The Augsburg Confession, Trent, and the JDDJ

[guanophore]

If, as you say, our justification does not come from our own righteousness, what does it come from, and how is it increased?

It comes from grace, through faith,a nd is increaes by grace, through faith. It is God who is at work in us to make us will and to do His good pleasure.

If you must be justified in order for works to perfect a person, what is it perfecting; how can you be justified and yet increase your justification?

I think this might be where Lutheran theology differs from Apostolic theology. My Latin brethren call it being in a state of grace. It is also called being in a state of “friendship” wtih God. In the Scriptures, it is often referred to as being “in Christ:”

It is God who justifies the ungodly. He does this by washing us with the waters of regeneration. After we are placed in right relationship with Him, we may fall into sin again, and need to be restored and healed. One of the ways to keep ourselves in a state of grace is to engage wholeheartedly in the works He has prepared for us from before the foundation of the world. When we walk in these works, our faith is perfected/completed, and we are able to access the grace we need to prevent us from falling into sin.

Yes, and Paul is here scolding the Jews for thinking that since they have the Law, they are right with God, while ignoring the fact that it isn’t having the Law which justifies, but actually obeying it. In that sense, he’s right, of course, that if you keep the Law fully you will be justified. His entire point, though, for scolding them, is that they don’t obey the Law, as he summarizes in the early verses of Ch. 3: No one is a doer of the Law.

This might be another point at which Lutheran theology departs from the Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taugth that we can keep God’s commmandments, because He enables us to do so by His grace. And His commandments are not burdensome.

Grace enables us to keep the commandments,and keeping the commandments perfects our faith, and we grow in grace.

 

[guanophore]

The contradiction is that you stated good works are the result of faith

Can you help me find this? I mean, where Trent states that they are not?

and not meritorious;

I don’t believe I said this. The fact that good works are meritorious does not conflict with the fact that they emanate from grace, through faith.

Trent explicitly denies that good works are the product of justification and that good works, in fact, “increase” our justification.

I will certainly stipulate that Trent says that good works increase our justification. Justification is being in right relationship with God, and the more we walk in His ways, the better our relationship with Him becomes, and the greater our ability to continue in that right relationship (resist sin).

I am having trouble finding where Trent explicitly denies that good works are a product of justification. Perhaps you can help me? I appreciate your tutelage.

 

[ignatius777]

Can you help me find this? I mean, where Trent states that they are not?

I don’t believe I said this. The fact that good works are meritorious does not conflict with the fact that they emanate from grace, through faith.

I will certainly stipulate that Trent says that good works increase our justification. Justification is being in right relationship with God, and the more we walk in His ways, the better our relationship with Him becomes, and the greater our ability to continue in that right relationship (resist sin).

I am having trouble finding where Trent explicitly denies that good works are a product of justification. Perhaps you can help me? I appreciate your tutelage.

Your seconf point is excellent. Believing that works aid us in our salvation does not negate the that all things must spring forth from our faith. Great job!!

 

[jwright82]

Can you help me find this? I mean, where Trent states that they are not?

I don’t believe I said this. The fact that good works are meritorious does not conflict with the fact that they emanate from grace, through faith.

I will certainly stipulate that Trent says that good works increase our justification. Justification is being in right relationship with God, and the more we walk in His ways, the better our relationship with Him becomes, and the greater our ability to continue in that right relationship (resist sin).

I am having trouble finding where Trent explicitly denies that good works are a product of justification. Perhaps you can help me? I appreciate your tutelage.

I don’t know. The Lutheran and Reformed churches are at one with regards to the issue of Justification. You seem at times to describe Justification in a process or orginic way, we prefer to speak of it in an objective declaritory sense. My faith may be increased but that is Sanctification, not Justification. We are subjectivly Justified by and through faith but we are objectivly Justified before God based on Christ’s Rightousness alone. It seems that Trent extends Justification into Sanctification too, we don’t and that makes for huge differences. The problem with that document is that in the whole issue someone has to give. Rome cannot give because of its view of the magesterium, so the Lutherans in this case gave.

That giving didn’t resolve the issues and the Catholic church is still critical of Calvin and Luther on this issue so I think that pretty well says it.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know. The Lutheran and Reformed churches are at one with regards to the issue of Justification. You seem at times to describe Justification in a process or orginic way, we prefer to speak of it in an objective declaritory sense.

It is true that the Aposltes taught that our salvation is not accomplished in this life. Catholics understand that some aspects of our salvation have already been completed when we are initiated into faith (baptism), some we are still in the process of working out (sanctification) and some will not be accomplished until we pass from this life (glorification). Justification, sanctification,a nd glorification are all aspects of “salvation”,so the differences are often times semantic, because when a Catholic refers to “salvation” we refer to all the aspects together, where our Reformed brethren generally are only referring to justification.

Have you read the JD?

My faith may be increased but that is Sanctification, not Justification. We are subjectivly Justified by and through faith but we are objectivly Justified before God based on Christ’s Rightousness alone. It seems that Trent extends Justification into Sanctification too, we don’t and that makes for huge differences.

Yes, the Apostles taught that it was possible to fall from a state of grace, and then be restored to it over the course of life. They also taught that good works perfect our faith (furhter justify us) before God. You are right, it does make huge differences.

The problem with that document is that in the whole issue someone has to give. Rome cannot give because of its view of the magesterium, so the Lutherans in this case gave.

What do you think would have to “give”?

That giving didn’t resolve the issues and the Catholic church is still critical of Calvin and Luther on this issue so I think that pretty well says it.

Since a number of issues were based upon misunderstanding about what the Church actually believes and teaches, it does resolve a lot of issues.

You are right, though, the CC does not have the freedom to ignore heresy.

 

[jwright82]

It is true that the Aposltes taught that our salvation is not accomplished in this life. Catholics understand that some aspects of our salvation have already been completed when we are initiated into faith (baptism), some we are still in the process of working out (sanctification) and some will not be accomplished until we pass from this life (glorification). Justification, sanctification,a nd glorification are all aspects of “salvation”,so the differences are often times semantic, because when a Catholic refers to “salvation” we refer to all the aspects together, where our Reformed brethren generally are only referring to justification.{/QUOTE]

But we view all those elements in a monergistic way, they are done by God alone. Do Catholics view them as monergistic or synergistic?
guanophore;7486983:

Have you read the JD?

Actually yes, many years ago. I agree with Reformed scholars that it doesn’t capture the Reformed view of things. I though do not rule out visible union with the Catholic church, I just think that is impossible at the moment.

Yes, the Apostles taught that it was possible to fall from a state of grace, and then be restored to it over the course of life. They also taught that good works perfect our faith (furhter justify us) before God. You are right, it does make huge differences.

Reformed, not Lutheran, theologians don’t teach that an elect member of the Covenant of Grace can fall away.

What do you think would have to “give”?

Well for one the whole magesterium thing at least in principle. All churchs as human institutionscan err. If the Catholic church has erred, and at this point I am not saying it has hypotheticaly, it could never in principle realize it because of this doctrine. The issues of salvation are fundementaly different from church to church but I would be much more willing to compromise with Catholics on other issues to make peace, besides most Reformed thinkers that is. On this issue I cannot compromise.

Since a number of issues were based upon misunderstanding about what the Church actually believes and teaches, it does resolve a lot of issues.

Misunderstandings are very bad, I am making a concious eggort to understand Catholicism as it understands itself. I don’t see the issue of Justification as misunderstanding. The two different church traditions are teaching two different views on these matters.

You are right, though, the CC does not have the freedom to ignore heresy.

Neither does the Reformed churches, the question is can we ever admit to getting it wrong?

 

[fred_conty]

I’m Catholic and after following the replies etc., I’m not sure what is being said or I’m just confused. So may I share with you the progress of faith and love as Catholics have been
taught in a criptic way:

1. Baptism unearned
   free gift of faith
   from God alone love & life of God in Soul begins
   (sanctifying grace)
2. Works power given by God
   soul cooperates
   (actual grace) Love & life of God in soul increases
   becoming more in the image of Christ
   “I no longer live but Christ lives in me.”
3. Merits result of work
   since we are sons
   in the image of Christ “there are many mansions in my kingdom…”
   “…reward … who sees your good works…”
4. Punishment refused actual grace
   (sin) still a son of God but no life or love in soul
   faith remains(baptism never undone)
   keep laterans lighted, virgin parable
5. Confession actual grace accepted
   repentenance life and love restored into soul(not faith)
   where God is, sin cannot be
   light comming back driving out darkness
6. Communion life and love required
   friendship with God
   food from heaven oneness with Christ feeding our life and love
   unity with one another(other christs)
   “my flesh is real food…” “my blood is real…”

Hope this will help.
“Father, that they all my be one…”. If He is far us who then can be against us?

PS I had a terrible time with these tabs. Everything was lined up in a column form but ended up at the left side of the page. Sorry…

 

[guanophore]

But we view all those elements in a monergistic way, they are done by God alone. Do Catholics view them as monergistic or synergistic?

I think you will find the answer to this if you read the JD.

I suspect the meaning that you assign to the term 'synergistic" is not consistent with the apostolic teaching.

Misunderstandings are very bad, I am making a concious eggort to understand Catholicism as it understands itself. I don’t see the issue of Justification as misunderstanding. The two different church traditions are teaching two different views on these matters.

I appreciate your efforts. I am wondering what you find in the JD that is different from your view.

Neither does the Reformed churches, the question is can we ever admit to getting it wrong?

Individual Catholics, of course, can get it wrong,. But the Word of God that was delivered once for all to the saints cannot be wrong. Jesus did not fail in HIs promise to guide the Church into “all truth”. It is not the “human institution” part of the Church that makes it infallible, but the divine. Jesus is the Head, and the HS is the Soul of the Church. As this Church is divine in nature, it is infallible. Individuals can only benefit from that gift to the extent that they remain in unity with her.

 

[jwright82]

I think you will find the answer to this if you read the JD.

I suspect the meaning that you assign to the term 'synergistic" is not consistent with the apostolic teaching.

I appreciate your efforts. I am wondering what you find in the JD that is different from your view.

Individual Catholics, of course, can get it wrong,. But the Word of God that was delivered once for all to the saints cannot be wrong. Jesus did not fail in HIs promise to guide the Church into “all truth”. It is not the “human institution” part of the Church that makes it infallible, but the divine. Jesus is the Head, and the HS is the Soul of the Church. As this Church is divine in nature, it is infallible. Individuals can only benefit from that gift to the extent that they remain in unity with her.

In all fairness I should reread the JD for myself and answer accordingly, I will respond in a couple of days.