Nicaea, the Reformation and the theological essentials

[LutheranScholar]

false ecumenism is reject by conservative Protestants and traditional Catholics…

so then, who is in favor of it?

The liberal, gay - marrying Protestants and “what kind” of Catholics?

" Cafeteria," maybe?

*Full Question

I frequently hear the term “cafeteria Catholic.” Exactly what does this mean?
Answer

A cafeteria Catholic is typically defined as one who picks and chooses what Catholic teaching he wants to believe. Catholics are not free to choose which teachings (on faith and morals) to obey.

Even when the Church has not spoken on a matter of faith or morals definitively (infallibly), the faithful must give “a religious submission of the intellect and will” to its teachings (CIC 752).* catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-a-cafeteria-catholic

I sympathize with the traditionalists n this one. Even the LCMS has a huge amount of liberals who would pick and choose an essentially " American Evangelical" philosophy while moaning about Confessional Lutheranism being " too Catholic." In fact, even one of our own clergymen got excommunicated because he was teaching what amounted to heresy and wound up joining the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America steadfastlutherans.org/2012/04/great-stuff-rev-dr-matthew-becker-nature-interprets-scripture/, steadfastlutherans.org/2015/02/to-publicly-call-rev-dr-matthew-becker-to-repentance/, matthewlbecker.blogspot.com/2015/07/less-room-in-lcms-brotherhood.html. Who says that any church has to tolerate heresy in its ranks?

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

I think there are three basic Protestant responses:

1. Yes. Sola fide and Sola Scriptura are essential truths of the Faith. In the more naive version, they are held to be truths once held, then lost, then recovered (or perhaps held by a succession of dissenters, etc.). In the more sophisticated, “classical Protestant” version, development of doctrine is appealed to. (Yes, many Protestants believe in development of doctrine.) Just as pre-Nicene Christians held to some form of belief in the divinity of Christ without having worked out the details or clearly excluded the heresies, so pre-Reformation Christians, some more than others, held to principles from which sola fide and sola scriptura were developed, even if they didn’t articulate them as clearly as the Reformers did. (The two aren’t in the same boat, by the way–it’s much easier to find precedent for sola scriptura than for sola fide. But moving on. . . . ) Once these doctrines were clearly articulated, the explicit denial of them by the Council of Trent made “Rome” heretical and no longer truly Christian in a salvific sense. This would be the view held, for instance, by anti-Catholic Reformed folks such as James White.
2. This position would, again, appeal to development of doctrine, but in a more ecumenical way. Sola fide and sola scriptura are held to be important but not essential doctrines, articulating the truth more clearly than the Catholic alternative, but not on the same level as the truths found in the ancient Creeds. This is the view held by the “Christianity Today” sort of evangelicals, for the most part–figures like Timothy George who signed ECT but still see significant differences with Catholicism.
3. The third possibility is that, in fact, both Protestants and Catholics are in error in allowing themselves to be divided over these doctrines. We should instead return to the ancient Creeds as our standard of unity. This is the view held by many Anglicans–most Episcopalians for sure. It is the view that has been, from my perspective, the only serious alternative to Catholicism for some years.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

false ecumenism is reject by conservative Protestants and traditional Catholics…

so then, who is in favor of it?

The liberal, gay - marrying Protestants and “what kind” of Catholics?

By saying “false ecumenism” you are of course loading the dice.

But a form of ecumenism rejected by the LCMS is clearly accepted by the authorities of the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

From Pope Benedict XVI actually saying Luther was right

to the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION from the Vatican

to the recently announced “substantial agreement” with Lutherans by the USCCB

50 or 100 years ago these events would be an earth shattering reversal of Catholic teaching :
today, its just an ongoing clarification of what was always taught.

". But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it. "
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

. But whatever in the justified
precedes** or** follows
the **free gift **of faith
is neither the basis of justification
nor merits it.

Amen!!

I don’t think this is a reversal. It’s simply using “justification” in its Protestant sense, to mean “our acceptance by God.” God does not love and accept us because of anything in us, but because of His mercy.

Edwin

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Only if the definition is broadened as to allow the meaning, as we know it today, to be expunged or rather attenuated.

Sola fide = faith , not by works

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’ve been brooding over this idea for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the heart of the reformation. Protestants who defend the reformation base the justification of schism with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis that the RCC failed to adhere to these principles/doctrines which they would argue are the core of the Gospel (Sola-Fide is the gospel message in all Protestantism it seems to me).

The ideas themselves do not seem to be explicitly taught in the formulas that are expounded today in the Church before the reformation, though Protestants would argue from Biblical and Patristic texts that these ideas were always present though not defined with outright clarity.

This seems to me parallel then to the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople from which all Christians have received their basic definition of who Christ in the Trinity is. In the ante Nicene period most of us would recognise a basic doctrine of the Trinity emerging over course of time till it was expounded with greater clarity by figures like Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine.

The Trinity is an essential doctrine, which all who claim to be Christians are expected to hold to. All of us, Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic would reject those who deny the definition and so we don’t recognise groups like the Arians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and etc.

So my question for Protestants is this: are the ideas of Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide essential on the same level as the Trinity? If that is the case and those who have rejected or not accepted the definitions of the reformation are still around, can they properly be considered Christians if they reject such a fundamental definition of how it is we understand the faith and are saved?

If the Orthodox and Catholic Church (one of which has not defined the salvation process) continue to reject these essentials (as I believe them to be in Protestantism), how can either be considered properly Christian? Or is that these doctrines are not as essential as appears in Protestantism?

Any responses would be appreciated.

I’d say there are a number of problems with your analysis from the get-go. First of all, sola scriptura and sola fide aren’t doctrines per se, they are more appropriately slogans that come out of the Reformation. Sola scriptura, properly understood, is a normative form of critique or hermeneutic, not a doctrine. Sola fide is a conception or framework of how people are saved, and whether the classical understanding of sola fide is actually even different than the Catholic understanding is, minimally, an open question as others have pointed out. So then a misunderstanding of how people are saved (either way) doesn’t affect the objective reality that some people are saved. I don’t think Lutherans (for example) or Catholics would say a misunderstanding about the nature of salvation would automatically negate one’s salvation.

So then, no, sola scriptura and sola fide are not on the same “level” as the doctrine of the Trinity. They are apples and oranges—or maybe even apples and rabbits.

The second major problem is that talking about “Protestants” is almost by definition subject to error, since “Protestantism” (if one can even say there is such a thing) is a very diverse phenomenon. Better to stick with and discuss particular groups of Protestants: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.

The essential difference between, say, Lutherans and Catholics is about the power and nature of the Church, particularly the Pope, not about the Bible or mechanics of Salvation. Yes, there are other differences, but if you’re looking for an essential difference, that’s it in my opinion. A better understanding of the nature of the Reformation is in order.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’d say there are a number of problems with your analysis from the get-go. First of all, sola scriptura and sola fide aren’t doctrines per se, they are more appropriately slogans that come out of the Reformation.

So then, no, sola scriptura and sola fide are not on the same “level” as the doctrine of the Trinity. They are apples and oranges—or maybe even apples and rabbits.

doctrine

noun doc·trine \ˈdäk-trən\

Simple Definition of doctrine
: a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

Protestantism as a whole is not united on a lot, but they are united on this…and it is “taught or believed to be true”, just as we see the word defined.

The Holy Trinity concept is also taught or believed to be true.

The difference being is there is much more scriptural support for the Trinity belief than there is for the practice of Sola Scriptura.

Pax

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’d say there are a number of problems with your analysis from the get-go. First of all, sola scriptura and sola fide aren’t doctrines per se, they are more appropriately slogans that come out of the Reformation. Sola scriptura, properly understood, is a normative form of critique or hermeneutic, not a doctrine. Sola fide is a conception or framework of how people are saved, and whether the classical understanding of sola fide is actually even different than the Catholic understanding is, minimally, an open question as others have pointed out. So then a misunderstanding of how people are saved (either way) doesn’t affect the objective reality that some people are saved. I don’t think Lutherans (for example) or Catholics would say a misunderstanding about the nature of salvation would automatically negate one’s salvation.

So then, no, sola scriptura and sola fide are not on the same “level” as the doctrine of the Trinity. They are apples and oranges—or maybe even apples and rabbits.

The second major problem is that talking about “Protestants” is almost by definition subject to error, since “Protestantism” (if one can even say there is such a thing) is a very diverse phenomenon. Better to stick with and discuss particular groups of Protestants: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, etc.

The essential difference between, say, Lutherans and Catholics is about the power and nature of the Church, particularly the Pope, not about the Bible or mechanics of Salvation. Yes, there are other differences, but if you’re looking for an essential difference, that’s it in my opinion. A better understanding of the nature of the Reformation is in order.

Naturally whether I’ve missed the mark on my analysis will depend on the viewpoint one takes. Though from a Lutheran perspective I do not see my argument being problematic. I’ve been listening to Alistair McGrath’s work on Reformation theology in bits and pieces and to him it is evidently clear that Luther was concerned primarily with Justification by Faith alone. Ideas about the Church and what it was were left to the generation after Luther and Calvin to hammer out and this seems to suggest to me that Sola Fide really is an important doctrine within Protestantism comparable to that of the trinity.

Luther is not infallible within Lutheran theology so he can be critiqued but I do think I have a working knowledge of the reformation in general terms. So you would have to offer something specific from Luther to prove my evaluation of him mistaken, that he cared more over the corruption of the Catholic Church than it’s theology of Salvation.

I have said earlier that my concern isn’t mainly soteriological in asking this question. Rather it is to ask what is the essential definition of the Christian faith. Is Sola Fide part of that definition? To protestants the answer seems yes. This doesn’t mean that to all Protestants that Catholics and Orthodox who deny the teaching aren’t saved but that they do not have what Orthodox and Catholics might call the ‘fullness of the faith.’

Sola Fide is a non-negotiable for much of Protestantism, at least for those who care about what the reformers and their churches stood for. Some branches might disagree with it’s essential nature in Christianity, but am I wrong to say the majority or if not the majority, the conservative reformation would still insist on it’s absolute value and the ultimate reason for why schism with the Roman Catholic Church happened? If this is the case, are Catholics or Orthodox to be considered Christians technically since they have not accepted an essential formula of Christianity? If it is not an essential formula how important is it?

It does seem to me if Protestants want to consider Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and i’m glad most do) they have to deny the ultimate importance of Sola Fide. It can be very important, but not essential.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Naturally whether I’ve missed the mark on my analysis will depend on the viewpoint one takes. Though from a Lutheran perspective I do not see my argument being problematic. I’ve been listening to Alistair McGrath’s work on Reformation theology in bits and pieces and to him it is evidently clear that Luther was concerned primarily with Justification by Faith alone. Ideas about the Church and what it was were left to the generation after Luther and Calvin to hammer out and this seems to suggest to me that Sola Fide really is an important doctrine within Protestantism comparable to that of the trinity.

Luther is not infallible within Lutheran theology so he can be critiqued but I do think I have a working knowledge of the reformation in general terms. So you would have to offer something specific from Luther to prove my evaluation of him mistaken, that he cared more over the corruption of the Catholic Church than it’s theology of Salvation.

I have said earlier that my concern isn’t mainly soteriological in asking this question. Rather it is to ask what is the essential definition of the Christian faith. Is Sola Fide part of that definition? To protestants the answer seems yes. This doesn’t mean that to all Protestants that Catholics and Orthodox who deny the teaching aren’t saved but that they do not have what Orthodox and Catholics might call the ‘fullness of the faith.’

Sola Fide is a non-negotiable for much of Protestantism, at least for those who care about what the reformers and their churches stood for. Some branches might disagree with it’s essential nature in Christianity, but am I wrong to say the majority or if not the majority, the conservative reformation would still insist on it’s absolute value and the ultimate reason for why schism with the Roman Catholic Church happened? If this is the case, are Catholics or Orthodox to be considered Christians technically since they have not accepted an essential formula of Christianity? If it is not an essential formula how important is it?

It does seem to me if Protestants want to consider Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and i’m glad most do) they have to deny the ultimate importance of Sola Fide. It can be very important, but not essential.

If you want to speak about Lutherans more specifically, then their understanding of the essence of the faith is found in the historic creeds of the Church.

Apologists (although I don’t know Alistair McGrath’s [sic] views on this specific topic), like to focus on the solas because, being critiques, they are more easily attacked. Plus, having been distorted from their Reformation understanding by subsequent groups, this makes for even more confusion and easy argument. There are endless threads here on sola scriptura treating that exact issue. But at least for Lutherans, setting up the solas as some type of “essence of faith” equal to or superior to the creeds would a huge straw man. Lutherans (thus) wouldn’t typically argue that Catholics and Orthodox aren’t Christians, because of the unity found in the Creeds.

You could perhaps be much more convincing if addressing Evangelicals or Pentecostals—neither group seems to have much of a problem with Oneness Pentecostalism, for example, and many Evangelicals proudly claim themselves to be non-creedal Christians. And, it follows, that many evangelicals would have a harder time declaring Catholic and Orthodox to be Christians. So from a Lutheran perspective, your argument is actually more problematic than it is from an Evangelical perspective.

I’m not sure how one would judge what “Luther was primarily concerned about.” Perhaps you could say that justification by faith was at the core of one of his most significant critiques of the Church. But there’s much more to his writings, teaching, and work than critique.

Lumping all Protestants together into “Protestantism” might make for simplistic apologetics (just scroll down the CA book list for example), but beliefs in Protestantism are extremely diverse, just to reiterate. Claims about Protestants and Protestantism are almost always by definition, errors at least in part.

If you’re interested in the Reformation, I’d suggest beginning with more objective sources on the history of the Reformation (e.g., Cameron’s The European Reformation), and then if you really want to move on to apologetics, you will have something comparative to work with.