Issues in the Reformation: Part one - SALVATION

[Josiah]

Issues of the Reformation: Salvation



This was the KEY ISSUE. It was the one issue over which the church of the day used to excommunicate Luther, split the denomination and drive the Reformation. There were several other issues, but this was the “deal breaker.” And this issue is at the very heart, the very center of Christianity…. It is the “keystone” by which Christianity stands or falls.


We must begin with a definition: By “salvation” we mean justification in the narrow sense. It’s our changed relationship with God, our spiritual coming to life. It is not at all to be mixed or confused with sanctification (discipleship, Christian living) which is what results and follows from justification – what we are to do as Christians (those justified). Here, when we say “salvation” we mean it in this sense of narrow justification. It is extremely important that we understand what is meant here, how the term is defined in this theological context.



+ Christ IS the Savior!


Salvation all hinges on one pretty simple but very critical question (all eternity hinges on it): WHO is the Savior?


IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Not you - not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly, completely wrapped up in Jesus. Alone. Salvation is the work of Jesus, the accomplishment of Jesus, something Jesus does. It's entirely HIS work. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. Not in whole. Not in part. Not now. Not ever. You may have some other role in some other matter (Christian living, for example), but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you.

IF you answer "me!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus - not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. In YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR decisions. Your surrendering. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other role in some other matter, just not this one. The Savior is you.


Here’s the problem…..

While the church was ONCE crystal clear that Jesus is the exclusive SAVIOR, all this had gotten seriously gummed up. For centuries before Luther, the “answer” was pretty much: ME. The typical view in Luther’s time was Jesus actually had two very different roles:

1. Possibility-Maker. The “spin” was that Jesus did all that is necessary to make salvation possible. By His life, death and resurrection, He opened the gate to heaven, and made it POSSIBLE to us to be saved. Of course, that’s true – but its lightyears away from saying He’s the Savior! People were told THEY had to get THEMSELVES through those gates – thus the actual “job” of salvation is our own. People were told that Jesus is not the Savior (you have that job) rather He is the possibility-maker. Some stressed that we save ourselves by our works or our faith, others had other ideas in how we save ourselves but they are all embracing that while Jesus makes salvation possible – we actually save ourselves by what WE do, something(s) we can point to that WE did.

2. Helper. But we can’t do it by our own innate strength and ability – we need HELP. The medieval church of the west defined the word “grace” (in justification) as “help.” Or as it is sometimes put today, “Grace is the divine ‘gas’ God puts in your ‘tank’ so that YOU ultimately can get YOURSELF where you need to be.” This “help” became the focus of the concept of salvation – the HELP we need (and get) so that we can save ourselves. HELP from the Roman Catholic Church…. HELP from the official current “Saints” declared by the Catholic Church, HELP from the “Treasury of Merits” of the Catholic Church, HELP from the Virgin Mary, etc. Jesus too began to be proclaimed as our HELPER. If YOU adequately tap this “help” you can save yourself. But that’s lightyears away from proclaiming that Jesus saves!


There are really just two places to look: To the mirror OR to the Cross. There are really only two religions in the world: Trusting in Christ or trusting in self. When we stop looking to the perfect, divine CHRIST and instead look in the mirror to the sinful, flawed, limited SELF – either uncertainty and fear result (as we realize how lacking we are) OR pride/boasting results if we conclude the guy in the mirror in one awesome dude. Most lacked the ego for the second – so fear, insecurity reigned as people HOPED someday to save themselves but….



+ Monergism vs. Synergism – The DEBATE

These are the theological terms used for the “two sides” in this critical debate (that ultimately split the Roman Catholic Church in 1521).

1. Monergism (One-side) is the conviction that salvation is God’s gracious gift. Jesus is THE one, exclusive, all-sufficient Savior. This conviction is the basis for the “rally cries” of the Reformation: Sola Gratia – Solus Christus – Sola Fide. Soli Deo Gloria! The “sola, solus, soli” are all Latin for exclusively, solely, alone, only. The Reformation is a solid, bold, confident proclamation that salvation is all about Jesus!

SOLA Gratia – Grace Alone: it’s all about God’s heart! It all begins with and happens because of God’s heart, His unconditional and unearned love, favor, mercy and gifts. “For God so loved the world…..”
SOLUS Christus – Christ Alone: It’s all the result of what Jesus did/does; Christ is the Savior! “… that He gave His only begotten son”
SOLA Fide – Faith Alone: Which faith trusts/embraces/apprehends; faith as God’s work, too. “whosoever believes in Him”
SOLI Deo Gloria – God ALONE has all the glory, gets all the “credit.” ALL the above is God’s doing. The arrow comes down….. a blessing….. a gift….. an inheritance….

2. Synergism (Two-sides, Cooperation). This became the Catholic position against Luther. Our salvation, the Catholic Church of the day insisted, is a cooperative venture: Jesus does his part (opening those gates) and we do ours (walking through them). Luther, it insisted, was a heretic for holding to the view of monergism, for holding that Jesus is the all-sufficient Savior. The Catholic Church insisted Jesus has to do His part good enough (and He did), now we gotta do our part good enough (ultimately its WE who do that part that actually results in our entering heaven).

Luther stressed it’s all a GIFT from God! God’s doing! Luther stressed God’s mercy, favor, and unconditional love. The church then stressed it’s instead a cooperative venture – Jesus opening the “gates” and insuring we are offered sufficient help – we needing to “tap” that sufficiently, do all the “stuff” we need to do, and (ultimately) get ourselves saved.

Largely – it came down to these two basic, mutually exclusive views. Luther would not recant and so was excommunicated (by the way, Luther desired to submit BOTH views to a true ecumenical council and submit to its ruling, but that never happened).

Know that there are LOTS of modern forms of synergism (it’s alive and well and living in a lot of churches – some of which are “Protestant”). Synergism is any form of Jesus PLUS me. When salvation (in the sense we are speaking of here) is said to require: “You must surrender the steering wheel of your life!” “You must recite the sinner’s prayer!” “You must dedicate your life to Jesus!” If it’s “you” – then it’s not all about Jesus. If it’s ‘you’ then it’s looking in the mirror, not to the Cross.



+ Lutheran Theology’s Favorite Word


How does all this “crank out” in real life? How – exactly – does God DO all this in people’s lives? Why do some people believe and some don’t? Does God force his will on people? Yesiree, there’s a bunch of practical questions (a few of which are valid). How do Lutherans answer all these endless questions of HOW? Typically, we don’t. The favorite word in Lutheran theology is “mystery.”

We use it when there’s a valid question…. but there is no clear, sound, biblical “answer.” We don’t ASSUME that Lutherans (and especially ONLY Lutherans) perfectly know how all this works…. how it “cranks out,” how God applies the work of Jesus to us…. how God gives us the gift of salvation through faith….. why God loves us so much….. why the life, death, resurrection of Christ saves…. People can theorize (if they really insist, if they can’t resist that temptation) but we can’t be dogmatic about such things when God is not. It’s okay to say, “I don’t know.” In fact, it’s often a really wise thing to say.

People (with our puny, limited, sinful brains…. Luther didn’t think much of them) are apt to conclude that because some aren’t saved, therefore it must be because WE didn’t do our part (maybe forgot to jump through some hoop). Perhaps that makes sense to some, but it’s not biblical. Some may conclude it’s because some aren’t good enough or repentant enough or don’t belong to the right denomination or didn’t (fill in the blank) but they all are making a wrong assumption: that the Savior is self. They are looking in the mirror.

Lutherans accept that we can’t “answer” all the practical issues here – and (to be frank) we’re totally okay with that. But THIS we will shout from the rooftops: JESUS is THE Savior! If it has to do with salvation, Jesus handles it. It’s grace! It’s mercy! It’s an inheritance! It’s a blessing! It’s a free gift! And it’s all about Jesus! Lift high the Cross (and please hide my mirror)!



continues in next post.....




.

 

[Josiah]

Continuing from post #1.....



+ Some Scriptures

Law

“You must be morally perfect just as your Father in heaven is morally perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
“You must be holy for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus 20:26).
“For all people sin and fall short of God’s requirements” (Romans 3:23).
“There is no one that does good, not even one” (Romans 3:12).
“By our efforts will no one be justified” (Galatians 2:16).
“If salvation were through our keeping of the law then Christ died for no purpose” (Galatians 2:21).


Gospel

“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life!” (John 3:16),
“God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
“God saved us not because of deeds done by us but in virtue of His own mercy, that we might be saved by His grace” (Titus 3:5),
“For our sake God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
“The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 6:23).
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your doing but it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
“Everyone that believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (Acts 10:43)
“Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Acts 16:30-31
“Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” 1 John 2:2
“Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” - John 1:29
“The blood of Jesus purifies us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7
“God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” 2 Cor. 5:19
“Because I live, you will live also.” John 14:19


Faith

“For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” Ephesians 2:8
“”You did not chose Me but I chose you” John 15:16
“Those whom He predestined He also called and those whom He called He also justified” Romans 8:30
“There is a remnant of believers, chosen by God’s grace” Romans 11:5
“In love God chose us before the foundations of the world for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” Ephesians 1:4-5
“The one without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand (accept) them.” 1 Cor. 2:14
“No one is capable of professing ‘Jesus is Lord’ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:3
+ Some quotes


Luther’s explanation of the Apostle’s Creed:

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, given me clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He gives me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him.

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

From Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”

"Man’s salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another -- Christ alone, who alone is Savior. As long as a man is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and away from salvation.”




Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Calvinists hate mysteries. :ewink:

Romans 9:10-24 [NKJV]
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The key take away points:
“Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
"He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."
"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory"

I freely acknowledge that the broad context is talking about Jews and Gentiles, but Jacob and Esau were also both people. Yet only one received the blessing and became the people of God. There are also billions of 'vessels' living on the Earth today and if the road to destruction is indeed wide, then most of those 'vessels' will ultimately end up smashed in the furnace of God's wrath. Jesus made that very clear. This seems no more allegorical than the parable of the sheep and the goats, yet we heed the lessons from that and apply them to understanding the fate of individuals.

For me, personally, the mystery is simply why would a holy God save anyone? And if he were going to save someone, why on earth would he choose to love me? THAT is the mystery.
That God chooses some and not others seems a simple fact.

 

[Josiah]

[SIDE ISSUE]


I AM addressing this from a Lutheran perspective (it would not be unfair to opinion that the title should be "Lutheran - Catholic Issues in the Reformation").

I am historically aware there were many Reformations..... And while Lutheranism was developed vis-a-vis Catholicism, it seems Calvinism was developed via-a-vis its two breakoffs: Universalism and Arminianism. Then there's the English Reformation, still a whole other "enchilada" (and it's various breakoffs: Methodist, Quakers, etc.). And there's the Anabaptist reformation and it's breakoffs.... Yes, I confess, the op focuses on the Lutheran Reformation (which we celebrate this year - the 500th Anniversary of the [yes, Lutheran] Reformation).


I firmly believe that MANY Protestants (a much broader term than Lutheran) hold most in common, including the "chief article" - Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Lutherans and Reformed (Calvinists) are certainly closer than either to the others, but they have their differences (otherwise, there'd not a Lutherans and Reformed, lol).


Yes, in a THEOLOGICAL sense, the Reformation can be seen as a revolution in the RC Denomination. And the RC Denomination "resolved" (or perhaps just evaded) it by excommunicating Luther (and then all the others ... or perhaps just dispatching them to their appointed destiny a bit early, smelling like smoke). When I was a undergrad, I suddenly realized I had missed a core requirement - and it could be fulfilled with a history course (always a side trip for physics majors). Not wanting to RE-TAKE basic american or world history AGAIN, I got the profs permission to take an upper division course entitled simply: Revolution. ONE of the things I learned is that in nearly all cases, they tend to overshoot their mark.... they come apart, more radical elements tend to arise, and we find the whole movement becoming much more radical - and often ending up just as bad as what they originally were trying to reform. I think perhaps a BIT of that happened in the 16th-18th Centuries (and really still is). Anyway, I'm aware of the historical reality: many Reformations happened - and each successive one in some ways was more radical. And yes, in SOME ways, these later Reformations at times and places went full circle, some Lutherans conclude (a discussion for another day and thread).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9BR55nA2U




[END SIDE ISSUE]



.

 

[Lamb]

For me, personally, the mystery is simply why would a holy God save anyone? And if he were going to save someone, why on earth would he choose to love me? THAT is the mystery.
That God chooses some and not others seems a simple fact.

In the Old Testament God set aside the Israelites to be His people. They were all chosen yet we read that some turned away to false gods and the Lord didn't continue to pursue them as He had done previously (Think of the North/South kingdoms and what happened). That's pretty obvious that it was man's fault and not God's that they were damned.

 

[Josiah]

In the Old Testament God set aside the Israelites to be His people. They were all chosen yet we read that some turned away to false gods and the Lord didn't continue to pursue them as He had done previously (Think of the North/South kingdoms and what happened). That's pretty obvious that it was man's fault and not God's that they were damned.

And of course the issue here is JUSTIFICATION (narrow) - not some broad discussion of the Greek philosophy of predestination (just one of the reasons why Lutherans at times shy from the word predestination - now generally equated with the philosophy - and stick with the words the Lutheran fathers tended to use: election). God may have will that Adolf Hitler died and was the cause of such .... but while that may or may not be (I wonder how we could ever know?) - that is entirely, wholly unrelated to anything in this thread and has NOTHING to do with justification (narrow) or election in such.


But this thread is not specifically about the doctrine of election IN THE SOLE, EXCLUSIVE ISSUE OF JUSTIFICATION (although I admit for Lutherans, such is seen in the context of monergism vs. synergism), that's a valid discussion (one Lutherans generally don't engage in) - just beyond the scope of this thread? Not that I'm the thread police (lol)..... CH is a very open site.

 

[Josiah]

For me, personally, the mystery is simply why would a holy God save anyone? And if he were going to save someone, why on earth would he choose to love me? THAT is the mystery.
That God chooses some and not others seems a simple fact.

Indeed!

Those who denounce/repudiate/anathmatize the Protestant view described in the OP all assume that SELF is somehow worthy, that SELF is ulitmately the reason self is justified (Jesus may have made this possible but it's still self who saves self).

There is a mystery here, a MIRACLE here! Jesus performs the miracle, it's Jesus' work and not our own, in God we trust. When Jesus is displaced with self, not only is the central, foundational point of Christianity denied ("Jesus is the Savior") but terror overwhelms since if the denomination permits us to be HONEST, permits the Law to mean what it says, then truthfulness mandates only one conclusion: we aren't saved, we aren't doing what we must, we can't displace Jesus from His role.



Soli DEO Gloria!



- Josiah

 

[hedrick]

I'm concerned about the initial definition. In Calvin's ordo salutis, faith unites us to Christ and brings two parallel results: justification and sanctification. The goal of salvation is to remake the world in the image of God. It includes both justification and sanctification.

A lot of disagreements with Catholics are because justification in Catholic theology means the whole process of salvation. This is clearly not what Paul means by justification (though it may be what James means), but if we're confused about definitions, things just get worse as the discussion goes on. So we need to be clear what justification is and what it isn't.

It is the assertion that God loves us no matter what we do. Not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Sin does not cause God to abandon us until we go through a sacrament. Justification forms a reliable foundation for the Christian life. But on top of this, Jesus' teachings are clear that he expects obedience, and we will be held accountable for that. I don't think we can be true to Jesus without saying that being part of the Kingdom includes doing what the King says. Although in this life we obviously don't do that perfectly.

 

[Josiah]

I'm concerned about the initial definition. In Calvin's ordo salutis, faith unites us to Christ and brings two parallel results: justification and sanctification. The goal of salvation is to remake the world in the image of God. It includes both justification and sanctification.

A lot of disagreements with Catholics are because justification in Catholic theology means the whole process of salvation. This is clearly not what Paul means by justification (though it may be what James means), but if we're confused about definitions, things just get worse as the discussion goes on. So we need to be clear what justification is and what it isn't.

It is the assertion that God loves us no matter what we do. Not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Sin does not cause God to abandon us until we go through a sacrament. Justification forms a reliable foundation for the Christian life. But on top of this, Jesus' teachings are clear that he expects obedience, and we will be held accountable for that. I don't think we can be true to Jesus without saying that being part of the Kingdom includes doing what the King says. Although in this life we obviously don't do that perfectly.

I pretty much agree with all you said....

And while I've concluded that OFFICIALLY, in the RCC, just about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING on this can be found..... and while I'm not convinced that OFFICIALLY the RCC is "wrong" on this...... the "problem" is just as you've noted: In Catholicism, the issues of Gospel and Law.... God and self.... justification and sanctification..... all these are jumbled up into ONE whole, blended together, attempted to be merged in such a way that that either means much. MY experience with good (and loved) Catholic friends is that IF you take the time (and this can take hours!!!), if you disallow the constant attempts to switch topics, you CAN often get them to see not only the difference but the importance of not blending - mixing - entangling - merging the two. IN TIME, you can discover that if you help them untangle the MESS they've heard (as did I in my Catholic years), they are often AMAZINGLY Protestant in their view on this! Over at CF, I even had a Catholic apologist admit that OFFICIALLY the Catholic Church is FAR closer to classical Protestantism (read Lutheran and Reformed) than 99% of Catholics realize - it's just we "address" ( I think that's the word he used) these quite differently. He told me it's because of different things we want to "Protect" - Protestants don't want ANYTHING at remotely "threatens" Jesus as the Savior, Catholics ANYTHING that remotely seems to threaten our call to love, morality and service. He may have a point..... OFFICIALLY. But I know what I was taught as a Catholic.... what every Catholic known to me was taught..... and it's VERY different than Luther and Calvin. And I recall that Luther was excommunicated and anathmatized for declaring that Jesus is the Savior and thus Jesus saves us, the official reason for his being declared satanic was because of his view in the opening post.


I also agree with your point about "salvation" (which is why, in theology, extreme care is to not equate such with "justification"). While all these words CAN be used in different ways in Scripture, in theology, "justification" typically refers to our changed relationship with God and the gift of faith; in lay terms, it means we become a child of God with heaven as our home. Sanctification refers to all that FOLLOW this, the result of this. I think a good case can be made that technically "salvation" could well include both, but PART of the problem in theology is (unlike most disicplines) our language is slippery and that often results in "talking past each other" by using the same words to mean different things. In Protestantism, "salvation" is often largely the same as "justification" (and "discipleship" the popular word for sanctification). In Catholicism, this is not so. Yes, I realize, we often do trip up over terminology. Note the second paragraph of the opening post: "We must begin with a definition: By “salvation” we mean justification in the narrow sense. It’s our changed relationship with God, our spiritual coming to life. It is not at all to be mixed or confused with sanctification (discipleship, Christian living) which is what results and follows from justification – what we are to do as Christians (those justified). Here, when we say “salvation” we mean it in this sense of narrow justification. It is extremely important that we understand what is meant here, how the term is defined in this theological context.."



Good to see you over here! I was banned the other day at CF and so won't be there again. Apart from storing some of my posts in my testimony thread, I VERY VERY rarely have posted there in some 2 years, but I guess they wanted to slap me hard in the face - even if it make no difference because I already left. Oh well..... It's good to see you here!



Soli DEO Gloria!


- Josiah



.

 

[hedrick]

I've been looking for other venues where modern theology could be discussed seriously. However I'm not sure this place is going to work any better. It does seem more peaceful though.

 

[Josiah]

I've been looking for other venues where modern theology could be discussed seriously. However I'm not sure this place is going to work any better. It does seem more peaceful though.

ChristianityHaven....


This is an open and usually friendly site, FAR better than any other I ever found. Like most sites, there are some who are mostly into fellowship and fun things (and that's perfectly fine with me; I just rarely participate in that), and some more into theological, biblical and ecclesiastical discussions (and several into both, lol). While we have some zealous folks here, few are into attempts to convert or convince - just express. CH is not a "kumbyah" or Mr. Roger's Neighborhood site of pure relativism..... but on the other hand, it's generally peaceful and more respectful than any other site I know of. The rules are few and intuitive and evangelically applied..... the staff is very much into helping rather than power or lording it or policing.... and people seem to get along pretty well. Of all the sites I've been (too) active at, this is by far the best (just wish it was bigger).


The theological participants tend to be mostly conservative Lutherans and Reformed, but we have a few "Evangelicals" and a couple of "liberals," we even have one agnostic (and I've come to appreciate him a lot). Sadly, only one active Catholic calls this home but Philip is good about documenting the Catholic position, just rarely interested in discussing it (which is perfectly acceptable to me); he's good people.


I invite you to check out past threads - there's a number of very good ones that just are inactive now. Look in the Christian Theology and Denomination sub-forums for starters. And please feel free to start threads. As you probably remember, I'm a "theology junkie" and I love this stuff! And it is my hope that discussions can show me perspectives I've not considered or supply information I've simply not learned.


I'm glad to see you here!


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[hedrick]

History is complex. The OP is right that Luther saw justification as the major issue of the Reformation. But it’s not so clear that other participants did. Luther’s complaint that lots of German funds were going to Rome likely concerned the prince whose defense was critical. General corruption was quite likely an issue for many people.

However I do think that a lot of the concerns were connected to a lousy state of doctrines relating to salvation. The issue wasn’t just disagreement. Rather, there hadn’t been clear statements, and the state of communication and education meant that even the fairly weak official statements on justification weren’t well known.

Everyone agreed that salvation was a matter of grace. But one major position was that God exercised his grace by setting up a covenant so that he would help anyone who had done everything he could on his own. It’s not that the people doing this had rejected Augustine’s doctrines on grace. It had largely been lost. McGrath tells a story: there was a disagreement over what Augustine actually said. They had to send someone to a different city to find copies of his writing. Furthermore, while the Reformers pointed to Augustine on grace, in fact the medieval definition of justification (which pretty clearly doesn’t agree with Paul’s) went back to Augustine.

The point I’m making is that ignorance and confusion were as serious as actual disagreement. The Reformation owed a lot to the Renaissance, which made it a point to renew scholarship on both the Bible and the early Church.

I claim that a lot of the issue with the Catholic Church is the the Pope simply wasn’t prepared to admit to major doctrinal problems and do serious cleanup, and the specific positions of both sides might not have mattered that much.

Still, I think Luther was right that confusion about justification was an underlying issue. A lot of the abuses had the impact they did because people lived in fear of hell. This is in part a theological problem. While it doesn’t quite say so, the way mortal sin and reconciliation work does leave the impression that our status as God’s children comes and goes with our actions. It wouldn’t matter so much if mortal sin were what the NT suggests: something that normally resulted in a permanent loss of faith. However when you look at the list of things that were considered mortal sins, it seems clear that they’re things that ordinary Christians did commonly.

Christianity has to somehow get a balance that assures people that God doesn’t give up on us and continues to love us even when we sin, but also that God cares what we do and we will be held accountable. I think the late medieval church had blown this badly. Luther thought he had a solution. But I don’t think it was a perfect one, because it left accountability a bit fuzzy. There’s probably no complete doctrinal solution to this. Human fathers manage to get this balance right, at least some of the time, but not by having a complete theory on how to do it. But still, doctrine does have consequences, and I think Luther was right that there were serious problems and that Paul’s concept of justification could be repurposed to help with it. (One weakness of Protestant theology is that it often fails to recognize the degree of repurposing it has done.)

Current Catholic doctrine has improved on the situation. But at least in theory, it still has the same weakness. In practice this weakness is largely mitigated because in practice Catholics don’t accept such a legalistic definition of mortal sin. Indeed I think actual practice of both Catholics and Protestants is similar. I think in both cases practice is probably slightly better than theory, because both the Catholic and Protestant doctrines have weaknesses.

It doesn’t appear to me that practice was better than theory in the 16th Cent. There really were serious problems that affected people’s spiritual welfare.

 

[TurtleHare]

History is complex. The OP is right that Luther saw justification as the major issue of the Reformation. But it’s not so clear that other participants did. Luther’s complaint that lots of German funds were going to Rome likely concerned the prince whose defense was critical. General corruption was quite likely an issue for many people.

However I do think that a lot of the concerns were connected to a lousy state of doctrines relating to salvation. The issue wasn’t just disagreement. Rather, there hadn’t been clear statements, and the state of communication and education meant that even the fairly weak official statements on justification weren’t well known.

Everyone agreed that salvation was a matter of grace. But one major position was that God exercised his grace by setting up a covenant so that he would help anyone who had done everything he could on his own. It’s not that the people doing this had rejected Augustine’s doctrines on grace. It had largely been lost. McGrath tells a story: there was a disagreement over what Augustine actually said. They had to send someone to a different city to find copies of his writing. Furthermore, while the Reformers pointed to Augustine on grace, in fact the medieval definition of justification (which pretty clearly doesn’t agree with Paul’s) went back to Augustine.

The point I’m making is that ignorance and confusion were as serious as actual disagreement. The Reformation owed a lot to the Renaissance, which made it a point to renew scholarship on both the Bible and the early Church.

I claim that a lot of the issue with the Catholic Church is the the Pope simply wasn’t prepared to admit to major doctrinal problems and do serious cleanup, and the specific positions of both sides might not have mattered that much.

Still, I think Luther was right that confusion about justification was an underlying issue. A lot of the abuses had the impact they did because people lived in fear of hell. This is in part a theological problem. While it doesn’t quite say so, the way mortal sin and reconciliation work does leave the impression that our status as God’s children comes and goes with our actions. It wouldn’t matter so much if mortal sin were what the NT suggests: something that normally resulted in a permanent loss of faith. However when you look at the list of things that were considered mortal sins, it seems clear that they’re things that ordinary Christians did commonly.

Christianity has to somehow get a balance that assures people that God doesn’t give up on us and continues to love us even when we sin, but also that God cares what we do and we will be held accountable. I think the late medieval church had blown this badly. Luther thought he had a solution. But I don’t think it was a perfect one, because it left accountability a bit fuzzy. There’s probably no complete doctrinal solution to this. Human fathers manage to get this balance right, at least some of the time, but not by having a complete theory on how to do it. But still, doctrine does have consequences, and I think Luther was right that there were serious problems and that Paul’s concept of justification could be repurposed to help with it. (One weakness of Protestant theology is that it often fails to recognize the degree of repurposing it has done.)

Current Catholic doctrine has improved on the situation. But at least in theory, it still has the same weakness. In practice this weakness is largely mitigated because in practice Catholics don’t accept such a legalistic definition of mortal sin. Indeed I think actual practice of both Catholics and Protestants is similar. I think in both cases practice is probably slightly better than theory, because both the Catholic and Protestant doctrines have weaknesses.

It doesn’t appear to me that practice was better than theory in the 16th Cent. There really were serious problems that affected people’s spiritual welfare.

You said Luther left accountability a bit fuzzy but what do you mean by that, accountability to who and for what?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=63]hedrick[/MENTION]

The OP is right that Luther saw justification as the major issue of the Reformation. But it’s not so clear that other participants did.

You may be right. But don't forget that the RCC at least officially CLAIMED the reason for the excommunication in 1521 was because his view on Justification (you know, John 3:16).


Even today, soteriology in the RCC is extremely complex, I'd characterize it as an enormous blob of mixed-up, confused, blended, twisted Law and Gospel, Sanctification and Justification, man and God.... almost anything can be found in Catholicism, somewhere in this one big blob. In my experience as a Catholic and now with mostly Catholic family, this confused, twisted MESS leaves them, well, confused. IMO, this mess easily leads to a theology that to me sounds FAR more like Bhakti Hinduism or even Islam than biblical Christianity (note: I'm NOT saying CATHOLICISM affirms such, only that the MESS it teaches to Catholics seems to often lead them to a more Hindu or Islamic or modern Jewish view of justification). Indeed, our Catholic teachers taught us that "God helps those who help themselves"..... "God opened the gate to heaven but you got to get through it by your own works and efforts"... Does the RC Denomination itself officially teach that? Not exactly (at least as I can tell.... and it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the RCC teaches on this, it's a blurry, muddy, twisted, confused MESS).


IMO, the "heart" of the confusion is a confusing, blending, mixing, twisting of justification with sanctification (BECOMING a Christian, LIVING as a Christian; being born vs. growing up; a changed relationship vs. becoming more Christ-like). I've found that IF one takes a LOT of time, if one is extremely patient, if one avoids all the theological lingo of Catholicism..... one can help Catholics not only see the difference but the importance of not confusing them. Why, I've found that if you DIG (and it DOES take a LOT of patience and skill!!!!!!), one can find that some Catholics are very Lutheran on this point! Side note: One of the most Lutheran sermons I've heard was at a CATHOLIC memorial service giving by a CATHOLIC priest as he celebrated that this loved one was in Heaven (entirely evading the whole Dogma of Purgatory, btw).


Perhaps the BIGGER issue in the Reformation was the theology of the church and the issue of authority: Luther's denial that a certain bishop in the singular RC Denomination thus can be INFALLIBLE (not yet dogma in Luther's day) was the real problem and the real reason that the RCC had a price on his head..... and Luther's position that disputed positions should be held up to the written words of God in Scripture as the norma normans was a very close second reason (the RCC itself insisting that the RCC itself is unaccountable, and that what the RCC itself currently is teaching therefore IS the Truth to which all is to be held up to - itself the rule - including in practice Scripture itself). Luther's view that the church is primarily PEOPLE and not a certain institution with its headquarters in Rome also was cause. Actually, while the Justification issue was given as the reason for his excommunication, I think that was an excuse, largely a sham, to avoid stating the REAL reason: Luther was suggesting things that undermined the enormous, egotistical claims of the RC Denomination for it itself exclusively, undermining it's absolute lordship, its unaccountability.

I do think that a lot of the concerns were connected to a lousy state of doctrines relating to salvation. The issue wasn’t just disagreement. Rather, there hadn’t been clear statements, and the state of communication and education meant that even the fairly weak official statements on justification weren’t well known.

I totally agree.....


It's worse today in Catholicism, in my experience.

Everyone agreed that salvation was a matter of grace

The "problem" is that in the RCC, "it" is one huge, fuzzy blob of everything good. The blending means that it's ALL synergistic, "God HELPS those who help themselves." Yes - sanctification (narrow) is a matter of God directing and empowering - and our cooperating by following that direction and applying that divine empowerment (we all agree on THAT), but by blending it all together as ONE huge, messy, mixed-up mess - that means that ALL of soteriology is synergistic, God doing His part and self doing our part, so that Christ is NOT the Savior but rather the Helper or the Possibility-Maker or at most, the PART Savior (the part that actually doesn't save anyone). See the opening post.


Remember too: Our Catholic teachers consistenly taught us that "grace" = enabling (WHEREVER they apply it). "Grace is like the 'gas' God puts in our 'tank' so that WE can get OURSELVES where WE need to be" (as our Catholic teachers said). I don't have a huge problem with that definition in SANCTIFICATION but the problem is, in Catholicism, it's the same definition for the whole, huge, messy blob of "salvation." I grew up believing the REAL Savior is me.... but that I can't do anything without God's direction and empowering, and it wouldn't do any good unless Jesus had opened that door to heaven. I grew up with NO concept whatsoever of Law and Gospel, just that we must be goodier and goodier - and we get a lot of help to do that: From the RC Denomination, from the "treasury of merits" that the RCC owns and doles out, form the EXACTLY seven Sacraments that the RCC owns and administers, from the current list of Saints as determined by the RCC, and especially from the Queen of the RCC.

Sadly, we have only one active Catholic brother here at CH but we've discussed this often. I discussed it a lot at CF (including with a Catholic apologist and once the Catholic representative on the Executive Committee there); I think the MESS the RCC has (and yes, I think it's WORSE than it was in the 16th Century when it was fuzzier) is essentially because of the denial of any distinction between Law/Gospel, Justification/Sanctification, God/man - it's all just "get goodier" (and the oppportunity to finish the job in Purgatory).

The point I’m making is that ignorance and confusion were as serious as actual disagreement. The Reformation owed a lot to the Renaissance, which made it a point to renew scholarship on both the Bible and the early Church.

I agree. But as you noted above, I'm not sure that Justification was REALLY the reason the RCC had to get rid of Luther. I think all that was created later, beginning at Trent, where the RCC began to codify the MESS. I think the bigger reasons were Luther's challenges to the infallibility, unaccountability, and absolute POWER of lordship of the singular RC Denomination. Luther's concepts of community, accountability, humility struck at the heart and core of the RC Denomination and its claims for it itself and ambitions of it itself. I think the RCC's reply to Luther was predictable: Institutions fight to protect the institution.

I claim that a lot of the issue with the Catholic Church is the the Pope simply wasn’t prepared to admit to major doctrinal problems and do serious cleanup

My friend, you must appreciate that such is IMPOSSIBLE. The whole basis of the RCC's incredible POWER claims rests solely on one shaky (self made) stone: that IT is Christ on earth, IT is the Voice of God, IT is the Authority, IT is as infallible as God (because it is, in a sense, IT is the incarnate God), IT is unaccountable. Now, it's important to remember, the RCC is wise enough to limit such to OFFICIAL DENOMINATION teaching (because obviously, the RCC has taught EVERYTHING at some point, much of which later was seen as heresy, and CATHOLICS may teach all kinds of crazy stuff over which the Denomination has limited control) - so the RCC stresses it's INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE/GOD only in official, formal, denominational doctrine. For it to say, "Oh, we went too far with Transubstantiation, we went too far with the INFALLIBLE RCC Bishop in Rome, we don't actually KNOW above any possibility of being wrong that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul upon her death (or was it undeath?)" To do that is to DESTROY the whole foundation of it itself, the whole "deck of cards" comes crashing to the ground.

I had a Catholic teacher tell me that the RCC never, ever admits ANYTHING negative about it's official dogmas NOT because it really thinks it's always been right but because it CANNOT. So, he told me, what the RCC does is just stop teaching it or - more likely - start teaching more correctly while claiming it is not correcting but just "clarifying" (although it's actually a VERY different teaching! The RCC may, if pressed, use the same words but define them VERY differently, perhaps even in an opposite way). But to say, "I was wrong" is to utterly destroy itself. The entire foundation of the RCC crumbles to nothing, the whole thing would come crashing to the ground.

Still, I think Luther was right that confusion about justification was an underlying issue. A lot of the abuses had the impact they did because people lived in fear of hell. This is in part a theological problem. While it doesn’t quite say so, the way mortal sin and reconciliation work does leave the impression that our status as God’s children comes and goes with our actions. It wouldn’t matter so much if mortal sin were what the NT suggests: something that normally resulted in a permanent loss of faith. However when you look at the list of things that were considered mortal sins, it seems clear that they’re things that ordinary Christians did commonly.

Good points...






Thank you!


Pax Christi!
Soli DEO Gloria!



- Josiah



.

 

[hedrick]

In fairness, Protestant soteriology is a mess too. Maybe not Luther and Calvin personally. But take a look at posts on the subject on CF. (I use it because it's a much larger sample of ordinary Christians.) Look at how many Protestants argue for "salvation by faith." This confuses justification with all of soteriology in exactly the same way as the 16th Cent Catholic tradition did.

Typical discussion also seems to assume that the main point of soteriology is to define the minimum requirements to avoid hell. Admittedly Jesus was perfectly willing to speak of judgement (though how much of what he said matches what the posters mean by "hell" is debatable). But it's hard to think of Jesus saying that people are saved by faith alone.

The NT taken as a whole teaches that (1) God loves us even when we sin, but that (2) following Jesus means doing what he told us to, and we'll be held accountable for that. If you don't think Paul believed the latter, look at 1 Cor 3:12, plus the rest of 1 Cor. The current bumper-sticker version of this is "justified by faith, judged by works," though I think "works" is a misleading word here, because it implies earning salvation, which we can't do.

Despite improvements in the Reformation and its aftermath, I think it's still the case that Catholic theology (at least in theory) fails in 1 and at least pop Protestant theology in 2. Part of the messiness of Catholic soteriology is trying to restore the balance despite some traditions that they can't get rid of. But at least they're trying. Not all Protestants are.

 

[atpollard]

In fairness, Protestant soteriology is a mess too. Maybe not Luther and Calvin personally. But take a look at posts on the subject on CF. (I use it because it's a much larger sample of ordinary Christians.) Look at how many Protestants argue for "salvation by faith." This confuses justification with all of soteriology in exactly the same way as the 16th Cent Catholic tradition did.

Typical discussion also seems to assume that the main point of soteriology is to define the minimum requirements to avoid hell. Admittedly Jesus was perfectly willing to speak of judgement (though how much of what he said matches what the posters mean by "hell" is debatable). But it's hard to think of Jesus saying that people are saved by faith alone.

The NT taken as a whole teaches that (1) God loves us even when we sin, but that (2) following Jesus means doing what he told us to, and we'll be held accountable for that. If you don't think Paul believed the latter, look at 1 Cor 3:12, plus the rest of 1 Cor. The current bumper-sticker version of this is "justified by faith, judged by works," though I think "works" is a misleading word here, because it implies earning salvation, which we can't do.

Despite improvements in the Reformation and its aftermath, I think it's still the case that Catholic theology (at least in theory) fails in 1 and at least pop Protestant theology in 2. Part of the messiness of Catholic soteriology is trying to restore the balance despite some traditions that they can't get rid of. But at least they're trying. Not all Protestants are.

Nothing against either Catholics or Protestants, but isn't it an apples to oranges comparison to discuss what the Hierarchy and Thologians of the Catholic Church are attempting to do to what lay Protestants claim on a debate forum?

 

[Josiah]

In fairness, Protestant soteriology is a mess too. Maybe not Luther and Calvin personally. But take a look at posts on the subject on CF. (I use it because it's a much larger sample of ordinary Christians.) Look at how many Protestants argue for "salvation by faith." This confuses justification with all of soteriology in exactly the same way as the 16th Cent Catholic tradition did.

Oh, I completely agree!

MUCH of contemporary Protestantism IMO is not only as "bad" as Catholicism on this point but often worse. MUCH of Protestantism has gone "full-circle" right back to the Catholicism that Luther and Calvin "protested" and defend positions worse that what they rejected. Yes, at CF, I OFTEN found myself MORE at "odds" on this subject with Protestants than with Catholics (well, at least thoughtful, well-informed, non-polemic Catholics there). It's just ONE of the reasons why the Reformation must continue, why it is just as relevant (and needed) today.

I've shared before that when I was an undergrad, I discovered that I still lacked a core requirement course. I could fill it with a history course (and I like history) but I didn't want to take YET ANOTHER American or World History class, so I got the prof's permission to take an upper division History class called "Revolution." We studied dozens of revolutions in history - including the ones most are familiar with (the French, American and Russian revolutions), but other's too (we spent some time on the Cuban one since the prof was Cuban). ONE of the things I learned is that revolutions typically "over-shoot" and often end up with a situation that was almost as bad (and not infrequently worse) than what it orginally sought to replace (the American revolution is - largely - an exception here, we mostly have George Washington to thank for that). Well...... in some ways, the Reformation might be seen as a revolution. And I think one CAN look at it as waves, the first (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism). But the successive waves IMO largely "over-shot" and in some ways actually returned to the very things the Reformation rejected. It's not a popular or well-received view of mine but I do tend to embrace that.

But it's hard to think of Jesus saying that people are saved by faith alone

I disagree. And in any case, the "red letter" words of the NT don't trump the "black letters" LOL I think Jesus taught that HE is the Savior, not that self saves self and Jesus was an irrelevant joke or just a HELPER or just a POSSIBILITY-MAKER. Yes, Jesus - like Paul and Peter and James - taught the Law as well as the Gospel, taught that CHRISTIANS are called to very great and high things (PERFECT morality, PERFECT love, etc.) but I don't think they taught that ergo Jesus is one big irrelevant joke and we are saved by what WE do in the world, His Cross being a silly joke.

The NT taken as a whole teaches that (1) God loves us even when we sin, but that (2) following Jesus means doing what he told us to, and we'll be held accountable for that.

I agree. Which is yet another reason to not twist and blend and confuse Justification and Sanctification, Law and Gospel, Christ ans self.

Part of the messiness of Catholic soteriology is trying to restore the balance despite some traditions that they can't get rid of. But at least they're trying. Not all Protestants are.

I respectfully disagree. The 'messiness' in Catholic and too much of Protestantism soteriology is the watering down of both Law and Gospel and then trying to merge them, confuse them, blend them - so that we end up with something that sounds much more like Bhati Hinduism or modern Judaism or Islamic soteriology: God helps those who help themselves, get yourself as goodier as you can (and God will help you), try to be better than the bozo who lives next door, God opens the gate to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it by what you do. It all makes Jesus pretty much a joke and certainly not the Savior. BOTH the Gospel (what you refer to as God loving sinners, the UNWORTHY) and the Law (how we are to live) are watered down to next to nothing. The Gospel becomes "God helps" and the Law becomes "try."



Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4TeJJmQJqU

 

[Lamb]

My former choir sang this at the church talent show one year!

 

[Josiah]

:bump: