Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[1voice]

Lutherans and Methodists have joined in a joint declaration. This website is out of the loop.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed at Augsburg on 31 October 1999

19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace.

31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel “apart from works prescribed by the law” (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God’s commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God’s will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

THE WORLD METHODIST COUNCIL STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION
WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
(accompanied by the Official Common Affirmation signed by Representatives of the
Catholic Church, the Lutheran World Federation and the World Methodist Council)
Seoul, South Korea, 23 July 2006
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060723_text-association_en.html

The above (19, 31) line up perfectly with Luther … and with the author that I cited above…

 

[CopticChristian]

The above (19, 31) line up perfectly with Luther … and with the author that I cited above…

I appreciate your conciliatory approach. You may want to read the entire document. I went to your website and read what you pointed out. You said the difference was huge. You may find that after reading this document you may look again and see something different.

 

[1voice]

I appreciate your conciliatory approach. You may want to read the entire document. I went to your website and read what you pointed out. You said the difference was huge. You may find that after reading this document you may look again and see something different.

Please clarify … which document(s) would you like me to read and compare / evaluate.

---

The huge difference that I saw was between the Council of Trent’s statements and that of the
The Protestant position described by the author on the website that I cited.

That is a completely different comparison than the following …
Where I found that … “(19, 31) line up perfectly with Luther … and with the author that I cited”

… In (19,31) it looks as if the CC adjusted its position (at least in this document) to line up with the long standing position of Lutherans as well as Methodists.

 

[CopticChristian]

Please clarify … which document(s) would you like me to read and compare / evaluate.

---

The huge difference that I saw was between the Council of Trent’s statements and that of the
The Protestant position described by the author on the website that I cited.

That is a completely different comparison than the following …
Where I found that … “(19, 31) line up perfectly with Luther … and with the author that I cited”

… In (19,31) it looks as if the CC adjusted its position (at least in this document) to line up with the long standing position of Lutherans as well as Methodists.

Sometimes it is best to read the original documents on your own, compare, come to an understanding rather than look at what someone elses point of view is. Sometimes after reviewing it on your own you can see that the other persons point of view is different and then you wonder why?

 

[1voice]

Sometimes it is best to read the original documents on your own, compare, come to an understanding rather than look at what someone elses point of view is. Sometimes after reviewing it on your own you can see that the other persons point of view is different and then you wonder why?

I agree…

My question again is … which document(s) do you suggest that I read in their entirety… and can you provide a link to any that you referenced here in part.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree…

My question again is … which document(s) do you suggest that I read in their entirety… and can you provide a link to any that you referenced here in part.

There are two links in post 301 that you can open and read.

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[1voice]

There are two links in post 301 that you can open and read.

Thank you:thumbsup:

K thanks … God bless you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi 1Voice,

Thank you for the link.

God bless

Scroll about half way down to the 4th highlighted topic to find the specific differences … titled “how does the biblical, historic Protestant presentation of justification by faith alone contradict Roman Catholic teaching?”

… The entire article is clear and fascinating.

the-highway.com/articleJan98.html

 

[guanophore]

You got a pretty good handle on it…You guys seems to know more about Calvanism then I do.

I have learned a great deal from my Reformed brethren since coming to CAF.

 

[guanophore]

Many Baptists and similar folks argue that sanctification is also imputed and that the Reformed understanding of sanctification through the good works wrought in us by the Holy Spirit (which as you say is actually very similar to the Catholic view) is a kind of salvation by works.

Yes, but they don’t deny that sanctification occurs, and is necessary.

It boils down to how one understands the monergism/synergism thing it seems.

Phil 2:12-13
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

J. Vernon McGee, who died in the 80s but whose gravelly voice can still be heard on many evangelical radio stations going “Through the Bible,” started out Presbyterian, and I’ve heard him expound the difference between the two views and why he abandoned the Reformed view for the Baptist/dispensationalist view. (I was writing my dissertation on Martin Bucer at the time, and was struck by McGee’s frank awareness of how radically different the contemporary dispensationalist view is from the Reformed view.)

Edwin

I have always loved J. Vernon McGee’s gravelly voice.

It reminds me of the story of the three blind men and the elephant.

Each perspective has some truth, but clinging to just one part to the exclusion of the others causes “blindness”.

 

[guanophore]

WelI, bias is part of the lay of the land when you travel in the territory we are exploring.
Personally I found it clear in the fact that he lays out the differences by comparing the policy statements from the Council of Trent … to (at least one) Protestant view of the mechanism behind salvation/ justification and purification.
The Protestant view lines up perfectly with the scripture that states " faith comes by hearing the word of God. Just as Abraham was called righteous by God when he exercised faith by hearing and believing … plus nothing.

I agree. When one cherry picks certain verses, and ignores others, one can line up this novel theology of the Reformation with those particular scriptures.

The problem Catholics have is that this method contradicts what was given to us in the Once for All divine deposit of faith. From the Apostles, we learn that ALL the scriptures need to “line up”.

Gal 5:5-6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but** faith working through love.**

1 Cor 13:13
13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, but they don’t deny that sanctification occurs, and is necessary.

It boils down to how one understands the monergism/synergism thing it seems.

Phil 2:12-13
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

The problem with the Protestant understanding of justification is that it is deeply mired in nominalism.

The forensic understanding of justification is according to McGrath a theological novum. It is not something that you will find in the early Church. This split between justification and sanctification was never there.

It cannot hold because if salvation consists in being justified (forensic) then what is the need for sanctification. Isn’t the whole goal just to be saved?

I have always loved J. Vernon McGee’s gravelly voice.

It reminds me of the story of the three blind men and the elephant.

Each perspective has some truth, but clinging to just one part to the exclusion of the others causes “blindness”.

In the story no one actually grasped any part of the truth at all. Their conclusion were totally erroneous. Even if their individual concllusions were put together, one cannot come up with a correct version of the thing - that it is an elephant.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, but they don’t deny that sanctification occurs, and is necessary.

It boils down to how one understands the monergism/synergism thing it seems.

Phil 2:12-13
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

The problem with the Protestant understanding of justification is that it is deeply mired in nominalism.

The forensic understanding of justification is according to McGrath a theological novum. It is not something that you will find in the early Church. This split between justification and sanctification was never there.

It cannot hold because if salvation consists in being justified (forensic) then what is the need for sanctification. Isn’t the whole goal just to be saved? And if sanctification is necessary, then justification is not enough.

I have always loved J. Vernon McGee’s gravelly voice.

It reminds me of the story of the three blind men and the elephant.

Each perspective has some truth, but clinging to just one part to the exclusion of the others causes “blindness”.

In the story no one actually grasped any part of the truth at all. Their conclusion were totally erroneous. Even if their individual concllusions were put together, one cannot come up with a correct version of the thing - that it is an elephant.

 

[1voice]

I agree. When one cherry picks certain verses, and ignores others, one can line up this novel theology of the Reformation with those particular scriptures.

The problem Catholics have is that this method contradicts what was given to us in the Once for All divine deposit of faith. From the Apostles, we learn that ALL the scriptures need to “line up”.

Gal 5:5-6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but** faith working through love.**

1 Cor 13:13
13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

My comment was part of a discussion based on these statements by Pope Benedict and Martin Luther that I posted in 205 above… forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8308976&postcount=205

Both of which … I am in complete agreement.

 

[1voice]

The problem with the Protestant understanding of justification is that it is deeply mired in nominalism.

The forensic understanding of justification is according to McGrath a theological novum. It is not something that you will find in the early Church. This split between justification and sanctification was never there.

It cannot hold because if salvation consists in being justified (forensic) then what is the need for sanctification. Isn’t the whole goal just to be saved? And if sanctification is necessary, then justification is not enough.

Requiring Church leaders not to marry was not found in the early church … Using the fact that ‘they didnt do it then so they cant do it now’ as a criteria … doesnt stand up to inspection.​

If sanctification is moot …

Then why did Jesus have to pray for Peter to be restored?
and … Why did Paul teach us to “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind through the washing of God’s word” ?

… and why dont they just hold people under the water at Baptism until they go to be with God … since the job is finished …

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Requiring Church leaders not to marry was not found in the early church … Using the fact that ‘they didnt do it then so they cant do it now’ as a criteria … doesnt stand up to inspection.

They aren’t required to - they CHOOSE to remain celibate. You can marry and become a priest in an Eastern rite, but if you want to be a priest in a Latin rite you have to choose to be celibate. No one is forcing you not to marry. They have the option to. And can’t deacons also marry? (Not sure on that one ).

 

[CopticChristian]

1voice;8319804:

Requiring Church leaders not to marry was not found in the early church … Using the fact that ‘they didnt do it then so they cant do it now’ as a criteria … doesnt stand up to inspection.

They aren’t required to - they CHOOSE to remain celibate. You can marry and become a priest in an Eastern rite, but if you want to be a priest in a Latin rite you have to choose to be celibate. No one is forcing you not to marry. They have the option to. And can’t deacons also marry? (Not sure on that one ).

Deacons can marry. The laiety usually are the deacons prior to being deacons.

 

[Contarini]

Swiss Guy;8319873:

Deacons can marry. The laiety usually are the deacons prior to being deacons.

I don’t believe that deacons are allowed to marry. As you seem to be trying to say in the second sentence, deacons are usually already married when ordained.

It is a fairly ancient tradition of the Church, East and West, that marriage is not allowed after ordination to the diaconate.

I have heard stories of anxious Orthodox seminarians running around trying to find a wife before ordination. . . . .

Edwin

 

[1voice]

1voice;8319804:

Requiring Church leaders not to marry was not found in the early church … Using the fact that ‘they didnt do it then so they cant do it now’ as a criteria … doesnt stand up to inspection.

They aren’t required to - they CHOOSE to remain celibate. You can marry and become a priest in an Eastern rite, but if you want to be a priest in a Latin rite you have to choose to be celibate. No one is forcing you not to marry. They have the option to. And can’t deacons also marry? (Not sure on that one ).

… thats not the point.

the point is that using the logic that something should not be done … because it was not done by the early church … doesnt work as a criteria.

The marriage criteria for Priesthood in the RCC today ( or whatever the equivalent was then) … was not the criteria in the early Church​

… I was referring to the RCC in my example … and choosing to obey the rule is prerequisite to becoming a Priest in the RCC … if they dont choose celibacy then the Church wont choose them to be a priest … with a few noted exceptions …

 

[Contarini]

It cannot hold because if salvation consists in being justified (forensic) then what is the need for sanctification. Isn’t the whole goal just to be saved?

First of all, Reformed folks would generally say that “salvation” includes both justification and sanctification.

And surely it is monstrous to suggest that the goal for any Christian should just be to have one’s sins forgiven? Justification exists for the sake of sanctification–in classical Protestant theology, it gets the worry about one’s acceptance by God out of the way so that one can get on with really loving God and neighbor. That is, by the way, what Luther meant when he said hyperbolically, “Sin boldly, but believe even more boldly.” His purpose was not to encourage sin but to get scrupulous people to stop worrying about acceptance by God and focus on the stuff that really mattered–faith working through love.

His theology was one-sided and misleading in many ways and he was wrong to divide the Church over it, but he was not telling people that good works and inner transformation were not important. To think that he was is to misunderstand him–and Protesantism generally–radically.

Edwin