Jason Engwer has made the appeal here a number of times that we should not forget Reformation Day. I was perusing some of the other Reformed sites, and there are, on Reformation Day (October 31), a number of articles entitled “A Reformation Day Thought” or “A Reformation Day Article”.
Given that I’m a marketer by trade, I’d like to suggest that we expand “Reformation Day” into “Reformation Season”. After all, the secular marketers do that all the time – we are in “election season” right now, and “Halloween season”, and before you know it, the Christmas season (or in Pittsburgh, “Sparkle season”) will be coming along, too.
The concept, too, can be found in church history: the Easter “season”, the Pentecost “season”. These were attempts, even by the early church, to recognize that, even in the midst of the kinds of illness and death to which they were subjected, that life goes on. And it goes on in “seasons”.
But “Reformation Season” should not just be limited to the next two weeks. It should extend through the next five years – October 31, 2017 will be the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It wasn’t really the beginning. Luther taught through the Psalms from 1513 through 1515. He taught through Romans (1515–1516), Galatians (1516–1517) and Hebrews (1517–1518). All of these will give us ample opportunities for reflection.
And nor will 2017 be the end of the “season”, because we’ll still have the 500th anniversary of the Diet of Worms, for example (2021), the Marburg Colloquy (2029), the first publication of the Institutes (2036), the publication of the Institutes that we have now (2059), and that’s not to mention all of the confessions.
Rome managed to survive the Reformation era, in part, because of a huge misinformation campaign it put out about Martin Luther. For such times as the enemy chooses to “act-up”, we have tremendous resources at our disposal, such as James Swan’s Exposing the Myth series, as well as his other Martin Luther archives.
On the “other side of the aisle”, too, we should not forget that during these next five years, the Roman Catholics will be talking about the 50th anniversary of Vatican II. We should not hesitate to investigate the liberal theologies that they adopted, condemned by Pius X, but warmly welcomed by smiling “Good Pope John”. We should not forget the inconsistencies they adopted with the “Separated brethren” stance.
We should not forget that in the years since the Reformation, Rome adopted such unhistorical atrocities as papal infallibility (1870), as well as two idolatrous Marian dogmas (1854 and 1950), which it imposed on the world, with the intention that “to oppose and counter” these dogmas, would bring with it “the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
What a statement. It would be humorous if they weren’t so serious about it.
This is what we’re dealing with in the world, though. And if we look upon the next five – or 50 – years as a “season”, it can be a “teaching moment” that the world will not soon forget.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query reformation season. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query reformation season. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, October 19, 2012
Monday, May 13, 2013
Thomas Howard asks “how do you think the Reformation ought to be commemorated in 2017?”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/13/protestant-reformation-approaching-500/
Howard was a convert in 1984, before the rest of the “Catholic Convert” industry happened. He writes now:
My response:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/reformation-season.html
Howard was a convert in 1984, before the rest of the “Catholic Convert” industry happened. He writes now:
Several years ago I came across the then Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan’s notion that the Reformation is best remembered as a “tragic necessity.” Pelikan elaborated:
The tragedy of the Reformation consists in the loss by both sides of the some of the very things each claimed to be defending against the other; its final outcome was not what Rome or the reformers had wanted. Yet the necessity of the Reformation consists in the loyalty of the reformers to the best and highest in Roman Catholic Christianity and their obligation to summon Rome back to it. Partisans on both sides have difficulty acknowledging the Reformation was indeed a tragic necessity. Roman Catholics agree that it was tragic, because it separated many millions from the true church; but they cannot see that it was really necessary. Protestants agree that it was necessary, because the Roman church was so corrupt; but they cannot see that it was such a tragedy after all. . . . [Whatever the case] an honest assessment of the Reformation belongs to any . . . effort at meeting the present situation between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
Let me suggest that, as the Reformation quincentennial approaches, Catholics ought to try to think about why so many, then and now, felt the necessity of the Reformation. Conversely, Protestants ought to consider why Catholics, then and now, have perceived it as tragic. That might not answer all questions, mend all divisions. But it might not be a bad place to start.
My response:
We should remember that if the Reformation was a “tragic” necessity, the tragedy was caused by Rome. That’s the first thing that needs to be recognized. There was tragedy before the first Protestant. Centuries-worth of tragedy.
In that vein, the Reformation was, as Philip Schaff said, “the turning point of modern history”.
Schaff said: http://bit.ly/13gbCgP
The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history. It marks the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times. Starting from religion, it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization.
I think we ought to begin by considering whether Schaff or Pelikan was more correct.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/reformation-season.html
Monday, October 24, 2011
Anniversary of “Reformation Day”
I know I’m about a week early. But my hope is to continue to write this week on some Reformation-related topics, and I wanted to give folks a heads-up that it was coming. The Reformation wasn’t really started in a “day”, it was a whole season in church history, lasting hundreds of years – I’m a person who will say that the Reformation is not, or ought not to be considered to be “over” – Rome has made some cosmetic changes, but it hasn’t changed at heart. Rome has never repented of its evils. And given that Rome thinks that “Rome is in charge”, that makes it, still, a great danger to Christianity in our day.
October 31, 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the traditional beginning of the Protestant Reformation – the date Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the church at Wittenberg, with the intention of starting a discussion on the abuse, at the highest levels of the church, of the practice of indulgences.
But anger over this abuse only provided the spark. The Reformation had its roots a number of ongoing struggles, some of which had already been going on for centuries.
One of these was political, between the papacy and secular kings. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued one of the most infamous statements in church history, Unam Sanctam, in which he pronounced it “altogether necessary to salvation” “that every human creature” – including the king – “is subject to the Roman pontiff.”
Philip, the king of France, to whom the statement was addressed, did not agree. In the ensuing posturing, Philip had Boniface arrested. Boniface died shortly afterward, but as the 19th century church historian Philip Schaff says, “in the humiliation of Boniface VIII, the state gained a signal triumph over the papacy.”
Just three years later, a French bishop was elected to the papacy, but he refused to move to Rome. The “Avignon” papacy led further to a “Great Schism,” during which time there were two and even three competing popes, each having excommunicated the followers of the other.
In 1415, a council deposed all three “antipopes” and named an official successor. But papal corruption continued to grow.
The medieval writer Marsiglio of Padua (d. 1343) summarized a popular sentiment during this time, in his work Defensor Pacis saying: “only the whole body of citizens, or the weightier part thereof, is the human legislator.” He was excommunicated.
A parallel struggle within the church was unleashed, over who had ultimate authority within the church: pope or council.
John Wycliffe (d. 1384), who made the first translation of the Bible into English, embodied both of these struggles. He urged secular rulers to work to reform the church. He also espoused religious sentiments that foreshadowed many of the themes of the Reformation. The English historian A.G. Dickens said, “perhaps the only major doctrine of the sixteenth-century Reformers which Wycliffe cannot be said to have anticipated was that of Justification by Faith alone.”
But “justification by faith alone” was, according to many Reformers, the key doctrine of the Reformation. And as papal corruption grew steadily, reaching its zenith in the Borgia popes, Luther’s 95 theses merely ignited tensions that had been growing for centuries.
As the Reformation began to take shape, Luther came to see that, not only was the abuse of indulgences a problem, but that the indulgences themselves, and the related doctrine of purgatory, were the problem.
Scholars believe that Luther came gradually to understand the great themes and doctrines of the Reformation between 1513-21, as he taught the Scriptures. In his “Lectures on the Psalms,” Luther came to realize the utter sinfulness of humanity. As he lectured through Romans, he realized that it was only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that humans are justified before God. Lecturing through Galatians and Hebrews he came to understand that faith is not something we do, but rather, it is an open, empty hand that reaches out to God, “receiving and resting on Christ and his finished work for sinners.”
And as his dispute with the church came to the fore, Luther came to understand that popes and councils “can and do err,” and that only Scripture is foundational and normative for all doctrines.
Without question Christian history has its very bad moments. But within that context, the Protestant Reformation was a very good moment. According to Schaff, the Reformation of the sixteenth century is, “next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history…. Starting from religion, it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization.”
Another writer put it this way: “Reformation Day is a fine thing but let’s remember what the Reformation was: the assertion and defense and conviction that justification of sinners is by unmerited divine favor alone, that, in the act of justification, faith justifies by receiving and resting and trusting in Christ alone, and that Scripture is the magisterial and unique authority for faith and the Christian life.”
October 31, 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the traditional beginning of the Protestant Reformation – the date Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the church at Wittenberg, with the intention of starting a discussion on the abuse, at the highest levels of the church, of the practice of indulgences.
But anger over this abuse only provided the spark. The Reformation had its roots a number of ongoing struggles, some of which had already been going on for centuries.
One of these was political, between the papacy and secular kings. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued one of the most infamous statements in church history, Unam Sanctam, in which he pronounced it “altogether necessary to salvation” “that every human creature” – including the king – “is subject to the Roman pontiff.”
Philip, the king of France, to whom the statement was addressed, did not agree. In the ensuing posturing, Philip had Boniface arrested. Boniface died shortly afterward, but as the 19th century church historian Philip Schaff says, “in the humiliation of Boniface VIII, the state gained a signal triumph over the papacy.”
Just three years later, a French bishop was elected to the papacy, but he refused to move to Rome. The “Avignon” papacy led further to a “Great Schism,” during which time there were two and even three competing popes, each having excommunicated the followers of the other.
In 1415, a council deposed all three “antipopes” and named an official successor. But papal corruption continued to grow.
The medieval writer Marsiglio of Padua (d. 1343) summarized a popular sentiment during this time, in his work Defensor Pacis saying: “only the whole body of citizens, or the weightier part thereof, is the human legislator.” He was excommunicated.
A parallel struggle within the church was unleashed, over who had ultimate authority within the church: pope or council.
John Wycliffe (d. 1384), who made the first translation of the Bible into English, embodied both of these struggles. He urged secular rulers to work to reform the church. He also espoused religious sentiments that foreshadowed many of the themes of the Reformation. The English historian A.G. Dickens said, “perhaps the only major doctrine of the sixteenth-century Reformers which Wycliffe cannot be said to have anticipated was that of Justification by Faith alone.”
But “justification by faith alone” was, according to many Reformers, the key doctrine of the Reformation. And as papal corruption grew steadily, reaching its zenith in the Borgia popes, Luther’s 95 theses merely ignited tensions that had been growing for centuries.
As the Reformation began to take shape, Luther came to see that, not only was the abuse of indulgences a problem, but that the indulgences themselves, and the related doctrine of purgatory, were the problem.
Scholars believe that Luther came gradually to understand the great themes and doctrines of the Reformation between 1513-21, as he taught the Scriptures. In his “Lectures on the Psalms,” Luther came to realize the utter sinfulness of humanity. As he lectured through Romans, he realized that it was only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that humans are justified before God. Lecturing through Galatians and Hebrews he came to understand that faith is not something we do, but rather, it is an open, empty hand that reaches out to God, “receiving and resting on Christ and his finished work for sinners.”
And as his dispute with the church came to the fore, Luther came to understand that popes and councils “can and do err,” and that only Scripture is foundational and normative for all doctrines.
Without question Christian history has its very bad moments. But within that context, the Protestant Reformation was a very good moment. According to Schaff, the Reformation of the sixteenth century is, “next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history…. Starting from religion, it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization.”
Another writer put it this way: “Reformation Day is a fine thing but let’s remember what the Reformation was: the assertion and defense and conviction that justification of sinners is by unmerited divine favor alone, that, in the act of justification, faith justifies by receiving and resting and trusting in Christ alone, and that Scripture is the magisterial and unique authority for faith and the Christian life.”
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Richard Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics”, Volume 2: Scripture
This is the beginning of Volume 2 of Richard Muller’s “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology”. Elsewhere, I’ve been working through Volumes One (“Prolegomena”) and Three (“Doctrine of God”) of the four-volume series.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Review of “The Reformation Made Easy”
 |
| The Reformation Made Easy |
http://reformation500.com/2013/09/28/the-reformation-made-easy/
I would say that it goes a long way to doing that, but there is so much information to digest regarding the Reformation, that this book may make the Reformation ‘easier’ to comprehend, but still not quite ‘easy.’ From Wycliffe to Hus to Luther to Tyndale to Henry the Eighth, there’s a whole lotta history in this movement called the “Reformation” (and some would prefer the term “Reformations” because of the variety of ways it played out in various places in Europe). This book tries to make sense of it all….
Whatever your perspective on the Reformation, or Christianity in general, this book is an excellent short overview of the major events and personalities in this great movement of God, which is still shaping the world today.
Keep in mind that we’re in Reformation Season – just over a month away from the 496th anniversary of the Reformation!
Monday, September 22, 2014
Remember the Reformation
Over at my Reformation500 blog, I’ve been working through Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics series. I’ve acquired this set through Logos Bible Software, and while it was costly, it was every bit worth the price.
Over there, I’ve been working through Volumes 1 and 3 (“Prolegomena” and “Doctrine of God”). Those deal a lot with epistemology and metaphysics and how the Reformers dealt with the Medieval discussions and how the “Reformed Orthodox” really tried to clarify the Medieval discussions from a truly Biblical perspective.
Muller’s Volume 2 deals with “the Doctrine of Scripture” – and I think that’s a good thing to review in the light of some of the things that are going on in our day. Of course it may be said that “this was all from a pre-critical era” and that’s true, but it’s still important to see how the individuals from this era of “Reformed orthodoxy” worked their best to understand all of the history of the church before them.
Muller’s central thesis is something like this:
Over there, I’ve been working through Volumes 1 and 3 (“Prolegomena” and “Doctrine of God”). Those deal a lot with epistemology and metaphysics and how the Reformers dealt with the Medieval discussions and how the “Reformed Orthodox” really tried to clarify the Medieval discussions from a truly Biblical perspective.
Muller’s Volume 2 deals with “the Doctrine of Scripture” – and I think that’s a good thing to review in the light of some of the things that are going on in our day. Of course it may be said that “this was all from a pre-critical era” and that’s true, but it’s still important to see how the individuals from this era of “Reformed orthodoxy” worked their best to understand all of the history of the church before them.
Muller’s central thesis is something like this:
Saturday, October 19, 2013
The Church Prior to the Reformation: Francis and the Jews
 |
| Catholic Magisterial Anti-Semitism |
Francis of Assisi, that generous-hearted and anarchic preacher of God’s love, started a great renewal movement in the thirteenth-century Church; in part it was institutionalized as the Franciscan Order of Friars, who did much to revive preaching in the western Church. Franciscan preachers urged the crowds who came to hear them to meditate devotionally on the earthly life of Christ. That had the logical consequence of making the faithful also think about the death of Christ on the Cross, and often this led directly to deep hatred of the Jews. Franciscans thus ironically became major exponents of anti-Semitism in medieval western Europe and were deeply involved in some of the worst violence against Jewish communities; their fellow friars and rivals, the Dominicans, were not far behind.
Not surprisingly Jews tended to live together for safety, a trend which Christian rulers increasingly turned into an obligation: this developed early in Italy and the word ‘ghetto’ to describe such enclosed areas is of Italian origin, although there is more than one explanation of what it might have originally meant. Jewish physical isolation made matters worse, and bred new legends among a suspicious population: that the Jews were ready to poison Christian wells, for instance, steal consecrated Eucharistic wafers to do them terrible dignities, or collaborate with the Muslim powers which threatened the borders of Christendom (Diarmiad MacCulloch, “The Reformation: A History” (New York, NY: Penguin Books, ©2004, pg 9).
For more background, I’ve written a brief series based on David L. Kertzer’s work, “The Popes Against the Jews”.
See also Steve Hays’s article Catholic Magisterial Anti-Semitism featuring Canons from the 4th Lateran Council (1215).
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
The Historical Roots of the Reformation
What’s the history of infant baptism?
How does Irenaeus compare – and contrast – with Roman Catholicism? What really did the early church think about “Apostolic Succession”?
What did “Clement of Rome” think about Purgatory?
“Reformation Season” is upon us – it’s October, and it’s been 496 years since Martin Luther posted his famous 95 theses, sparking the movement that became known as the Reformation.
Jason Engwer’s Historical Roots of the Reformation and Evangelicalism is a great resource, providing dozens of links to sources for understanding early church history, and just how different and distant the “Roman Catholic Church” was from the earliest historical Christianity.
How does Irenaeus compare – and contrast – with Roman Catholicism? What really did the early church think about “Apostolic Succession”?
What did “Clement of Rome” think about Purgatory?
“Reformation Season” is upon us – it’s October, and it’s been 496 years since Martin Luther posted his famous 95 theses, sparking the movement that became known as the Reformation.
Jason Engwer’s Historical Roots of the Reformation and Evangelicalism is a great resource, providing dozens of links to sources for understanding early church history, and just how different and distant the “Roman Catholic Church” was from the earliest historical Christianity.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Halloween And Reformation Day
Today's Los Angeles Times has an article on Reformation Day. Most Protestant churches, even most Evangelical churches, probably won't give the subject as much attention as a liberal non-Christian publication like the Los Angeles Times does. Similarly, we'll probably see many liberal media outlets criticizing the historicity of the infancy narratives in the coming weeks, while most churches (and others who should be involved) have less to say on the issue.
The Los Angeles Times article has some problems, but it does mention many of the benefits of the Reformation, and it's a positive article overall. We even get a couple of lines about justification that are relatively good:
"At the heart of the Reformation is the doctrine of justification by faith -- meaning people are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, not by good deeds, Feldmeth said. Luther said works are important, but they are a natural outgrowth of salvation -- not crucial to earning it."
Later in the article, though:
"As for the red so visible on Reformation Sunday, it is steeped in symbolism. 'Red is, of course, the color of the Holy Spirit and of divine power, as at Pentecost, but it also is the color of martyrdom and may be understood to honor the martyrs who died in the terrible religious struggles that followed the turn from Rome,' explained Marshall, whose husband, father, sister and daughter are Lutheran pastors. 'In our day, we may honor both the Protestant and Roman Catholic saints who lost their lives for their faith.'"
I don't see a reason to honor Roman Catholic martyrs in the sense of publicly celebrating them. I can understand hoping for the best, hoping that those martyrs were saved in spite of their errors. Or I can understand acknowledging that injustice was involved in some cases or recognizing some virtue or another that a Roman Catholic martyr may have had. But the same could be said about other holidays or historical events that are often commemorated. There are two sides to every story. A British soldier during the Revolutionary War may have been a good husband or may have died unjustly. Maybe one of the Roman soldiers who carried out the beating and execution of Jesus Christ was good at providing for his children or was faithful to his friends. Do we usually mention such things at a time like the Fourth of July or the Easter season? Would you make the effort to mention that we can honor British or Roman soldiers if you were interviewed by the Los Angeles Times?
Try running searches under terms like "Reformation" and "Halloween" at Google News or with other news search engines. Contrast the results.
The Los Angeles Times article has some problems, but it does mention many of the benefits of the Reformation, and it's a positive article overall. We even get a couple of lines about justification that are relatively good:
"At the heart of the Reformation is the doctrine of justification by faith -- meaning people are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, not by good deeds, Feldmeth said. Luther said works are important, but they are a natural outgrowth of salvation -- not crucial to earning it."
Later in the article, though:
"As for the red so visible on Reformation Sunday, it is steeped in symbolism. 'Red is, of course, the color of the Holy Spirit and of divine power, as at Pentecost, but it also is the color of martyrdom and may be understood to honor the martyrs who died in the terrible religious struggles that followed the turn from Rome,' explained Marshall, whose husband, father, sister and daughter are Lutheran pastors. 'In our day, we may honor both the Protestant and Roman Catholic saints who lost their lives for their faith.'"
I don't see a reason to honor Roman Catholic martyrs in the sense of publicly celebrating them. I can understand hoping for the best, hoping that those martyrs were saved in spite of their errors. Or I can understand acknowledging that injustice was involved in some cases or recognizing some virtue or another that a Roman Catholic martyr may have had. But the same could be said about other holidays or historical events that are often commemorated. There are two sides to every story. A British soldier during the Revolutionary War may have been a good husband or may have died unjustly. Maybe one of the Roman soldiers who carried out the beating and execution of Jesus Christ was good at providing for his children or was faithful to his friends. Do we usually mention such things at a time like the Fourth of July or the Easter season? Would you make the effort to mention that we can honor British or Roman soldiers if you were interviewed by the Los Angeles Times?
Try running searches under terms like "Reformation" and "Halloween" at Google News or with other news search engines. Contrast the results.
Monday, October 21, 2013
The Church Prior to the Reformation: The Mass
 |
| Medieval conception of Purgatory |
In his work “The Reformation: A History”, Diarmiad MacCulloch gives a brief overview of the Roman Church prior to the Reformation. He introduces that overview with this passage:
Nicholas Ridley, one of the talented scholarly clergy who rebelled in England against the old [Roman] Church, wrote about this to one of his fellow rebels John Bradford in 1554, while they both lay in prisons waiting for the old Church to burn them for heresy. As Bishop Ridley reflected on the strength of their deadly enemy, which now he saw as the power of the devil himself, he said that Satan’s old world of false religion stood on two ‘most massy posts and mighty pillars … these two, sir, are they in my judgement: the one his false doctrine and idolatrical use of the Lord’s supper; and the other, the wicked and abominable usurpation of the primacy of the see of Rome … the whole system of the medieval western Church was built on the Mass and on the central role of the Pope. Without the Mass, indeed, the Pope in Rome and the clergy of the Western Church would have had no power for the Protestant reformers to challenge, for the Mass was the centerpiece around which all the complex devotional life of the Church revolved (Diarmiad MacCulloch, “The Reformation: A History” (New York, NY: Penguin Books, ©2004, pg 10).
These are the things that the Reformation was all about: the “Mass” and the Papacy. These were the two real bulwarks of Roman strength. But in what way did they exercise power in the 16th century? In what ways did they hold captive the entire continent of Europe?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Helping to put things aright
Down below, Jason Engwer left the following comment on my post entitled Reformation Season.
My response to him was a bit long, so I thought I’d turn it into a fresh post:
That’s a good idea, John.
To expand on one of the points you made, we should keep in mind that Roman Catholicism’s liberalism has had a major impact on other holidays and seasons. Much of the anti-Biblical material that’s published during the Christmas season, for example, comes from Roman Catholic scholarship and former Catholics (e.g., Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes). Then there’s the failure of so many Catholics, not just liberals, to do much to defend the traditional view of the infancy narratives or the Biblical resurrection accounts, for instance. Evangelicals are at the forefront of conservative Biblical scholarship and apologetics, whereas Catholics are much less so, despite their advantages (larger size, more money, more media access, etc.). As I’ve worked in apologetic contexts over the years, and in the process of watching what’s going on elsewhere, I’ve been astonished by how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities.
My response to him was a bit long, so I thought I’d turn it into a fresh post:
Thanks Jason -- We're about to have a presidential election, and I think that Romney will win, and that we'll be able to see an improving economy for a bit. But longer term, a presidential election is not going to solve a lot of problems.
In this country alone, the number of abortions performed every year is so outrageous, the debt structure is so massive, and the morality is such an indictment on our culture, that I honestly think that the only cure for our ills is Christ alone, and by extension, the true church bringing Christ to the world, “making disciples of all nations” as it has been commissioned to do.
I would qualify slightly one thing that you say. You talk about “how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities”. That much alone is true, looking across the world in our day.
But historically, I think that very many of the evils in the world are the result of things that “the official church”, “the church which perceives itself to be in authority” has done, officially -- extending back into the early church. While many individual Christians have done many good things -- and many of these were either “Catholics” from the first millennium (like Augustine), say, or “Roman Catholics” in the last 500 years, by far it seems to me that what is wrong with the world today is traceable to causes put into motion by the official church.
Some of these are inadvertent. We may think of the sudden rise of Islam. Islam was able to conquer areas of the world where the Christian church was cut off by schism. That includes Monophysite Africa and “Nestorian” Asia. Islam was able to spread so quickly, in part, because huge parts of the church had been cut off from larger portions of the church and did not have the wherewithal to stop its earthly spread.
The Medieval European church, while fostering the rise of learning and the universities, also officially took doctrinal positions which had to be opposed, and the Protestant Reformation, while offering the best hope to the world of that day, was mightily opposed by the Roman church, and had to make strange alliances with secular governments, alliances that turned out not to be in the best interest of the cause of Christ.
This is not an attempt at placing blame, but really, an honest look to try to see what went wrong, and what might be done to try (from our end) to help put things aright.
I continue to think that Roman Catholicism’s claims of authority, the claim that “the church that Christ founded subsists in the Roman Catholic Church”, is the biggest impediment in the world today, working against “the church” being what “the church” really ought to be in the world.
With that said, I’m tremendously encouraged by some of the discussions I’m seeing around the Internet. I think Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion Group is a model that we’ll want to look at moving forward. While there are still some disagreements, the potential for folks from one side understanding the other side are tremendous.
And while the “two kingdoms” discussions generate a lot of heat, some of the rough edges on the various sides of this debate are being worn down, and the result, I think, will be that Christians, on the whole, will have a better understanding of the role of the church vis-à-vis government.
As well, The Gospel Coalition has just recently published The New City Catechism, which is very much like one of the earliest confessions from the Protestant era. Using the latest technology to promote some of the best theology is only going to have a good effect on the church.
While I don’t think The New City Catechism will turn the Trinity Broadcasting network into Orthodox Puritans, it will enable far more evangelicals to be honestly and historically informed about the Christian faith. Far more opportunities along these lines are coming. And that’s cause for great hope.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Martin Luther’s work from 1512–1517
Luther combined the threefold office of sub-prior, preacher and professor. He preached both in his convent and in the town-church, sometimes daily for a week, sometimes thrice in one day, during Lent in 1517 twice everyday. He was supported by the convent. As professor he took no fees from the students and received only a salary of one hundred guilders, which after his marriage was raised by the Elector John to two hundred guilders.
He first lectured on scholastic philosophy and explained the Aristotelian dialectics and physics. But he soon passed through the three grades of bachelor, licentiate, and doctor of divinity (October 18th and 19th, 1512), and henceforth devoted himself exclusively to the sacred science which was much more congenial to his taste. Staupitz urged him into these academic dignities, and the Elector [Frederick the Wise] who had been favorably impressed with one of his sermons, offered to pay the expenses (fifty guilders) for the acquisition of the doctorate. Afterward in seasons of trouble Luther often took comfort from the title and office of his doctorate of divinity and his solemn oath to defend with all his might the Holy Scriptures against all errors. He justified the burning of the Pope’s Bull in the same way. But the oath of ordination and of the doctor of theology implied also obedience to the Roman church (ecclesiae Romanae obedientiam) and her defence against all heresies condemned by her.
With the year 1512 his academic teaching began in earnest and continued till 1546, at first in outward harmony with the Roman church, but afterward in open opposition to it.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
STAY, LEAVE OR STAND
Although this article is about the realignment going on in the Anglican Communion, it raises perennial issues of common concern to all the faithful of all communions.
**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:29:49 -0500
From: David Virtue
Subject: As Eye See It : STAY, LEAVE OR STAND: Two Bishops Weigh in on the Issues
STAY, LEAVE OR STAND: Two Bishops Weigh in on the Issues
Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan writes to his clergy
Dallas Bishop James Stanton takes a stand
Bob Duncan writes his clergy:
At a recent clergy day I was asked if I would put into writing a
response I made to a question posed to me by one of our rectors. As I
reflected on the request, I thought my TRINITY column might be a good
place to give everyone in our diocese opportunity to consider what I had
been asked to put into print.
The context of the question was a presentation I had been making to
various gatherings of diocesan leaders throughout the month of January.
I had shared my sense that the battle in which we are engaged in the
Episcopal Church will go on for a very long time, that there were
unlikely to be any "quick fixes" or decisive actions either at the
General Convention or in the systems of the Anglican Communion, and that
our best course forward, remained a relentless and unyielding focus on
the mission of our congregations, on our mission together as a diocese
and on are missionary partnerships worldwide.
If our situation is not going to be "fixed" tomorrow, why hang on? Why
struggle on? Why endure? The answer has to do with the magnitude of the
reformation and the scope of the transformation now underway. The answer
has to do not only with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion,
but with all the "mainline" churches and all of Western Christianity.
(The writings of one no less than Joseph Ratzinger, now His Holiness
Benedict XVI, share this assessment.) The theological issues and social
forces that are tearing the Episcopal Church apart are at play across
the whole Christian spectrum in the churches of Europe, North America
and Australia/New Zealand. The Episcopal Church happens to be on the
"sword's point" I want to offer three contemporary appeals as to why the
faithful of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should "hold on" -
"stand fast"- through the very long season of global reformation of
Christ's Church into which we have entered.
First, we are on the "sword's point." I cannot count the number of times
my ecumenical colleagues whether Presbyterian or Methodist or Lutheran
or "free church" or Roman Catholic have thanked me (and us) for standing
as we have as Orthodox Anglicans. Their consistent observation is that
we are the leaders in a battle in which they, too, are engaged and
cannot escape. They pray for us and for our success, because in our
efforts are their futures, too.
Second, Western society is disconnecting from its Christian foundation.
We Episcopalians, as much as any Western denomination, are inheritors of
a "state-church" mentality. State-churches are tied to their cultures.
The present reformation of Christianity in the West requires that the
Church become counter-cultural, rather than chaplains to the culture.
This very fact points to why the Episcopal Church (and Church of
England) are so compromised, so divided, and so much at the center of
the very thing God is intending to change among Christians in the West.
Few of us want to be at the center of this battle for the soul of the
Church in the West, but that is precisely where God has put the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Given the toughest assignment on the
battlefield, will we as Pittsburghers shrink back? Like our Steelers, we
may be sixth-seeded in the contest, but that is the kind of position
from which our God always selects those whom He intends to use for His
purposes.
Third, Christianity's center is shifting South. As Philip Jenkins so
well documented in his revolutionary analysis of the future of Global
Christianity entitled The Next Christendom, the engine, the heart and
the model of 21st century Christianity is shifting to Latin America,
Africa and Asia. Few Anglican dioceses are better positioned to help our
fellow countrymen and fellow Christians understand and embrace this
change. This is an epochal shift in Christian history, one for which God
has called us faithful Episcopalians in Southwestern Pennsylvania to be
ambassadors. Would we shrink from this privilege?
Some years ago, a book appeared entitled Will our Children have Faith?
Not only will our children have faith, but they will have the Faith. God
always reforms His Church. We stray and He redeems. We sin and He saves.
Proclaiming Jesus Christ, - the same yesterday, today and forever - is
the rock of faith against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail.
It is time to accept our vocation as "soldiers of Christ" once again.
We are in a very tough fight, not with those who disagree with us, but
with the "world, the flesh, and the devil." Jesus had the courage to go
to the cross. Courage breeds courage. Let's get on with it, difficult as
it may be, not in our own strength, but in His.
On the one hand, Bishop Duncan is quite right. The Episcopal Church will
not be "fixed" any time soon. That's because the Episcopal Church
doesn't want to be fixed.
But Duncan assumes an awful lot here. He seems to suggest that the cause
of Christ will be harmed if conservative Episcopalians walk away. But
talented clergy and great numbers of people who regularly comment here
know that there is orthodoxy apart from Canterbury and while the Lord
can use Anglican Christianity, He certainly does not need it.
And Duncan's assertion that "Christianity's center is shifting South"
and that Pittsburgh is well-positioned "to help our fellow country men
and fellow Christians understand and embrace this change" is an evasion.
Were I a Global South bishop, my opinion of the Anglican Communion
Network and its bishops would not be high. Men like Henry Orombi,
Emmaneul Kolini, Gregory Venables and others have taken risks over the
last three years and have opened themselves up to whatever
ecclesiastical sanctions the Anglican Communion can or will apply. The
Network's issued lots of open letters.
Dallas Bishop James Stanton writes:
But just here I want to pose for you a question I often get: "Bishop, if
the General Convention in 2006 goes badly, will we stay or leave the
Church?" And I want to suggest to you that putting the question this way
is wrong.
On staying: What does it mean to ask if we will 'stay'? I would have to
ask, "stay with what?" Here you really have two options, as the
dictionary makes plain. First, to stay means to stop, to cease moving,
to remain put. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot look upon staying put
as an option. The second option is to remain in a certain place or
condition. I suspect this is what people really mean when they ask the
question: will we remain in that 'place' or 'condition' of being part of
the Episcopal Church structure and leadership.
But think about this for a moment: what 'place' or 'condition' does the
Episcopal Church now occupy? Can anyone really say? The General
Convention of 2003 took certain actions which put it at odds with the
rest of the Anglican Communion, indeed most of the rest of the Christian
world. It ignored pleas not to do so, ignored its own long-held beliefs
that it should not act unilaterally, and ignored some of its own
covenants in this regard. But it did all this without, actually, having
changed its teaching officially. It did this by resolution. And, as we
have been told again and again by the revisers, resolutions are merely
recommendatory and have no binding force. So the problem is this: what
'place' or 'condition' has the Episcopal Church laid out that we can
define. All the world knows what we did, but no one knows where we are.
There is, as they say, no there there.
Add to this reflection another, namely, that what one Convention has
done the next could very easily undo, and the point becomes clearer. We
may want to believe, for different reasons, that the Episcopal Church is
well defined and committed - either bravely on the cutting edge, or
stupidly on a blind precipice. But the fact is that the Episcopal Church
is today merely a vapor floating across the ecclesiastical landscape.
Its leadership is not living by its own Constitution and Canons - that
is clear. Its formularies - here I think of the Book of Common Prayer -
retain the form and, I believe, the substance of the Christian Faith.
But as a discernible entity with a coherent life it seems to me to be
seriously lacking.
So, I do not know what "stay" would mean. To those who ask if we will
stay in the Episcopal Church, I have to ask in return, "Stay with what?"
If the General Convention is a momentary gathering of individuals
expressing in the moment their personal opinions and preferences, it is
clear that that has no staying power. And if it cannot "stay" with
itself, how are others to "stay" with it? Staying is not an option of
any consequence. It is an empty choice.
One the other hand, what about "leaving"? Well, again, one might ask,
"leave what?" If there is no there there, leaving is about as meaningful
as staying would be.
But there is another dimension to leaving. Leaving for what? Christians
are one Body under one Lord. There is no "leaving" if that is true.
Denominational affiliation does not make a Church a Church. What makes a
Church is the presence of the Risen Lord, operating through His Holy
Spirit, confirming and strengthening the apostolic faith once delivered
to the saints. Some years ago it came to me that no structure, no
organization, no affiliation can impede the people of God from
proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the great Good News this
is for the world. The Church has often had to confront evils and
distractions both from without and from within that would deter it from
its mission of being the one Body, with the one Lord and one Faith Paul
claimed for it. It demonstrates that it is the Church, however, not by
leaving the field of these confrontations, but by being clear,
determined and courageous in the face of them.
One could, I imagine, "leave" a certain denominational organization. But
then what? What would a Church be which did this? Would it not still be
the Church? Would it not then have to set out with the same clarity,
determination and courage to know Christ and make Him known that was its
task before? It could not stand alone, that is for sure. Since there is
one Body under one Lord, it would have to be connected to all other
apostolic Christians in some way. But could it not do this as well in
the one case as in the other? Do we not give to those forms which "are
passing away" - human organizations such as denominations - too much
power if we think that the only way to be the Church is to leave (or
stay in) them?
What was the Church in its earliest generations? Before there were
organizations, long before the word denomination was invented to
describe them, there were Churches. What made them so? "They continued
daily in the apostles teaching and in communion, in the breaking of
bread, and in the prayers." (Acts 2.42) They worshipped, taught, and
lived under the guidance of the Spirit of the Risen Christ. They made
disciples. They gave to the poor. And they were connected, not by charts
and manuals, constitutions and canons, but by their bishop and around
him the people and their priests, to that great community of believers
in other parts of the world.
So, again, I ask what would it mean to "leave"? I think this is as empty
a choice as the one to "stay".
What is the alternative? For me it is simple. We stand. We are the
Church. We are not the Church alone, of course. But we are the Church.
And we have a mission to fulfill. We must stand on that mission.
The Apostles' teaching is the charter of our mission. To that we will be
loyal and energetically dedicated for as long as we are given the
opportunity. No one can deter us from pursuing this mission. It is only
our own weakness and misgivings that will take from us our ability to be
faithful to our call. We need to be quite clear about this.
We will remain Christians rooted in the Anglican tradition. That is not
just a nice thing to be. For many of us, for myself in particular, this
tradition is rich and deep and has fed and nourished our sense of
Christian Faith in profound and far-reaching ways. I am humiliated when
this tradition is invoked by some to justify teaching and actions that
go contrary to the Apostles' teaching - I am also infuriated that this
should be permitted. But the fault is not in our tradition so that I
would for a moment think of fleeing it. Rather, standing firm in "the
doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received
them," I propose to stand and be counted. In the strength that comes
from the Spirit who has led us so far, I propose to continue!
Translation: I have not chosen to walk apart. They have.
So what should the Network do, Johnson? Walk away? I don't know. But if
ECUSA confirms another homosexual bishop at GenCon and treats the
Windsor Report as the toilet paper they consider it to be, the Network
should do something and act as though ECUSA's apostasies mattered. The
time for more words is long over.
It is well and good to talk about staying and fighting. A powerful case
was recently made that orthodox Christians ought to running toward ECUSA
rather than fleeing from it and that perhaps I made a serious mistake
cutting ties with ECUSA as abruptly and as finally as I did.
The call to stay in or leave ECUSA is, of course, between the Lord and
each individual believer and them alone. But at some point, conservative
Episcopalians are going to have to get realistic. They're going to have
to stop talking about fighting the battle and study what is actually
happening on the battlefield. And if necessary and if they are told to
by their General, they are going to have to withdraw.
If the Network is waiting for the Global South to pull its chestnuts out
of the fire, it may find itself excluded even if an Anglican split does
come. And if ECUSA relieves itself all over orthodox Christianity once
again this june and the Network replies by urging conservative
Episcopalians to hang on until some undetermined time in the future when
something undetermined may or may not happen, then Anglican news and
commentary will dry up considerably around here.
**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:29:49 -0500
From: David Virtue
Subject: As Eye See It : STAY, LEAVE OR STAND: Two Bishops Weigh in on the Issues
STAY, LEAVE OR STAND: Two Bishops Weigh in on the Issues
Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan writes to his clergy
Dallas Bishop James Stanton takes a stand
Bob Duncan writes his clergy:
At a recent clergy day I was asked if I would put into writing a
response I made to a question posed to me by one of our rectors. As I
reflected on the request, I thought my TRINITY column might be a good
place to give everyone in our diocese opportunity to consider what I had
been asked to put into print.
The context of the question was a presentation I had been making to
various gatherings of diocesan leaders throughout the month of January.
I had shared my sense that the battle in which we are engaged in the
Episcopal Church will go on for a very long time, that there were
unlikely to be any "quick fixes" or decisive actions either at the
General Convention or in the systems of the Anglican Communion, and that
our best course forward, remained a relentless and unyielding focus on
the mission of our congregations, on our mission together as a diocese
and on are missionary partnerships worldwide.
If our situation is not going to be "fixed" tomorrow, why hang on? Why
struggle on? Why endure? The answer has to do with the magnitude of the
reformation and the scope of the transformation now underway. The answer
has to do not only with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion,
but with all the "mainline" churches and all of Western Christianity.
(The writings of one no less than Joseph Ratzinger, now His Holiness
Benedict XVI, share this assessment.) The theological issues and social
forces that are tearing the Episcopal Church apart are at play across
the whole Christian spectrum in the churches of Europe, North America
and Australia/New Zealand. The Episcopal Church happens to be on the
"sword's point" I want to offer three contemporary appeals as to why the
faithful of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should "hold on" -
"stand fast"- through the very long season of global reformation of
Christ's Church into which we have entered.
First, we are on the "sword's point." I cannot count the number of times
my ecumenical colleagues whether Presbyterian or Methodist or Lutheran
or "free church" or Roman Catholic have thanked me (and us) for standing
as we have as Orthodox Anglicans. Their consistent observation is that
we are the leaders in a battle in which they, too, are engaged and
cannot escape. They pray for us and for our success, because in our
efforts are their futures, too.
Second, Western society is disconnecting from its Christian foundation.
We Episcopalians, as much as any Western denomination, are inheritors of
a "state-church" mentality. State-churches are tied to their cultures.
The present reformation of Christianity in the West requires that the
Church become counter-cultural, rather than chaplains to the culture.
This very fact points to why the Episcopal Church (and Church of
England) are so compromised, so divided, and so much at the center of
the very thing God is intending to change among Christians in the West.
Few of us want to be at the center of this battle for the soul of the
Church in the West, but that is precisely where God has put the
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Given the toughest assignment on the
battlefield, will we as Pittsburghers shrink back? Like our Steelers, we
may be sixth-seeded in the contest, but that is the kind of position
from which our God always selects those whom He intends to use for His
purposes.
Third, Christianity's center is shifting South. As Philip Jenkins so
well documented in his revolutionary analysis of the future of Global
Christianity entitled The Next Christendom, the engine, the heart and
the model of 21st century Christianity is shifting to Latin America,
Africa and Asia. Few Anglican dioceses are better positioned to help our
fellow countrymen and fellow Christians understand and embrace this
change. This is an epochal shift in Christian history, one for which God
has called us faithful Episcopalians in Southwestern Pennsylvania to be
ambassadors. Would we shrink from this privilege?
Some years ago, a book appeared entitled Will our Children have Faith?
Not only will our children have faith, but they will have the Faith. God
always reforms His Church. We stray and He redeems. We sin and He saves.
Proclaiming Jesus Christ, - the same yesterday, today and forever - is
the rock of faith against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail.
It is time to accept our vocation as "soldiers of Christ" once again.
We are in a very tough fight, not with those who disagree with us, but
with the "world, the flesh, and the devil." Jesus had the courage to go
to the cross. Courage breeds courage. Let's get on with it, difficult as
it may be, not in our own strength, but in His.
On the one hand, Bishop Duncan is quite right. The Episcopal Church will
not be "fixed" any time soon. That's because the Episcopal Church
doesn't want to be fixed.
But Duncan assumes an awful lot here. He seems to suggest that the cause
of Christ will be harmed if conservative Episcopalians walk away. But
talented clergy and great numbers of people who regularly comment here
know that there is orthodoxy apart from Canterbury and while the Lord
can use Anglican Christianity, He certainly does not need it.
And Duncan's assertion that "Christianity's center is shifting South"
and that Pittsburgh is well-positioned "to help our fellow country men
and fellow Christians understand and embrace this change" is an evasion.
Were I a Global South bishop, my opinion of the Anglican Communion
Network and its bishops would not be high. Men like Henry Orombi,
Emmaneul Kolini, Gregory Venables and others have taken risks over the
last three years and have opened themselves up to whatever
ecclesiastical sanctions the Anglican Communion can or will apply. The
Network's issued lots of open letters.
Dallas Bishop James Stanton writes:
But just here I want to pose for you a question I often get: "Bishop, if
the General Convention in 2006 goes badly, will we stay or leave the
Church?" And I want to suggest to you that putting the question this way
is wrong.
On staying: What does it mean to ask if we will 'stay'? I would have to
ask, "stay with what?" Here you really have two options, as the
dictionary makes plain. First, to stay means to stop, to cease moving,
to remain put. The Church of Jesus Christ cannot look upon staying put
as an option. The second option is to remain in a certain place or
condition. I suspect this is what people really mean when they ask the
question: will we remain in that 'place' or 'condition' of being part of
the Episcopal Church structure and leadership.
But think about this for a moment: what 'place' or 'condition' does the
Episcopal Church now occupy? Can anyone really say? The General
Convention of 2003 took certain actions which put it at odds with the
rest of the Anglican Communion, indeed most of the rest of the Christian
world. It ignored pleas not to do so, ignored its own long-held beliefs
that it should not act unilaterally, and ignored some of its own
covenants in this regard. But it did all this without, actually, having
changed its teaching officially. It did this by resolution. And, as we
have been told again and again by the revisers, resolutions are merely
recommendatory and have no binding force. So the problem is this: what
'place' or 'condition' has the Episcopal Church laid out that we can
define. All the world knows what we did, but no one knows where we are.
There is, as they say, no there there.
Add to this reflection another, namely, that what one Convention has
done the next could very easily undo, and the point becomes clearer. We
may want to believe, for different reasons, that the Episcopal Church is
well defined and committed - either bravely on the cutting edge, or
stupidly on a blind precipice. But the fact is that the Episcopal Church
is today merely a vapor floating across the ecclesiastical landscape.
Its leadership is not living by its own Constitution and Canons - that
is clear. Its formularies - here I think of the Book of Common Prayer -
retain the form and, I believe, the substance of the Christian Faith.
But as a discernible entity with a coherent life it seems to me to be
seriously lacking.
So, I do not know what "stay" would mean. To those who ask if we will
stay in the Episcopal Church, I have to ask in return, "Stay with what?"
If the General Convention is a momentary gathering of individuals
expressing in the moment their personal opinions and preferences, it is
clear that that has no staying power. And if it cannot "stay" with
itself, how are others to "stay" with it? Staying is not an option of
any consequence. It is an empty choice.
One the other hand, what about "leaving"? Well, again, one might ask,
"leave what?" If there is no there there, leaving is about as meaningful
as staying would be.
But there is another dimension to leaving. Leaving for what? Christians
are one Body under one Lord. There is no "leaving" if that is true.
Denominational affiliation does not make a Church a Church. What makes a
Church is the presence of the Risen Lord, operating through His Holy
Spirit, confirming and strengthening the apostolic faith once delivered
to the saints. Some years ago it came to me that no structure, no
organization, no affiliation can impede the people of God from
proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the great Good News this
is for the world. The Church has often had to confront evils and
distractions both from without and from within that would deter it from
its mission of being the one Body, with the one Lord and one Faith Paul
claimed for it. It demonstrates that it is the Church, however, not by
leaving the field of these confrontations, but by being clear,
determined and courageous in the face of them.
One could, I imagine, "leave" a certain denominational organization. But
then what? What would a Church be which did this? Would it not still be
the Church? Would it not then have to set out with the same clarity,
determination and courage to know Christ and make Him known that was its
task before? It could not stand alone, that is for sure. Since there is
one Body under one Lord, it would have to be connected to all other
apostolic Christians in some way. But could it not do this as well in
the one case as in the other? Do we not give to those forms which "are
passing away" - human organizations such as denominations - too much
power if we think that the only way to be the Church is to leave (or
stay in) them?
What was the Church in its earliest generations? Before there were
organizations, long before the word denomination was invented to
describe them, there were Churches. What made them so? "They continued
daily in the apostles teaching and in communion, in the breaking of
bread, and in the prayers." (Acts 2.42) They worshipped, taught, and
lived under the guidance of the Spirit of the Risen Christ. They made
disciples. They gave to the poor. And they were connected, not by charts
and manuals, constitutions and canons, but by their bishop and around
him the people and their priests, to that great community of believers
in other parts of the world.
So, again, I ask what would it mean to "leave"? I think this is as empty
a choice as the one to "stay".
What is the alternative? For me it is simple. We stand. We are the
Church. We are not the Church alone, of course. But we are the Church.
And we have a mission to fulfill. We must stand on that mission.
The Apostles' teaching is the charter of our mission. To that we will be
loyal and energetically dedicated for as long as we are given the
opportunity. No one can deter us from pursuing this mission. It is only
our own weakness and misgivings that will take from us our ability to be
faithful to our call. We need to be quite clear about this.
We will remain Christians rooted in the Anglican tradition. That is not
just a nice thing to be. For many of us, for myself in particular, this
tradition is rich and deep and has fed and nourished our sense of
Christian Faith in profound and far-reaching ways. I am humiliated when
this tradition is invoked by some to justify teaching and actions that
go contrary to the Apostles' teaching - I am also infuriated that this
should be permitted. But the fault is not in our tradition so that I
would for a moment think of fleeing it. Rather, standing firm in "the
doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received
them," I propose to stand and be counted. In the strength that comes
from the Spirit who has led us so far, I propose to continue!
Translation: I have not chosen to walk apart. They have.
So what should the Network do, Johnson? Walk away? I don't know. But if
ECUSA confirms another homosexual bishop at GenCon and treats the
Windsor Report as the toilet paper they consider it to be, the Network
should do something and act as though ECUSA's apostasies mattered. The
time for more words is long over.
It is well and good to talk about staying and fighting. A powerful case
was recently made that orthodox Christians ought to running toward ECUSA
rather than fleeing from it and that perhaps I made a serious mistake
cutting ties with ECUSA as abruptly and as finally as I did.
The call to stay in or leave ECUSA is, of course, between the Lord and
each individual believer and them alone. But at some point, conservative
Episcopalians are going to have to get realistic. They're going to have
to stop talking about fighting the battle and study what is actually
happening on the battlefield. And if necessary and if they are told to
by their General, they are going to have to withdraw.
If the Network is waiting for the Global South to pull its chestnuts out
of the fire, it may find itself excluded even if an Anglican split does
come. And if ECUSA relieves itself all over orthodox Christianity once
again this june and the Network replies by urging conservative
Episcopalians to hang on until some undetermined time in the future when
something undetermined may or may not happen, then Anglican news and
commentary will dry up considerably around here.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Martin Luther’s Understanding of Baptism
Since most of our readers are Reformed, and since the Lutheran concept of baptism has been brought up, I thought it would be helpful to share what Bernhard Lohse, a Lutheran Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, has written about Luther’s view of the sacraments in general and of baptism in particular:
Formation of a new, Reformation theology of baptism went hand in hand with Luther’s entire theological development, particularly during his first lectures on the Psalms and Romans. In dealing with the sacraments, concentration on questions such as judgment and gospel, righteousness and faith, or on the divine promise and human confidence, led to a new impulse and important consequences: the criterion under which Luther dealt with baptism and baptismal usage. In other words, the relation of baptism to life from the perspective of the acceptance of the divine judgment promised in baptism took center stage. Since Luther’s understanding of the nature of sin was more radical than the theology of late scholasticism, he could no longer share the view that baptism purges inherited sin, of which a mere “tinder” (fomes) remains, and against the seductions of which the baptized can successfully resist.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
The Church Prior to the Reformation: “The Purgatory Industry”
 |
| Salvation according to Rome: “Ye must!” |
Rome does not require these things – merely points to them as good things. What it REQUIRES is that you do “the Precepts of the Church”.
As a Roman Catholic, you won’t find yourself in hell for failing to feed the hungry, or clothing the naked, etc. However, you will go to hell (at least, you would have, when I was a kid) for failing to keep the “indispensable minimums”, the “Precepts of the Church”, unless they’ve found some way to “reformulate positively” these things, the way that they’ve reformulated positively the statement “no salvation outside of the church”.
But it seems as if they may be trying. The online version of Paragraph 2041 says:
2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor …
However, my version, a printed 1995 edition of the book, clearly does not say “very necessary” but “indispensable”. Now, if you were going to relax those precepts, from “indispensable” to something, well, less than “indispensable”, you might head in the direction of “very necessary”. Maybe a future edition of this will be “we kinda-sorta think you oughta do it, but hey, who are we to judge?”
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Hope for the world
Here is the whole text of the letter:
This year marks the 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. The invention of the movable-type printing press and the Reformers’ commitment to translating the Scriptures into every language has given access to God’s Word to more and more believers around the world.
At Third Millennium Ministries we continue in the Spirit of the Reformation. We believe that Christians everywhere in the world have a right to well-taught leaders. God has blessed us this year as we continue to pursue our goal: Biblical Education. For the World. For Free.
We give God all the glory for what he has achieved through Third Millennium. The following are just a few of his accomplishments in 2017:
• With the addition of new partners like The Gospel Coalition and YouVersion’s Bible App, we now have partnerships with 102 ministries.
• We are producing a free Study Bible available in the public domain, translated in multiple languages, and distributed worldwide.
• This year we fulfilled requests for 1,051 USBs loaded with our curriculum in five languages to church leaders around the world.
• We currently have 687,464 verified supervised students studying our curriculum through one of our partners or on our eLearning website.
As you decide how to best steward your resources this year, I ask you to consider partnering with us. If God’s Spirit leads you to join with us, click here to make a donation online.
I pray you will know the joy and peace that only Christ can give as you celebrate His birth this special Christmas season.
In Christ,
Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.President of Third Millennium Ministries
P.S. - You can also set up a recurring donation. A monthly donation of just $25 is enough to send a USB filled with our entire curriculum to a different pastor each month. Thank you so much.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
A Look Back
Note: While Steve graciously provided a link back to my personal blog, I am cross-posting my post here too.
Every once in a while, it doesn’t hurt to go over some ground that can be seen as basic and trivial, to remind ourselves of some basic facts. This is a common occurrence during the Christmas season, when we remind each other of the basic truths of Christ’s birth.
In a similar vein, I’m reminded of an important facet of Calvinism and Arminianism. Namely, I want to look at one species of question in particular: why is it that historic Calvinists thought Arminians had recapitulated to the Roman Catholic Church? More specifically, why is it that Calvinists believe Arminianism is so dangerously close to salvation by works?
This question can perhaps be even better illustrated if we think of two individuals, Amy and Bill. In this illustration, Amy is saved while Bill is not. So the question bringing the distinction between Calvinists and Arminians is this: why is it that Amy is saved but Bill is not?
Calvinist soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation) states that anyone who is saved is saved by grace alone through faith alone. These represent two of the five solae (or the Anglicized “solas”) of the Reformation: Sola gratia and sola fide. More specifically, Calvinism is monergistic (taken from “mono” = one + “ergon” = work, literally meaning “one worker”). Calvinism does not deny that man does good works, but instead claims that man does good works solely as a result of having been saved. Thus, the Calvinist will say that Amy is saved because God alone worked in Amy’s life such that Amy, through no contribution of her own, was regenerated, responded in faith, and was saved. Bill, on the other hand, is not saved because he was not granted the grace of God and continued on his sinful way.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic view held that meritorious works were also necessary for salvation. Faith alone was insufficient (indeed, the Council of Trent declared “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (Canon 9)). Thus, a Catholic would answer the question by saying that Amy was saved because she cooperated with God. It is a synergistic work (from “sunergos” meaning “working together”). In the Catholic view, Amy had the grace of God and she added her meritorious works to it, resulting in salvation. Furthermore, Bill not being saved could be due to Bill not having faith and/or Bill not having works.
What of the Arminian position then? The Arminian view does affirm sola fide (salvation by faith alone), yet denies sola gratia. Thus, the Arminian view tries to straddle the two positions. On the one hand, they will say that there is nothing that a person can do to add to the work that Christ already has done, and thus Amy is saved solely by the work of Christ. Yet because the grace of God is indiscriminate and available to all, the grace of God is insufficient to make the distinction between why Amy is saved but Bill is not. Clearly, both Amy and Bill received the same grace of God. Clearly, if God does not act differently between Amy and Bill, then the deciding factor of who is saved must lie within Amy and Bill themselves. Thus, there is some aspect by which Amy and Bill must do something on their part in order to be saved, for God’s actions are universal in this view.
If we trace out the distinction in the views, we can look at this symbolically. In all views, we can have the following format:
[God’s work] + [Man’s work] -> [Salvation] + [Good deeds]
For the Calvinist, God’s work is 100% and Man’s work is 0%. For both the Catholic and the Arminian, God’s work is some number less than 100% and Man’s work is some number greater than 0%.
Now I know that many Arminians claim that man's work does nothing to save the man, but again we ask: why is it that Amy is saved and Bill is not? God's actions toward both Amy and Bill are identical. Amy does not receive more grace than Bill in this view. Thus, if God's actions were all that were needed, there would be no difference in the outcome. Since there is a difference in outcome and since God's work is identical in this scenario, then there must be something other than God's work that determines whether or not someone is saved. (And given the fact that Arminians claim that God is unjust if He is the determiner of salvation, how much more so if the determining factor is in some quality outside of the man who is choosing?)
So clearly the Arminian view is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Calvinist view on this point. And furthermore, I note that one of the most common reasons that I have personally witnessed Arminians say as to why one person is saved while another is not is because the one who is saved has exercised his or her will and chosen God. To quote again the passage from the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning …that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”
This explains why historic Calvinists believed that Arminianism was a return to Roman Catholic belief. Today, sola gratia is not as emphasized in theology. Instead, the focus on sola fide is maintained. And it is quite clear that Arminians have a vastly different view than Catholics when it comes to sola fide. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Arminianism is a synergistic salvation, whereas Calvinism remains monergistic. And this distinction is vital and necessary to be kept, especially when weighing the fact that the Bible clearly speaks of monergistic, not synergistic, salvation.
Every once in a while, it doesn’t hurt to go over some ground that can be seen as basic and trivial, to remind ourselves of some basic facts. This is a common occurrence during the Christmas season, when we remind each other of the basic truths of Christ’s birth.
In a similar vein, I’m reminded of an important facet of Calvinism and Arminianism. Namely, I want to look at one species of question in particular: why is it that historic Calvinists thought Arminians had recapitulated to the Roman Catholic Church? More specifically, why is it that Calvinists believe Arminianism is so dangerously close to salvation by works?
This question can perhaps be even better illustrated if we think of two individuals, Amy and Bill. In this illustration, Amy is saved while Bill is not. So the question bringing the distinction between Calvinists and Arminians is this: why is it that Amy is saved but Bill is not?
Calvinist soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation) states that anyone who is saved is saved by grace alone through faith alone. These represent two of the five solae (or the Anglicized “solas”) of the Reformation: Sola gratia and sola fide. More specifically, Calvinism is monergistic (taken from “mono” = one + “ergon” = work, literally meaning “one worker”). Calvinism does not deny that man does good works, but instead claims that man does good works solely as a result of having been saved. Thus, the Calvinist will say that Amy is saved because God alone worked in Amy’s life such that Amy, through no contribution of her own, was regenerated, responded in faith, and was saved. Bill, on the other hand, is not saved because he was not granted the grace of God and continued on his sinful way.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic view held that meritorious works were also necessary for salvation. Faith alone was insufficient (indeed, the Council of Trent declared “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (Canon 9)). Thus, a Catholic would answer the question by saying that Amy was saved because she cooperated with God. It is a synergistic work (from “sunergos” meaning “working together”). In the Catholic view, Amy had the grace of God and she added her meritorious works to it, resulting in salvation. Furthermore, Bill not being saved could be due to Bill not having faith and/or Bill not having works.
What of the Arminian position then? The Arminian view does affirm sola fide (salvation by faith alone), yet denies sola gratia. Thus, the Arminian view tries to straddle the two positions. On the one hand, they will say that there is nothing that a person can do to add to the work that Christ already has done, and thus Amy is saved solely by the work of Christ. Yet because the grace of God is indiscriminate and available to all, the grace of God is insufficient to make the distinction between why Amy is saved but Bill is not. Clearly, both Amy and Bill received the same grace of God. Clearly, if God does not act differently between Amy and Bill, then the deciding factor of who is saved must lie within Amy and Bill themselves. Thus, there is some aspect by which Amy and Bill must do something on their part in order to be saved, for God’s actions are universal in this view.
If we trace out the distinction in the views, we can look at this symbolically. In all views, we can have the following format:
[God’s work] + [Man’s work] -> [Salvation] + [Good deeds]
For the Calvinist, God’s work is 100% and Man’s work is 0%. For both the Catholic and the Arminian, God’s work is some number less than 100% and Man’s work is some number greater than 0%.
Now I know that many Arminians claim that man's work does nothing to save the man, but again we ask: why is it that Amy is saved and Bill is not? God's actions toward both Amy and Bill are identical. Amy does not receive more grace than Bill in this view. Thus, if God's actions were all that were needed, there would be no difference in the outcome. Since there is a difference in outcome and since God's work is identical in this scenario, then there must be something other than God's work that determines whether or not someone is saved. (And given the fact that Arminians claim that God is unjust if He is the determiner of salvation, how much more so if the determining factor is in some quality outside of the man who is choosing?)
So clearly the Arminian view is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Calvinist view on this point. And furthermore, I note that one of the most common reasons that I have personally witnessed Arminians say as to why one person is saved while another is not is because the one who is saved has exercised his or her will and chosen God. To quote again the passage from the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning …that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”
This explains why historic Calvinists believed that Arminianism was a return to Roman Catholic belief. Today, sola gratia is not as emphasized in theology. Instead, the focus on sola fide is maintained. And it is quite clear that Arminians have a vastly different view than Catholics when it comes to sola fide. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Arminianism is a synergistic salvation, whereas Calvinism remains monergistic. And this distinction is vital and necessary to be kept, especially when weighing the fact that the Bible clearly speaks of monergistic, not synergistic, salvation.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Motivations
I’m a guy who, seeing an empty pickle jar in the kitchen sink to be washed, thinks, “nice, we’ve got a new drinking glass.” And my second thought, inevitably is, “we’ve got to eat more pickles now so we can have a matching set.”
I don’t plan to talk much at all about myself. But since I’m new here, I just want to say a few introductory things.
Many readers here will know me from Beggars All, and maybe if you’ve been around for a while, you might know me from the old NTRMin discussion board. I’ve described my conversion story briefly, here.
Finding my way around
As a young man, in the early 1980’s, I traveled extensively, working for a disabled Christian singer named Jeff Steinberg. My life consisted mainly of (a) helping Jeff with his personal needs, (b) driving long distances to a place I’d never been to before, setting up a fairly extensive sound system, running sound for a concert, then packing it all up and frequently driving a couple more hours to get to our next location. I did that for about five years, from 1981-1986.
Often we’d make arrangements for local hosts to do a number of concerts in an area, and that would require that I quickly get to know my way around a new city or town. Over time, I developed a method for understanding my new short-term environment. That involved finding one main highway that I could understand and recognize, then branching off into other areas before finding my way back to that one main highway.
There’s precedent in our day for this method of learning theology and church history, too. Robert Jewett, in the introduction of his commentary on Romans, notes the requirement of “a firm chronological structure” – that one main highway, because “chronology is the skeleton of history.” (Romans, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, pg 18). You expand your learning by finding that one main highway that you trust – in my case, theologically, it has been the Scriptures, and then branching off into other, lesser known areas.
As a person who has wrestled with Roman Catholicism all my life, on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic divide, the one question that kept coming back to me was, “why is the Roman Catholic religion so different from ‘the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3) that’s so plainly evident in the New Testament?”
Not long ago, I was talking with my Pastor about all of this. (I am a member of a PCA church that’s located near the University of Pittsburgh campus.) And from a pastoral point of view, he said that many converts from Roman Catholicism don’t seem to struggle with those kinds of issues. His own mother-in-law and father-in-law are a case in point. Once their daughter married a Presbyterian minister, they stopped attending their Roman Catholic church and started attending our PCA because they just felt more of a love of the Lord in the Presbyterian church.
And I’ve talked to his father-in-law. There was no angst. It was, as Carl Trueman has noted, a case in which Roman Catholics are “generally cultural rather than committed,” and the love for the Lord was far more evident in their new church than their old one.
“Proudestants”
I did not have it so easy. When I decided to leave Roman Catholicism for the first time, my father and I had terrible wars over it. I was in college at the time, certainly dependent on him financially, and he, having grown up in a poor rural area during the depression, had developed a hatred for “Proudestants” some time during his youth, that I was not aware of. He was determined that his son was not going to be a “Proudestant”.
Most teens in those days, the late 1970’s, were rebelling with “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.” I was rebelling by reading the Bible and going to prayer meetings. And it was almost immediately following my graduation from Pitt that the Lord put Jeff Steinberg in my path.
During my years with Jeff, he was active in the pro-life movement, and we interacted with a number of devout Roman Catholics. Of course, the question asked of me was, “why don’t you come back home,” and eventually I did. And as I’ve mentioned in my brief conversion account, I considered and dismissed the idea of becoming a priest, married, had six kids, and spent probably the next 15 years as a devout Roman Catholic.
It was the publication of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” in 1994 that started me thinking about all of my old questions again. At first, I was overjoyed that Evangelicals and Catholics were getting together, but as I read the statement, and read the reviews from both sides, it was apparent that there were some folks on both sides who were not happy about such a development. The 1997 statement, The Gift of Salvation, was one of the last straws for me, particularly this paragraph:
Spending Your Life on the Sacramental Treadmill
But for Roman Catholics, “our part” means spending a lifetime on the sacramental treadmill. Most Roman Catholics are baptized as babies, and so they are never urged to repent, they are never called to conversion to Christ.
On the other hand, when Roman Catholics say that “works” are required, they don’t mean “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners in jail.” Those things are helpful, but the works that are genuinely required by Church law are known as “the precepts of the church”. My older version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ccc) says they are “the indispensable minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.” (ccc 2041). It’s the least that you are required to do in order to assure yourself that “you have been good enough to get to heaven when you die.” (To miss Mass on a Sunday, without getting to confession, involves Mortal sin.) In newer printings, this has been edited to read “The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.” These are:
What it takes to interact effectively with Roman Catholics
In recent weeks, Steve provided an overview of what’s needed in order to interact with Roman Catholicism in our day. I have always taken this advice to heart.
I think a lot of people would like to forget Roman Catholicism, but if you want to go back in time about 900 years, imagine that your government is your religion, and that government rules the world. (At least, the only world you know. But all of it.) There is nothing else: you’re born, you’re baptized by the government; the government gives you sacraments that promise “eternal life”; you get married by the government; your kids have to be baptized by the government. It’s true, there were civil authorities in those days, “lesser authorities” but it was the Roman Church that was asserting authority over all of it. You knew who was in charge. Especially given that there was a lot more death around to help focus the mind.
The Reformation and the American Revolution were fought to break out of that cycle, which is, unfortunately, still evident in many ways in our day. (The “sacraments” no longer apply to your eternal life, but to your natural one. Health care is the big one now, but I’m sure you can think of others.)
I’ve told Steve Hays in the past that I’m a “one-trick pony” – the trick that I seek to understand is Roman Catholicism. And to be sure, Roman Catholicism is a big trick. It’s a bait-and-switch of of the first magnitude. For a long time, it was a huge, unexplored world. But now, within that world, I’ve found that one main highway that I understand and trust. I’ve read a lot. I’ve branched off into those areas that I hadn’t been previously familiar with. And in the process, I’ve gotten to understand this multi-dimensional world of church history, theology, and the breadth of the Protestant/Catholic divide. My hope is to be a trustworthy guide for those who want, for some reason, to explore that world.
I don’t plan to talk much at all about myself. But since I’m new here, I just want to say a few introductory things.
Many readers here will know me from Beggars All, and maybe if you’ve been around for a while, you might know me from the old NTRMin discussion board. I’ve described my conversion story briefly, here.
Finding my way around
As a young man, in the early 1980’s, I traveled extensively, working for a disabled Christian singer named Jeff Steinberg. My life consisted mainly of (a) helping Jeff with his personal needs, (b) driving long distances to a place I’d never been to before, setting up a fairly extensive sound system, running sound for a concert, then packing it all up and frequently driving a couple more hours to get to our next location. I did that for about five years, from 1981-1986.
Often we’d make arrangements for local hosts to do a number of concerts in an area, and that would require that I quickly get to know my way around a new city or town. Over time, I developed a method for understanding my new short-term environment. That involved finding one main highway that I could understand and recognize, then branching off into other areas before finding my way back to that one main highway.
There’s precedent in our day for this method of learning theology and church history, too. Robert Jewett, in the introduction of his commentary on Romans, notes the requirement of “a firm chronological structure” – that one main highway, because “chronology is the skeleton of history.” (Romans, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, pg 18). You expand your learning by finding that one main highway that you trust – in my case, theologically, it has been the Scriptures, and then branching off into other, lesser known areas.
As a person who has wrestled with Roman Catholicism all my life, on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic divide, the one question that kept coming back to me was, “why is the Roman Catholic religion so different from ‘the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3) that’s so plainly evident in the New Testament?”
Not long ago, I was talking with my Pastor about all of this. (I am a member of a PCA church that’s located near the University of Pittsburgh campus.) And from a pastoral point of view, he said that many converts from Roman Catholicism don’t seem to struggle with those kinds of issues. His own mother-in-law and father-in-law are a case in point. Once their daughter married a Presbyterian minister, they stopped attending their Roman Catholic church and started attending our PCA because they just felt more of a love of the Lord in the Presbyterian church.
And I’ve talked to his father-in-law. There was no angst. It was, as Carl Trueman has noted, a case in which Roman Catholics are “generally cultural rather than committed,” and the love for the Lord was far more evident in their new church than their old one.
“Proudestants”
I did not have it so easy. When I decided to leave Roman Catholicism for the first time, my father and I had terrible wars over it. I was in college at the time, certainly dependent on him financially, and he, having grown up in a poor rural area during the depression, had developed a hatred for “Proudestants” some time during his youth, that I was not aware of. He was determined that his son was not going to be a “Proudestant”.
Most teens in those days, the late 1970’s, were rebelling with “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.” I was rebelling by reading the Bible and going to prayer meetings. And it was almost immediately following my graduation from Pitt that the Lord put Jeff Steinberg in my path.
During my years with Jeff, he was active in the pro-life movement, and we interacted with a number of devout Roman Catholics. Of course, the question asked of me was, “why don’t you come back home,” and eventually I did. And as I’ve mentioned in my brief conversion account, I considered and dismissed the idea of becoming a priest, married, had six kids, and spent probably the next 15 years as a devout Roman Catholic.
It was the publication of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” in 1994 that started me thinking about all of my old questions again. At first, I was overjoyed that Evangelicals and Catholics were getting together, but as I read the statement, and read the reviews from both sides, it was apparent that there were some folks on both sides who were not happy about such a development. The 1997 statement, The Gift of Salvation, was one of the last straws for me, particularly this paragraph:
The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the Gospel, the good news of God’s saving work for us in Christ. By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the Gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).While it’s true that Roman Catholics view all of “salvation” as a “gift,” – it’s also true, as the priest was telling me as I walked out of confession for the last time, “We’ve gotta do our part too.”
Spending Your Life on the Sacramental Treadmill
But for Roman Catholics, “our part” means spending a lifetime on the sacramental treadmill. Most Roman Catholics are baptized as babies, and so they are never urged to repent, they are never called to conversion to Christ. On the other hand, when Roman Catholics say that “works” are required, they don’t mean “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners in jail.” Those things are helpful, but the works that are genuinely required by Church law are known as “the precepts of the church”. My older version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ccc) says they are “the indispensable minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.” (ccc 2041). It’s the least that you are required to do in order to assure yourself that “you have been good enough to get to heaven when you die.” (To miss Mass on a Sunday, without getting to confession, involves Mortal sin.) In newer printings, this has been edited to read “The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.” These are:
The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.So there you have the “Sacramental Treadmill”. Catholics will affirm that God gives the grace to accomplish all of that through a lifetime. That’s why they say it’s a “gift.” But as the priest said, you surely gotta do your part.
The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.
The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.
The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.
The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.
What it takes to interact effectively with Roman Catholics
In recent weeks, Steve provided an overview of what’s needed in order to interact with Roman Catholicism in our day. I have always taken this advice to heart.
I think a lot of people would like to forget Roman Catholicism, but if you want to go back in time about 900 years, imagine that your government is your religion, and that government rules the world. (At least, the only world you know. But all of it.) There is nothing else: you’re born, you’re baptized by the government; the government gives you sacraments that promise “eternal life”; you get married by the government; your kids have to be baptized by the government. It’s true, there were civil authorities in those days, “lesser authorities” but it was the Roman Church that was asserting authority over all of it. You knew who was in charge. Especially given that there was a lot more death around to help focus the mind.
The Reformation and the American Revolution were fought to break out of that cycle, which is, unfortunately, still evident in many ways in our day. (The “sacraments” no longer apply to your eternal life, but to your natural one. Health care is the big one now, but I’m sure you can think of others.)
I’ve told Steve Hays in the past that I’m a “one-trick pony” – the trick that I seek to understand is Roman Catholicism. And to be sure, Roman Catholicism is a big trick. It’s a bait-and-switch of of the first magnitude. For a long time, it was a huge, unexplored world. But now, within that world, I’ve found that one main highway that I understand and trust. I’ve read a lot. I’ve branched off into those areas that I hadn’t been previously familiar with. And in the process, I’ve gotten to understand this multi-dimensional world of church history, theology, and the breadth of the Protestant/Catholic divide. My hope is to be a trustworthy guide for those who want, for some reason, to explore that world.
Friday, September 06, 2019
Sometimes a light surprises
The following excerpts are from Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book Living Water: Studies in John 4.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Putting “Lent” and “Ash Wednesday” into perspective
I wrote about Lent several years ago. It’s worth bringing this up every year, I think:
For all you Catholics out there, [yesterday was] “Ash Wednesday”. It’s the beginning of the Lent season – the 40 days prior to Easter, a very old tradition of the early church.
For all you Protestants, you should know that there’s a difference between “tradition” and “Tradition” in Catholic understanding.
It’s true that Lent is one of the earliest church traditions. But it’s also one of just a handful of such “traditions.” Most of these are really just practices; many of them are no longer practiced. Yves Congar, in his “The Meaning of Tradition,” (and derived from his scholarly “Tradition and Traditions” and a textbook for Roman Catholic seminarians), provides a list (pg. 37):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)