Orthodoxy? Catholic? Or stay where I am?

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, but the promises attached to the law are contingent upon perfect obedience, hence the law really promises only wrath and punishment. The promises are there, yes, but they are only carried out as long as we perfectly obey.

I think this is largely an artificial distinction, for both “law” and “gospel” include commands and promises. You say that the promises attached to the law are contingent, but so are the promises of the Gospel. Essentially, the “gospel” in the NT is the good news that the kingdom of God has come in Jesus (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14, Luke 4:43, Acts 20:24). “Kingdom” is (1) God’s sovereign power, (2) his sovereign authority, and (3) his coming into history to defeat Satan and bring about salvation with all its consequences. God’s kingdom power includes all his mighty acts in history, especially the Resurrection of Christ. God’s kingdom authority is the reiteration of his commandments. When the kingdom appears in power, it is time for people to repent. They must obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8, compare apeitheo in 1 Pet. 4:17). The gospel itself requires a certain kind of conduct (Acts 14:15, Gal. 2:14, Phil. 1:27; cf. Rom 2:16). It is this whole complex: God’s power to save, the reiteration of God’s commands, and his coming into history to execute his plan, that is the gospel. It is good news to know that God is bringing his good plans to fruition.

Even if you reduce it to a bare minimum, the Gospel at least includes the command to believe. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17). You will protest and say “Yes, but the ability to believe is a gift that is given by God’s grace, especially in baptism.” At which point, you are in exactly the same position as a Catholic who believes that good works are also a gift given by grace through the sacraments.

You might follow that by saying “Yes, but faith doesn’t justify, only Christ’s merits justify as received by faith…” and the Catholic will say the same; the merit that is given for the increase of justification only comes by the merits of Christ in His passion, death and resurrection; except, unlike Protestantism, the Catholic recognizes the full scope of the teaching on justification throughout the New Testament and realizes that it does include our obedience to Christ, as amply taught by the apostles/disciples.

 

[Koineman]

I think this is largely an artificial distinction,…

I’ll reply to this later.

 

[Koineman]

I think this is largely an artificial distinction,

It’s not even close to being an artificial distinction. Paul clearly contrasted law with grace and faith in Galatians:

“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:4)

and here:

“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Gal. 3:10-14)

There is no mixing of the two for purposes of justification. You are either justified by faith or by the law. If you want to be justified by the law, you are undel compulsion to keep the entire law:

“3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:3)

It’s either the whole law or it’s faith. Paul did not mix the two when he spoke of justification.

What Trent did was try to mix the two, by saying that our works merit eternal life and trying to justify that statement by saying that those works are “done in God” and are the result of grace. In that framework, Jesus simply starts the salvation ball rolling for us by making the good works possible that merit eternal lfie, rather than actually meriting it for us.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It’s not even close to being an artificial distinction. Paul clearly contrasted law with grace and faith in Galatians:

“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:4)

and here:

“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Gal. 3:10-14)

There is no mixing of the two for purposes of justification. You are either justified by faith or by the law. If you want to be justified by the law, you are undel compulsion to keep the entire law:

“3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:3)

It’s either the whole law or it’s faith. Paul did not mix the two when he spoke of justification.

What Trent did was try to mix the two, by saying that our works merit eternal life and trying to justify that statement by saying that those works are “done in God” and are the result of grace. In that framework, Jesus simply starts the salvation ball rolling for us by making the good works possible that merit eternal lfie, rather than actually meriting it for us.

The problem with the above analysis is that it does not take into account any context of how Paul is using the term Law in any of those verses. There is no evidence that the law referred to here means any command given by Christ or His apostles. Rather, Paul is using Law to refer to the Law of Moses. To conflate the Law of Moses with that given by Christ is to confuse the distinction between the shadow and the reality. The Law of Christ by the Spirit is discussed in every case positively in the New Testament; both for its fulfillment of the covenant at Sinai and that it leads to newness of life, as Paul makes clear in Romans 8 and Galatians 5; as John does in his epistles, etc.

 

[Koineman]

The problem with the above analysis is that it does not take into account any context of how Paul is using the term Law in any of those verses.

Sure it does. Note the verses I quoted. They reference OT passages about the Law of Moses, which you agreed this passage is talking about.

There is no evidence that the law referred to here means any command given by Christ or His apostles.

Correct. I never said it did. But since we were talking about Trent, my use of these passages is appropriate. Trent used the phrase “divine law.” There is no reason for us to think they meant this “command given by Christ” you spoke of, which is where you seem to be going. Other parts of the context bear this out. For example, earlier, in chapter VI, when speaking of conversion, it uses the phrase “to keep the commandments of God,” and later, in chapter VII, it says:

“This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; **If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. **Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.”

and further on, in chapter X, it says:

“Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, …”

and in chapter XI:

"But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do.”

By distinguishing between the Mosaic Law and the commands of Christ and the apostles, what you seem to be doing, unless I’ve misunderstood you, is proposing that there is now a new law by which we are justified. It’s as if you’re saying: The Mosaic Law does not justify us, but this new law does. All that does, though, is duplicate the very problem Paul was addressing in his epistle to the Galatians. His whole point there was that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works (deeds). This is echoed in Romans:

3:20: “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

3:27-28: “27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Notice here that again law and faith are starkly contrasted. There is no new law of deeds to be kept, whereby we are now to be justified. In fact, nowhere does Paul speak of justification by any law–not the Mosaic Law or any other law.

Aside from that, whether Trent was referring to the Mosaic law or to these commands of Christ you speak of, in either case we are left with the problem I referred to earlier, namely, that Trent places the burden of salvation on the believer by laying on his back the necessity of deeds by which he is to merit eternal life. It’s just a new version of justification by deeds of law.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I was in a similar situation not long ago. The final deciding factor for me was the Gospel.

Amen, wonderful to hear and welcome home.

 

[Koineman]

Amen, wonderful to hear and welcome home.

Thanks, Salusa. I studied both the RCC and EOC and determined that the Lutheran church was the one church that has been faithful to traditions without giving up the gospel.

 

[Denise1957]

to fail to distinguish between them properly. The law gives commands and expects perfection, thus promising only condemnation. The gospel gives only promise, and thus offers no condemnation.

St. Paul says, in Ephesians, that we have to put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth.

Here’s the passage in a larger context. Ephesians, chapter 4:17-24"

“So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; darkened in understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance, because of their hardness of heart, they have become callous and have handed themselves over to licentiousness for the practice of every kind of impurity to excess. That is not how you learned Christ, assuming that you have heard of him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus, that you put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth.”

Though there is no condemnation, it is clear from the above that we are instructed by St. Paul to live a life of holiness and righteousness. How are we to do that without effort on our part? Effort = work, or works.

 

[Denise1957]

to fail to distinguish between them properly. The law gives commands and expects perfection, thus promising only condemnation. The gospel gives only promise, and thus offers no condemnation.

Since St. Paul is being discussed lately here, we could always go though and unpack St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, which is full of the need to live a life of holiness and righteousness, and to give up sin.

We aren’t saved by the law, in that we can depend on the law alone to save us without effort on our part. We need faith and grace, working in accordance to the law as guidance, to help us to grow in holiness and righteousness.

 

[Koineman]

Since St. Paul is being discussed lately here, we could always go though and unpack St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, which is full of the need to live a life of holiness and righteousness, and to give up sin.

I don’t think anyone denies that we need to live righteously and give up sin.

We aren’t saved by the law, in that we can depend on the law alone to save us without effort on our part. We need faith and grace, working in accordance to the law as guidance, to help us to grow in holiness and righteousness.

This almost sounds like you’re saying that we are saved by faith plus law-keeping. If that’s so, you are in grave error. Scripture says that if a law had been given by which we could be saved, then Christ died to no purpose. Combining grace with law doesn’t avoid that problem; in fact, it’s anti-Scriptural. Paul repeatedly contrasts law with grace/faith for the purposes of justification. When it comes to being justified, there can be no mixing of the two. Law is meant only to be our tutor to lead us to Christ; once it has accomplished that purpose, we are not to depend on it for justification to any degree.

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 10:1-4)

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks, Salusa. I studied both the RCC and EOC and determined that the Lutheran church was the one church that has been faithful to traditions without giving up the gospel.

Sort of a “one true church” idea? (Hmmm, that has a nice ring, I might have to start using it. )

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think anyone denies that we need to live righteously and give up sin.

This almost sounds like you’re saying that we are saved by faith plus law-keeping. If that’s so, you are in grave error. Scripture says that if a law had been given by which we could be saved, then Christ died to no purpose. Combining grace with law doesn’t avoid that problem; in fact, it’s anti-Scriptural. Paul repeatedly contrasts law with grace/faith for the purposes of justification. When it comes to being justified, there can be no mixing of the two. Law is meant only to be our tutor to lead us to Christ; once it has accomplished that purpose, we are not to depend on it for justification to any degree.

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 10:1-4)

I am not in error. I follow what the Church teaches. It’s really quite simple. I believe that you’re over-thinking the matter, as Protestants sometimes do. The Church provides the guidelines for how to live a holy life, and the sacraments to help us along. We have to do our part, too. The rules of the Church do not exist for our condemnation, but for our salvation.

 

[Koineman]

St. Paul says, in Ephesians, that we have to put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth.

Nothing I said denies that.

Though there is no condemnation, it is clear from the above that we are instructed by St. Paul to live a life of holiness and righteousness. How are we to do that without effort on our part? Effort = work, or works.

I never denied effort. Keep in mind that in my earlier posts, I was not talking about living the Christian life but rather about being justified.

Anyone who claims or insinuates (like a Catholic professor I once heard speak) that faith alone = free to live any way you want to with no need for good works, he/she is ignorant of what the doctrine actually teaches.

 

[Denise1957]

Nothing I said denies that.

I never denied effort. Keep in mind that in my earlier posts, I was not talking about living the Christian life but rather about being justified.

Anyone who claims or insinuates (like a Catholic professor I once heard speak) that faith alone = free to live any way you want to with no need for good works, he/she is ignorant of what the doctrine actually teaches.

Justified in faith alone?

 

[Koineman]

I am not in error. I follow what the Church teaches. It’s really quite simple. I believe that you’re over-thinking the matter, as Protestants sometimes do.

Well, when it comes to something as eternally important as the Gospel, I think it’s wise to think it through very carefully.

Sadly, you are in error. You embrace a system that mixes law with gospel, which is clearly anti-Biblical. There is no mixing of the two. The Law does have a purpose for us as a guide in living the Christian life, but for purposes of justification, Law and grace should never be mixed, as Rome does. In fact, they cannot be mixed, according to Scripture.

This is the main reason I could not, in good conscience, enter the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Koineman]

Justified in faith alone?

Justified by (or through) faith alone.

 

[Denise1957]

Well, when it comes to something as eternally important as the Gospel, I think it’s wise to think it through very carefully.

Sadly, you are in error. You embrace a system that mixes law with gospel, which is clearly anti-Biblical. There is no mixing of the two. The Law does have a purpose for us as a guide in living the Christian life, but for purposes of justification, Law and grace should never be mixed, as Rome does. In fact, they cannot be mixed, according to Scripture.

This is the main reason I could not, in good conscience, enter the Roman Catholic Church.

You are merely interpreting scripture for yourself, something that scripture says you’re not supposed to do.

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think anyone denies that we need to live righteously and give up sin.

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Rom. 10:1-4)

How does a Christian determine was is moral or immoral? By reading scripture? Well, there are some Protestant or Evangelical denominations that choose to ignore the scriptures and the necessity of a moral life on certain issues. The Presbyterian church, as well as the Episcopalian church here in the U.S. are fine with same-sex marriage. The Anglican church in the UK is fine with it, too. How did these denominations arrive at the idea that same-sex marriage, for example, is fine, and that homosexual behavior is not a sin? Was it by private interpretation, or perhaps just ignoring those uncomfortable parts of scripture which call for a life of holiness?

The Catholic Church is holding out against the moral relativism in the West. Even the Eastern Orthodox allow divorced and remarried couples to receive communion, and to use artificial contraception. The Catholic Church does not. You may want to claim that a lot of Catholics use artificial contraception, which is true. But is a rule that requires obedience only valid if a majority of the faithful are willing to adhere to it?

 

[Koineman]

You are merely interpreting scripture for yourself, something that scripture says you’re not supposed to do.

Could you quote the passage that says this?

 

[Koineman]

How does a Christian determine was is moral or immoral? By reading scripture? Well, there are some Protestant or Evangelical denominations that choose to ignore the scriptures and the necessity of a moral life on certain issues. The Presbyterian church, as well as the Episcopalian church here in the U.S. are fine with same-sex marriage. The Anglican church in the UK is fine with it, too. How did these denominations arrive at the idea that same-sex marriage, for example, is fine, and that homosexual behavior is not a sin? Was it by private interpretation, or perhaps just ignoring those uncomfortable parts of scripture which call for a life of holiness?

It’s rebellion against what God plainly reveals in Scripture. Therefore, what you’re really arguing for here is the sinful nature of humanity, but then, we already agree on that.

The Catholic Church is holding out against the moral relativism in the West. Even the Eastern Orthodox allow divorced and remarried couples to receive communion, and to use artificial contraception. The Catholic Church does not. You may want to claim that a lot of Catholics use artificial contraception, which is true. But is a rule that requires obedience only valid if a majority of the faithful are willing to adhere to it?

A rule is valid based on the authority of the one who made the rule. The fact that people disobey it is no proof against the rule.

Just like with sola scriptura: The fact that people rebel against the Bible does not constitute a proof that sola scriptura is wrong.