We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God...
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins...
---
A Roman Catholic cannot affirm the boldfaced statements.
1) Being seated is wording from Hebrews, and the reason Jesus sits down is that He has completed His high priestly work of atoning for sin. It is for real finished, and that's why Hebrews says that there remains no sacrifice for sin. Yet the Roman Mass neither is nor re-presents the atoning death of Jesus, because it does not take away all sin from the person it benefits. A person can go to Mass 10,000 times and still go to Hell. A person can go to Mass 10,000 times and still die imperfect, and God brings charges against him in Purgatory, in direct violation to Romans 8:33-34.
2) Jesus took on flesh at the Incarnation, and flesh is always located in one place at any one time. Yet Roman Catholic Church affirms that the body of Jesus is located in zillions of different places simultaneously through transubstantiation. So He's not at the right hand of the Father. He's there and also all over the place.
And true, Roman Catholics acknowledge one baptism for remission of sins, but it's the wrong baptism. They look to water when they should be looking to the Spirit. And no, they are not one and the same. Not even close.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Sorry, but you're way wrong on this.
(1) First look at this text:
Hebrews 7: 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
There cannot be a conflict between Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father and Jesus still carrying out High Priest duties in some sense, because the text says Jesus is right now interceding for Christians. This is killer for Protestantism though, because they do insist Jesus' work is finished, yet not according to this text as well as Romans 8:34 and 1 John 2:1. There's no reason for Jesus to be *presently* interceding for you if Justification is based entirely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and is complete the moment you first believed.
(2) There's no such thing/distinction as Baptism by the Spirit versus Water Baptism, at least if you're thinking about certain texts. Plus, the Baptism for the forgiveness of sins mentioned in the Creed is water Baptism.
I do not see a contradiction with saying that Jesus is at the right hand of God, and that Jesus, because of His divine nature not separated from His human nature, is a zillion places at once....
One aspect, perhaps the main point, of Jesus being at the right hand of the Father is that He is King, He is in control, He is God, etc. I do not think the point of being at the right hand is that the author of Hebrews is trying to inform us of the exact geographical location of Jesus, for its own sake, but to show that because of His position, He is in control...still interceding/advocating.
Also, I disagree that Jesus still being our advocate is a "killer to Protestantism". How would this logic follow? As a Lutheran, we have corporate confession/absolution of sins every church service (I believe the Reformed/Presby also do). We still sin, and as 1 John 2:1 says, when we do, we have an advocate who forgives us. Jesus' humiliation and suffering to objectively pay for sins is complete and finished as He Himself said on the cross...but the application of that one time sacrifice happens daily, no, with every breathe we take.
We need Jesus to be "presently interceding" for us daily, despite being Justified by His works - not our own (imputation)....because we still sin, because we still pray, because we still need strength, because we still need peace, because of the enemies of God - sin, death, devil, in short, because we are still on this side of glory and all that entails.
in Him,
Joe
Joe,
If justification is wholly outside of you, based on Christ's alien righteousness, then the idea that you have to regularly repent of your sins is a problem, because then it means God not looking at Christ's righteousness but rather is looking at you and judging you accordingly.
You cannot have it both ways: you cannot say we are justified by faith alone but then say our bad works (sins) impact our legal standing before God.
Lutherans are right to say salvation can be lost, especially since it's taught in Scripture, but they are inconsistent for saying this, which is why the Reformed are more logically consistent on this matter and say salvation cannot be lost (despite being less biblical on the matter).
If holding to the Nicene creed means one cannot also believe the justified can lose their salvation per point 1, I guess all the fathers who held that position while also defending/holding to the NC didn't really understand what they were professing. Seriously?
Nick,
If you are thinking about it as "I have to regularly repent of my sins" then you are thinking about it the wrong way. It is good news. God provides pastors so I am able to confess my sins and have them be forgiven. Awesome!
Human beings are stubborn with cold hearts. If it were up to us to simply remember what we have heard about Jesus' death for our sins, we would likely grow weary and begin to once again reject God's gifts.
So, God hand-delivers the forgiveness of sin to weary sinners on a regular basis. God's forgiveness is overflowing. He delivers forgiveness to us through the words of absolution. He delivers forgiveness to us through the eating of the Supper. He delivers forgiveness through the waters of Baptism.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
A random Lutheran
Hi Nick.
"If justification is wholly outside of you, based on Christ's alien righteousness, then the idea that you have to regularly repent of your sins is a problem, because then it means God not looking at Christ's righteousness but rather is looking at you and judging you accordingly."
Sorry, not sure what the problem is. We cannot earn/merit our salvation. We are sinners, beggars, pleading for mercy. Because we are saved by grace, through faith...does not mean we do not continually need to be forgiven. So again, Jesus interceding for us (forgiving, giving peace, strength, etc) in no way contradicts the idea that we are saved by grace alone, through Christs' merits, opposed to our own.
"You cannot have it both ways: you cannot say we are justified by faith alone but then say our bad works (sins) impact our legal standing before God"
Our sins would not impact our legal standing before God...as long as we have faith. It could impact rewards in heaven, however. I would say that you cannot have it both ways and say we are saved by grace alone and yet still merit and earn eternal life with our own works. The scriptures directly pit grace against our works...not our sins being imputed to Jesus and his righteousness to us against still needing daily forgiveness in the Christian life.
"Lutherans are right to say salvation can be lost, especially since it's taught in Scripture,"
Correct.
"but they are inconsistent for saying this, which is why the Reformed are more logically consistent on this matter and say salvation cannot be lost (despite being less biblical on the matter)."
Not inconsistent. Consistent with scripture. Converting from the Reformed faith to Lutheranism, I would say that the Reformed are consistent within their own theology and pure reason...whereas Lutherans are consistent with the scriptures and accept more paradox in terms of reason/logic. Scriptures are full of concepts that we cannot understand. Our reason/logic only goes so far. The Trinity is an obvious example. We accept by faith the idea that God is one but three. We accept it, not because we can completely understand it with reason, but because it is plainly taught in scripture.
So, the scriptures teach that we are saved by grace alone through faith, without our own works...and also teaches that one can lose this salvation if faith is lost. I see no contradiction, hardly even a paradox here.
in Him,
-Joe
Joe,
"The scriptures directly pit grace against our works"
By that logic, your cooperation/works leading to heavenly reward and growth in holiness/grace in progressive sanctification (as you say, your resistance can lead to loss of such) must not be of grace.
Hi Cletus.
Our rewards would still be from grace. Though He rewards our actions, these do no merit or earn the reward. But out of His grace He chooses to heap grace upon grace. When my children do their chores, even though they are not done exactly correct, or wholehearted...we as parents chose to reward them for their actions, though they are not done so perfectly that they merit/earn the reward. It is still out of our grace that we chose to reward them.
Even our good works are tainted with sin...our lives "merit" and "earn" nothing but temporal and eternal punishment.
Are you suggesting that the scriptures do not see an antithesis between grace and works?
in Him,
Joe
Joe,
"Though He rewards our actions, these do no merit or earn the reward."
They do not earn in the sense of making God a debtor who owes us a wage, but God honors his promises and He has promised to reward our works. But they have to merit - if they are rewarded, and those rewards would not have happened without the associated work/action, then by definition the work/action merited the reward. Otherwise you just make God arbitrarily giving reward with no cause.
"It is still out of our grace that we chose to reward them."
Right - so that does not mean works and grace are intrinsically opposed. Indeed works can only merit reward if they are *done in grace*
"Are you suggesting that the scriptures do not see an antithesis between grace and works? "
I see an anthithesis between natural works done under law or outside of grace and grace, but I do not see an antithesis between grace and supernatural works done under faith in grace. Nor can I see how anyone who holds that grace in progressive sanctification is not monergistic in the same way as it is in regeneration/justification can hold to such a sharp unqualified dichotomy.
"They do not earn in the sense of making God a debtor who owes us a wage, but God honors his promises and He has promised to reward our works."
Agree.
"But they have to merit - if they are rewarded, and those rewards would not have happened without the associated work/action, then by definition the work/action merited the reward."
Well, I would not use the merit then. If an action does not oblige the reward, then it is not merited.
"Otherwise you just make God arbitrarily giving reward with no cause."
Well, grace does not need a cause. That is what grace is. Something that is not earned. Did He give you faith because you earned it?
"Right - so that does not mean works and grace are intrinsically opposed. Indeed works can only merit reward if they are *done in grace*"
Well, I guess to make a distinction, I see merit and grace always opposed (perhaps grace and works as we have expressed here not diametrically opposed). But my initial comments about grace/merit-works were about salvation in the specific sense (not the whole christian life sense) are antithetical in terms of how we are saved, not concerning our final status in glory.
"I see an anthithesis between natural works done under law or outside of grace and grace, but I do not see an antithesis between grace and supernatural works done under faith in grace."
If I understand you correctly, do not think I disagree with this either. I would disagree if one would argue that our works under grace would then merit/earn salvation and eternal life....this is where I see the scriptures draw the line and remove works/merit from the equation.
in Him,
Joe
Joe,
"But my initial comments about grace/merit-works were about salvation in the specific sense (not the whole christian life sense) are antithetical in terms of how we are saved, not concerning our final status in glory."
Good - so "The scriptures directly pit grace against our works" does require some qualification to some degree after all.
An RC would argue similarly that merit is antithetical in terms of how we are initially justified (no one can merit initial justification nor restoration nor final perseverance), not concerning our additional justification or final status in glory.
Hi Cletus.
"Good - so "The scriptures directly pit grace against our works" does require some qualification to some degree after all."
Well, I never said or argued otherwise. We were discussing salvation/eternal life and justification...in context with good works and grace. This matter you and I have been speaking of, really does not affect my original comments and point with Nick - that Jesus being our advocate/interceding in no way is a "killer to Protestantism". Rather I would say it in some sense affirms it. Our life, even after being redeemed, born again, adopted, etc - still is not good enough to merit eternal life hence we still need daily forgiveness of our sins. And thus, Jesus is continually interceding for us...applying His one-time completed suffering, death, resurrection, ascension.
Concerning our discussion, found this quote that may be helpful. It has honed and even corrected me on my Lutheran heritage.
Thanks for the discussion.
In Him,
Joe
Quoting Martin Chemnitz, in his "Examination on the Council of Trent"...(sorry for any typo's)
"Concerning the Rewards and Merits of Good Works. This teaching is set forth in our churches plainly and distinctly form the Word of God, namely, that the expiation of sins, or the propitiation for sins, must not be attributed to the merits of our works. For these things are part of the office which belongs to Christ the Mediator alone. Thus the remission of sins, reconciliation with God, adoption, salvation, and eternal life do not depend on our merits but are granted freely for the sake of the merit and obedience of the Son of God and are accepted by faith. Afterward, however, the good works in the reconciled, since they are acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly mercy and liberality, for the sake of christ, has promised that He would honor with rewards the obedience of His children in this life, even though it is only begun and is weak, imperfect, and unclean. These promises should arouse in the regenerate a zeal for doing good works. For from this we understand how pleasing to the heavenly Father is that obedience of His children which they begin under the leading of the Holy Spirit in this life, while they are under this corruptible burden of the flesh, that He wants to adorn it out of grace and mercy for His Son's sake with spiritual and temporal rewards which it does not merit by its own worthiness. And in this sense also our own people do not shrink back from the word "merit," as it was used also by the fathers. For the rewards are promised by grace and mercy; nevertheless, they are not given to the idle or to those who do evil but to those who labor in the vineyard of the Lord. And so the word "merit" is used in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession....The controversy is chiefly about two points. First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly merit not only other spiritual and bodily rewards but also eternal life itself, which is to be paid as a reward for the good works and merits of the regenerate. Second, that they think that rewards are given to good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the heavenly Father but as a matter of debt, because nothing is lacking in the good works of the regenerate that they should not be judged to have satisfied the divine law fully according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life."
Hi Joe,
"For the rewards are promised by grace and mercy; nevertheless, they are not given to the idle or to those who do evil but to those who labor in the vineyard of the Lord."
Yup. They are not arbitrarily awarded as if the person did not actually labor. And they correspond to the motivation/acts themselves - hence the differing degrees of glory in heaven.
"The controversy is chiefly about two points. First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly merit not only other spiritual and bodily rewards but also eternal life itself, which is to be paid as a reward for the good works and merits of the regenerate."
Chemnitz is not distinguishing between initial justification and additional justification. Since initial justification is unmerited, how then can we be said to merit eternal life as Trent/CCC say? A few ways - if we never cooperated with grace after justification (i.e. merit since cooperation results in merit), then we would have necessarily committed a mortal sin either of omission or commission. Secondly, through our cooperation we grow/deepen (merit) in our grace and participation in Christ who is eternal life itself.
"Second, that they think that rewards are given to good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the heavenly Father but as a matter of debt, because nothing is lacking in the good works of the regenerate that they should not be judged to have satisfied the divine law fully according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life."
This is a false dichotomy - the fact that we can merit at all is itself an act of grace in that God condescends to allow his children to participate in salvation. It is true that we satisfy the divine law - we fulfill the law. Love one another and fulfill the law. This is not via specific acts - one who is justified is fulfilling the law because they have infused agape/righteousness of Christ given in initial justification. A baby and deathbed conversion is fulfilling the law and saved even without works. Infused agape is a virtue or habit/disposition - a state. It is not some chain of discrete acts that accumulate so that we then fulfill the law (one is fulfilling the law when they are asleep if they are justified, just as a great tennis player remains such when asleep). If we're justified, we are fulfilling the law - if we're not (mortal sin), we aren't. Our acts of agape in that state also fulfill the law - we can grow in agape - but that doesn't mean we weren't fulfilling before - just that our capacity is growing. As Therese of Lisieux analogized - it's akin to a full cup of water growing into a still larger cup that is also full. Our participation in the divine nature grows from perfect to even more perfect. Hence the differing degrees of glory in heaven.
This is also why RCs don't believe the works of the just are defiled with mortal sin (this view you seem to share with the Reformed), which again ties to our view of merit.
Hi Cletus.
Before getting into your explanations of the issues at hand, just want to see if you would agree with Chemnitz comments, besides where you say otherwise listed below?
" Chemnitz is not distinguishing between initial justification and additional justification."
Well, he does. He does it other sections of his book under "Justification" and even in my quote here. He says, as you quote, "First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly merit..." This speaks of the regenerate...and would distinguish from initial justification.
"This is a false dichotomy - the fact that we can merit at all is itself an act of grace in that God condescends to allow his children to participate in salvation."
Well, I do not see it as a false dichotomy. Rome distinguishes between initial and added justification or secondary if you will. So Chemnitz is simply addressing Rome on their own terms. The initially justified perform works that are so perfect and good that they merit and obtain eternal life out as reward out of debt, opposed to
"rewards are given to good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the heavenly Father"
and
"These promises should arouse in the regenerate a zeal for doing good works. For from this we understand how pleasing to the heavenly Father is that obedience of His children which they begin under the leading of the Holy Spirit in this life, while they are under this corruptible burden of the flesh, that He wants to adorn it out of grace and mercy for His Son's sake with spiritual and temporal rewards which it does not merit by its own worthiness."
in Him,
Joe
"Before getting into your explanations of the issues at hand, just want to see if you would agree with Chemnitz comments, besides where you say otherwise listed below?"
Just to clarify on my own comment, I meant if you agree on the issue/differences as Chemnitz shows? Not of course on the which side if the aisle we actually fall.
Joe,
"He says, as you quote, "First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly merit..." This speaks of the regenerate...and would distinguish from initial justification."
Perhaps, but I took that statement in light of his opening sentences:
"This teaching is set forth in our churches plainly and distinctly form the Word of God, namely, that the expiation of sins, or the propitiation for sins, must not be attributed to the merits of our works....Thus the remission of sins, reconciliation with God, adoption, salvation, and eternal life do not depend on our merits but are granted freely for the sake of the merit and obedience of the Son of God and are accepted by faith."
We cannot merit the remission of mortal sin, which is given at initial justification/restoration nor can we merit reconciliation/adoption/salvation. We can merit "eternal life" but the way Chemnitz glosses it implies RCs hold that we can merit that state or entrance into eternal life. We cannot - we can only merit further participation in Christ who is eternal life, in the divine life, and in that sense merit eternal life. That is why Trent can say initial justification/restoration is unmerited while also saying we merit eternal life. Nor can we merit the grace of final perseverance.
"The initially justified perform works that are so perfect and good that they merit and obtain eternal life out as reward out of debt,"
Christ works through the justified. That is why supernatural works merit and are truly good, not looked on "as if" they are good while remaining defiled and worthy of damnation. They merit eternal life, yes, but again that needs to be understood as additional growth, not entrance into that state. And if merit results in reward out of debt, then your growth in holiness and heavenly reward in progressive sanctification is a reward out of debt as well. But of course you would not hold to that. That's why I said his contrast with RC merit and "rewards are given to good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the heavenly Father" is false - RCism would not disagree with that - He honors His promises which leads to reward - He is not paying a wage.
"Just to clarify on my own comment, I meant if you agree on the issue/differences as Chemnitz shows? Not of course on the which side if the aisle we actually fall."
I presume you mean differences as stated in his final sentences:
"First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly merit not only other spiritual and bodily rewards but also eternal life itself, which is to be paid as a reward for the good works and merits of the regenerate."
I disagree if he is glossing meriting "eternal life" as entrance into eternal life, rather than degree of eternal life.
"Second, that they think that rewards are given to good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the heavenly Father but as a matter of debt, because nothing is lacking in the good works of the regenerate that they should not be judged to have satisfied the divine law fully according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life."
I again disagree with his dichotomy. Yes we fulfill the law through infused righteousness/agape and then grow in that, but we do not "earn" heaven. We are saved by faith formed in love. Not our merits, which only cause us to grow in agape and participation and eternal life, not enter into it - we cannot merit the principle of merit. As Journet wrote "the fruit of the state of grace is not the state of grace itself. Once in the state of grace, I can merit an increase of grace and also eternal life."
Post a Comment