Thoughts on Mel
I hope all (to spare him of a long and harsh public scourging) of it isn’t so! The black pot media found a golden opportunity to support it’s suspicions that Mel Gibson is among the many Christian “hypocrites” who commit the very same sins they condemn. Ironically (but not surprisingly), I see the biased media playing both sides of the anti-semitic “fence”, blaming Israel for all of the problems in the Middle East, and using their own bigotry and predjudice as a tool against others they see as their moral enemy.
So what is the difference between the “hypocritical” Christian and the modern media of relativism? One hopes to acknowledge and repent for the wickedness of a prideful heart while the other celebrates a personal victory with their own sense of self-rightousness. The goal of one is humility while the other is….. (relative to the individual)?
.jpg)
This is why so many Christians give a bad witness. They ought only point to Christ and quite pointing out the slivers in the eyes of others.
Tell others that we are all sinners in need of a Savior, that Savior is found in the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.
Salvation is what is of utmost importance, morality follows after that within sanctification.
Comment by Tammy Haga — July 31, 2006 @ 9:41 am
Note: By “others” I mean the world.
Comment by Tammy Haga — July 31, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Tammy -
They ought only point to Christ and quite pointing out the slivers in the eyes of others.
But is that what Jesus taught? He did not say to be silent about the slivers in the eyes of our brothers. Rather, He said to first see the logs in our own eyes, then we will see clearly to take the slivers out of the eyes of our brothers. In other words, realizing we are all sinners and all in need of God’s mercy will provide an attitude of humble service rather than arrogant self-justification. Jesus tells us to continually call our brothers back to the fold.
Salvation is what is of utmost importance, morality follows after that within sanctification.
Salvation, justification and sanctification are distinct aspects of an inseparable whole truth. In other words, Christ calls us all to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect and tells us that nothing unclean can enter heaven. One cannot be saved who continually rejects his relationship with Christ by choosing his own way rather than Christ’s. One cannot separate morality and Christian life from salvation/justification. While they may be distinct aspects that can be discussed and studied (to some degree perhaps) as distinct issues they form one whole. To try to separate one from the other is to destroy the whole thing.
I agree with you that we must continually call others to Christ but we must not in the mean time ignore the damage that sinful living does to people and society. We must simultaneously work to evangelize and to sanctify the world.
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 10:17 am
I hope all of it isn’t so!
His apology and the copy of the original police report over at smoking gun lead me to believe it is true. One of the reasons that it is a grave sin to become inebriated is that it inhibits the ability of reason and free will to operate. One surrenders the faculties which make one distinctively human (of course as an alcoholic his subjective guilt may be lessened depending upon the circumstances).
His apology has already been rejected by some of those who cannot forgive him for the movie and of course, they see this as proof positive that the movie was anti-semitic as they had claimed. It is very telling about people who will not accept an apology; neither can they be convinced that the gospel is not a personal affront to their racial/religious identity but an affirmation and fulfillment of its promise.
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 11:10 am
I am not have time to look up HTML to better format my reply so let me just do it the layman way.
Tammy said, “They ought only point to Christ and quite pointing out the slivers in the eyes of others.”
David replied, “But is that what Jesus taught? He did not say to be silent about the slivers in the eyes of our brothers. Rather, He said to first see the logs in our own eyes, then we will see clearly to take the slivers out of the eyes of our brothers. In other words, realizing we are all sinners and all in need of God’s mercy will provide an attitude of humble service rather than arrogant self-justification. Jesus tells us to continually call our brothers back to the fold.”
This is true for the Christian/brother in Christ. NOT so much for the “others” which I later noted means those who are in the world (aka the non-christian). A distinction must be expressed CLEARLY in this case when a public person speaks about his/her beliefs. When the public person fails to clearly express the foundation of their faith they then give a bad testimony which later makes them appear hypocritical.
When we are asked about what we believe about drinking/sex/drugs etc. A preface pertaining to the fact that we are all sinners (including myself) who fail daily to do the simplest of good works. Let them continue to say that this reality is why we are in need of a Savior who forgives ALL the sins of the repentant believer.
The person who speaks publicly or even personally to the non-believer must have ready the Scriptural verse that we recite in the liturgy (note: I speak of the LCMS Lutheran liturgy which maybe different), “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourself; and the Truth is not in us…” [1 Jn 1:8 it would be good to continue until the 10th verse as well.]
David speaks the truth when he states that we need to “simultaneously work to evangelize and to sanctify the world”. Yet we must do it wisely lest we appear to be hypocritical. The Church MUST teach and practice what it believes to the laymen so that we will be equipped to teach and practice it in the world so that our light may shine in the darkness and the Truth may be seen among those in the world. We need to wisely shake our finger (use the law) to others, always prefacing ourselves by using that same finger to point upward to Heaven.
Our witness must never be all law as we tend to appear hypocritical.
Our witness must be a compliment of law and gospel in all things.
Comment by Tammy Haga — July 31, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Tammy -
I completely agree with you that we have to be careful to distinguish between non-Christians and Christians and you are correct that the Jesus’ use of brethern connotes a person in the Covenant (at the time, a Jew). However, even many Christians today think more like non-Christians so often this distinction can be mute.
I think we agree that it is important to be effective both in presenting the gospel to the world but also in convincing the world that does not accept the gospel, of the moral truths that all human beings have the capacity to recognize. One difference in approach we might have is that Catholics do not follow Martin Luther’s division between the law and the gospel. We see them as two sides of the same coin. The Law of the Old Testament was the truth which could been seen prior to the full revelation of Christ. The gospel is the fullness of divinne revelation. Thus both the prohibitions and the positive requirements are all part of the gospel and they are within man’s capacity but only through grace. Thus, the law and gospel distinction would not be operative in our thinking.
What we would do is to distinguish between “natural law” and revealed truth. Natural law is the truth of God and His creation that can be known through looking at His creation (see Romans 1:20-22). Revealed truth includes natural law but of course goes beyond it to include the fullness of Revelation that came with the Incarnation. Thus, we would use natural law in convincing the world of these moral truths since it does not accept the authority of Scripture or the Church. Depending upon the circumstances one might be able to incorporate evangelization with the gospel into one’s discussion but generally I find that in some audiences the first time you do that they reject everything you have to say as “religious” and therefore dismiss it as opinion.
In calling it natural law, there are still many ways of presenting it and making it compelling. But because it is natural, one appeals not to God’s authority or the authority of Scripture or Tradition but to the sense we can make of things by looking at the way the world works (and doesn’t). However, the key is in using truths that are available to the public and do not necessitate that the other person accept the authority of divine revelation.
With respect to the concern of appearing to be a hypocrite. The charge of hypocrisy is an ever present risk, even for Christians who admit that they are sinful and can succumb to these sins but still follow the gospel commmand to bear witness to Christ and His truth. It is an easy copout for those who have no other way of arguing against the truth. However, I suspect you would agree that this danger ought not be used as a reason to be silent?
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
When speaking about the distinctions between the law and the gospel, David states, “The Law of the Old Testament was the truth which could been seen prior to the full revelation of Christ. The gospel is the fullness of divinne revelation. Thus both the prohibitions and the positive requirements are all part of the gospel and they are within man’s capacity but only through grace. Thus, the law and gospel distinction would not be operative in our thinking.”
David. The law shows us our sin and points to Christ, the Savior of our sins, the gospel is what has set us free from the consequences of our sin. The law condemns, the gospel lifts up. The law shows us how filthy we are, the gospel shows us that we are white as snow.
Thus the distinction between the two is very operative as it addresses both the saved and the unsaved.
Who needs the Gospel if they do not know they are sinners who cannot fulfill the law unto salvation? We all do, both the saved and the unsaved. It is the law in the pastor’s sermon that makes me sorry for my sins, makes me repentant. It is the Gospel that tells me that I do not need to be burdened by those sins for Christ paid the penalty for those sins. The law hurts, the gospel heals. To those who refuse the Gospel, the Gospel will do the work of the law in burdening and hurting the hearer. (((of course it is by grace that any of us is condemned by the law and lifted up by the gospel.)))
When we are approached to explain what we believe, humility of our sinful condition is rarely expressed. Rather the faithful will begin expressing the law. Men LOVE the law. They like hearing and speakings about the 10 steps that will improve your life. They love to hear/speak about what is wrong with you or our country. We, by our very nature are legalistic and desire the things of the law. Yet the law can turn on the legalist who preaches it (enter the hypocrite).
It is true as you say that even those who express the Gospel will be called a hypocrite (for as I stated above, the Gospel can sting like the law to some). I would also most definitely agree with you 110% that we ought never be silent as sin will turn thing that are right-side-up into something that is upside-down. (turn the gospel into law).
Comment by Tammy Haga — July 31, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
BTW:
I wanted you to know that I enjoy this blog. The content is very interesting. I grew up Catholic until I was 17 years old. I was very poorly catechized which is (IMO) the one main reason why so many leave and distort the denomination they grow up in.
I have since studied much of the church I was raised in and made my conversion to Confessional Lutheranism in my 20’s.
Because of this, I believe my conversion to be an honest one rather than one resulting from the poor catechesis that so many suffer from (in all denominations).
Many today believe me to be Catholic because I have 7 children. :o)
Comment by Tammy Haga — July 31, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Tammy -
Thanks, you summarize Martin Luther’s law v. gospel doctrine very well. I understand why he saw this as a necessity based upon his personal experience. However, the difficulties I have with it are manifold.
It appears to accept the Pharisee’s legalism which is exactly what Jesus was condemning. All four Gospels make it clear that the law was not about external acts but interior transformation. This transformation though was impossible without grace (without Me you can do nothing). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He fulfills it because it is the Word and the law has its origin in Him. Thus the gospel does not free us from the law but it completes/fulfills the law. The gospel brings with it the grace that makes it possible to live the fullness of the law. Grace really transforms us, it is not just a juridical proclamation. St. Peter says that we partake in the divine nature. St. Paul says we become a new creation. Jesus calls us to an interior perfection; without which no one will see God.
Luther had a juridical view of justification that his famous snow covered dung heap metaphor captures quite handily. However, this would make the Word inefffective and quite wrong if we are not really a new creation but God just declares us so. St. John says that we are not just called children of God; but we are. What God says must be so. It is not just that He would not lie. It is that His word is effective. What He says, is!
The Psalms (esp 119) and the prophets should have been a warning to the Pharisees that God does not want simply our external observance (though He does want that). He wants our interior transformation. Psalm 119 shows that the law is not a list of dos and don’ts but a “user’s manual” or a map through the minefield of life. It tells us who God is, who we are and how we are to live if we want to be truly happy on earth and in heaven. Thus, the law-gospel dichotomy would seem to miss the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees. In fact, it would seem to suggest that Jesus should have had no problem with the Pharisees because they would have been doing exactly what the law required. Jesus never said that they did not follow the law exactly but that they missed the law’s real purpose.
It is true that the Law without grace is impossible but that does not necessitate a dichotomy between them. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would not be to say that the gospel frees us from the law but the gospel frees us from the impossibility of fulfilling the real meaning of the law. It frees us to be able to become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but this is a very important issue that deserves discussion…even if done badly. Your thoughts?
By the way, thanks for the kind words and congratulations on your wonderfully full family. As you know, Scripture tells us that children are blessings from God and too many of us treat them as burdens at least and at worse, curses.
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
David writes, “It appears to accept the Pharisee’s legalism which is exactly what Jesus was condemning. All four Gospels make it clear that the law was not about external acts but interior transformation. This transformation though was impossible without grace (without Me you can do nothing). “
The first sentence I boo. The rest I enthusiastically say, “Exactly!” It is 100% by the grace of God (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that any of us is convicted by the law. This is a Lutheran teaching which it appears that you are saying it is not. No where in Lutheran doctrine will you see that the distinction of law and gospel being that of legalism. It is all grace. It is by grace that the hearer realizes they are sinner, it is by grace that the hearer has faith in the gospel. Grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law in that He kept the law perfectly and in effect, nailed the law to the cross so that all who believes maybe saved. Still the law is the same morality which we speak of pertaining to Mel Gibson. We are unable to fulfill it perfectly as Jesus did and while it is good and right to use the law to show us of our sins, we must always point back to the One who saves us from the law. All this has no relation to the Pharisees lest one would sin.
The law has three uses:
1. It shows me that I am a sinner.
2. It curbs my actions from sinning.
3. It guides my life in acts of righteousness.
Reality tells me that I am unable to keep the 10 commandments perfectly, that even now I am breaking at least one of the 10. I cannot love the Lord my God perfectly. It is impossible. Yet that commandment which tells me to do so shows me that I am a sinner, curbs my thoughts and desires that go against God, and guides my life to look upon Him for my salvation.
The law always points to Christ. THIS is a Lutheran teaching.
The Pharisaical mind points not to Christ, but to one’s own righteousness.
RE: Justification;
Lutheran teaching says that we are new in Christ. We live daily in the waters of our Baptism. Daily we drown the Old Adam and rise a new. Our Catechism teaches this. We are a snow covered dung heap as Luther writes because while on this earth, we continue to sin (dung heap/law) yet we are white as snow (snow/gospel) through the saving works of Jesus Christ. Surely you do not reject this Truth.
You write, “Psalm 119 shows that the law is not a list of dos and don’ts but a “user’s manual†or a map through the minefield of life. It tells us who God is, who we are and how we are to live if we want to be truly happy on earth and in heaven.”
Exactly! But then you miss the mark and say, “Thus, the law-gospel dichotomy would seem to miss the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees. In fact, it would seem to suggest that Jesus should have had no problem with the Pharisees because they would have been doing exactly what the law required. Jesus never said that they did not follow the law exactly but that they missed the law’s real purpose.”
Not at all. As I stated above.
You conclude your thoughts with, ” Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but this is a very important issue that deserves discussion…even if done badly. Your thoughts?”
It is no problem. I did not intend to debate Lutheranism with Catholicism, but find this interesting enough.
Thank you for your time.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 1, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Tammy -
Thanks for the response. I didn’t mean to offend with the statement; it was just meant as an observation that it appeared that Luther unintentionally accepted a premise that he did not agree with and so he tried to work around it with his law and gospel doctrine.
Perhaps I can try explaining my understanding of a difference in another way. Luther’s upbringing and his experiences seem to have led him to accept a legal view of man’s justification before God. From him, Protestant theology has followed an extrinsic, imputed justification in which man is declared just but is not really so (i.e. the snow covered dung hill). Christ’s grace covers him over but does not penetrate to man’s core and thus does not in reality bring him to perfection. Your commments suggest that the “dung hill” analogy is a metaphor only while we are on earth? I admit my expertise is not in Lutheran or Reformation justification theology but I was of the understanding that this was a permanent state of things.
Certainly we remain sinful while on earth. A grave sin could return us, to use Luther’s metaphor, to a dung heap, but for Catholics (and Orthodox) justification is intrinsic. It actually changes who we are. We are not just legally imputed with this justification, we actually are justified to the very core of our persons/souls. Sin damages our relationship with God (i.e. justification and sanctification) but while we remain justified it our interior transformation into actual children of God remains.
Thus, we would say that the gospel is both the call and means to perfection. The law as it was understood before Christ was imperfect only in the sense that it did not yet reveal the fullness of the law, which came with Jesus Our Lord, and did not provide the means to live by it, which came with the Cross and Resurrection. With the revelation of Christ and law is now fulfilled and is revealed as the gospel.
Thanks for the discussion.
Comment by David — August 1, 2006 @ 11:05 am
You didn’t offend David, I apologize for appearing as if I were. I was just trying to explain what I know.
You state, “Luther’s upbringing and his experiences seem to have led him to accept a legal view of man’s justification before God.”
That would be a subjective point of view with no basis. I see no writing of his to prove this.
You also wrote, “Protestant theology has followed an extrinsic, imputed justification in which man is declared just but is not really so (i.e. the snow covered dung hill). Christ’s grace covers him over but does not penetrate to man’s core and thus does not in reality bring him to perfection. Your commments suggest that the “dung hill†analogy is a metaphor only while we are on earth? I admit my expertise is not in Lutheran or Reformation justification theology but I was of the understanding that this was a permanent state of things.”
Your point that Lutherans teach that Christ’s grace covers us over but does not penetrate to the man’s core is something I have never been taught. We are perfect in Christ through His shed blood and righteousness. The dung hill analogy states it very well IMO. I must admit that I am a bit dumb-founded to hear your observations when the Catholic church teaches what you are acussing the Lutherans of teaching. In the Catholic church I am always fighting for perfection, never able to obtain it and always undergoing punishments for my sin (penance, purgatory etc.)
In the Lutheran church the believer is saved by the grace of God and that is that. We recognize that we continue to sin which is what the Catholic church believes as well lest there be no need of confession. While here on earth we all sin and fall short of the Glory of God, it would appear to me that you are saying that the believer is not a sinner here on earth.
We reach perfection in Heaven, not on earth as I am still but filthy rags, yet cleansed by the blood of Christ.
You stated, “Certainly we remain sinful while on earth. A grave sin could return us, to use Luther’s metaphor, to a dung heap, but for Catholics (and Orthodox) justification is intrinsic. It actually changes who we are. We are not just legally imputed with this justification, we actually are justified to the very core of our persons/souls. Sin damages our relationship with God (i.e. justification and sanctification) but while we remain justified it our interior transformation into actual children of God remains. “
This too is Lutheran teaching. We are justified to the very core of our being, this is the only way a person maybe saved. One cannot be partially justified. Also through sanctification we are transformed. God using means to transform us. The Sacraments, His Word etc. God molds us as a potter molds clay. They strengthen our faith and forgive our sins.
You conclude with, “Thus, we would say that the gospel is both the call and means to perfection. The law as it was understood before Christ was imperfect only in the sense that it did not yet reveal the fullness of the law, which came with Jesus Our Lord, and did not provide the means to live by it, which came with the Cross and Resurrection. With the revelation of Christ and law is now fulfilled and is revealed as the gospel.”
You sound very Lutheran.
Well put.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 1, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
RE: Justification from the Lutheran Confession:
Article IV: Of Justification.
1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Augsburg Defense state: http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/4_justification.html
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 1, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
I forgot to enter this as well:
[Adopted 1932]
Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ’s sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: “There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,” Rom. 3:28.
Through this doctrine alone Christ is given the honor due Him, namely, that through His holy life and innocent suffering and death He is our Savior. And through this doctrine alone can poor sinners have the abiding comfort that God is assuredly gracious to them. We reject as apostasy from the Christian religion all doctrines whereby man’s own works and merit are mingled into the article of justification before God. For the Christian religion is the faith that we have forgiveness of sins and salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, Acts 10:43.
We reject as apostasy from the Christian religion not only the doctrine of the Unitarians, who promise the grace of God to men on the basis of their moral efforts; not only the gross work-doctrine of the papists, who expressly teach that good works are necessary to obtain justification; but also the doctrine of the synergists, who indeed use the terminology of the Christian Church and say that man is justified “by faith,” “by faith alone,” but again mix human works into the article of justification by ascribing to man a co-operation with God in the kindling of faith and thus stray into papistic territory.
Just one more thing.
I found this site that further expressed the same thing you were saying. http://cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a037.html
Is this article in agreement with your beliefs?
Thanks again, and do not worry about my feelings. I am rather thick skinned.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 1, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Tammy -
I must admit that I am a bit dumb-founded to hear your observations when the Catholic church teaches what you are acussing the Lutherans of teaching. In the Catholic church I am always fighting for perfection, never able to obtain it and always undergoing punishments for my sin (penance, purgatory etc.)
I’m not sure I understand. It is true that perfection is something that the Christian must strive for and that the good fight is never over until death, but I did not mean to suggest that it is an impossible battle. He must cooperate with grace through practice of the virtues to perfect his love for God. The goal of life is a tranformation from disorded self-love to Trinitarian selfless love which is only possible through grace but it is grace that heals, uplifts and perfects human nature. Punishment is nothing other than part of one’s sharing in the sufferings of Christ that were lacking on the Cross, for the building up of the Church (Col 1:24). This reaching of perfection can be attained in this life or the next (i.e. purgatory so long as one dies justified/in a state of grace).
This too is Lutheran teaching.
I’m not sure that part about losing one’s salvation through grave sin is Lutheran teaching is it, which is what I meant by the returning to the dung heap comment.
The phrases about justification by faith alone if one interprets them according to the Lutheran-Catholic agreement suggests that we come close but as far as I understand the Missouri and Wisconson synods reject the agreement. For Catholics, initial justification comes through a gift of grace and since one is not yet part of the Body of Christ no “good works” could have yet been joined to the works of the Cross. However, when one is part of the Mystical Body of Christ one’s works are united to the work of the Cross and applied for the building up of the Church (see again Col 1:24). In this way we can say that one’s good works are redemptive; not of their own accord but because they become the work of the Cross. We become coworkers with Christ in His plan of salvation.
And yes, the article you link to does accurately reflect Catholic teaching, though others may emphasize some aspects differently.
Comment by David — August 1, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
You stated, “I did not mean to suggest that it is an impossible battle. He must cooperate with grace through practice of the virtues to perfect his love for God.”
I would have never thought that the Catholic church would teach that one can obtain perfection when the Bible clearly teaches that we are sinful and unable to do so. It IS an impossible battle to obtain perfection here on earth because of our sinful nature. Great men of God in the Bible could not even obtain such things, not David, not Job, not Abraham etc.
You stated, “This reaching of perfection can be attained in this life or the next (i.e. purgatory so long as one dies justified/in a state of grace). “
See here is where the invention of purgatory is just plain wrong. You being legalistic in saying that by faith we are not saved. We must attain and do before we inherit eternal life with Christ. This is looking at ones self (Pharisee) for righteousness rather than looking at what Christ did for us. As long as you believe, you are righteous and will inherit the Kingdom of God. How sad it is that man would so love the law that he would think that he must continue to be disciplined for his sinful nature when Jesus took that sin and nailed it to the Cross.
You then stated, “However, when one is part of the Mystical Body of Christ one’s works are united to the work of the Cross and applied for the building up of the Church (see again Col 1:24). In this way we can say that one’s good works are redemptive; not of their own accord but because they become the work of the Cross. We become coworkers with Christ in His plan of salvation.”
Wow, you really make me realize even more-so how poorly catechized I was growing up. Co-workers with Christ? How can I, a poor miserable sinner ever do anything towards His plan of salvation? It takes someone Divine to do so, man has no ability here. Man is paralyzed, God has the ability to walk and to do things. What I am saying is that a paralyzed man can not walk, yet God can. So too can God save while a man cannot save or even help.
What I would say is that we are like “little Christs” in our vocations. That is to say, we represent and witness Christ in our day to day lives. He can use us to reach the lost in this world. We have no power of our own, but by the grace of God, His Word can reach the hearts of men and transform them. Our lives as sinful Christian people can and does effect those around us. We humbly confess that we are but sinners saved by Christ and God takes over the rest through His Holy Spirit to work a miracle in the hearts of others.
One thing I would like to say is that I believe a logical error has been made in these conversations between us. This began speaking about how not to look hypocritical and then became a law/gospel conversation where you observed problems in that presentation. Your main problem ended up being Justification which was not at all about law/gospel. Your main issue was 4 words of Luther “snow covered dung-heap” in which you and the article link I posted took issue. Both you and the article made doctrine out of those 4 words. That doctrine is not what I find in our Confessions. Maybe it was stated inaccurately, or maybe I just missed the point OR maybe I just did not understand your view of Justification (which I think is the case).
You see, I do not find perfection in the lives of men in the Bible. I find Peter, after he was commended by Christ for knowing the truth about Him, was soon rebuked for speaking errantly. I find Mother Mary being rebuked by Jesus for asking Him to do a miracle at the wedding before it was His time. I find Apostles struggling with thorns in their flesh, Kings struggling with lust and power etc. Never is there even a footnote saying that Moses obtained perfection before he died.
I suppose that maybe a Pope came up with that one for it to become a doctrine of the church.
Well, it is late. Thank you for your time.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 1, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
Tammy,
I would have never thought that the Catholic church would teach that one can obtain perfection when the Bible clearly teaches that we are sinful and unable to do so.
While this is true in the Old Testament before grace (and where most of the passages come from that you are thinking about) in the New Testament it becomes possible. I would agree that looking at some of St. Paul’s passages in isolation and with a particular orientation that does not appropriate the over all context of the passages, that his theory is plausible. However, taking into account the context of the entire New Testament and reading the particular passages Luther used in their proper context, his position becomes implausible. If one reads through the New Testament it is hard to miss Jesus’ call to interior conversion and the demand for our perserverence to the end. Perserverence (our cooperating with grace) is also required for salvation (Mt 10:23; 24:13; Phil 2:12; 1 Cor 9:12; 1 Cor 10:11-12; 2 Tim 2:11-12; Heb 10:26-27; all throughout Revelation, etc.).
The questions become why did Martin Luther develop his doctrine and did he have the authority to do so. It is most probable looking at the writings of Martin Luther’s friends and acquaintances, and his own writings that his abusive upbringing eventually left him with what is called scrupulosity. He mistook even temptations for serious sin. He was almost forced to develop his Sola Fide doctrine, especially his once saved always saved proposition, to save his sanity. The way things transpired are complex and there was fault on all sides, but in the end unfortunately, Luther took on the role of being his own pope and chose to push his new ideas which had never before been accepted by Christians in their the previous 1500 years. One must ask what gave Luther the authority to decide his own personal interpretation was correct and that of the Church for the previous 1500 years was wrong? His teaching on personal interpretation of Scripture, which he was later to retract, has led to the point that today we now have over 33,000 different groups of Christians who sincerely believe their personal interpretations are correct. Paul told Timothy that the Church was the pillar and foundation (i.e. it underlies and upholds it) of truth. Without a visible Magisterium instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit one cannot and does not have this pillar and foundation and that is why we see so many different groups all of whom assume the position that Jesus gave to St. Peter. Within Lutheranism, today we see many different readings of what Luther meant and what the Bible says (and even is) but one does not have an authoritative place to look to know for sure. However, when we see in Mt 16:18 that Jesus gives Peter the keys to His Kingdom and the authority to bind and loose, we see where the authority lies. Even if we have a priest or a bishop who says something untoward we still know where to look for the truth. It is Christ and the Holy Spirit and not human beings upon which my faith in the Church and Her Magisterium rests.
It IS an impossible battle to obtain perfection here on earth because of our sinful nature.
Luther’s metaphysics was problematic here. While he rejected Nominalism he also succumbed to it. Human nature cannot change, we have the same nature that Adam and Eve had, the same nature that Jesus assumed, all of this is the same nature every human has ever had. The difference before and after the fall is the ad extra of grace. Fallen human nature means nature without the grace we need to live as we were intended to live and to become son’s and daughters of God. Christ returned our access to that grace, giving us the possibility of living according to the way in which we are intended. However, we still have the effects of original sin in that we have concupiscent desires (desires that are oriented toward goods of the senses but often in the opposite direction of moral goods).
If we have not the possibilty of reaching perfection by cooperation with grace then Jesus’ command to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) would be meaningless; the command to strive for the holiness without which no one can see God (Heb 12:14) would be said to no avail; Jesus’ admonition that nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rev 21:27) would mean that no human being (except Jesus and His most Blessed Mother) would ever have made it into heaven if perfection were not possible.
See here is where the invention of purgatory is just plain wrong.
You will have to tell that to St. Paul. Please read 1 Cor 3 very closely and you will see Purgatory described exactly.
You being legalistic in saying that by faith we are not saved. We must attain and do before we inherit eternal life with Christ. This is looking at ones self (Pharisee) for righteousness rather than looking at what Christ did for us. As long as you believe, you are righteous and will inherit the Kingdom of God. How sad it is that man would so love the law that he would think that he must continue to be disciplined for his sinful nature when Jesus took that sin and nailed it to the Cross.
I did not mean to suggest that by faith we are not saved; but I do say that we are not saved by faith alone. I would ask what is the difference in our adding our faith to the task of salvation vs. adding anything else like good works? Why doesn’t saying we must have faith take away from the work of the Cross? If it is Jesus’ work of the Cross alone and nothing done by us that saves us then why is faith necessary? Faith includes our response to God’s initiative. It is a gift but we have to act, we have to respond in order to be saved.
Faith is a response to God’s gift of grace every bit as much as good works are a response to God’s grace. God gives and we respond, either positively or negatively. You see, righteousness is not a legalism. Righteousness is a family affair. We are God’s children now, through Baptism. Catholics do not claim righteousness for themselves they are transformed by God’s grace and respond to it (or at least those who do) out of love. The courtroom is Luther’s creation and it was from this perspective that he developed the false dichotomy between faith and good works. If one steps out of the courtroom and into the family room one can see how faith and good works (which are nothing less than a response of love) can and do coexist.
You give your children life (as cocreators with God). You give them the gift of being your children. However, you call them to maturity. In doing so you don’t do, and cannnot do, everything for them. You give them what they need and expect that they cooperate with the gifts you give them inorder to become healthy adults. This is a close analogy with being children of God.
Neither does our cooperation with God’s grace take away from His glory or the work of the Cross. Here is an vignette given by a former Protestant pastor who helped teach me both my Catholic faith and Luther’s view of salvation. While still a Protestant pastor he says he was running around his church’s properrty one day and saw a man mowing his lawn with his very young son next to him with a plastic lawn mower. The next time around he saw the little boy sitting on the steps, his head in his little hands with his plastic lawn mower next to him. He obviously had been getting in the way and was sent to sit down. The final time around he saw the little boy being held in one of his father’s arms with both of his hands on the lawn mower and a big beaming smile on his face. He fancied himself his father’s coworker, and he was. He did not add anything to his father’s work but he was still his coworker. The father in his mercy and love deigned to raise up the dignity of his son and let him cooperate in the father’s work. This is what Christ has done with us. He does not tell us to sit on the steps and watch. We help make the mess that the world is and He calls us to join our works to His to clean it up. He beckons us to “take up our cross”, to keep His commandments if we are to have life (Mt 19:16-17); Paul says we are created in Jesus for good works (Eph 2:8-10); James says we are justified not through faith alone but also good works (James 2:14-24).
Co-workers with Christ? How can I, a poor miserable sinner ever do anything towards His plan of salvation?
St. Paul says it in 1 Cor 3:8; we work with God and are His co-workers/fellow workers by planting and watering; our sufferings can be used for the building up of the Church (Col 1:24) because He chooses to lift up our dignity and allow our works to become His work of the Cross. You are right, it is God who saves but as the God/Man He calls man to cooperate in it. His taking on flesh allows us to be joined with God through Christ’s Body which is the Church (Eph 5).
One thing I would like to say is that I believe a logical error has been made in these conversations between us.
I don’t believe a logical error, perhaps a rabbit trail which I am often guilty of. However, in this case it is all closely intertwined. Luther’s law and gospel as it has been explained to me by Lutheran pastors and scholars and my own reading, is one of opposition between the two in which the law was put here to convict and cause despair so that the only possible response would be to surrender to the freedom of the gospel. Presupposing the law in terms of legalism and with the only recourse being freed from it by divine fiat is the thinking behind the false dichotomy between faith and good works and the separation between justification and sanctification in Luther’s doctrines. Again, I can understand Luther’s motivation and how he was able to cobble together his thoughts but it clearly is created out of whole cloth 1500 years after the fact and contradicts Christian teaching of the previous 1500 years.
Again, I hope that I have not said anything too offensively. These are important issues and worthy of discussion. It is only in understanding where others are coming from that we can grow closer together as Christians and heal the wounds in the unity of the Body of Christ. I honestly do not intend to convince you of my positions, if it be His will that is the work of the Holy Spirit. My intention is to at least help you see that the teaching that Luther rejected and I profess is both reasonable and Scriptural. I believe that he rejected it for many reasons but the ecumenical dialogues are helping to show that partly it was because he misunderstood it.
In the end, on the topic of perfection; it is the goal. Even if we falter along the way it is still what we are being called to. To say it is not possible is to say that our human weaknesses are stronger than God’s grace. Looking at my life sometimes I am tempted to succumb to this blasphemy, but blasphemy is what it is. With out it we can do nothing; with God’s grace, all things are possible.
Comment by David — August 2, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Tammy said, “I find Mother Mary being rebuked by Jesus for asking Him to do a miracle at the wedding before it was His time.”
This is the second time in a short while where someone has grossly misinterpreted the wedding feast of Cana to have Jesus shunning his Mother.
First off, Jesus DID do a miracle immediatly following the supposed rebuke. Just because it wasn’t His time to suffer and die on the cross didn’t mean it wasn’t time to do a miracle.
Secondly, Mary didn’t ask for a miracle. She said, “They have no wine.”(John 2:3) She came to Jesus because He’s the Man, literally - not because she wanted to boast about being the mother of the All Powerful Jesus who performs miracles on His Mother’s command.
Jesus goes on to say, “Woman, what concern is that to you and me? My hour has not yet come.”(John 2:4) No exclaimation mark - unlike the cleansing of the Temple that ironically follows; where Jesus rebukes the money changers by saying, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”(John 2:16)
Try reading John 2:4 with the Word’s of Jesus in a much more calm tone - it’s amazing how even the meaning of a passage can change by the way we hear the speaker in our minds.
Most importantly, Jesus addresses his Mother as “Woman”. Wouldn’t Jesus call his own Mother “Mother”? The answer is twofold: In Jesus’ time, “woman” was a term of great respect toward the female gendre. The reverance accompanying the word “woman” can hardly be juxtaposed with a rebuke. The kicker is that by calling his Mother “Woman”, Jesus identifies his Mother as the New Eve (see the “woman” of Genesis and the “woman” of revelation to get the full picture)
The servants and disciples were dumbfounded with Christ’s words, but Mary understood what was going to happen next, so she told them simply to, “Do whatever He tells you.”(John 2:5)
This is also a great passage to underline Mary’s role as intercessor and our mediator. Sometimes we do not understand the words of God, but Mary is intervening for us by saying, “Do whatever He tells you.”
Sorry for the overkill. Hope this helps.
Peace,
Comment by Mike A. — August 2, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Sorry I haven’t had time to post. I just wanted to make one point. I did not mean that Mary was rebuked the way you seem to think. He told her that it wasn’t His time and therefore exposed that she (in her sinful condition) asked Jesus to do something outside of what the God the Father intended for Jesus at that time.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 2, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Thanks Mike, I agree with your exegesis. You also demonstrate the danger of personal interpretation. When one reads the text without considering the textual, cultural, linguistic, and theological contexts he is tempted to read into it his current contexts which likely did not apply at the time Sacred Scripture was written. This is a good reason why we see the multiplication of divisions among Christians who follow the Luther’s personal interpretation tradition. In fact, Luther already saw this problem before he died but it was too late to put the cat back in the bag. He tried to use his personal authority in its place but of course we can see that rather his princple (rather than his interpretations) was what Protestantism chose to follow.
Comment by David — August 2, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
Also you wrote, “Try reading John 2:4 with the Word’s of Jesus in a much more calm tone -”
Are you implying that I am defensive or upset?
Please understand that I am in no way upset or defensive. I am very calm and sometimes a bit hurried because I have 7 children waiting for me to hurry up with writing and reading these posts.
I am having a good time reading and conversating about the Catholic and Lutheran differences.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 2, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Wait, shoot. Belay my last message. UG! What I would do for an “edit” mode on this blog!
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 2, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Tammy, that’s my bad for the arrangment of words that made it sound ambiguous. I see where you got the wrong impression. But I think we’re thinking on the right track now.
Comment by Mike A. — August 2, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
Shelray - you need to be a little disciplined about your posts, we have discussed everything here but poor ole Mel (thankfully).
Tammy - I didn’t see your post before I posted mine. Having read it, I would modify mine to say that both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture provide compelling evidence that Mary was conceived without original sin and never in fact did sin. Of course, if the Augsburg Confessions is the source of one’s tradition for interpreting Scripture you would not find it as compelling. However, if you were open to looking at the wider Christian tradition beginning with the very early Church I think you just might find it compelling as well.
Should I link you to some articles discussing Kecharitomine, and Mary as the anti-type of the Ark of the Covenant?
I might also ask that if it had been due to sin that Mary asked Jesus to do something before its time then would he not also have been complicit in this sin by acceding to her request?
I also enjoy the discussion. I’m glad that all have sufficiently deep epidermal layering to discuss the differences without experiencing offense.
Comment by David — August 2, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
So little time, so much to post.
Please forgive me for not addressing everything as my time is limited. I am stealing some time from cleaning the kitchen before family devotions so I will make this quick.
I also need to let you know that your post numbered 17 is not forgotten, but will take time to address.
As for your comment about Lutherans referring back to the BoC about our doctrine of a “sinless” Mary. I whole heartily disagree. You see coming from the Catholic church I first read the Bible to find out what I believed. I did not see in the Bible that May was sinless. Yes, she was blessed, but in order for God to be fully man, He had to come from a real sinful human. Anything less would make Jesus flesh and God. Man is not just flesh, he is sinful flesh. Jesus took on the form of a man, a real man. A man who fought against temptations as we do. Only because of His divinity, could he overcome all sin. Mary, OTOH, had no divinity by which to overcome sin. She was in the leagues of the great Prophets, she was a means of grace by which God used her to accomplish His plan of salvation.
Just as an animal is not a man, it’s sacrifice will not suffice for the sins of the world. Neither would a Jesus who was not 100% man and 100% God suffice. Had any man been sinless, then THEY would suffice to be used of God to take on the sins of the world. But there was none. So God Himself had to take on the form of a man in order to do this for His people. God does not contradict Himself when He says through-out Scripture that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.Rom 3:23
So my answer to you is not that I look to the BoC first, but that the BoC adequetly represents what I have found in the Bible.
It is the Bible first and above all things.
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 3, 2006 @ 9:52 am
So little time, so much to post.
Me too.
Anything less would make Jesus flesh and God. Man is not just flesh, he is sinful flesh.
There are several ways to understand the term “sinful flesh.” However, it seems to me the way you are interpreting leads to the logical consequence that God creates evil which is not possible.
This is what I mean. God creates everything so everything that exists in a positive sense is from God and must be good. The flesh is good, it is not sinful or evil. Then what is evil and sin? It must be a privation of some good. Sin and evil are moral and not ontological (i.e. they do not have a positive existence). What is “sinful flesh” then? It is flesh deprived of the grace it was created with and for. It is good but it lacks something it need to be what it was created for. It lacks grace in its natural state. It must be elevated. Thus, neither Jesus or Mary had “sinful flesh.” Mary was “full of grace.” Both experienced temptation but having the necessary grace they did not experience it in the same way we do. Their appetites and emotions were subordinated to their wills to they did not experience the conflicts we can sometimes experience. However, the conflicts are not universal, one person can be drawn at times to chocolate and fight with himself because he knows he ought not, another person decides against it and experiences no interior conflict because he has trained himself better in this regard. However, to the more fundamental issue:
It is the Bible first and above all things.
This might take a little time to think about, but what authority did you rely upon to know to trust the Bible and know what books belong in the Bible? A related issue you may be waiting to get to but also how do you know that the way you understand what you read in the Bible is what the real meaning is?
One more:
Mary, OTOH, had no divinity by which to overcome sin.
Ah, but she did and does. She is kecharitomine (i.e. perfected by grace). St. Peter, speaking of grace, says that we are partakers in the divine nature. The East and more and more the West, call sanctifying grace man’s “divinization.” This does not mean that man stops being man, but that he becomes truly what man was meant to be when infused and perfected in grace (as the Bible says that Mary was). Of course, this is hard to get from a term that in reading English translations has many different renderings, and without an understanding of the Greek language, the historical and cultural backgrounds, the early Church’s teaching on grace that fills out and draws together all of the various biblical passages which refer to it, etc.
Comment by David — August 3, 2006 @ 10:35 am
Considering the time it would take for each subject you have brought up (justification, law/gospel, Mary, grace/perfection, Bible authority/versions) I don’t see how we/I can touch on it all.
You go in too many directions for me. Had I no children to tend to I would love to continue, but my vocation calls me above all things.
I have enjoyed the debate and wish I could continue. My suggestion is to try and keep it simple with those who post differing views on this site so that it maybe easier to come to the end of a thought before going on to others.
PAX
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 3, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
Tammy -
Good point. I suppose the fundamental issue is authority. It just took a little while to get there.
Enjoyed it.
God Bless
Comment by David — August 3, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Tammy said, “Yes, she was blessed, but in order for God to be fully man, He had to come from a real sinful human.”
I just don’t see any theological basis for this statement at all - but rather, a conclusion developed from the idea that the “flesh” is inherently evil.
There is nothing to suggest that Christ had to be born of a sinful human. The fact that God chose to enter this world through the womb of a woman is indeed a great mystery, but one with many theological underpinings - the implications of which, combined with sacred scripture, have led the Church to understand that Mary was spared from original sin at conception through Christ’s saving grace “in time” (David, you’ll need to help me with the technical term) before Christ’s “historical” death and resurrection so that Christ would enter the world through a womb uncorrupted/unstained by original sin.
“Had any man been sinless, then THEY would suffice to be used of God to take on the sins of the world.”
Umm… no. The mere absence of sin doesn’t mean that we have the almighty capabilities of an All-Powerful God. Indeed, God lowered Himself to our humanity in order that we might be saved, but it still takes a God to save us. For sure, a man of sin would not be worthy to take away other’s sins, but a mere man without sin cannot bear the weight of sin - only the Man-God can.
I know, I shouldn’t keep going when Tammy has finished her posting, but some things I cannot let go.
Comment by Mike A. — August 3, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
“I know, I shouldn’t keep going when Tammy has finished her posting, but some things I cannot let go.”
Comment by Tammy Haga — August 4, 2006 @ 7:08 am
Christ’s saving grace “in time†(David, you’ll need to help me with the technical term)
Provenient grace, when it is applied in time prior to the sending of the Holy Spirit after the Ascension.
Comment by David — August 4, 2006 @ 8:19 am