TriuneUnity and other Lutherans.... your opinions on this article, please.

[RobHom]

My friends, in responding to another poster’s comments vis a vis Luther’s writings, I did some digging and found the following article. I found it somewhat interesting and even a little “illuminating”. I just was wondering what your comments on this article might be?

presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXII/32-5.htm

Please folks… let the “Lutherans” answer… It is their opinions I am seeking on this article.

Thanks!!

Peace!!

 

[TriuneUnity]

My friends, in responding to another poster’s comments vis a vis Luther’s writings, I did some digging and found the following article. I found it somewhat interesting and even a little “illuminating”. I just was wondering what your comments on this article might be?

presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXII/32-5.htm

Please folks… let the “Lutherans” answer… It is their opinions I am seeking on this article.

Thanks!!

Peace!!

It’s too long for me to respond to it right now…but some basic observations based on his synopsis at the end:

Luther was right in protesting a decadent scholasticism of his day. This semi-Pelagian scholasticism, however, did not faithfully represent “real” Catholic theology (as Trent subsequently demonstrated).

I would disagree here. If the scholasticism of Eck and Ockham was not true Catholic theology then why did the bishops and the Pope dispute with him over the justification issue? Trent roundly condemned the view of the Reformers on justification through faith alone. In addition, the Catholic hierarchy wrote numerous dissertations attempting to disprove the Lutheran understanding. It would seem, given that, it wasn’t merely the scholastics that argued against Luther’s position.

Luther’s chief and original concern was merely to discredit semi-Pelagianism and to uphold the truth that salvation comes, not through man’s strength, but by God’s grace.

True.

His idea of “extrinsic justification” was brought into the controversy only later and was never really among his “basic” propositions. He himself contradicted this theory.

It was his entire presupposition. The extrinsic idea of justification is central to the Lutheran understanding of justification. It is based solely on the merits of Christ; which is all extrinsic to us. The disagreement over the interior change was the disagreement that we are saved by our efforts. Our justification relies entirely on Christ who is outside of us.

Luther’s chief concern, the concern that caused him to separate from Rome, is also the concern of orthodox Catholic theologians, Thomas Aquinas and the Church Councils. If Luther were alive today, he would see that to continue his protest is theologically pointless.

I will agree with this when Rome endorses Article IV of the Augsburg Confession of Faith.

The rest of the article I will try to respond to point by point. With just a cursory reading I would say I agree with about 60% of it.

 

[RobHom]

Thanks, I look forward to reading the rest of your responses!!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Rob, how does this:

In 1952, Catholic theologian W. H. van de Pol issued a book entitled The Christian Dilemma in which he made assertions very similar to those now being made by McSorley. Van de Pol’s thesis was that the Reformers were battling a semi-Pelagianism which they mistakenly thought was integral to Roman orthodoxy. This, however, was an unfortunate “misunderstanding,” because Roman Catholicism has always believed in sola gratia. Catholicism affirms that:

The restoration of fallen man is accomplished and merited entirely by Christ . . . Faith, then, is the basis of justification; on no account are we justified through the fulfillment of the Law by our own powers . . . Neither can we accept that justification is brought about partly by the help of God and partly by man’s own strength, for this would be to fall back into semi-pelagianism . . . Without grace, without faith, without being in Christ, we are unable to do anything.

Reconcile with this, from the Council of Trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Louis Bouyer makes identical claims in his book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. According to Bouyer, Luther’s view of salvation, in its most basic form, "is in perfect harmony with Catholic tradition, the great conciliar definitions on grace and salvation, and even with thomism."13 Bouyer pictures the pre-Reformation Luther as a sincere monk who was struggling to gain salvation through his own efforts and finally realized (in despair) that man is totally incapable of “any effective initiative towards salvation.” But, of course, the system of semi-Pelagianism under which Luther was struggling had already been condemned by the Catholic faith, both in the Councils and in the theology of Thomas Aquinas.

This is true! Unfortunately, the Semi-Pelagian system (from our perspective) was affirmed by Trent. And of course, being it was an infallible council according to Rome, the fact that it contradicts earlier councils (such as the Councils of Carthage and 2nd Orange) is irrelevent to the Roman hierarchy. As always, history can be revised to make Trent harmonize with the earlier provincial councils that anathematized John Cassius and his Semi-Pelagian movement.

Bouyer admits in passing that Luther’s notion of “extrinsic justification” is incompatible with Catholic dogma. Bouyer defines extrinsic justification (correctly) as being something which takes place “exterior to the believer” with the result that the Christian—although just in God’s sight—remains a sinner in himself.17 Bouyer points out that according to this idea, the believer must always feel that his own righteousness is insufficient to please God or insure salvation. His right standing with God is entirely independent of any "interior change."18 Bouyer asserts, however, that this was not part of the “main” Protestant position or one of Luther’s “basic” propositions.

This contradicts everything this particular author has said previously. If it is not extrinsic, but intrinsic to the sinner, then we are not justified solely on the extrinsic merits of Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

TU,
I know you asked Rob about these, but I would like to put my often wrong thoughts out there.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Can someone deny the saving Grace from God? Can you refuse salvation?

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The key concept in here is that there is no faith, grace, or charity that is not from the Holy Spirit. To say that human faith save us without taking into account that we must have the Holy Spirit to cause this faith, and give us the grace, they are denying the saving work of God.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema

There is more to faith than just saying “I beleive:” Faith is a call to action. Paul says it, Jesus says it, and James says it.

 

[gcnuss]

There is more to faith than just saying “I beleive:” Faith is a call to action. Paul says it, Jesus says it, and James says it.

And Luther says it in Article 13 of the Smalcald Articles:

What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.

And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the 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. Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1, 31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,
I know you asked Rob about these, but I would like to put my often wrong thoughts out there.

That’s fine. You know I love talking to ya!

Can someone deny the saving Grace from God? Can you refuse salvation?

You can refuse salvation, but you cannot accept it. Trent is not referring to refusing grace it is addressing acceptance of grace. It is stating that the will must be prepared and must cooperate with grace. This is rejected utterly by Luther and by the second council of Orange. If one is given the gift of faith it is 100% the work of the Spirit.

The key concept in here is that there is no faith, grace, or charity that is not from the Holy Spirit. To say that human faith save us without taking into account that we must have the Holy Spirit to cause this faith, and give us the grace, they are denying the saving work of God.

This is not what Trent is saying either. Trent is speaking here of infusion being the basis on which we are justified, as opposed to imputation. Neither side would deny that faith is gift of the Spirit.

There is more to faith than just saying “I beleive:” Faith is a call to action. Paul says it, Jesus says it, and James says it.

Faith is trust in the object of one’s faith. In this case, Christ. It is by trust that Christ has died for our sins and has been raised by God that man is justified; and that solely.

 

[Matariel]

You can refuse salvation, but you cannot accept it. Trent is not referring to refusing grace it is addressing acceptance of grace. It is stating that the will must be prepared and must cooperate with grace. This is rejected utterly by Luther and by the second council of Orange. If one is given the gift of faith it is 100% the work of the Spirit.

I do not understand this? Doesn’t this make us inautonomous robots with no free-will? This seems like Calvinism, which would be rightly condemned. And also, the Council of Orange wasn’t oeucumenical, was it?

 

[Matariel]

You can refuse salvation, but you cannot accept it. Trent is not referring to refusing grace it is addressing acceptance of grace. It is stating that the will must be prepared and must cooperate with grace. This is rejected utterly by Luther and by the second council of Orange. If one is given the gift of faith it is 100% the work of the Spirit.

I do not understand this? Doesn’t this make us inautonomous robots with no free-will? This seems like Calvinism, which would be rightly condemned. And also, the Council of Orange wasn’t oecumenical, was it?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do not understand this? Doesn’t this make us inautonomous robots with no free-will? This seems like Calvinism, which would be rightly condemned. And also, the Council of Orange wasn’t oecumenical, was it?

It wasn’t ecumenical, no. I would assume it would be wrong to say the church only basis its doctrine on ecumenical councils. Catholicism has always declared Pelagianism to be a heresy, yet that wasnt condemned at an ecumenical council.

It doesn’t make us robots. On the other hand, before we are justified by God we ARE robots; robots to the devil. If my being saved without the participation of my will makes me a robot who inherits eternal life; wind me up and push my arm action button!!

 

[Jolly_Joe]

The only difficulty in understanding the historians is in trying to get the RCC shoehorned into the Catholic Orthodox Faith.

They are correct that Luther is compatible with the historic Catholic tradition, neither Luther nor Lutherans have ever said anything different.

They are wrong in thinking that Trent completely restored the Catholic Faith to Rome.

JJ

 

[TriuneUnity]

The only difficulty in understanding the historians is in trying to get the RCC shoehorned into the Catholic Orthodox Faith.

They are correct that Luther is compatible with the historic Catholic tradition, neither Luther nor Lutherans have ever said anything different.

They are wrong in thinking that Trent completely restored the Catholic Faith to Rome.

JJ

Indeed, Jolly…from our perspective it was yet a further departure. Sadly, they had that opportunity as a major theological corrective.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s fine. You know I love talking to ya!

And I you.

You can refuse salvation, but you cannot accept it. Trent is not referring to refusing grace it is addressing acceptance of grace. It is stating that the will must be prepared and must cooperate with grace. This is rejected utterly by Luther and by the second council of Orange. If one is given the gift of faith it is 100% the work of the Spirit.

Now I am confused. If you can refuse it, that means that you can also not refuse it. Not refusing something is that camse as accepting it. Grace is not a shotgun blast to the chest that we have no choice but to accept. We can avoid it, dodge it, not act upon it. LIkewise, it is not an elusive fly that we must chase. We can choose to comply with God.

This is not what Trent is saying either. Trent is speaking here of infusion being the basis on which we are justified, as opposed to imputation. Neither side would deny that faith is gift of the S

I will need to consider this. I am glad that the saving power of the Spirit is not denied.

Faith is trust in the object of one’s faith. In this case, Christ. It is by trust that Christ has died for our sins and has been raised by God that man is justified; and that solely.

Then why is faith without works dead? Further, the more I read it, I do not see a separation within the Bible of Faith and THeology from actions. Beleivers help others and do not sin. If you sin or deny aid to others, you are not a beleiver. It really doesn’t seem to be a first step, accept. Second step, become saved, Third step (optional) help others.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And I you.
Now I am confused. If you can refuse it, that means that you can also not refuse it. Not refusing something is that camse as accepting it. Grace is not a shotgun blast to the chest that we have no choice but to accept. We can avoid it, dodge it, not act upon it. LIkewise, it is not an elusive fly that we must chase. We can choose to comply with God.

The problem with this is that it is looking at the question logically, instead of biblically. We are also aware that there is what appears to human reason a kind of logical breakdown in what Scripture clearly and consistently teaches. To answer the question “Why are some sinners saved and others not?” the Bible teaches that those who are saved are saved totally by God’s gracious and merciful work, without any merit or contribution by us. And the Bible also says that those who are not saved are lost through their own fault, their own sin and unbelief. These are distinct and clear answers, but obviously totally different in regard to the cause of salvation and the cause of condemnation. So it is wise and helpful to ask the single question cited above as two questions (“Why are some sinners saved? Why are others lost?”) and to be content with the Bible answers.

But when people usually ask the question, they do so as a single question (“Why are some saved and others lost?”) and then assume that there must be a single answer, a single cause – either God or the sinner. Calvinism logically (but not biblically) concludes that God is the cause of both salvation and damnation or faith and unbelief, while Arminianism concludes (again logically, but not biblically) that the sinner is ultimately the cause of his salvation or condemnation, his faith or unbelief.

Then why is faith without works dead? Further, the more I read it, I do not see a separation within the Bible of Faith and THeology from actions. Beleivers help others and do not sin. If you sin or deny aid to others, you are not a beleiver. It really doesn’t seem to be a first step, accept. Second step, become saved, Third step (optional) help others.

Faith without works is dead because of the clear teaching in Scripture of the result of faith: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

If B doesn’t follow, then A is not present. The reason we are saved is so that we may love God and serve our neighbor. Our salvation is not for selfish purposes of inheriting eternal life only. Justification addresses the question of the grounds of our acquital of guilt before God. In that respect, it is because of the merit of Christ alone which we appropriate through faith alone. Sanctification and growth in Christian holiness is NOT by faith alone, but by faith working in love.

 

[Matariel]

It wasn’t ecumenical, no. I would assume it would be wrong to say the church only basis its doctrine on ecumenical councils. Catholicism has always declared Pelagianism to be a heresy, yet that wasnt condemned at an ecumenical council.

It doesn’t make us robots. On the other hand, before we are justified by God we ARE robots; robots to the devil. If my being saved without the participation of my will makes me a robot who inherits eternal life; wind me up and push my arm action button!!

Yeah. Perhaps it’s a bit of a misunderstanding. I totally agree that God makes the offer first; it’s up to us, though to accept or reject it.

I, and Raphinal, as far as I can see, both agree with Trent, and the Peligianism as a heresy. I do not think Trent endorses Peligianism.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah. Perhaps it’s a bit of a misunderstanding. I totally agree that God makes the offer first; it’s up to us, though to accept or reject it.

I, and Raphinal, as far as I can see, both agree with Trent, and the Peligianism as a heresy. I do not think Trent endorses Peligianism.

I agree. I am not big on most heresies.

I keep looking at that second example posted from Trent.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

I want to try to put it into Ralphese for a minute.

If some goofball tries to tell you that you are justified, either by the Work of Jesus, as good and powerful as it was, or by forgiveness of your sins without saying that it is through the work of the Holy Spirit that you have grace and charity in your hearts, or that it is just inherent in those who beleive in Jesus or if they hold that the grace was just from God with none of the Holy Spirit, tell them they are full of it.

Did I miss something?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yeah. Perhaps it’s a bit of a misunderstanding. I totally agree that God makes the offer first; it’s up to us, though to accept or reject it.

I, and Raphinal, as far as I can see, both agree with Trent, and the Peligianism as a heresy. I do not think Trent endorses Peligianism.

Trent did not endorse Pelagianism. It did, however, endorse semi-Pelagianism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Did I miss something?

Yes…let me go back to the Trent quote:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The Tridentine councilmen are here refuting the Lutheran doctrine of justification via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner as the grounds of his innocence before the Law of God. Trent is saying that part of the reason we are justified is the infusion of grace into us and we perform meritorious works which increase our justification. It isn’t about whether the Spirit infuses the believer, it’s whether the believer is infused for justification.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yeah. Perhaps it’s a bit of a misunderstanding. I totally agree that God makes the offer first; it’s up to us, though to accept or reject it.

Paul denied this. Augustine denied this. The Council of Carthage, and 2nd Orange denied this. Luther denied this. Faith is not an offer that is accepted. It is a gift that is given.