life cannot be described, because the soul united with God and transformed in Him breathes in God that very divine aspiration which God breathes Himself in the soul when it is transformed in Him. . . . God has bestowed upon it so great a favor as to unite it to the most Holy Trinity, whereby it becomes like God, and God by participation, . . . the soul becomes like God, Who, that it might come to this, created it to His own image and likeness. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXXIX)

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier

Dave has done a great service to his readers in weaving together a tapestry of quotes from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as writings of Western Catholic fathers, saints and mystics. For my part, I would like to offer a brief overview of this subject as well, since many readers may not be familiar with this doctrine, which has especially come to the forefront of Orthodox teaching in recent decades as a means of recovering the patristic witness in Eastern soteriology. At the conclusion, I will also make mention of certain modern polemical developments within Orthodoxy.

In recent years, one of the subjects that has received greater scholarly and popular attention in both Western and Eastern Christian circles is the doctrine of Christian deification, or – according to the Greek term by which it is better known – , theosis. The historical reasons for this modern resurgence of interest in a subject dating back to at least the 2nd century and arguably the New Testament period itself, are many, and will not be covered here.1

It should suffice to say that the interest in theosis is wide-ranging, going far beyond its typical treatment in Eastern Orthodox settings to include both Catholics and Protestants in dialogue, most especially as it pertains to the roots of this doctrine in both Scripture and studies of the teachings of the Church fathers.

Daniel Keating has written a very helpful summary of this doctrine in both modern and ancient authors in his Deification and Grace (Ave Maria, Florida: Sapientia Press, 2007). On the evangelical side of the aisle, Daniel B. Clendin’s Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003) has in many respects opened up new vistas of dialogue and exchange between the Orthodox East and the Protestant West, exposing many of the children of the Reformation to the rich theological and spiritual heritage of their Eastern brethren. In this work he dedicates an entire chapter to the subject of “The Deification of Humanity: Theosis.”

Other very important recent treatments include Father David Vincent Meconi, S.J.’s The One in Christ: St. Augustine’s Theology of Deification (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013), Christopher Veniamin’s The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: “Theosis” in Scripture and Tradition (Dalton, Pennsylvania: Mount Thabor publishing, 2014), as well as the edited work by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung entitled Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Baker Academic, 2007).

This particular work includes contributions from some eighteen authors all of whom hail from varied ecclesiastical and theological affiliations: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. And explores the development of the doctrine of theosis through four historical periods: Classical and Late Antiquity, the wide-spanning patristic period, the Medieval and Reformation eras and in modern times.

Luther, Calvin and Wesley’s treatment of this subject are explored in depth: which speaks to the potential resonance this subject can have in the ecumenical dialogue among Christians.     This fact has not been lost on Protestant biblical scholar, Michael J. Gorman, whose work, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2009), sees theosis as the best description of Paul’s entire doctrine of salvation, weaving together the threads of an incarnational and trinitarian kenosis as well as the doctrine of justification into “a single soteriological reality of inhabiting the cruciform God revealed in Christ by the power of the Spirit from the first moment of faith to the eschatological goal of complete glory.”2

To say more about Gorman’s treatment at this point would take us far afield and wouldn’t do justice to the whole argument of his project, but suffice it to say that this subject is far from limited to more narrow dogmatic and confessional commitments. When one considers how the ancient and modern Christian East, as will be shown, places theosis at the centerpiece of God’s creative and redemptive intentions, it is easy to understand why the implications are far more reaching.

The purpose of this small contribution is far more modest in its scope: to explore the main points of the doctrine of Christian deification or theosis by way of introduction in the hope that it establishes a foundation for further ecumenical exploration and discussion.

What is Theosis?

Theosis or deification has a long history, going back even into pre-Christian or especially pre-Socratic Hellenistic antiquity.3 In comparing pagan Greek antecedents to the Christian doctrine of theosis, John Lenz identifies in his chapter on “Deification and the Philosopher in Classical Greece,” in Partakers of Divine Nature, points of continuity and also profound discontinuity, especially as it relates to Platonism and its critical treatment by the fathers.4

That being said, the fact that the name was appropriated and cleansed of any pagan presuppositions antithetical to the gospel is not in itself a reason to discard it since, as will be seen, its fuller and fulfilled sense within the Christian message is based on divine revelation.

The Christian understanding of theosis is simply that it is “the ancient theological word used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God.”5 It reflects the meaning of the words of the Second Epistle of Peter, which will be treated shortly, in which Christ makes us “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Peter 1:4). This understanding of deification or theosis should not be understood in the sense of an immediate appropriation of the divine nature. Rather it is to be understood metaphorically within the broader context of the divine economy. According to Russell:

All theological language is rooted in metaphor. Redemption, for example, means literally ‘being ransomed or bought back.’ Salvation means ‘being made safe and whole.’ Theosis or ‘becoming god,’ implies more than redemption or salvation. It is not simply remedying our defective human state. It is nothing less than our entering into partnership with God, our becoming fellow workers with him (1 Cor 3.9) for the sake of bringing the divine economy to its ultimate fulfillment.6

Such a process occurs by virtue of the incarnation of Christ within the unfolding divine plan or economy of salvation. As the Orthodox Study Bible states:

Deification means that we are to become more like God through His grace or divine energies. In creation, humans were made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) according to human nature. In other words, humanity by nature is an icon or image of the deity. The divine image is in all humanity. Through sin, however, this image and likeness of God was marred and we fell. When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, the process of our being renewed in God’s image and likeness was begun…Because of the incarnation of the Son of God, because the fullness of God has inhabited human flesh, being joined to Christ means that it is again possible to experience deification, the fulfillment of our human destiny. That is, through union with Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature – we “become children of God” (John 1:12). His deity interpenetrates our humanity.7

Two points stand out in this paragraph. First, theosis is first and last a matter of participation in the energies of divine grace – that is the divine life and love overflowing from the Holy Trinity – and not by direct, immediate sharing in the divine nature, which would be a form of pantheism. This covenantal grace of theosis is ultimately something mediated to us through the Christ’s high priesthood and our incorporation into His living Body, the church.

Second, the ontological basis for this participation is twofold. It is based, first of all, in the fact of our created nature in the image and likeness of God. God’s original plan for man in Orthodox theology was deification, which is why it is frequently held in the Christian East that the incarnation was not solely a divine rescue mission in the spirit of the Augustinian felix culpa (“Oh happy fault, which deserved to have such and so great a Redeemer”), but rather part of God’s original intention at the covenant of creation.8 “Deification is the fulfillment of creation,” Louth says, “not just the rectification of the Fall.”9

This leads to the second part of the ontological basis for deification, which is the hypostatic union of two natures (divine and human) and the Divine Person in Jesus Christ at the event of the incarnation. Here we see not simply the dogmatic affirmation of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, but the unfolding of this dogma’s soteriological import. The Son’s kenotic self-emptying, begun in the incarnation, culminating in the crucifixion, becomes the basis of man’s elevation to participate in divinity. We see this in Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:5-11):

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This divine kenosis is the basis of a redemptive exchange through a double movement of catabasis (God’s descent to man) and anabasis (man’s ascent to God).10 As Russell notes, the Church fathers expanded upon this theme of the admirabile commercium with great regularity:

“The Son of God ‘became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.’” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5).

“The Word of God became man so that you too may learn from a man how it is even possible for a man to become God” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1.8.4).

“He became human that we might become divine” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54).

“He gave us divinity, we gave him humanity” (Ephrem, Hymns of Faith 5.7).

“Let us become as Christ is, since Christ became as we are: let us become gods for his sake, since he became man for our sake” (Gregory of Nanzianus, Oration 1.5).

“The Son of God became the Son of Man that he might make the sons of men sons of God” (Augustine, Mainz sermons 13.1).

“God and man are paradigms of one another, that as much as God is humanized to man through love for mankind, so much has man been able to deify himself to God through love” (Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua 10).11

Here we see how the Church fathers bore witness in the early years of the Church to this divine exchange as the starting point whereby man through the energies of grace is able to participate more fully in the very life of God in Christ. As the quote from Maximos the Confessor implies, however, man is called to actively participate in this exchange through cooperation with love. Our sanctification is not simply a passive and static reality. Rather, it is one in which we are called “work out (our) salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12).

Once again, as the Orthodox Study Bible relates:

[T]he divine energies interpenetrate the human nature of Christ. Being joined to Christ, our humanity is interpenetrated with the energies of God through Christ’s glorified flesh. Nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, we partake of the grace of God – His strength, His righteousness, His love – and are enabled to serve Him and glorify Him. Thus we, being human, are being deified.12

If the directness of the nature of the exchange appears too much, Daniel Clendenin relates three very familiar pedagogical images that the Church fathers used to explain the doctrine of theosis beyond that of the incarnation, and in a manner more readily understood. He writes:

Macarius and Chrysostom employ the analogy of marriage to define theosis. Just as two people are joined together in one flesh yet all the while maintain the integrity of their separate identities, just as they share a single existence and hold all things in common, so the believer is joined to God in an “ineffable communion” (see 1 Cor. 6:15-17). Maximos even dares to call this theosis an “erotic union.”…Elsewhere Chrysostom compares our union with God to grains of wheat: “Just as the bread is constituted by many grains united together so that the grains cannot be distinguished from one another even though they are there, since their difference is made unapparent in their cohesion, in the same manner we are joined together both to each other and to Christ.” Cyril of Alexandria likens our participation in Christ to the joining of wax with wax, to the interpenetration of yeast with a lump of dough, and to red-hot iron penetrated by fire.

All of these images – marriage, erotic union, grains of wheat in bread, wax, yeast and dough and a red-hot iron in the fire – communicate the nature of the union presupposed by the doctrine of deification. This spiritual union is from the first – and ultimately – the initiative of God towards man with the purpose of allowing man to share in His own divine life through grace. This grace of adoption and sonship in the Son does not destroy our individuality, but fulfills us by healing and elevating our humanity through grace.

Finally, in the context of the verse most frequently cited related to deification and theosis, 2 Peter, 1:4, we see the full extent of the call of what it means to be partakers of divine nature:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.13

Such participation by grace in divine nature should therefore be lived out progressively by pursuing the virtues of a godly life, principally the virtue of charity. It is this progress in holiness which conforms us more greatly to His likeness, moving us from corruptibility to incorruptibility through the power of the Resurrection, and from image to likeness. As St. Basil the Great observed in the fourth century: “the image was given to us in our nature, and it is unchangeable; from the beginning until the end it remains. The likeness on the other hand, we gain and achieve through our cooperation and volition; it exists potentially in us, and is energized through the good life and excellent behavior.”

To be sure, the doctrine of theosis or deification has a basis within the sources of Christian faith, most especially Sacred Scripture and the writings of the early fathers of the Church. Far from developing along a trajectory that is foreign to the biblical worldview, theosis helps to express more perfectly the unfolding divine plan of God for man at the beginning of creation. Man was called to participate in the divine nature by grace through the eventual event of the Incarnation of the Son of God.

Following the Fall, this plan at creation became simultaneously a redemptive mission, seeking through the condescension of the Son of God, the means to restore man to covenant communion with God, to heal him of his sins and to elevate him to participate in the divine life of grace flowing from the Holy Trinity through Christ.

Theosis thus becomes the true basis of our growth in sanctification and the basis of our participation in the glorious life of the Son in this life and the next. As the late Anglican clergyman, Philip E. Hughes observed:

[Theosis is] the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God.14

Theosis and the Christian Faith of East and West

Finally, despite these shared roots and teachings, it is important to note in a work of Catholic apologetics, one more important chapter in Partakers of Divine Nature, namely “Neo-Palamism, Divinizing Grace, and the Breach between East and West,” written by Catholic theologian, Dr. Jeffrey D. Finch.       Finch, whose doctoral dissertation at Drew University was entitled Sanctity as Participation in the Divine Nature according to the Ante-Nicene Eastern Fathers Considered in the Light of Palamism, attempts in this short chapter to address the polemics of a group he identifies as the “Neo-Palamite school,” who began writing in the early part of the 20th century in response to the assertions of the Augustinian friar, Martin Jugie, concerning his assertion that St. Gregory’s Palamas’ distinction between the energy and the essence of God came close to heresy, something which has never been asserted, it is worth noting, by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The result of this unhelpful polemic, was an equally polemical reaction from the Orthodox side, most especially by theologian and one time student of the great Parisian Thomist, Etienne Gilson, Vladimir Lossky (c. 1903-1958). As one might expect, Augustine was made out in large part to be the theological villain in this drama due to the doctrine developed in the West of uncreated grace, which was treated as antithetical to the teachings of Palamas.

The great Orthodox historian and theologian, Father John Meyendorff, contributed greatly to this debate, as well as to the overall recovery of the long-forgotten memory and writings of this great saint of the East, St. Gregory Palamas, albeit with a slightly anti-Western edge as a result of the polemical atmosphere which precipitated his recovery.

Without attempting to reconstruct the whole argument here (which, while complex, is worth taking the time to read), one of the points which Finch brings up at the end is the fact that there is no consensus at all that Palamas’ teaching should be interpreted as neo-Palamites do: that is, in opposition to Western understandings of the manner of our participation in the divine nature.

He cites theologians such as Met. Kallistos Ware, Yves Congar, O.P., David Bentley Hart and A.N. Williams who argue against any false dichotomy between Catholicism and authentic Palamism. As with the discussion of the ancestral / original sin, I believe all sides would do well to avoid assuming incompatibility based on the assertions of certain modern Orthodox and Catholic theologians.

That being said, this topic also merits a fuller, in-depth treatment removed from the polemics on either side, so that the full beauty of this doctrine and its rich patrimony in the Church might be shared and celebrated by both East and West.

Footnotes

1    For a good summary of the underlying reasons for this newfound interest, see the “Introduction” to Norman Russell’s very fine Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009) 13-21.

2    Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2009) 168.

3    John R. Lenz, “Deification of the Philosopher in Classical Greece,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007) 62.

4    Ibid., 42, 53-54.

5    “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993) 561.

6    Norman Russell, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis. (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009) 36.

7    “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, 561.

8    Andrew Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, 34-35.

9    Ibid., 34-35.

10  Michael Kunzler, The Church’s Liturgy, (London: Continuum, 2001) 3-4.

11  Norman Russell, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 38-39.

12  “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, 561.

13  Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 132-133.

14  The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) 281.

Dave Armstrong

Theosis continues to usually be discussed as primarily or even solely an Eastern conception and belief, and many Orthodox (being apparently unfamiliar with the strong Catholic mystical and contemplative tradition and practice) casually assume this.

Yet it is directly indicated in the Bible and has a long and noble history in the West as well (with somewhat different terminology, as one would expect). May the “movement” of noting and rejoicing in things that the Christian East and West share in common grow by leaps and bounds.

We have enough real differences to work through (this book makes an attempt – however successful – to do that), without laboring under imaginary ones.

***

Related Reading

Theosis and the Exalted Virgin Mary [7-11-04]

Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification [11-23-09]

“In Him” An Expression of the Oneness of Theosis? [3-13-14]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
Photo credit: adonesFAO (5-12-17) [PixabayPixabay License]
*
***

 

November 12, 2017

Theosis2

(3-13-14)

***

Some of the texts brought forth as evidence of theosis / deification / divinization, or the attainment of a profound oneness with God, are the following (RSV):

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

2 Peter 1:4 . . . you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

From my recent reading of Catholic mystic authors, I came across exposition of another biblical motif in this regard: that of being “in God” / “in him” (as a sort of “flipside” of His being “in” us; in our hearts, in the indwelling). Perhaps this has (at least in some of these passages) a connection with the notion of deification as well. It’s another way to think of the phrase that we casually use, not thinking much about its deeper meanings (I have omitted “in Christ”: which seems to have a much wider latitude of meaning):

John 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 15:4-7 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.

John 16:33 . . . in me you may have peace. . . .

John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Acts 17:18 . . . In him we live and move and have our being . . .

2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . in him we might become the righteousness of

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

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

Colossians 2:6-7, 10 As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, [7] rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, . . . [10] and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

1 John 2:5-6 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: [6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:24, 28 . . . If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. . . . [28] And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

1 John 4:13, 15-16 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. . . . [15] Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. [16] So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1 John 5:20 . . . we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. . . .

***

Photo credit: Image by “geralt” (6-15-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons]

***

August 9, 2016

MaryQueenofHeaven2

The Coronation of the Virgin with Six Saints (1504), by Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio (1483-1561) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

[7-11-04]

***

The exaltation of Mary is the supreme example of how highly God sought to raise man. This is part and parcel (as the foremost and most extraordinary instance) of the notion of divinization or deification or theosis — a common motif, particularly in Orthodox thought, Catholic mysticism and spirituality, and the early Eastern Church fathers.

Matthias Scheeben (1835-1888), the extraordinary German Catholic mystic and theologian, explains this concept in the detail necessary to avoid huge misunderstandings:

By grace the first man was deified, but he was not made God or turned into God, if we may so speak. It is only in a figurative sense that the Fathers refer to the deified man as God, that is, as a different God by similarity, not by identity, but only in the sense in which we are accustomed to speak of the so-called parhelion or mock sun as the sun. When man, the original bearer and possessor of a purely human nature, became also the possessor and bearer of a share in the divine nature through grace, he did not become another, but remained the same person. He did not lose himself; he continued to belong to himself. By participation in the divine nature he only acquired a new possession, a new, higher, supernatural character, by which he was transformed into God’s image, was made like to God in a supernatural manner, and in consequence of this resemblance necessarily entered into a most intimate union and unity with the divine Exemplar . . .

(The Mysteries of Christianity, translated by Cyril Vollert, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1946; originally 1888 in German, 316-317)

Biblical indications for theosis are abundant:

1) The symbolic equation of Christ and His disciples (even all of mankind) is a most biblical concept:

. . . whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. (John 13:20; cf. Luke 9:48, Mark 9:37, Matthew 18:5 — NRSV)

. . . for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink [etc.] . . . just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me. (Matthew 25:35, 40)

2) In Scripture there is often taught a mystical (but almost literal) identification of the Body of Christ (the Church: 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:30, Colossians 1:24) with Christ Himself. Jesus equated Paul’s persecution of the Church with persecution of Him (Acts 9:5; cf. 8:1,3, 9:1-2). This is incarnational theology.

3) 2 Peter 1:3-4 is the all-important verse in this regard:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature . . . (KJV; same clause in RSV / NKJV ; cf. John 14:20-23; 17:21-23)

4) Note also the following cross-exegesis (from RSV):

a) For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

b) For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell. (Colossians 1:19)

c) And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:16)

d) . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3:19)

e) until we attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:13)

f) But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

g) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 8:11)

h) What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them . . . ‘ (2 Corinthians 6:16)

i) and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith . . . (Ephesians 3:17)

j) for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’: as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ (Acts 17:28)

k) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

l) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:14; 1 John 4:12, 15-16)

The Greek word for “fulness” in all instances is pleroma (Strong’s word #4138). These references also suggest the notion of theosis, or deification: a participation in God’s energies and power, through the Holy Spirit.

5) The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes frequent mention of theosis or divinization: see #398, 460, 1129, 1265, 1812, 1988.

Pope John Paul II, in his General Audience of May 27, 1998, spoke about this aspect of theology and spirituality, in his talk entitled, “Spirit Enables Us to Share in Divine Nature”.

To summarize: it is plausible that God could and would bestow an extraordinary place upon Mary in His redemptive plan for the human race. If we are all potentially partakers of the divine nature, as St. Peter informs us, then how much more so the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate New Eve, the Theotokos? If we all can be potentially God’s fellow workers, urged on by God’s enabling grace to work out our own salvation, then why cannot Mary conceivably have been chosen by God to be a dispenser of His salvific grace and Mediatrix?

*****

Meta Description: Explanation of how theosis, or union of God, quintessentially applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially as Mediatrix of all graces.

Meta Keywords: divine nature, theosis, mysticism, union with God, deification, divinization, Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redemptrix, distribution of graces, Marian doctrine, Mariology, Mary mediatrix

October 27, 2015

Original title:  Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis and Sanctification Linked to Justification
TheosisClouds
[public domain / Pixabay]
(11-23-09)
[see also a highly related article: “Justification as Healing: The Little-Known Luther” (Ted M Dorman)  ]
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.

(Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 112: The Cause of Grace, Art. 1: Whether God Alone is the Cause of Grace)

* * * * *

The following information was obtained from the fascinating article, “Luther and Theosis,” by Kurt E. Marquart, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and was published in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 64:3, July 200, pp. 182-205.

Many back issues of that excellent scholarly magazine are available online on a great site that I happily ran across. All subsequent words below are from the article, with Luther’s own words in blue. Footnotes appear in brackets immediately after the section that utilizes the sources therein.

* * * * *
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.

The most celebrated patristic statement on the subject is no doubt that of Athanasius: “For He was made man that we might be made God.” To avoid any pantheistic misunderstandings, it is necessary to see that “deification” applies first of all to the flesh of the incarnate Son of God Himself. It is simply a traditional way of putting what Lutherans now call the second genus, or the genus maiestaticum, of the communication of attributes.

[ . . . ]

In a 1526 sermon Luther said: “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 (vermzenschetand we become completely deified (gantz und gar vergottet, “Godded-through”) and everything is altogether one thing, God, Christ, and you.”‘

[Martin Luther, 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. The present author has altered the translation given there in order to make it more literal. All subsequent references to the Weimar edition of Luther’s works will be abbreviated WA.]

[ . . . ]

Sadly, this we] is now unknown in the whole world, and is neither preached nor pursued; indeed, we are even quite ignorant of our own name, why we are Christians and are so-called. Surely we are so-called not from Christ absent, but from Christ dwelling [inhabitante] in us, that is, inasmuch as we believe in Him and are mutually one another’s Christ, doing for neighbors just as Christ does for us.

We conclude therefore that the Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbor, or he is no Christian; in Christ through faith, in the neighbor through love. Through faith he is rapt above himself into God, and by love he in turn flows beneath himself into the neighbor, remaining always in God and in His love.

[The Freedom of the Christian, Latin: WA 7:66,69; German: WA 7:35-36,38; English: Luther’s Works, American Edition, 55 volumes, edited by J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-1986), 31:368, 371. In “Theosis as a Subject,” the end of the first paragraph has been rendered “mutually in one another, another and different Christ. . .” Subsequent references to the American edition of Luther’s works will be abbreviated LW.]

In an early (1515) Christmas sermon, Luther notes:

As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh should also become Word. For just for this reason does the Word become flesh, in order that the flesh might become Word. In other words: God becomes man, in order that man should become God. Thus strength becomes weak in order that weakness might become strong. The Logos puts on our form and figure and image and likeness, in order that He might clothe us with His image, form, likeness. Thus wisdom becomes foolish, in order that foolishness might become wisdom, and so in all other things which are in God and us, in all of which He assumes ours in order to confer upon us
His [things].

We who are flesh are made Word not by being substantially changed into the Word, but by taking it on [assumimus] and uniting it to ourselves by faith, on account of which union we are said not only to have but even to be the Word.”

[WA 1 2825-3239-41. Cited in “Grundlagenforschun,” 192; “Zwei Arten,” 163.]

[ . . . ]

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. . .

[WA 40 I:182,390; LW 26:1001 247,248.]

Obviously there are many implications here as well for love, good works, and other important topics . . .

[ . . . ]

. . . Luther . . . knows a God who is not gingerly beaming thoughts and effects at us from afar while taking care to keep His real being (if He has any!) well away from us. With Luther biblical realism is in full cry:

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].

[WA 40 1:545-546; LW 26:356-357; “In ipsa,” 39-40.]

By faith, finally,

you are so cemented [conglutineristo Christ that He and you are as one person, which cannot be separated but remains attached [perpetuo adhaerescatto 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.

[WA 40 1:285-286; LW 26:l68; “In ipsa,” 51.]

[ . . . ]

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.]

When one ponders the lively, full-blooded realism of Luther’s theology, one can only wonder how such a legacy could have been so tragically squandered in world “Lutheranism” over the centuries. Chesterton complained about the Church of England’s tendency to tolerate “underbelievers” but to persecute “overbelievers.” Why this preference for ever less, for the minimal? Reductionist philosophy alone is hardly the whole story. Sin has a way of defending itself against God’s saving incursions on a broad front.

[ . . . ]

If there is such a thing as a characteristic “structure of Lutheranism” which distinguishes it from other confessions, then it must lie surely in a relentless realism of faith that will not let any of God’s life-bearing gifts be spirited away into significances and abstractions.

[ . . . ]

Very God of very God, a real incarnation, genuine, full, and free forgiveness, life, salvation and communion with the Holy Trinity, imparted in the divinely powerful gospel and sacraments – including the evangelic doctrine as revealed, heavenly truth, not academic guesswork, and the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar – all these mysteries to be cherished and handled for the common good by responsible householders in the God-given office, rightly dividing law and gospel (sola fide!): do not these constitute the “structure of Lutheranism”?

[ . . . ]

Luther insists just as rigidly, as does the Formula, on a radical differentiation between imputed and inchoate righteousness, only his terms for this are “passive” and “active” righteousness. Luther devotes a whole introductory section to this topic, under the title, “The Argument of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.” The distinctively “Christian righteousness,” by which alone we are justified and saved, “is heavenly and passive,” that is, Christ’s. All the various forms of earthly, active righteousness are excluded from this.

[ . . . ]

Luther’s sublime comment on Psalm 5:2-3 provides a suitable conclusion:

By the reign of His humanity or (as the Apostle says) His flesh, which takes place in faith, He conforms us to Himself and crucibles us, making genuine men, that is wretches and sinners, out of unhappy and haughty gods. For because we rose in Adam towards the likeness of God, He came down into our likeness, in order to lead us back to a knowledge of ourselves. And this takes place in the mystery [sacramentumof the Incarnation. This is the reign of faith, in which the Cross of Christ holds sway, throwing down a divinity perversely sought and calling back a humanity [with its] despised weakness of the flesh, which had been perversely abandoned. But by the reign of [His] divinity and glory He will conform [configurabitus to the body of His glory, that we might be like Him, now neither sinners nor weak, neither led nor ruled, but ourselves kings and sons of God like the angels. Then will be said in fact “my God,” which is now said in hope. For it is not unfitting that he says first “my King” and then “my God,” just as Thomas the Apostle, in the last chapter of Saint John, says, “My Lord and my God.” For Christ must be grasped first as Man and then as God, and the Cross of His humanity must be sought before the glory of His divinity. Once we have got Christ the Man, He will bring along Christ the God of His Own accord.

[0perationes in Psalmos (1519-1521), WA 5128-129. I am indebted for this reference to Walter Mostert, “Martin Luther- Wirkung und Deutung,” in Luther im Widerstreit der Geschichte, Veroffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg, Band 20 (Erlangen: Martin-Luther Verlag, 1993), 78.]

***

May 7, 2024

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, 17th Topic: Sanctification and Good Works). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

***

First Question

What is sanctification and how is it distinguished from justification, yet inseparable from it?

I. As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)—not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly—so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it.

Protestants (particularly Reformed ones) make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification (whereas Catholics — following Holy Scripture — combine them). For Protestants, works of sanctification have — in the final analysis — nothing to do with salvation. They are done in thankfulness for a justification already attained. Thus, Turretin writes a bit later:

God makes us first new creatures by regeneration; then we show that we are regenerated by our new obedience (as these acts are distinguished in Eph. 2:10; Ezk. 36:26; Jer. 32:39). . . . The actual laying aside of vices and the correction of life and morals follow regeneration, as its proper effects (Gal. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:5). . . . Scripture has frequently distinguished these benefits (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; Tit. 3:5; Rev. 22:11).

But the formal separation is not a biblical distinction, as I will show again and again. Let’s look at the Bible passages Turretin sets forth as alleged proof of his view:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This is itself doesn’t prove the formal separation of justification and sanctification. It is stating that the justified person or disciple of Christ will do good works. All agree on that. But it doesn’t establish Protestant soteriology. In the previous two verses, Paul wrote:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast.

This is consistent with his overall teaching. See: St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]. When Paul writes that we’re “not” saved “because of works” (Eph 2:9), he is denying works salvation. But in Ephesians 2:10 he shows that works are part of the overall equation. They can’t save us by themselves, but neither can or does faith. They have to function together, with both being caused by God’s prior grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 presents the whole package, and it’s thoroughly Catholic. It’s our “three-legged stool” of salvation: grace, faith, and works.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. [26] A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Jeremiah 32:39-41  I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Again, God cleanses us and indwells us, and we do good works. But this is completely harmonious with the Catholic view of an organic connection between justification and sanctification. It doesn’t prove the Protestant view over against ours. We would contend that the justified person does the good works precisely because of the prior organic connection.

Galatians 5:22-25 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Colossians 3:1-2, 5 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. . . .  [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Paul is saying that those who have the Holy Spirit simply do these things. They flow from the nature of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This seems altogether organic and connected by nature. It’s a somewhat subtle distinction, but a real one. Of course, the good works are later in time than initial justification, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t intrinsically connected.

1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Revelation 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

These are clear expressions of organic, intrinsic connection of justification and sanctification. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Paul reiterates that we are not saved by works alone and that God’s grace is the ultimate cause (cf. 2:11). But in the same letter he writes five times that good works are part of the whole package:

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:7 Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

Nor could Paul so often have denied that we are justified by works if justification is the same as sanctification;

He could do so if what he meant in those “negative” passages was Jewish works of Mosaic Law, as the New Perspective on Paul (a Protestant school of thought) maintains.

The former [justification] consists in the judicial and forensic act of remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; the latter [sanctification] in the physical and moral act of the infusion of righteousness and internal renovation. 

This plainly states the anti-traditional, innovative Protestant conception of sanctification: imputed justification and infused sanctification. Catholicism holds that both are infused.

sanctification is indeed begun in this life, but is perfected only in the other. . . . by degrees and successively.

If it’s perfected in the afterlife; indeed, even “by degrees and successively”: how is that to be distinguished from purgatory?

Although we think that these two benefits should be distinguished and never confounded, still they are so connected from the order of God and the nature of the thing that they should never be torn asunder.

This is the sense in which the two competing views are actually quite similar (almost merely abstractly or conceptually distinct), in terms of practical application to life. I have often noted this and rejoiced in it. I argue for the Catholic viewpoint, but at the same time recognize that the two views are very close to each other.

This is clearly evident even from this—that they are often set forth in one and the same word as when they are designated by the words “cleansing” and “purging” and “taking away,” not only in different places, but also in the same context (as Jn. 1:29, when “the Lamb of God” is said “to take away the sin of the world,” i.e., both by taking away its guilt and punishment by the merit of his blood and by taking away its pollution and taint by the efficacy of the Spirit; and in Rev. 1:5, Christ is said “to wash us from our sins,” both as to justification and as to sanctification; in which sense “the robes of believers” are said “to have been made white in the blood of Christ” [Rev. 7:14] . . . God joined these two benefits in the covenant of grace, since he promises that he will not remember our sins and that he will write his law in our hearts (Jer. 31:33, 34). Nor does the nature of God suffer this to be done otherwise. For since by justification we have a right to life (nor can anyone be admitted to communion with God without sanctification), it is necessary that he whom God justifies is also sanctified by him so as to be made fit for the possession of glory. Nay, he does not take away guilt by justification except to renew his own image in us by sanctification because holiness is the end of the covenant and of all its blessings (Lk. 1:68–75; Eph. 1:4).

Amen! Like I said, “close.”

The very faith by which we are justified demands this. For as it is the instrument of justification by receiving the righteousness of Christ, so it is the root and principle of sanctification, while it purges the heart and works through love (Gal. 5:6). Justification itself (which brings the remission of sins) does not carry with it the permission or license to sin (as the Epicureans hold), but ought to enkindle the desire of piety and the practice of holiness. With God, it is a propitiation that he may be feared (Ps. 130:4); speaks peace to his people that they may not turn again to folly (Ps. 85:8). Thus justification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end. And to this tends the whole economy of grace, which for no other reason has dawned upon us, unless “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly” (Tit. 2:12).

More great thoughts, which Catholics wholly agree with.

Three opinions concerning the necessity of good works.

II. There are three principal opinions about the necessity of good works. First is that of those who (sinning in defect) deny it; such were formerly the Simonians and the modern Epicureans and Libertines, who make good works arbitrary and indifferent, which we may perform or omit at pleasure. The second is that of those who (sinning in excess) affirm and press the necessity of merit and causality; such were the ancient Pharisees and false apostles, who contended that works are necessary to justification. These are followed by the Romanists and Socinians of our day. The third is that of those who (holding the middle ground between these two extremes) neither simply deny, nor simply assert; yet they recognize a certain necessity for them against the Libertines, but uniformly reject the necessity of merit against the Romanists. This is the opinion of the orthodox.

This is trying to have it both ways. Are works necessary for salvation (alongside grace and faith) or not? Turretin opts for a supposed “middle ground” and a “certain necessity.” He (and Protestants en masse) can’t have it both ways. In order to maintain some sort of necessity for works, they go after merit. But it’s a distinction without a difference. I have collected fifty biblical passages directly tying good works to entrance into heaven and ultimate salvation. They simply can’t be interpreted as involving no merit whatsoever. If they weren’t meritorious whatsoever, then heaven couldn’t possibly be any kind of reward for doing them. Yet it is; so they are meritorious. It’s as simple as that. Here are some of them:

Matthew 7:19-21 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

Moreover, there are several biblical passages that tie salvation directly to sanctification, in a way contrary to the Protestants view of sanctification:

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”] [cf. Acts 20:32; Jude 1]

This would appear to contradict a strict notion of sola fide, or faith alone: one of the two “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation”, because it connects sanctification directly to faith; indeed, it comes “by” faith. Here is another passage that connects sanctification with faith (traditionally associated with justification):

Acts 15:8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

The Greek word for “cleansed” used here is katharizo. It is used many times in the Gospels in reference to the cleansing of lepers (e.g., Mt 10:8; Lk 7:22). We see this dynamic also in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12-14 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9: same word: katharizo)

Thus, the “eternal redemption” secured by Jesus Christ with “his own blood” leads inexorably to a purified conscience, and a new ability to serve God, just as flesh was purified by the old sacrificial system. Sanctification seems intimately connected to justification, or in any event, redemption. Perhaps the two clearest verses in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself, are these:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

The author of Hebrews maintains the same motif:

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

The following five passages also plainly teach the notion of meritorious works:

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

Hebrews 10:36, 38-39 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

See also:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [National Catholic Register, 5-22-19]
*
Jesus on Salvation: Works, Merit and Sacrifice [National Catholic Register, 7-28-19]
*
*
*
good works are set forth to us as the effects of eternal election (Eph. 1:4); the fruit and seal of present grace (2 Tim. 2:19; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Jn. 15:4; Gal. 5:22); and the “seeds” or “firstfruits” and earnests of future glory (Gal. 6:7, 8; Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:23).
*
They are also described as a partial cause of salvation, and instrumental in achieving it, per all the biblical data I brought forth above.
*
everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be
reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).
*
Exactly! This state of affairs can’t exist unless good works brought about by grace and done in faith are also meritorious. It simply makes no sense trying to deny the merit part of it. It’s an internal difficulty of Protestant soteriology.
*
Although we acknowledge the necessity of good works against the Epicureans, we do not on this account confound the law and the gospel and
interfere with gratuitous justification by faith alone . . . 
*
That’s the contradiction and incoherent position.
*
*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: from the Brill page, “Francis Turretin (1623–87) and the Reformed Tradition”: chapter 6, publication history.

Summary: Critique of the 17th century Reformed / Calvinist theologian François Turretin with regard to the doctrine of sanctification, including meritorious good works.

March 20, 2024

Including a Summary of the Extraordinary, Unfathomable Characteristics of Redeemed Human Beings in Heaven

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 13th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure and concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

This is a response to a portion of Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Critique of Prayer to the Saints” (4-19-20).

30:52 To argue for prayers to the saints, what you’re arguing for is not only the idea that saints are in heaven praying for the church generally before the Father and seeing kind of the events of the world unpacked themselves. What they’re saying is that the saints have an almost divine omniscience, because the saints themselves are to some degree able to hear the prayers of so many people. I mean, think about the Blessed Virgin Mary or think about St. Peter  . . . how many prayers St. Peter must have to actually hear, so that he can hear every word that is spoken by everyone that is praying to him and not just out loud but even prayers that are in your head. So it gives the saints almost this kind of divine quality or this divine attribute of almost omniscience, to the point that they’re able to hear everything both externally and even in people’s minds. And we’re simply never told that those are qualities that are true of any creature . . . that is never ascribed to mere creatures, so that is the second major theological problem that that we have with that.

The gist of this oft-expressed Protestant criticism is that there is something logically possible, that is, nevertheless, not possible for God to do. God can’t grant these abilities to saints in heaven, even though angels already somehow possess them. Who gave them their powers? So God can’t or wouldn’t do this, we are told. I’m not at all sure of that. These powers need not be “omniscient” (having all knowledge) at all. It’s simply extraordinary abilities, combined with being outside of time in heaven. And indeed there are many biblical examples of extraordinary characteristics that all human beings who make it to heaven will have, and I submit that they could explain hearing “millions” of prayers or requests for intercession. Let’s look at some of those aspects in the Bible, shall we?:

St. Paul states that now we only “see in a mirror dimly” and “know in part” (1 Cor 13:12), and that “eye has not seen” (1 Cor 2:9) what God has “prepared” for us. We shall “see his face” (Rev 22:4) and see Him “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12), and He will be our “light” (Rev 22:5). Saints in heaven “shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12), and possess “knowledge” that he describes as “perfect”(1 Cor 13:9-10), and “an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Cor 4:17): “the glory that is to be revealed” (Rom 8:18), “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:21), and “eternal glory in Christ” (1 Pet 5:10).

St. Paul implies that believers even while on the earth can achieve “the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9) and can obtain “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ” (Col 1:10). And they “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17). Christians “are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18). This will be perfected in heaven. Saints in heaven will be “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and will be fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and totally free of and from sin (Rev 19:8; 21:8, 27; 22:14-15). Hebrews 12:1 (“we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”) proves that the saints are quite aware of happenings on earth (especially when we examine it closely and see what commentators think).

If we’re “equal to” angels after death, according to Jesus (Lk 20:36), and “like angels” (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25), and we know that angels communicate with those on earth (many examples in the Bible; e.g., “the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven” — Gen 21:17), then it stands to reason that the dead saints will by analogy be able to do the same thing. Jesus said, “I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Lk 15:10). That’s an interior disposition. If angels know that, and we will be “equal” to them, then dead saints in heaven can certainly hear a petition, since by analogy to the angels they’ll be able to discern interior thoughts.

Moreover, there is the whole theology of God indwelling us. We’re described as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). God “will live in” us (2 Cor 6:16). He’s “in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:4). God “abides in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:12-13, 15-16). Jesus abides in us (Jn 6:56; 15:4), and He is “in” us (Jn 14:20; 17:23; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27). He dwells in our “hearts” (Eph 3:17). The Holy Spirit is “within” us (Ezek 37:14). He’s “with” us (Jn 14:16), “dwells” “in” or “with” us (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16), and is in our “hearts” (2 Cor 1:22; 3:3; Gal 4:6). All of these factors will no doubt be all the more intensified in heaven, and serious disciples have already experienced them to a large degree on earth. We become like God, united to Him.

Is it reasonable, then, to believe that even though the saints in heaven possess all of these extraordinary — and largely unknown and probably incomprehensible to us — characteristics, the ability to hear an intercessory request or a petition (or even millions, having transcended time) is not part of their abilities? That position is neither plausible nor biblical. Facebook friend Peter Rowe made a great related comment on my Facebook page:

I think the fact that computers can literally handle hundreds of millions of requests per second from all over the world at the same time, refutes the notion that this is impossible for a creature, since computers are a human creation and a divine one only secondarily.

Excellent point! If we (distantly echoing God’s creative capabilities) can make a computer that can do all that, certainly God the Creator can make it possible for a person to do so. Their love will be perfected, and will certainly include intercession. We already know for sure that saints and angels present our prayers to God in heaven (Rev 5:8; 8:3-4). What are they doing with them and how did they obtain them? The most logical, feasible explanation is that they had received prayers (technically, intercessory requests) from people on earth as intermediaries to God.

The notion of a human being in heaven being outside of time and in eternity, which is essentially different from time, is not merely Catholic thought. Once one has this view, answering of millions of prayers is entirely possible (and I would say, likely, given these departed saints’ perfect love). What Jordan casually assumes is impossible is not at all: not if God wills it. Protestant writer Ray Stedman wrote:

We constantly think of heaven as a continuation on a larger and perfect scale of life on earth. Locked into our world of space and time, we find it very difficult to imagine life proceeding on any other terms. But we must remember that time is time and eternity is eternity and never the twain shall meet. . . .

The thing we must remember in dealing with this matter of life beyond death is that when time ends, eternity begins. They are not the same, and we must not make them the same. Time means that we are locked into a pattern of chronological sequence which we are helpless to break. For example, all human beings sharing the same room will experience an earthquake together. While there are varying feelings and reactions, everyone will feel the earthquake at the same time. But in eternity events do not follow a sequential pattern. (“Time and Eternity”; ch. 9 of the book, Authentic Christianity, 1996)

The great Catholic author and apologist Peter Kreeft similarly expressed the state of those in heaven as follows:

A related consequence of all time being present in eternity is that we will be able to travel in time when we are in eternity. From eternity time is manipulable: expandable, compressible, reversible, divisible. It is silly-putty time. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” [2 Peter 3:8], and just as He plays time like an accordion, expanding and contracting it at will, so can we when we live in Him. As an author can move backward or forward in a story, God can move in time, and so can we, once we get out of the story and into the Author. (Every Thing You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven . . . But Never Dreamed of Asking, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990, 168-169)

So where is the direct proof of our being outside of ordinary time as we know it, in heaven? We have already seen it. All we have to do is combine 2 Peter 3:8 (God being outside of ordinary time) with passages such as those that state we “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17), “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Moreover, we “abide in” God (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, 15-16), and specifically, abide in Jesus (Jn 6:56; 15:4). We’re “in” Jesus (Jn 14:20; Phil 4:7). We’re “in” the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9), and “possess the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13).

I think it’s quite reasonable and plausible to posit that having a different relationship to time will be part of that. And once that is granted, answering all those prayers (that may be simultaneous according to our earth-time, but not in heavenly time-eternity) poses no problem or “difficulty” at all. It’s been shown from the Bible alone. Protestants accept all these verses. Luther and Lutherans believe in theosis (union with God). Yet they also believe that we’re not identical to God in all respects. But we can be “like” Him in the matter of our relationship to time in heaven. God is omnipotent. If He wants this, He can make it happen; no problem! I think we know enough from Scripture and from the very nature of love (His and that of the saints and angels) to know that He does want it.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: EdenMoon (4-17-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Jordan Cooper expresses the myth about the impossibility of saints hearing millions of prayers at once. I provide much biblical support for its possibility & likelihood.

March 7, 2024

Incl. St. Ignatius of Antioch vs. Faith Alone; Epistle to Diognetus; Council of Trent on Justification by Faith & Imputation; Anti-Catholicism in the Lutheran Confessions 

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 10th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Response to Trent Horn on Sola Fide in the Church Fathers” (11-27-23).

3:22 Trent Horn cites a number of passages from the apostolic fathers where these figures write about the necessity of striving, the necessity of continuing to do good works, the necessity of of striving in the faith, even to the point of saying that it is through that striving in the faith that you are going to inherit eternal life, and if you don’t strive, then you are not going to. Now these passages, to be clear, fit easily into a Lutheran framework. They’re really not a problem at all because in a confessional Lutheran framework we recognize that there is is a necessity of perseverance. We do believe that one can apostatize, and if you are not walking in the faith; if you are not striving to walk in Christ, you can indeed fall into what we would call mortal sin, in that you can live in unrepentant sin and in fact be cut off from Christ.

5:07 there are citations that you find in Trent Horn’s video that speak about a recompense for one’s works. This is not a problem at all; there is no issue with this within Lutheran theology . . . the rewards for good works . . . are heavenly rewards.

The problem here for Lutherans and Protestants generally is that the Bible doesn’t merely describe differential rewards in heaven for the works we do (both sides agree on that).  The problem for them is that the Bible massively connects these good works to salvation itself, when it refers to the criteria of salvation and entrance into heaven. I have compiled fifty biblical passages along these lines, and it’s a huge difficulty for Protestants to explain away, because it’s clearly a denial of faith alone and of the denial of meritorious works. These passages simply don’t “read Protestant.”

To put it another way, if the true view is supposedly that faith alone saves us and works have nothing directly to do with it, and are only rewarded separately with differential rewards in heaven, then Protestants must explain why it is that the Bible so often ties works directly to salvation and entrance into heaven, and why faith was only mentioned once alongside works in all of these fifty passages. We agree that faith and works save us. But why are works featured so prominently and exclusively in all these passages? This biblical fact is not plausible under Protestant soteriology, but it’s perfectly harmonious with Catholic and Orthodox theology, and  not surprising at all to us.

5:31 now it depends on what you mean by recompense. If the assumption is, I am earning my justification or increasing my justification by my good works, we would deny that categorically, explicitly, and clearly. But that’s not what these fathers especially Ignatius [say]. Ignatius says he speaks about there being a recompense for our good works once we enter into the kingdom of God eternally. We have always confessed that there are heavenly rewards for the good works that we do in this life.

Jordan provides no reference for Ignatius of Antioch’s statement[s] concerning this matter. After searching “works,” “heaven,” and “reward” in his letters, as best I can determine, he is referring to this:

Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 6)

I think equally pious, reasonable Christians can hold that he could be referring (in using “recompense”) either to differential rewards in heaven or the reward of heaven itself.  I shall contend that it is the latter, and provide reasons for so believing. If it refers to differential rewards, it’s no problem for Catholicism, since we agree that these occur. But if it refers to heaven, it’s a problem for the Protestant sola fide position. The fact that he refers to the possibility of desertion and also includes the corresponding idea of “endure” may mean that — at least at that point — Ignatius had apostasy in mind.

Thus, “recompense “would seem to be the converse of falling away: staying the course unto salvation itself. A paraphrase, if this is correct, would be: “Don’t fall away. Let your baptism, faith, love, patience, and works in general preclude this eventuality, and lead to the reward of heaven.” In 1 Corinthians 3:14 Paul, I think, refers to differential rewards in heaven. In Colossians 3:24 it seems to be heaven (“from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward”). So Paul uses the notion in two ways.

In the next chapter (7), Ignatius talks very “Catholic” and states, “I also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God, so that, through your prayers, I may be found a disciple [of Christ].” He attains to God and will be found to be a disciple if he suffers (not a word about faith there). This is meritorious works (anathema to Lutheranism and larger Protestantism). Ignatius didn’t stick works into a separate category of “non-salvific sanctification” as Lutherans do.

Then he writes, “Now, this work is both God’s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory. For I trust that, through grace, you are prepared for every good work pertaining to God.” Here he expresses the paradoxical biblical notion that our good works, enabled by God’s grace and done in faith, are at the same time God’s works, too. This means they are meritorious: examples of what St. Augustine calls “God crowning His own gifts.” This reflects four statements from St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 1:12 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (in 6:7 Paul said that he did various things by “the power of God”)

In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)

He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:

. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (1)

For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (3)

. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (8)

. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (9)

None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love . . . The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (14)

This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how.

7:17 there is a way to accept the idea of faith alone or justification through faith alone if what you mean is an initial justification.

Indeed. See my papers:

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

8:02 there is an allowance for this language of justification through faith alone that simply doesn’t seem to be consistent with the Roman tradition when you look at the responses to the reformers [at] Trent and then post-Trent. . . . the allowance for justification through faith alone in one sense really is not there in the way that it tends to be within modern Roman Catholic apologetics. 

Canons I-III and X on justification from Trent (Sixth Session: 13 January 1547, while Melanchthon and Calvin were still alive) teach initial justification, which is by grace through faith, and not by works:

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.

CANON X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Likewise, the Decree on Justification, chapter 5:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient  grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

The italicized portions refer to initial justification by grace alone and faith alone; over against Pelagianism and in agreement with Protestantism. Former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell comments on these declarations of the Council of Trent:

I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ’s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ’s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ’s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. . . . Canon 10 says that Christ’s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient. With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this. . . .

The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God’s part because of Christ’s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us. . . .

What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola part. Faith is essential but not sola fide. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith. [Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation, July 1996]

8:24 Now I’m glad that they’ve kind of changed. I think they’ve come our way a little bit and I think that’s good, but they don’t want to say that, of course. I just want to say that . . . personally in my interpretation of Trent . . . I don’t see the way that a lot of modern Roman Catholic apologists have moved on this as consistent with Tridentine soteriology, so I think that it’s actually a capitulation to our particular view or perspective on things.

As I believe I have just shown, there has been no change, and Trent itself does indeed teach monergistic justification or justification by faith alone, as pertains to initial justification. See the crucial distinctions highlighted by Dr. Howell above. Jordan simply needs to be more acquainted with the subtleties and nuances of Trent’s teaching. I think Dr. Howell’s exposition in particular can help him do that.

Ironically, if Jordan thinks we Catholic apologists have changed and departed from Trent’s soteriology, whereas in fact — if my reasoning above is correct — , we haven’t at all, then Jordan has actually confirmed in a roundabout way that Trent agreed with Protestants on initial justification all along. That should make him happy, I would think, if in fact the two sides have more in common than he had previously thought (and as many Catholics have thought and do think, as well). It makes me happy whenever we can agree; less to disagree about and less work for me as an apologist!

9:03 I’m glad that they’re willing to concede that 

The credit goes to Trent, not us apologists who have supposedly modified it, which would be fundamentally unacceptable for a Catholic apologist to do. It would be like Jordan messing around with the Book of Concord, and ignoring parts of it, in order to be more agreeable to Catholics. Nor did Trent “concede” this point. It was reaffirming what had been held all along. The condemnations of the Pelagians a thousand years earlier at the 2nd Council of Orange dealt with and resolved all this.

9:13 I see that as kind of proof that there isn’t even acknowledgement that maybe we’ve done some things right or we were right about certain things 

Not in this instance (because Jordan’s premise is wrong; we never did disagree here as to initial justification), but generally speaking, Catholics believe that there is a lot of agreement between us, and we’re delighted about that and see it as Protestants having gotten many things “right.” See my paper that cites Vatican II in this regard: How Catholics View Protestants. Truth is truth wherever it is found. This works two ways, too, I should add. Catholicism has made a lot of effort in ecumenical matters in the last century or so. But in the Book of Concord: the Lutheran Confessions that Jordan and all orthodox, traditional Lutherans abide by, there are still many statements like the following:

The Mass in the papacy must be regarded as the greatest and most horrible abomination because it runs into direct and violent conflict with this fundamental article. Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries . . . this dragon’s tail — that is, the Mass — has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifest idolatries. (Smalcald Articles [1537], Part II, Article II: The Mass, from The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, pp. 293-294)

So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass, in Tappert, ibid., 268)

There may very well be a way that ecumenical Lutherans reconcile the above with respect for Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, through some interpretive means that I am not yet aware of. I’d be more than happy to be educated by those who feel that they have a solution to this apparent dilemma for ecumenical Lutherans.

Jordan brings up (around the ten-minute mark) the Epistle to Diognetus with regard to justification. I addressed that in an earlier reply to Jordan, entitled, Faith Alone In The Early Church Fathers? [2-28-24]. Jordan refers to this particular passage:

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. (ch. 9; complete)

This is discussing initial justification, which I have addressed above, with citations from Trent. There is no disagreement here. This is referring to an imputation of righteousness to the believer that Catholics can agree with, per the explanations of Dr. Howell above. But as soon as it occurs, the believer works together with God to make it a real, day-by-day righteousness (not merely a declared or proclaimed righteousness that in fact is not righteousness). That’s where the two sides differ, but not on the above.

As I noted in my earlier treatment of this epistle, the author states that God will give salvation and the reward of heaven “to those who have loved Him” (chapter 10). Faith alone without love won’t cut it. He writes again along these lines in chapter 12, observing that “you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, . . . presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits.” As I wrote before: “I see nothing whatsoever in this work that contradicts Catholic soteriology.”

This epistle states, “For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?” Precisely! Trent in agreement stated in its Decree on Justification (5): “the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called . . .”

12:13  I think there are plenty of passages in Luther that are very clear that The Great Exchange is more than just a forensic reality 

I agree, which is why I put out the papers:

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

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

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther’s Point of View [11-10-14]

Luther wrote (very “Catholic-like”:

Our justification is not yet finished. It is neither something which is actually completed nor is it essentially present. It is still under construction [to be completed in the resurrection]. (Disputation on the Works of the Law and of Grace, 1537; Luther’s Works, vol. 71; cf. Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther,” 245, footnote 96)

[T]he entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. (Smalcald Articles, 1537; Pt. III, Art. XIII)

It was Luther’s successor, Philip Melanchthon, who completely separated works from justification. It was a fatal move, that has led to much false doctrine and the bad fruit that results from falsehood.

16:59 if Rome is willing to say, “okay we have [to] enter into a state of grace through faith alone or through a baptism” . . . 

“Rome” has always said that, so it’s not an issue. The curious thing here is that Jordan, for some reason, thinks we haven’t yet asserted this.

Jordan continues (per his apparently usual custom) in the rest of the video to be all over the ballpark. Once again, his title is a misnomer. He basically dealt with only two pieces of patristic data regarding soteriology, and I responded to both, along with many other things (ostensibly off the topic of what the title describes, though distantly related).

20:41 I don’t want to go back and forth. . . . I don’t really want my channel to be a anti-Roman Catholic Protestant channel. That’s never been my desire, but I do think it’s important to engage in these things. It’s important to debate these things. Trent is a professional Roman Catholic apologist and he can go back and forth on these things with people. That’s just not really my mission. I am certainly a Lutheran apologist. I’m a Lutheran theologian, but I don’t want to just kind of go back and forth on these things.

That’s fine. Everyone has his own vocation, as well as desires and strengths and weaknesses. To each his own. He can decide to reply to Trent Horn and/or Catholic apologists, including myself, as he wishes, and no one should judge his decisions as to how he spends his time and uses the gifts that God gave him (which are many). But he should also be aware that a person like me, who specializes in debate and examination of Protestantism and defense of Catholicism, will reply to claims he has made about the Catholic Church and Catholicism, which need to be able to withstand scrutiny, and which are not all self-evidently true, or unquestionable when examined more closely.

Jordan is now influencing many thousands of his viewers, and so it’s only fair and to be expected that if he treats the subject of Catholicism, Catholics — including myself — will make some kind of reply, so that it can be a “fair fight” and a scenario where both sides are heard and not just one. I hope he does decide to reply to me. I think it would be fun for both of us. I don’t bite! I’m friendly, no matter how many disagreements I may have with a person. The two sides (not just us, but readers) can potentially better understand each other, whether or not anyone is persuaded otherwise (which is always rare, anyway). All of that is good and well worth spending time on, in my humble opinion. More accurate knowledge of views other than our own is always a net gain.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper, from the American Lutheran Theological Seminary “Faculty & Staff” page.

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper makes arguments about the supposed allegiance of two Church fathers to sola fide (faith alone). I submit contrary evidences.

 

 

March 7, 2023

Previously, over 18 years ago, I dealt at length with Luther’s negative comments made about James: that it was a book not written by an apostle, that it supposedly contradicts the soteriology of St. Paul, that it was “an epistle of straw” and either not fit for the biblical canon, or if so, only in a secondary, lesser sense (it was, in fact, included in his German Bible, and not thrown out). I noted how the potshot about James being “an epistle of straw” was removed from his 1545 revision of his Preface to the New Testament. This can all be found in my article, “Luther’s Radical Views on the Biblical Canon” (9-25-04; do a word-search of “James”).

I have written several times about Luther’s soteriology being much more complex than a radical “faith alone” / antinomian outlook, which is unfortunately often falsely attributed to him, by misinformed Catholics and Protestants alike (following polemical stereotypes):

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

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

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther’s Point of View [11-10-14]

Calvinist Origin of Luther’s (?) “Snow-Covered Dunghill”? [5-14-19]

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 (Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?) [12-7-22]

On almost any major issue, it will be found that Luther’s views are either flat-out self-contradictory, or that his positions vacillated throughout his lifetime (in some cases back-and-forth more than once). His view of the book of James was no exception. Presently, I’d like to present some relatively positive statements from Martin Luther about the book of James. The main themes are that works cannot justify by themselves (a position Catholics fully agree with, contra Pelagianism), and that faith must be accompanied by works (we again agree), and that justification is always by faith alone (here we disagree and say that it is by faith, which always includes works as two sides of one coin; therefore works are part of justification as well as sanctification).

So he ultimately disagrees with us in his overall soteriology, and separates sanctification from justification, in a way that Scripture and Catholicism do not. But on the other hand, he is no antinomian: the position that works are more-or-less totally separate and distinct from faith, even in terms of a separated sanctification, and this has welcome affinities with Catholic soteriology. Luther’s words below will be in blue.

In a 1521 sermon Luther preached:

See, this is what James means when he says, [2:26] “Faith apart from works is dead.” For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.

This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. (The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 71-72; my bolding and italics)

In another sermon (unknown date), he stated:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘”Faith without works is dead.” That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness.” That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Matthew 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright. (The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 308; my bolding and italics)
And in 1524:
For this life is nothing more than a life of faith, of love, and of sanctified affliction. But these three will never be perfect in us while we live here on earth, and no one possesses them in perfection except Christ. He is the sun and is set for our example, which we must imitate. For this reason there will always be found among us some that are weak, others that are strong, and again some that are stronger; these are able to suffer less, those more; and so they must all continue in the imitation of Christ. For this life is a constant progress from faith to faith, from love to love, from patience to patience, and from affliction to affliction. It is not righteousness, but justification; not purity, but purification; we have not yet arrived at our destination, but we are all on the road, and some are farther advanced than others. (A Sermon on Confession and the Lord’s Supper; 1524; in Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils; edited and partially translated by John Nicholas Lenker, 8 volumes. Volumes 1-5 were originally published in Minneapolis by Lutherans of All Lands, 1904-1906; Vol. 2)

In 1530, in reply to the question, “Why does James [2:26] say, ‘Faith apart from works is dead’?,” Luther wrote:

James is dealing with a moral point, not theological, just as he is almost entirely about morality. Morally speaking, it is true that faith without works is dead- that is, if faith does not do works or if outward works do not follow faith. In this way then, faith cannot exist apart from works; that is, it cannot fail to do works, else there is no faith alone.

We, however, are dealing with a theological point here since we are discussing justification before God. Here we assert that faith alone is counted as righteousness before God, apart from works and merits.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 61 [published in 2021], 183-184; my bolding and italics)

And in his The Disputation Concerning Justification (1536), Luther responded to the proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [James 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies”:

The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, ‘faith’ ought to be placed with the word ‘justifies’ and the portion of the sentence ‘without works justifies’ is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word ‘justifies,’ not to ‘faith.’ In the minor premise, ‘without works’ is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 34, 175-176; my bolding and italics)

Luther even wrote in 1537, sounding very “Catholic” indeed:

Our justification is not yet finished. It is neither something which is actually completed nor is it essentially present. It is still under construction [to be completed in the resurrection]. (Disputation on the Works of the Law and of Grace, 1537; German: WA 39.1:252 / English: Luther’s Works, Vol. 71; cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 245, footnote 96; my bolding and italics)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Luther posting his 95 theses in 1517; 1872 painting by Ferdinand Pauwels (1830-1904) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I analyze some lesser-known positive remarks from Martin Luther about James, with regard to faith & works. As usual, he is complex and self-contradictory.

February 22, 2023

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 63rd refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “A nova tentativa de Dave de justificar a idolatria católica” [Dave’s New Attempt to Justify Catholic Idolatry] (2-20-23).

The feeling is that Dave is pressured by his readers to write something in response to my articles,

Mostly my readers urge me to ignore Banzoli as an idiot. Just two hours ago, for example, someone wrote on my Facebook page under a little article refuting yet another Banzoli error: “Man, you keep casting pearls before swine.” So if there is any “pressure” it’s to not reply.

It must be an immeasurable shame that a gentleman whose profession is apologetics and who makes a living from it alone is not able to give a minimally decent answer to a young man who has apologetics only as a hobby, not as a job . . . 

This is very interesting. Banzoli has been lying for months, saying I have no job at all, and now he wants to switch on a dime and assert that apologetics is my “profession” and “job”? I guess this is Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak. Normally such a drastic change would call for a retraction and apology. But then, alas, four paragraphs later, he writes that “this is his ‘job'”: implying that it really isn’t. So the doublethink continues full force.

See, for example, what Pope Pius XII said:

And the Empyrean saw that she was really worthy of receiving the honor, the glory, the empire, — because more full of grace, more holy, more beautiful, more deified, incomparably more, than the greatest saints and the most sublime angels, or separately or together; —because mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity, with the One who is by essence the infinite Majesty, King of kings and Lord of lords, who is the eldest Daughter of the Father and the Supreme Mother of the Word and the beloved Spouse of the Holy Spirit ; — because Mother of the divine King, of the One to whom the Lord God gave the throne of David and eternal royalty in the house of Jacob from her mother’s womb and who from himself proclaimed, to have been given all power in heaven and on earth: He, the Son of God, reflects upon the heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty, the empire of her royalty; — Because associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is forever associated with him, with an almost immense power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption. (Radio Advertisement to the Portugese Faithful on the Occasion of the Celebration of the Coronation of Our Lady of Fatima, May 13, 1946)

I see no problem here. This is all quite biblical. She receives honor?:

1 Chronicles 29:20 (RSV) Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped [shachah] the LORD, and did obeisance [shachah] to the king. [KJV: “worshipped the LORD, and the king”]

2 Chronicles 32:33 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. . . .

Luke 1:42, 45 “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! . . . [45] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. . . .

So should we honor Mary? Of course! She’s the Mother of God the Son. How could we not honor such a person? How about Mary receiving glory? Is that outrageous idolatry or a biblical thing? It’s the latter (odd how Banzoli could be ignorant of so much Scripture!):

John 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Romans 2:10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 2:12 to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. (cf. 5:4)

2 Peter 1:3 . . . through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory [see many more such passages]

Mary is relatively more deified? That’s no problem, since we are all called to that. The Bible teaches that followers of Christ would be “united with him” (Rom 6:5), “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17), “changed into his likeness” (2 Cor 3:18), “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13); indeed, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Even Martin Luther taught deification.

mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity

Yes, she is related to God in the Holy Trinity, as the Mother of God the Incarnate Son, miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit and thus able to be called His “spouse” in a sense. “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” — like “Mother of God” — is wrongly thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1).

Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; . . .

Isaiah 62:5 . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 31:32 . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (cf. 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, `My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, `My Ba’al.’ . . . [19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; . . . (cf. 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

God chose to involve her intimately with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Who are we to second-guess Him? Intimacy with God is, again, something all believers were meant to experience. The Holy Spirit is in us (the indwelling). We are “in” the Father and the Son (Jn 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24), and “in” Jesus (Jn 6:56; 14:20; 15:4-7; 16:33; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 4:13; Col 2:6-7, 10; 1 Jn 2:24, 28; 5:20). God is in us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, 15) and we are “in” God (Col 3:3; 1 Jn 2:5, 24; 3:6, 24; 4:13, 15). Jesus is “in” us (Jn 14:20).

God the Father just took these principles a bit further in the case of Mary, since she was the Mother of His Son. So Mary was associated with God “in the ineffable work of human Redemption” and “the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption”? So was the Apostle Paul:

Romans 11:13-14 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you…

So does God intend us to be:

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. [is not “imparting grace” the same as “distributing” it?]

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives [Paul says that Timothy can help save others, and wives and husbands can help “save” their spouses (and Peter concurs with the latter notion), thus also becoming a mini-mediators]

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. [Paul and others “save” other people, thus becoming “mini-mediators” in the sense that they are vessels for the grace and salvation that comes from God, won by Jesus’ wholly sufficient and perfect sacrificial death on the cross]

Banzoli simply needs to think more biblically. It’s a problem completely able to be solved. When he learns that, he will be able to easily comprehend Catholic Mariology. Catholics are so much more biblical than Protestants are, it takes time for the latter to learn and catch up. But that’s one reason I’m here: to help assist people to think more biblically.

Banzoli has a problem with Pope Leo XIII stating on September 12, 1897: “Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God, so that the Church even addresses to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’ ”

Lots of things have elements in common with others, without being the equivalent of the other thing. This is common sense and logic. Walking and bicycling have in common the constant motion of legs. Does that make walking and bicycling the same thing? No. Arithmetic and calculus both work with numbers. Does that make them the same thing? No. Painting a house and painting a portrait of a beautiful woman both involve paint and a brush. Does that make them identical? No. Anti-Catholic Banzoli and anti-theist atheists both call me stupid. Does that make Banzoli an atheist? No. And so on and so forth.

Likewise, a thing that is not worship of God may have a characteristic that it has in common with worshiping God. Did anyone ever pray or say “have mercy” to anyone besides God? Sure; the rich man prayed this to Abraham: “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk 16:24). Does that make Abraham God? No. But it makes him able to hear and also to answer (if it’s God’s will) a prayer.

God told Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him, so he could live, “for” Abraham was “a prophet” (Gen 20:6-7). In effect then, Abraham had mercy on Abimelech, too, because he played a key role in the entire event. “All Israel” (1 Sam 12:1) “said to Samuel [the prophet], ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die’. . .” (1 Sam 12:19). Samuel exercised mercy, just as Mary does if we ask her, “have mercy on sinners.”

God told Job’s “friends”: “my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8). Same principle again. Why did God listen to Job’s prayers? It’s because God Himself stated that “there is none like” Job “on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8). King Zedekiah asked the holy prophet Jeremiah to pray for him and the country (Jer 37:3).

Exodus 32:30 On the morrow Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” Did Moses have mercy on his people? Yes. Does that make him God? No. “Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated” (Num 11:2). “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your [Moses’] word” (Num 14:19-20). See many many more examples.

There are things that creatures do that result in mercy or grace (even salvation) being extended to more and more people. This is how God designed it. We best follow His examples.

***

Some sort of sidekick of Banzoli, named André Marinho, tried to undercut my argument about Mary’s intercession, in a comment underneath Banzoli’s article (on 2-24-23) that is refuted above. He thought he did so by citing words of Pope Francis that are supposedly “against” the Mariology that I hold (in perfect harmony with the Church). Rightly understood, of course there is no difference. But nice try. E for effort, and also for performance. Here are my articles that refute Marinho’s claims, along with two related ones by others:

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Pope Francis and Mary Co-Redemptrix (Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 12-27-19)

Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the “Woman of salvation” (Mark Miravalle & Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa, 1-8-20)

His other arguments, made in surrounding comments (which were conveniently seized upon by Banzoli as an excuse not to reply to this article: “I don’t even need to say anything else”), are too ridiculous and dumbfounded to spend any further time on. I just wanted to set the record straight about the complete agreement between myself and Pope Francis with regard to Mary. This is an old trick that anti-Catholic polemicists play quite a bit: pretending that popes oppose what an apologist like myself argues in favor of. They merely expose their gross ignorance in attempting these ludicrous pseudo-“arguments.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a 15th Century Marian Byzantine icon. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic Lucas Banzoli fanatically opposes a biblically venerated “Catholic” Mary. I relentlessly refute his anti-biblicism with dozens of Scripture passages.

***

 

December 7, 2022

Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?

Luther researcher and anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan, who runs the Boors All blog, recently explored the famous controversy regarding Luther adding the word “alone” to “faith” in Romans 3:28: “Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: ‘Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur’ “ (11-29-22). He maintained that in his earlier writings Erasmus agreed with Luther about “faith alone” but in his later writings, he split from him in this respect.

Before I get into all that, let me note that I myself have dealt with Romans 3:28 and Luther’s “faith alone” in his German translation very little in my apologetics, even though I have written or edited two books about Martin Luther (one / two), and have huge web pages about Luther and Lutheranism. “Romans 3:28” never appears on my Luther web page or in my two books about him. I did mention it in passing in my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants:

Luther was equally strident when defending his addition of the word alone after faith in Romans 3:28:

Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough…. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery (. . . Letter to Wenceslaus Link in 1530).

On the same page I described this as one of the “desperate measures and arguments” of Protestants following Luther’s lead. In a very early article of mine, dated 11 June 1991 (since greatly revised), I made a critical observation about Luther’s statement above:

Luther insists on his own (in effect) absolute infallibility. . . . One wonders whether Luther uttered these absurd sentiments with a smile on his face, or with tongue in cheek. In any event, such boastful, essentially silly and foolish rhetoric is not uncommon in Luther’s voluminous writings.

Note that I had serious doubts (back when I had only been recently convinced of Catholicism) whether Luther was even being totally serious. But this is very little emphasis (given my massive amount of writing about Luther and the Protestant Revolution) on an issue that is one of the most famous regarding Luther. In an article of mine, entitled “18 ‘Dumb Catholic Apologetics Arguments’ Analyzed” (5-14-09), I agreed with Catholic writer Ben Douglass’s cited opinion about this argument:

16. Avoid making hay about Martin Luther adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. While the word is indeed absent from the Greek text, Luther was not the first to regard it as a justifiable gloss. That it is not in fact justifiable makes Luther’s addition an exegetical error, but this is not the same thing as a blatant perversion.

I’ve never put much stock in this argument, and agree that it doesn’t accomplish much in Protestant-Catholic discussion.

Conclusion for #16: complete agreement. [bolding in original]

This article, accordingly, represents my first in-depth treatment of this issue, after 32 years of writing Catholic apologetics (over 4,000 articles on my blog, and 51 books). The letter of Luther in question was to Wenceslaus Link, dated 8 September 1530. It was published as An Open Letter on Translating. Here is a very extensive excerpt, which makes for fascinating reading (agree or  disagree):

[Y]ou ask why in translating the words of Paul in the 3rd chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus, I rendered them, “We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone,” and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss because Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my addition to the words of God is not to be tolerated. . . . you can give the papists this answer from me, if you like.

First of all if I, Dr. Luther, had expected that all the papists together were capable of translating even one chapter of Scripture correctly and well into German, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German. However, because I knew (and still see with my own eyes) that not one of them knows how to translate or speak German, I spared them and myself the trouble. It is evident, however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my German translation, and so they are stealing my language from me, a language they had little knowledge of before this. Yet they do not thank me for this, but instead they use it against me. However, I readily grant them this, for it tickles me to know that I have taught my ungrateful pupils, even my enemies, how to speak. . . .

If I have made some mistakes in it (although I am not aware of any, and would most certainly be unwilling to deliberately mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the papists to be my judges. For their ears are still too long and their hee-haws too weak for them to criticize my translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work, sense and brains are needed for a good translation. They know it even less than the miller’s donkey, for they have never tried it. . . .

I would like to see a papist come forward and translate even one epistle of St. Paul’s or one of the prophets without making use of Luther’s German or translation. Then we might see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German. . . .

If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. [1] For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. . . .

Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, [2] and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears. . . .

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them. . . .

Why should I even bother to talk about translating so much? If I were I to explain all the reasons and considerations behind my words, I would need an entire year. I have learned by experience what an art and what a task translating is, so I will not tolerate some papal donkey or mule acting as my judge or critic. They have not tried it. If anyone does not like my translations, he can ignore it; and may the devil repay him for it if he dislikes or criticizes my translations without my knowledge or permission. If it needs to be criticized, I will do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave my translations in peace. Each of them can do a translation for himself that suits him — what do I care? . . .

I care nothing about the papal donkeys, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work and, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. Their insults are my highest praise and honor. I shall still be a doctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall never take that away from me until the Last Day.

Footnotes

[1] “I will it, I command it, my will is reason enough.” A quotation from Juvenal’s sixth satire, which Luther often used to characterize the arbitrary power of the pope.

[2] With these abusive terms Luther refers to two prominent Catholic enemies. By “Smith” he means Johann Faber of Leutkirch (whose father was a blacksmith) and by “Snot-Nose” (Rotzlöffel) he means Johann Cochlaeus (“löffel” is the German equivalent of the Latin cochlear).

Swan wrote in his article:

Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of “alone” in Romans 3:28.

We need not — are under no “Catholic necessity” to — deny this. The live question of translation is whether it should be added.  Secondly, if Erasmus’ views are brought into the discussion, it might be interesting to see if he included himself in his famous Textus Receptus Greek edition of the New Testament (or, Novum Instrumentum omne) in 1516. Wikipedia states about it:

The Textus Receptus constituted the translation-base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The text originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516, a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and monk Desiderius Erasmus.

It turns out that “alone” is not found in Erasmus’ Greek New Testament at Romans 3:28. One web page about this topic posted the Greek from that work:

λογιζομεθα ουν πιστει δικαιουσθαι ανθρωπον χωρις εργων νομου

— The Textus Receptus; base text is Stephens 1550, with variants of Scrivener 1894.

See also an interlinear version with the Greek of Textus Receptus, and English. One might also sensibly ask: “how have translations rendered Romans 3:28 over the past 500 years?” Do they exhibit  Luther’s vehement insistence (apart from the specifically German aspects of the question)? The Bible Gateway site, that has about 30 English translations (specifically for for Romans 3:28), informs us that none of them have “alone” in Romans 3:28. One translation has “only” and that is the Good News Translation (GNT), a well-known very free paraphrase. It reads: “For we conclude that a person is put right with God only through faith, and not by doing what the Law commands.” Likewise, Bible Hub’s parallel Bibles page shows exactly the same thing: none with “alone” and only GNT with “only.”

These include, most interestingly, even Bibles from the 1500s:

Tyndale Bible (1526) For we suppose that a man is iustified by fayth without the dedes of ye lawe.

Coverdale Bible (1535) We holde therfore that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the lawe.

Bishops’ Bible (1568) Therfore, we holde that a man is iustified by fayth, without the deedes of the lawe.

Geneva Bible (1587) Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.

William Tyndale was a Protestant. Myles Coverdale was an Anglican. His Bible was a combination of Tyndale’s, plus his translations of books not included in Tyndale’s collection. The Bishops’ Bible was produced by the Church of England. The Geneva Bible was also basically a revision of and addendum to Tyndale’s Bible, produced by Protestants. Thus, none of these versions can be accused of Catholic bias in translation. The absence of “alone” in the passage is virtually universal. Hence, the most historically influential Bible in English, the King James Version, reads, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” The Catholic English Bible from roughly the same period: the Douay-Rheims, reads, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.”

One must take a step back from this passage and learn about the issues at stake in the first place. Catholics fully agree that we are “justified by faith apart from works of law” (RSV) because of what we understand by the particular Pauline phrase, “works of law.” I cited my friend Al Kresta in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), explaining this:

Unlike the modern evangelical Protestant revivalistic preaching tradition, the Apostle Paul was not preoccupied with his acceptance as a sinner before a holy and righteous God. That was Luther’s crisis. Protestants have tended to read Paul through the lens of Luther’s experience.

  1. . . . Luther said he feared God but clung to the Apostle Paul. All the constitutive elements of the classic Luther-type experience, however, are missing in both the experience and the thought of the Apostle.

Unlike Luther, Paul was not preoccupied with his guilt, seeking reassurance of a gracious God. He was rather robust of conscience, even given to boasting, untroubled about whether God was gracious or not (Philippians 3:4 ff.; 2 Corinthians 10, 11). He knew God was gracious. He never pleads either with Jews or Gentiles to feel an anguished conscience and then receive release from that anguish in a message of forgiveness . . . Paul’s burden is not to “bring people under conviction of sin” as in revival services. Forgiveness is simply a matter of fact.

When Paul speaks of himself as a serious sinner, it is . . . very specifically because . . . he had persecuted the church and missed God’s new move — opening the covenant community to the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 15:9-10; Ephesians 3:8; Galatians 1:13-16; 1 Timothy 1:13-15).

What is now set right in his life is not that he is no longer trying to work his way to heaven, abandons self-exertion and now trusts Christ; it is rather that he now sees that God has inexplicably chosen him to reveal this new and more inclusive covenant community made up of Jew and Gentile . . . (Ephesians 2:11-3:6).

2. Paul’s arguments against works of the law are not fundamentally arguments against human participation in or human cooperation with the saving purposes of God but arguments against Judaistic pride that sought to define membership in the covenant community by reference to Jewish marks of identity, such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, etc. and not fundamentally faith in Jesus as Messiah . . .

Contrary to the pronouncements of popular preachers, first century Judaism did not believe in salvation by works. They believed that they were God’s elect people by grace; lawkeeping was their response to God’s grace. Salvation was understood to be granted by God’s electing grace, not according to a righteousness based on merit-earning works. But most Protestant scholars since Luther have read Paul as saying that Judaism misunderstood the gracious nature of God’s covenant with Moses and perverted it into a system of attaining righteousness by works.

Wrong! Luther’s experience was not Paul’s. New Testament scholars, for the most part, now understand ‘works of law’ not as synonymous with human effort but as the activities by which the Jews maintained their distinct status from the Gentiles . . . (pp. 141-142; from unpublished lecture notes entitled Some Further Thoughts on Justification by Faith Through Grace [1993] )

With this understanding, Catholics can and do freely accept the proposition, “justified by faith apart from works of law” because it doesn’t exclude grace-produced, grace-enabled works that accompany genuine faith, according to what is taught in James:

James 2:14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?…[17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . . [20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works 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.

We have no problem with “justification by faith” nor with justification by grace alone. The Catholic Church fully accepts both. Our problem is with an altogether different proposition: “justification by faith alone.” I’ve written many times along these lines:

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification (with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology) [12-29-03]

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works) [4-8-08]

Comparative Soteriology (Salvation): A Handy Chart [7-19-08]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [2013]

Also, Luther’s view on justification, fully understood, is much more complex than a supposed stark dichotomy between faith and works:

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

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

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther’s Point of View [11-10-14]

Lastly, Erasmus’ remarks must be understood in light of all of this backdrop, too. Swan cites Protestant exegete D. A. Carson, who claimed that Erasmus accepted some variation of “faith alone” till “1532, when he . . . began advocating for the need of human works in justification.” I don’t have time for an exhaustive review of Erasmus’ soteriology, but I do know that he made the following (perfectly orthodox and Catholic; consistent with Trent) statements in 1526, in his Hyperaspistes, which was a reply to Luther. I have in my own library a copy of Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, (Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999), by Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller, translators, and Charles Trinkhaus, editor.  Here are some relevant excerpts:

[I]n my Discussion I so distinctly and so clearly explain that there is no contradiction in saying that the sum and substance of a good deed should be attributed to God and asserting also that the human will does something, however tiny its share may be. (p. 154)

For why should anyone have faith in himself if he knows that he can neither begin nor complete anything without the help of God’s grace, to whom I profess that the sum and substance of all things rightly done ought to be attributed? Nor is there any difference between you and me except that I make our will cooperate with the grace of God and you make it completely passive. (p. 185)

How will a person rise up against God if he knows that he has in himself no hope of salvation without the singular grace of God, if he is persuaded that all human powers are of no avail for salvation without the aid of grace, especially since he is not unaware that everything he can do by his natural powers is the free gift of God? If a person wishes to cross the ocean, is he confident that he can achieve this without a ship and wind? And yet he is not idle while he is sailing. For professing free will does not tend to make a person attribute less to the mercy of God but rather keeps him from not responding to operating grace and gives him reason to blame himself if he perishes. I exalt God’s mercy so much, I diminish human power so much, that in the matter of salvation no one can claim anything for himself, since the very fact of his existence and whatever he can do by his natural endowments is the gift of God. You exalt grace and demean mankind so much that you open another pit which we had closed over by attributing just a little bit to free will, namely that it accommodates itself to grace or turns away from grace. (p. 186)

When you say that a person taken captive by sin cannot by his own power turn his will to good unless he is blown upon by the breath of grace, we also profess this, especially if you mean turning effectively. (p. 188)

. . . you remove grace from free will, but when I say free will does something good, I join it with grace, and while it obeys grace it is acted upon and it acts felicitously. (p. 190)

Now see how you bear down upon me: it effects nothing without grace; therefore it does nothing at all with grace. Is this the trap you have set to catch me? (p. 190)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Desiderius Erasmus (1466/1469-1536); portrait (1523) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/1498-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The controversy over Romans 3:28 and Martin Luther adding “alone” to “faith” in his German Bible is explored from many angles, including the views of Erasmus.


Browse Our Archives