At least three groups of Christians – Eastern Orthodox, traditional Protestants, and liberal Catholics – assail the papacy by arguing that the Church Councils should be our highest authority, an idea called “concilarism.” It’s a good argument – after all, Councils can be infallible, they’re part of the Magisterium, and so forth, so don’t Catholics go too far in declaring that only those Councils accepted by the pope are Magisterial? Doesn’t that eliminate the entire rationale behind a Council? On Friday night, a Calvinist raised this argument to one of my friends, who responded with one of the best arguments I’ve ever heard on the subject.
He pointed to the existence of the so-called “Robber Council,” the Second Council of Ephesus, to show that this is what the Church (both East and West) historically understood. The Eastern Orthodox, along with many traditional Protestants, accept the so-called Seven Ecumenical Councils:
- First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.
- First Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D.
- Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
- Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.
- Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D.
- Third Council of Constantinople, 680-81 A.D.
- Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.
But in between # 3 and # 4, in 449 A.D., was the Second Council of Ephesus. It’s remarkable, in that it attempted to declare the Monophysite heresy to be the truth, on behalf of the Church. In the original Council of Ephesus, a Monophysite priest named Eutyches was condemned for refusing to acknowledge the dual natures of Christ. But in the Second Council of Ephesus, the Robber Council declared that Eutyches was the orthodox one, condemning his opponents, and declaring that Christ only has one nature. Now, if both the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Ephesus are valid Councils, we’d have a serious problem: the Church would have just proclaimed heresy, contradicting both Herself and Scripture.
But that’s not the case: we know the Second Council of Ephesus is invalid, and have known it from the start. As the council was closing, the papal legate (the pope’s representative to the Council), Hilarius, expressed the judgment of Rome: “Contradicitur!” With a single word, he declared the Council invalid in the name of the pope. Leo himself confirmed this, and it’s from him that we have the name “Robber Council.”
There are a few things remarkable about this:
First, it’s only on the basis of the papacy that we can reject the Second Council as an invalid Robber Council. That is, it’s on this basis alone that we can coherently say why this isn’t a Council at all. After all, the Robber Council was attended by about 130 Bishops, just a little less than the First Council of Constantinople, which is considered an Ecumenical Council. And the Robber Council was drawn from a wider swath of Christendom than First Constantinople. So by all appearances, it was an Ecumenical Council. And you can’t say it wasn’t an Ecumenical Council just because it was heretical, or later condemned. That’s circular logic — a Council isn’t a Council if you happen to think it’s right. So the only reason we can say that the Robber Council wasn’t a true Council, rather than a true Council that decreed error, is by recognizing that the Council.
Second, the Eastern Orthodox accepted the Pope’s authority in declaring the Second Council of Ephesus to be invalid. They also deny the Second Council of Ephesus, and refer to it in Pope Leo’s terms: as the Robber Council. Historically, the reason the Eastern Orthodox rejected it as a Council wasn’t that it was wrong, but because it had been condemned by the papal legate, and then the pope.
Third, those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to find out the Council’s Validity. Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.
So in the end, concilarism is certainly false. If Councils don’t need papal approval to be valid, then we have to recognize and accept all the Councils. And that’s impossible, since the Robber Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Ephesus, and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. You’d have to declare the Holy Spirit contradictory to cling to this notion.
Two subsequent Councils make these points even clearer. First, the Council of Chalcedon was convened precisely to establish that Christ has two natures. This Council is recognized by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants; and all orthodox Christians would say its Christology is correct. After reading into the record St. Leo’s “tome,” his defense of the dual natures of Christ, the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.” It’s an affirmation of the Petrine ministry, and the headship of the pope, and it was recorded in the proceedings of the Council. And Pope Hadrian (Leo’s successor, who had served as the papal legate at the Robber Council) sent a letter discussing the authority of the pope over the Church, which the Council accepted. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, then declares the pope’s letter to be true and accurate. So in the Ecumenical Council refuting the Robber Council, accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike, the papacy is established quite plainly.
The second Council worth mentioning is another false Council, the Quinisext Council. It was held in the East, and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, but rejected by the papacy. The East is careful to recognize it, not as an additional Council, but as additional canons to be added to existing Councils (this way, they can say that they affirm just the first Seven Ecumenical Councils). Two things make it remarkable. First, Basil of Gortyna presented himself as the “papal legate,” although he was not. The fact that it was viewed as necessary that there be a papal legate speaks volumes. Second, the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian II, was outraged that the pope refused to accept the council, and actually sent an officer to Rome to kidnap him. Italian troops came down from Ravenna (then the capital of the Western Roman Empire) and stopped him. That the pope, and he alone, was viewed as a significant enough figure to send troops to kidnap him a thousand miles away is telling. If papal approval of the Council was unnecessary, why bother trying to arrest him?
oldadam, i’ll ask again:
I would say we have a disagreement on a fundamental issue, what is the Bible. so now what? Certainly neither of us can say, well it’s up to YOU what your Bible is because that quickly can devolve into cultural relativism and we could conceivably find Islam as “right” as Christianity, so with that in mind
1) Where did Luther get his teachings from?
2) Where did the church (RCC) get her teachings from?
3) Why the disagreement?
scredsoxfan2,
Luther studied the Bible and taught the same for the Roman Church.
He was a scholar and knew most of Bible by heart and could recite from it at will.
He read Romans and realized that the religious life that he had been living for 15 years in the monastery was not what God was after.
He realized by reading in Romans (and other places) that God justifies us by His work, alone. There is no co-operative effort required.
I guess the disagreements are about whether we need any additions to the finished work of Christ on the cross, or not.
Luther gathered (from Romans and Galatians)that trying to keep the law (anything that WE DO for the sake of improving ourselves in the eyes of God) can not only be a waste of time (because that work has already been done), but it can be harmful in that it places the focus on ourselves and our “religious progress”, and our motives become even more tainted with ‘self’.
He saw that we are free from all of that. Free for the neighbor. Free from the vertical relationship (already finished and promised in Christ) and free for the horizontal relationships with the neighbor…where our “good works” are needed.
I hope that helps a bit.
I won’t get home from work until about 9pm (drat!)so I’ll have to get back to your response then, or tomorrow sometime.
Thanks!
Old Adam,
Luther did know a lot about Scripture, but we all know people who are knowledgeable of Scripture yet very off the mark.
As you’re probably aware, Luther said he would give away his Bible Doctorate for someone who could tell him how to harmonize James with Paul. Now if he knew the Bible that well, does this comment make sense?
You said:
“He [Luther] realized by reading in Romans (and other places) that God justifies us by His work, alone. There is no co-operative effort required.”
This seems a serious oversimplification. Does it make sense to say there is no co-operative effort when we’re required to believe, even have “the obedience of faith” as Paul says?
The FACT Luther and Lutherans believe salvation can be lost proves there is co-operation, else such would be impossible…unless you believe God randomly takes away salvation.
You said:
“Luther gathered (from Romans and Galatians)that trying to keep the law (anything that WE DO for the sake of improving ourselves in the eyes of God)”
To say “the Law” is synonymous with “anything we do” is a serious exegetical blunder. The Law is none other than the Mosaic Law, and thus whether keeping the Mosaic Law saves….”or is God the God of the Jews only?”
You said:
“it places the focus on ourselves and our “religious progress”, and our motives become even more tainted with ‘self’.”
I don’t know where you’re getting that idea of ‘religious progress’ since Paul never talks about that, and further, the Judaizers were proponents of unconditional election and thus didn’t feel they had to earn anything, merely receive.
oldadam,
I absolutely agree that we are only justified (in a general sense) by Christ’s work! Indeed, what we strive to recognize is that though our works are good they are only possible through Christ and made possible by Christ. If you agree with this you would agree with the RCC’s teaching. See paragraph 1992 from the catechism: “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men…”
and on grace paragraph 1996: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”
I recommend a read of Philipians (sp) chapters 3 and 4 and also, of the catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1987-2029). You might be suprised to find out what the church actually teaches.
but anyway, saying that Luther saw the OBVIOUS ERRANCY of the Church’s teaching and felt he needed to correct it himself, outside of the church, inspite of both the apostles, who directly knew Christ, and the teachings of the Church fathers directly then contradicts what he taught…or where have I gone wrong in my understanding?
btw, joe, you’ll have to teach me how to do this stupid HTML tag thing because one of Christ’s humble servants is incompetent
@scared sox fan:
I’m also incompetent. Apparently I need a lesson on remedial HTML tags as much as I need these blog posts.
Old Adam, with regards to my comments over Purgatory, you said:
“We believe that all those disagreements…are a result of our fallen…nature…when Christ died for us and promised to forgive us…He makes us New Men/Women. He clothes us in His righteousness”
You’ve presented your explanation of salvation, but I can’t help but feel you missed my point and haven’t really addressed the situation I described.
You appear to imply that having faith in Christ makes us perfectly holy: “[By being clothed in Christ]…we can enter into Heaven with a perfect and righteous God”. However, experience tells us that, even after receiving new life in Christ we still suffer disordered desires and we still sin.
Assuming that my warring relatives are “saved”, can they *remain* in their current state (at odds with one another) and *still* worship before the same throne in Heaven? Yes or no?
The answer *clearly* has to be “no”. If they remained as they were then I’m pretty sure Heaven wouldn’t remain “heaven” for very long (clearly something “unclean” would have entered heaven…)
Therefore, a work of God’s grace *has to* happen in their hearts before then. If it doesn’t happen before their death, then it has to happen somewhere between death and arriving on Heaven’s shores. Catholics call this Purgatory.
Nick,
You might believe that Luther was way off the mark, but we believe he was pretty much right on the mark…because he was basically parroting St. Paul.
“Does it make sense to say there is no co-operative effort when we’re required to believe, even have “the obedience of faith” as Paul says?”
God gives us what is required. St. Paul also tells us that “faith is a gift of God.”
Yes, Lutherans believe that faith can be lost, but that in no way disqualifies the fact that it is a gift.
Lutherans believe that if we are saved, God gets ALL the credit. And if we are lost, WE get ALL the blame.”
“…the Judaizers were proponents of unconditional election and thus didn’t feel they had to earn anything, merely receive.”
Then why does Paul say that they cut themselves off from grace, if they persist in keeping the law for righteousness sake?
Roman Catholic theology is a semi-Pelagain, co-operative effort, and Lutheran theology is ALL Christ centered. Feel free to stick with having to do this and that for your God to think highly enough of you to save you. I prefer to rely totally on what Christ has done for me…because (as the Bible says) “all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags.”
Thanks.
Restless Pilgrim,
If none of us can stay in our sinful state and not be saved, then we are ALL in big trouble.
As St. Paul says, “The good I would do, I do not. And that which I ought not do, I do.” (paraphrased)
In Romans Paul says that “we are to CONSIDER ourselves dead to sin.”
Not because we no longer sin (Romans 7 shows us that), but because in our baptisms (Romans 6) “we are baptized into a death like His.”
This is a great Word of promise for us! That’s why they call it (the gospel) the Good News! It wouldn’t be so good if we had to DO something to make it effective in our lives. And if that were the case, then why the cross?!
Why Jesus at all? God might just as well stuck with Moses and lined us all up for inspection.
I’m tired. Rough night at work. Gonna hit the hay.
G’nite.
oldadam,
dont know if you read my last comment, but you actually agree with the RCC on this! I’m not kidding either. Not to be presumptuous, but I think you may just have been misled as to what the church teaches.
I hope you had a good night’s sleep though, God Bless man!
Old Adam,
Not only is the Catholic Church not Semi-Pelagian, She formally condemned Semi-Pelagianism at the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. Read the canons of the Council here, and let me know where you disagree, if anywhere. And if you think “that was then, this is now,” read this news article summarizing Pope Benedict’s explanation of what St. Paul teaches us about justification. I suspect we’re not as far apart on this issue as you imagine. In Christ,
Joe
Semipelagianism is a Christian theological and soteriological school of thought on salvation; that is, the means by which humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation (in which man is seen as effecting his own salvation), which had been dismissed as heresy. Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God.
The Roman Catholic Church condemns semipelagianism but affirms that the beginning of faith is an act of free will. It teaches that the initiative comes from God, but requires free synergy (collaboration) on the part of man:
for what it’s worth that’s what wikipedia says…
Gentlemen,
I believe the trouble is that we words we all use (in the church)have different definitions.
“Grace alone” mean completely different things to R. Catholics and to Lutherans.
Yes, the Roman Church condemned semi-Pelagainism, but in the end, a co-operative salvation is pretty much the norm.
And thanks! I did get a good nights sleep, but have got to go back into the salt mine…AGAIN!
No wonder ‘work’ is a four letter word…
oldadam,
how does this indicate anything other than what you have been saying:
Catechism paragraph 1996: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Old Adam,
Luther could not have been “parroting St Paul”, since St Paul never used the phrase “faith alone”. When St Paul says something like “faith apart from works of the Law,” it is not a parrot to ‘repeat’ that as “faith alone,” for such is actually an interpretation (and wrong one).
You said:
“Yes, Lutherans believe that faith can be lost, but that in no way disqualifies the fact that it is a gift.”
You seem to have just conceded a fundamental tenet of Catholic soteriology. We are saved so long as we are persevering in the GIFT of Faith, but that GIFT can be abused, resulting in us losing salvation.
Note what Luther said in the Smalcald Articles:
“It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them”
How is this that much different then the Catholic view? Thus, it’s nonsense to suggest *everything* is taken care of once and for all at the moment one converts (is first justified) since they can lose this justification through sin.
When I said the Judaizers were proponents of unconditional election, you said:
“Then why does Paul say that they cut themselves off from grace, if they persist in keeping the law for righteousness sake?”
Because salvation isn’t a promise the Mosaic Law grants, so it’s a heresy to live as if being in the Mosaic Covenant is what determines salvation. It’s akin to saying they are putting Saving Faith in Moses, when Moses never could grant them forgiveness of sins.
You said:
“Roman Catholic theology is a semi-Pelagain, co-operative effort, and Lutheran theology is ALL Christ centered.”
It seems you don’t know what Pelagianism is, since Pelagianism never was based upon co-operation and in fact denies co-operation (contrary to Augustinianism, which requires co-operation). This is where Luther abandoned Augustine and joined the ranks of Pelagius. It is actually Lutheranism and Calvinism that embrace Pelagianism, because they teach when Adam was in the garden, it was up to his natural human powers to ‘earn’ salvation on his own (i.e. no gift of faith or Holy Spirit required). The Catholic and Augustinian version is that Adam even before the fall required the GIFT of FAITH and GIFT of the Holy Spirit to be able to do the good works allowing him to be worthy of eternal life.
This compounds the Lutheran heresy into a Christological heresy as well, since Lutherans believe Jesus picked up where Adam left off, having to merit salvation by PURELY HUMAN ability – which denies Christ’s Divine Personhood and the fact His Divine Will was continuously assisting His human will, making the life of Jesus the epitome of Synergism (man co-operating with grace).
Indeed, Canon 18 of the Semi-Pelagian Condemning Council of Orange says:
“Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.”
In other words, it’s anti-Pelagian to say good works plus preceding and enabling grace results in reward! Ironically, Lutherans reject any sort of co-operation as Pelagian, in direct violation of the true meaning.
I’d really rather hear you respond to Joe’s questions about how you identify Scripture, but since you’ve responded to my statements about Purgatory…
“If none of us can stay in our sinful state and not be saved, then we are ALL in big trouble.”
You don’t seem to get what I’m saying here. I’m *not* saying that we have to be perfectly sanctified at the point of death in order to get to Heaven.
My point is that you surely can’t think that warring relatives with hurt, pain, anger, attachment to sin etc. can still be in this state by the time they get to Heaven.
I appreciate your quotes from Scripture but I don’t see how they address my question.
So, to try and focus this:
1. After receiving Christ, do we still sin? y/n?
2. After receiving Christ, do we still have a tendency to choose creatures above the creator? y/n?
3. Can someone die in friendship with God and be rewarded Heaven, even if there is some sin in their life? y/n?
I expect you to answer “yes” to all of these.
4. Is everyone perfectly holy at the point of death? y/n
Common experience would say “no”…
5. Can anything sinful enter Heaven? y/n
Scripture says “no”.
Therefore (assuming Heaven won’t just be filled with snow-covered dunghills)…there *must* be a work of *God’s grace* in that person prior to entrance into Heaven.
So, should we conclude that my warring relatives will remain as they are in Heaven? y/n?
Nick,
We do have to DO a litle theology, here.
“We are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.”
To add the word “ALONE” to faith (after reading the above quote from St. Paul) is not doing any harm to the text, but reinforces it.
The purpose therein is to keep it pure, from God, unstained by human effort.
Restless Pilgrim,
Yes.
When Jesus makes us clean…we are clean, pure, undefiled.
Not by anything that we do, say, feel, or think. But solely by His promise, His Word, His blood, His broken body.
A God that can raise the dead is more than capable of cleaning up His own people. And that is exactly what happens to us in Baptism, for all those with faith.
scredsoxfan2,
“Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”
We differ thusly:
That word ‘help’…we don’t like that word. It shows co-operation. Our definition of grace is more radical. It is a free, undeserved, unearned, gift of God, to the ungodly.
We are DECLARED RIGHTEOUS for Jesus’ sake.
That’s the difference.
This isn’t exactly on topic, but it’s all related.
This is the latest post I put up on my site. It’s an audio (mp3) class, a little over a half hour, on the 3 main differences between Lutherans and…everybody else.
Not asking that you agree with it, but you will have a better understanding of what makes Lutherans tick:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/three-big-differences-between-lutheranism-and-roman-catholic-orthodox-and-virtually-all-other-protestant-denominations/
If you get the chance, later. My pastor does mention Catholicism and the Pope, in the class a couple of times, as well as he bags on our own denomination a bit.
Old Adam,
You appear to be asserting the snow-covered dunghills vision of Heaven… (looks pretty but smells funky).
Are you really suggesting that hurt and anger my relatives feel for one another, this sin in their lives, will continue in Heaven? Sorry, I just can’t accept that. How could something so toxic, so unholy exist before the throne of the All-Holy God? Scripture says that nothing unclean can enter heaven and this is certainly something unclean.
You keep saying things about “not by anything we do…[God] is capable of cleaning up his people” etc. I find this odd. Where have I suggested that this purification is anything other than a work of God?
RP, (hope you don’t mind)
I never suggested that. I thought I made it clear (somewhere along the line) that we are made NEW, in Christ. “We are clothed in His righteousness.”
Do you not believe that the Lord can do that for us, by just declaring it so?
Remember, this is the same Lord who spoke this earth and everything in it into existence.
Old Adam,
I think that other than the issue of justification being forensic, we’re in agreement that all good comes from God, and that we can add nothing (not good works, not even faith) to what God has given us. “Of Thy own have we given Thee” (1 Chron. 29:14).
But the issue of whether justification is merely forensic, we do disagree. In that vein, think your most recent question is a bit confusing, in that there are two ways that it can be understood.
One is that God simply declares the guilty innocent. The other is that God actually cleanses us from sin. The answer to the second question is easily: absolutely yes. We think that this is what He does both in our justification and sanctification here on Earth, and if necessary, in Purgatory, if we die in His graces but aren’t yet free from our attachments to sin.
To the first question, it’s like asking if God could make a square a circle without changing it. C.S. Lewis specifically denies (in Miracles) that God can do the logically impossible, but I’m not even sure it rises to the level of an answerable question. What could it possibly mean to change a square into a circle without altering it? What could it possibly mean to make the unrighteous righteous without actually changing us?(To use Luther’s famous analogy of snow covering a dunghill, snow doesn’t make a dunghill not a dunghill. It just masks the problem, without solving it).
It’s worth noting that you’ll be hard-pressed to find any Christians before the Reformation who took this view of what Paul was saying. The Calvinist Alistar McGrath called this view of justification a “theological novum.” If it really is as simple as parroting Paul, it’s remarkable that seemingly no one in the early and middle Church agrees with you. Are you somehow more knowledgeable of Scripture than they are? How do you know that you’re right, and they’re wrong?
I think this is a serious question. We’re going to have good-faith disputes over how to read Scripture. By what authority ought we decide those disputes?
Joe
Thanks, Joe.
Actaully there were quite a few Catholics who thought along the lines of paul and Luther before the Reformation. I have some stuff I’ll dig up for you when I can get to it.
And does God clease us from our sin OR just declare that we are righteous? YES. Both. That’s why it’s the Good News.
As far as the authority of Scripture goes, I’ll stick with the Word. And you stick with Rome.
Take care, my friend.
Steve,
Surely you’ve realized by now that we don’t reject the Word, or reject Scripture. We simply think you hack out huge chunks of it, and create a contradictory and unsupported system. I showed you ten reasons from Matthew 16:17-19 that we can know (from Scripture alone!) that Jesus was talking about Peter specifically, and you simply ignored it. So to now simply declare your own faction the only true interpreters of Scripture is a baldly unsupported claim.
Like I said above, “we’re going to have good-faith disputes over how to read Scripture.” This seems to be one of them. So to re-ask my question, when there are disputes over how to interpret Scripture, “by what authority ought we decide those disputes?”
In Christ,
Joe
I think I have said this before. The Word is our authority in all matters of faith and life.
You want to stick with sinful men…be my guest.
I think on this point we are starting to chase our tails. You don’t see it my way and I don’t agree with your way.
As I have said before, my goal here is not to convert folks who are already Christians (as many Protestants try and do with Catholics – and vice versa), but to let you hear what we Lutherans believe.
Thanks, Joe.
G’Nite.
One for the road.
Here’s a very good mp3 audio on where Lutherans derive their authority when it comes to the Christian faith:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/did-the-bible-drop-out-of-heaven-with-a-bow-tied-around-it/
Give it 10 or 15 minutes…it gets better as it goes along.
Steve,
Here’s why it seems that we’re chasing our tails:
1. You say that what makes Lutheranism distinct is a simple reliance upon Christ;
2. To determine this (and everything else), you point to “the Bible,” although you and I believe different Books are in the Bible;
3. You claim to determine which Books are Biblical by “Whatever drives Christ.”
This immediately creates the problem that you acknowledge (that Mere Christianity could be considered Scripture, while you’re free to ignore those Scriptures which you unilaterally determine “promote man and what he does”
instead of Christ.
But beyond undermining and destroying the Bible, your view is also circular. You claim to get your doctrines from Scripture, but your Scriptures are based on your doctrines. If you’re feeling like there’s tail-chasing, I think that’s what it is.
All that said, the title of your pastor’s sermon seems promising. I’ll try and listen to it tonight, and write a post on it for tomorrow. Sound good?
In Christ,
Joe
P.S. We Catholics don’t want to rely upon man. We actually rely upon the Holy Spirit working through the Church (as Jesus promised) to teach us, rather than trying to create dogmas on our own. In my view, this is the more humble, less self-centered view of revelation. Despite your repeated claims that we rely upon ourselves, or add the pope to Christ, etc., I haven’t actually seen you substantiate those charges. What are you basing that off of, and who gets to decide if we’re adding to Scripture?
I’m going to have one more go at this Purgatory thing – I think we’re having a bit of a communication failure…
I’ve been trying to get you to tell me at what point my relatives’ hurt, anger, sin and attachment to sin gets removed.
On the one hand you seemed to assert that they’ll remain in this state in Heaven. Yet, as I’ve said, Scripture states nothing unclean can enter Heaven.
On the other hand you’ve spoken about Baptism. The thing is that they were both baptised some time ago and this sin is present in their lives *now*. Baptism clearly doesn’t remove concupiscence and they clearly still have an attachment to sin, “clothed in righteousness” or not.
So, if they (God forbid) die tonight, would they be able to take that sin, that hurt, that anger with them into Heaven? Yes or no?
As I see it, if you say “yes”, then that violates Heaven – it will cease to be “heaven”.
If you say “no” then clearly God is going to have to do something in them between the point of death and their entrance into Heaven.
I’d like to hear your response to this, but I think this’ll be my last post on the subject, partly because I don’t think we’re really getting anywhere, but mainly because I’d like to hear your response to the more fundamental stuff Joe has raised about your view of Sacred Scripture.
Hello Old Adam,
I hope you are not feeling overwhelmed with all these posts.
You said:
We do have to DO a litle theology, here.
“We are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.”
To add the word “ALONE” to faith (after reading the above quote from St. Paul) is not doing any harm to the text, but reinforces it.
The purpose therein is to keep it pure, from God, unstained by human effort.
The problem here is that you haven’t established what “works” here means, and I can provide a solid example that demostrates the flaw in your approach. Many Protestants would say “works” here includes things like Baptism, which they claim undermines “Christ’s sufficiency” as much as any other work.
Well, any informed Lutheran would know that that argument is nonsense, and that Luther and Lutherans have boldly defended that Baptism does no such thing and is not a “work” that Paul was speaking against.
The issue with the Lutheran approach is that it concedes that “not of works” cannot be reduced to a narrow ‘faith alone’ since at minimum baptism is not excluded.
So yes, we do have to do “a little theology” as you said – and that I believe is where the flaws begin to show (notably the fact St Paul never speaks of “faith alone” yet Protestants have made it a central dogma).
Joe,
I never said that mere Christianity should be considered Scripture. Never said it.
What I said was this; whenever someone speaks of Christ and His forgiveness of sins for sinners, it is the Word of God
RP,
No Christian take their sin to Heaven because Jesus took it upon Himself at the cross and in their Baptism.
Nick,
Since God is the One who does the Baptizing, it is His work…not ours.
Steve,
In response to the direct question, “are you saying that Mere Christianity would be canonical Scripture?” you replied, “Mere Christianity could have been included in the canon. Many gospels were not included. Some books just barely made it (Revelation, for example).”
I summarized this in my last comment as you saying “that Mere Christianity could be considered Scripture.” Now you’re saying you never said this. Am I misunderstanding you, or are you retracting your earlier point?
And to get back to the point I keep asking, if Mere Christianity shouldn’t be considered Scripture, why not? How would we know such a thing?
In Christ,
Joe.
I said “it could have been”, I did not say that now we include it in the canon.
My point is that the Word (not the Bible) is wherever Christ is promoted.
The Word was present from the beginning…long before there ever was a Bible.
I said “could,” also. You seem to be retreating from your earlier claim.
You earlier defined the canon of Scripture as “Whatever drives Christ.” When I clarified that I was asking about the Bible, and was “wondering why the Epistles of Ignatius, or 1 Clement, or Mere Christianity aren’t considered Scripture, under your definition,” you just repeated, “At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ‘whatever drives Christ and His gospel’.”
So let me try again. I’m using Mere Christianity here as some book we both agree promotes Christ. If you’d prefer to use the writings of Martin Luther or some other modern writings, feel free to sub those in.
(1)Are these modern writings part of the Bible?
(2) If not, on what basis do you exclude them, since they promote Christ?
I’m not sure you’ve answered either of these questions yet. If you have, I apologize for repeatedly asking the same questions — I may simply be missing your answer.
In Christ,
Joe.
You’re getting ‘God’s Word’, and ‘the canon of Scripture’ confused when I speak of them.
Whatever drives Christ is GOD’S WORD…the canon is something else.
Whatever is God’s Word is worthy to be included in the canon. Not that is actually in the canon.
I’m explicitly asking about the canon of Scripture.
Based on what you just said, is there any reason not to add Mere Christianity to the canon?
No. Because “the world could not hold all that could be written about Him.”
We already have a Bible…which contains the Word. And we have the Word contained in preaching, teaching about Him, and the Sacraments.
That has always been enough. And it always will be.
Is there any distinction, then, between those Books collected in Scripture, and those books which aren’t? It sounds as if your view of the Bible is just the first x number of Books about the Gospel which happened to make the cut. Is that a fair understanding of what you’re saying?
Hello Old Adam,
You said:
“Since God is the One who does the Baptizing, it is His work…not ours.”
Please clarify. If I get baptized by my priest, how is it God doing the Baptizing?
And part two of that: why can we not substitute any Christian work for “Baptize” and say God is the one who does it?
Nick,
We can.
Jesus commanded that we Baptize (Matthew 28).
The Lord never commands us to do anything where He won’t be present in it, for us.
Baptism is not just water alone, but God’s Word of promise attached to that water.
“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
His name is given to that person in Baptism. The Lord is adopting that person in Baptism.
Oh yes. God is the One who Baptizes. The priest, the pastor, you or I…we are just His instruments.
oldadam,
your discussion of us as His instruments is precisely the reason the Church is the RCC. It is the instrument He dictated via Peter and the Apostles…
God Bless
Steve,
On Baptism, we agree. Certain Evangelicals view it as a “work,” because they see the actions of the men baptizing, rather than the invisible working of God. Both Catholics and Lutherans see beyond this, and realize that the man is a mere visible instrument of the invisible God.
We Catholics see the same thing in all of the “good works” you think we’re trying to “add” to Christ’s work, “for we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10). So St. Paul explicitly tells us that in doing the good works Christ prepared for us, we’re behaving as God’s “handiwork,” His instruments. And serving as His instrument in this way is vital to being saved: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will be saved, but only the one who does the Will of My Father” (Matthew 7:21).
Whether it’s a cause of effect of salvation (or both) is irrelevant to the question before us – the fact is, it’s tied up with salvation, as Christ makes clear. If we don’t do the good works God prepared for us, if we refuse to do the Will of the Father, we’re not saved, period.
So for the very reason neither of us see Baptism as adding “works” to Christ, but simply letting Him work through you, we Catholics don’t see any of the things you criticize as “works” as anything more than letting Him work through us.
In Christ,
Joe.
P.S., As Cary (scredsoxfan2) noted, the Church and Her ministers are also instruments of God, not additions to the Gospel. I think the New Testament bears this out. Obedience to the Church is obedience to the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ. You can’t separate the Two who have become One (Ephesians 5:25-32; Matthew 19:6).
Hey Joe, I’m wondering how you reconcile that last post with 1Corinthians 3:10-15?
You mean the one on Purgatory, I take it? I think they reconcile well — what tension are you seeing?
Steve,
I enjoyed your pastor’s sermon. My reactions here: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/lutheran-pastor-shows-need-for-catholic.html.
Brock,
Now that my brain is awake, I realize that you were talking about the comment right about you, rather than the post on Purgatory and Ghosts.
Yes, we build upon the foundation of Christ, but if we do so well, it’s through cooperating with God, rather than trying to go it alone. When our own will takes predominance, that’s when you get straw, etc.
God isn’t calling us to inactivity. That misunderstands salvation by grace through faith completely. Instead, we’re active (even on fire) for Him, but when we’re active for Him, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking the initiative is ours. Does that answer your question?
In Christ,
Joe.
scredsoxfan2,
Well, I give God a little more credit than that.
I believe He is capable of calling His own from wherever it is they happen to be worshipping Christ.
We believe that Christ does know His Church, and that they are founf wherever His word is proclaimed.
And we cannot know who is really in, and who really isn’t.
“The wheat and the tares grow together.”