Mark over at Pseudo-Polymath has a question for Sola Scriptura adherents. He names a variety of doctrines and asks how does a Sola Scriptura adherent decide what is in bounds and what is out of bounds.
Generally, I expect to find that someone who trusts the New Testament accounts will believe a thing if Scripture teaches it, disbelieve it if Scripture teaches against it, and is open to discussion and even varying opinions if Scripture is silent or is not explicit. In those "gray area" cases, if an early and unanimous opinion exists among the early church fathers I would expect to give that opinion the benefit of the doubt without quite holding it with the same certainty as Scripture. That's why we (Lutherans) hold to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Scripture teaches it) but not to transubstantiation, and why most of us do not hold to Mary's perpetual virginity though some do.
I don't think this next was your main question, but I think the quote from Pelikan had an interesting salvo. He implied that the usual explanation for the Scripture "The Father is greater than I" amounted to "manipulation of the Scriptures". I have to agree on this much: the usual explanation of that is disappointing at least and may even cross the line to manipulation of Scripture. That particular text is often explained away as meaning that when Christ acknowledges the Father as greater he does so "according to his human nature"; yet when else is he said to speak according to human nature alone? I have always believed this interpretation to be an unnecessary and possibly misleading move. To speak in Trinitarian language, the Father is the only member of the Trinity who has no other origin but is self-existing; the Word and the Spirit both derive from the Father. "The Father is greater than I" seems a natural thing to say even for a Trinitarian: that the Word, Christ, has his origin in the Father but the Father alone is self-existing. As the self-existing source of the Son, the Father is greater than the Son. Now I will also speak bluntly: I think that such a questionable exegetical move was mainly made to defend the Trinitarian formula. I consider some parts of the Trinitarian formula to be an intellectual syncretism between the revelation of God and Greek philosophy. I know "intellectual syncretism" may be seen by some as fighting words, so let me explain what I mean. The relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit is not cleanly understood or expressed with complete clarity in the common formulas used for the Trinity. Granted that nobody has yet done better expressing the nature of God using the categories of Greek philosophy, and the standard Trinitarian formula may well be the cleanest fit possible between the nature of God and Greek philosophy. Still, certain things we know about God seem to have been squeezed a little bit to fit into those categories, and it has created a tension in Christian theology ever since. I expect the day will come when we Christians rethink the Trinity in terms more native to Scripture and that, when complete, we will still have the Trinity but not one so determined to see things through the lenses of ancient Greek thought categories. At the time the Trinity was formulated, much of the Christian world was still deeply enamored of Greek philosophy, and may have overestimated Greek philosophy's capabilities towards expressing the realities of God. Until such a day as we retool our understanding of the Trinity to go beyond that kind of intellectual syncretism, certain passages of Scripture will show their tension with how God has been fit into those pre-existing schools of thought.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Roman and Protestant models of apostolic authority
Continuing the conversation with Japhy on the papal bull Unam Sanctam in which the Roman Catholic church made the official claim that it is "absolutely necessary for salvation ... to be subject to the Roman Pontiff".
This one took me a few days to post because I had to edit out as much as I could of the frustration at exactly how over-the-top I find this particular claim of Rome. I hope I have got it in a better tone; I have reworded it a number of times. The difficulty comes when I re-read one particular part in which I genuinely believe the pope was abusing his power. Japhy, I'm sure you disagree with that, but I just wanted you to know that I struggle with anger when I see someone handle Scripture the way this particular papal bull does. I'll explain why as we go through. But my main hope is that you (Jeff) will know, that first of all that I hope I've got the frustration edited out, and second of all that if any of it's left it's not intended for you but is coming from the way Scripture is being used.
The support which the pope made for the claim is not of the quality I would expect from a Christian who is knowledgeable of the Bible (more on this shortly), and I also have to wonder whether a spiritual person might be aware of the possibility that the sinful nature was involved in making a claim which so plainly and openly advocates their own power and status.
Allegorical Arguments
Japhy posts more of the pope's decree here. The decree contains Scriptural interpretations such as arguing from the spouse in Song of Songs, or from the flood and the ark to the necessity of subjection to Peter and his successor as if to Noah. From the outside looking in, the reasoning on those points is a chain of loose and fanciful interpretation and presumption of key points. I know that Song of Songs is often interpreted allegorically as love betweeen God and his people. Still, that is a long way from identifying God's one and only beloved with Rome to the exclusion of all others. There is a certain presumption on Rome's part that God does not see us as one on the basis of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" but only on the basis of submission to Peter's successor. Or again, where does Scripture compare the Ark to the church? Where does Scripture make a point of Noah being the captain? Where does Scripture compare Peter to Noah? Allegorical interpretations are not in the mind of the original author but in the mind of the interpreter. Fanciful and allegorical interpretations of Scripture could easily have been interpreted otherwise; all it would take is for someone else's fancy to envision the allegory that suited them.
Feeding the Sheep
Again the papal bull reviews Jesus' conversation with Peter, "feed my sheep", and interprets that as if an appointment to office, as if Peter alone was given charge to feed the sheep, as if the care of the whole church were given to Peter alone by that. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus did not intend for all the disciples to feed his sheep, as the Great Commission entrusted all of them with that; the question is whether special status was intended for Peter. During Peter's life, there is no sign that Peter or any of the rest of the church took it that way. In the first church council as recorded in Acts 15, Peter is not in charge and submits his case to James, with Peter answering to James as if to his superior. Neither is there any record that the others who had studied under Christ felt the need to run their teachings past Peter, having themselves been taught by Christ. When Paul submitted to review of his teachings, he spoke with Peter, James, and John -- and makes no mention of any special status adhering to Peter alone. If Christ had meant to confer unique headship on Peter on behalf of the church, there is no sign that Peter or the rest of the church while he was alive had understood that. That alone makes a powerful case against Peter's unique status: Peter didn't seem to know he had it, and neither did those who knew him.
Whatsoever you bind on earth ...
This next part of the decree is the most difficult for me to read without becoming outright angry because of the way Scripture is handled:
Take careful note of what is quoted here from Matthew as the Scriptural support for Peter's uniqueness. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter on the occasion of his confession that Jesus was in fact the Christ: "Whatsoever you (singular, i.e. Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The biggest problem I have with that argument is that it completely ignores that Jesus quickly thereafter grants the same thing to the other apostles. Jesus soon after says to all the apostles together, "Whatsoever you (plural, i.e. all of them) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). What the pope quoted here as having been said to Peter -- and the pope cites it as proof of Peter's uniqueness -- is exactly what Jesus also said soon after to all of the apostles. In context, the second passage granting the same authority to all the apostles is immediately followed by the need for agreement and fellowship among them: "if two of you shall agree on earth ... if two or three are gathered in my name". Peter cannot stand alone; no disciple is placed above the other, and the greatest is to be servant of all. The pope's decree has a pointedly partial reading of Scripture, quoting the one passage as proving Peter is unique without even acknowledging the existence the other passage where the same authority is given to all the apostles. Here is why it makes me so angry: when someone makes such a one-sided case, ignores contrary evidence, and does this to his own advantage and about his own authority, it can hardly help coming across badly. In light of the selective reading of Scripture, the pope's later quote which equates disagreement about his interpretation with "resisting the ordinance of God" comes across as heavy-handed rhetoric deflecting an open discussion about the merits of the argument.
Apostolic Authority: the Roman model and the Protestant model
Japhy talking now:
What church rejects those who Jesus sent? He sent the apostles, and I am not aware of any church today rejecting any of them. So on to the next question: how can you be sure that someone's teachings are true? You can be sure by comparing those teachings with what Christ and the apostles taught. There was a time in church history when the main guarantee of hearing what the apostles taught was belonging to a church where the bishop was taught by the apostles. But the time came when the churches that traced back to the apostles started teaching things that the apostles had never taught. At that time there became two varieties of "apostolic authority": the Roman variety, where tracing your leadership back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching, and the Protestant variety, where tracing the contents of your teachings back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching. That's why Protestants are so darn stubborn about what Scripture says: those are the teachings that we are sure trace to the apostles. If I had to choose between a church that can trace its leadership to successors of the apostles but cannot trace its teachings to the apostles on the one hand, and a church that can trace its teachings to the apostles but not its leadership to successors of the apostles, I am glad to stick with the teachings I know trace back to the apostles. Of course, more than that I wish it were not an either/or kind of decision.
This one took me a few days to post because I had to edit out as much as I could of the frustration at exactly how over-the-top I find this particular claim of Rome. I hope I have got it in a better tone; I have reworded it a number of times. The difficulty comes when I re-read one particular part in which I genuinely believe the pope was abusing his power. Japhy, I'm sure you disagree with that, but I just wanted you to know that I struggle with anger when I see someone handle Scripture the way this particular papal bull does. I'll explain why as we go through. But my main hope is that you (Jeff) will know, that first of all that I hope I've got the frustration edited out, and second of all that if any of it's left it's not intended for you but is coming from the way Scripture is being used.
The support which the pope made for the claim is not of the quality I would expect from a Christian who is knowledgeable of the Bible (more on this shortly), and I also have to wonder whether a spiritual person might be aware of the possibility that the sinful nature was involved in making a claim which so plainly and openly advocates their own power and status.
Allegorical Arguments
Japhy posts more of the pope's decree here. The decree contains Scriptural interpretations such as arguing from the spouse in Song of Songs, or from the flood and the ark to the necessity of subjection to Peter and his successor as if to Noah. From the outside looking in, the reasoning on those points is a chain of loose and fanciful interpretation and presumption of key points. I know that Song of Songs is often interpreted allegorically as love betweeen God and his people. Still, that is a long way from identifying God's one and only beloved with Rome to the exclusion of all others. There is a certain presumption on Rome's part that God does not see us as one on the basis of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" but only on the basis of submission to Peter's successor. Or again, where does Scripture compare the Ark to the church? Where does Scripture make a point of Noah being the captain? Where does Scripture compare Peter to Noah? Allegorical interpretations are not in the mind of the original author but in the mind of the interpreter. Fanciful and allegorical interpretations of Scripture could easily have been interpreted otherwise; all it would take is for someone else's fancy to envision the allegory that suited them.
Feeding the Sheep
Again the papal bull reviews Jesus' conversation with Peter, "feed my sheep", and interprets that as if an appointment to office, as if Peter alone was given charge to feed the sheep, as if the care of the whole church were given to Peter alone by that. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus did not intend for all the disciples to feed his sheep, as the Great Commission entrusted all of them with that; the question is whether special status was intended for Peter. During Peter's life, there is no sign that Peter or any of the rest of the church took it that way. In the first church council as recorded in Acts 15, Peter is not in charge and submits his case to James, with Peter answering to James as if to his superior. Neither is there any record that the others who had studied under Christ felt the need to run their teachings past Peter, having themselves been taught by Christ. When Paul submitted to review of his teachings, he spoke with Peter, James, and John -- and makes no mention of any special status adhering to Peter alone. If Christ had meant to confer unique headship on Peter on behalf of the church, there is no sign that Peter or the rest of the church while he was alive had understood that. That alone makes a powerful case against Peter's unique status: Peter didn't seem to know he had it, and neither did those who knew him.
Whatsoever you bind on earth ...
This next part of the decree is the most difficult for me to read without becoming outright angry because of the way Scripture is handled:
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [cf. Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [cf. Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Take careful note of what is quoted here from Matthew as the Scriptural support for Peter's uniqueness. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter on the occasion of his confession that Jesus was in fact the Christ: "Whatsoever you (singular, i.e. Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The biggest problem I have with that argument is that it completely ignores that Jesus quickly thereafter grants the same thing to the other apostles. Jesus soon after says to all the apostles together, "Whatsoever you (plural, i.e. all of them) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). What the pope quoted here as having been said to Peter -- and the pope cites it as proof of Peter's uniqueness -- is exactly what Jesus also said soon after to all of the apostles. In context, the second passage granting the same authority to all the apostles is immediately followed by the need for agreement and fellowship among them: "if two of you shall agree on earth ... if two or three are gathered in my name". Peter cannot stand alone; no disciple is placed above the other, and the greatest is to be servant of all. The pope's decree has a pointedly partial reading of Scripture, quoting the one passage as proving Peter is unique without even acknowledging the existence the other passage where the same authority is given to all the apostles. Here is why it makes me so angry: when someone makes such a one-sided case, ignores contrary evidence, and does this to his own advantage and about his own authority, it can hardly help coming across badly. In light of the selective reading of Scripture, the pope's later quote which equates disagreement about his interpretation with "resisting the ordinance of God" comes across as heavy-handed rhetoric deflecting an open discussion about the merits of the argument.
Apostolic Authority: the Roman model and the Protestant model
Japhy talking now:
If you reject the ones Jesus sent, you reject Jesus. This is why the Church is so darn stubborn about Apostolic succession. If some random preacher shows up tomorrow, how can I be sure following his teachings about Jesus will lead to my salvation?
What church rejects those who Jesus sent? He sent the apostles, and I am not aware of any church today rejecting any of them. So on to the next question: how can you be sure that someone's teachings are true? You can be sure by comparing those teachings with what Christ and the apostles taught. There was a time in church history when the main guarantee of hearing what the apostles taught was belonging to a church where the bishop was taught by the apostles. But the time came when the churches that traced back to the apostles started teaching things that the apostles had never taught. At that time there became two varieties of "apostolic authority": the Roman variety, where tracing your leadership back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching, and the Protestant variety, where tracing the contents of your teachings back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching. That's why Protestants are so darn stubborn about what Scripture says: those are the teachings that we are sure trace to the apostles. If I had to choose between a church that can trace its leadership to successors of the apostles but cannot trace its teachings to the apostles on the one hand, and a church that can trace its teachings to the apostles but not its leadership to successors of the apostles, I am glad to stick with the teachings I know trace back to the apostles. Of course, more than that I wish it were not an either/or kind of decision.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
What is doctrine for?
Continuing a conversation with Japhy, a Roman Catholic blog neighbor. This is a spin-off conversation about the nature of the church, in which Japhy is basically pursuing an angle about the nature of doctrine and its relation to salvation.
Jeff, you'd have to get a whole lot more riled than that before you came across as inflammatory. Inflammatory is just not your habit. Besides, you're well within the area of "questions you're bound to ask".
Starting with the least theologically important question first:
Q. Which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine?
A. The one(s) still holding to the original Tradition of the church, that handed down by Christ through the apostles.
Next,
Q. What is necessary for salvation?
A. Christ is necessary for salvation. Doctrine, in its best sense, is a full life-giving knowledge of God and his kingdom. Unfortunately, "doctrine" often becomes a set of propositions to be memorized whose content (in theory) could convey some knowledge of God and his kingdom if only people weren't so busy mistaking doctrine for salvation. It would be like mistaking the nutrition label on the can for a nourishing meal. (See, it says right there, "100% iron, 100% calcium ... and I already read the label so I'm set! I read it twice, so I'm more nourished than you!") What Christ said about Scriptures could easily be said about doctrine: You eagerly search them because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are they that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me and have life.
There are all kinds of things that are true (Lutheran doctrines, Roman Catholic doctrines, doctrines of all kinds of other groups too numerous to name) that are not "necessary for salvation". There are things that are true about God, but knowing them is not "necessary for salvation". If doctrine isn't necessary for salvation, then what is the purpose of doctrine? To bless us through knowledge of the Holy One. I have often asked myself, "Is there really any other blessing besides God?" To know God is to have peace and patience and perseverance. To know God is to have the fullness of love. To know God is to have complete freedom from fear. To know God is to have all wisdom. To know God is to be joyful. What good thing is outside of him? That is what doctrine is about: there is no higher blessing than God.
Is adherence to Lutheran doctrine necessary for salvation? If so, by whose authority? Luther's (or his successors')? And if Lutheran doctrine is not necessary for salvation, what is its purpose? I do not mean to sound inflammatory, but I am curious what Lutheranism holds as true that may or may not be necessary for salvation. And which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine...?
Jeff, you'd have to get a whole lot more riled than that before you came across as inflammatory. Inflammatory is just not your habit. Besides, you're well within the area of "questions you're bound to ask".
Starting with the least theologically important question first:
Q. Which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine?
A. The one(s) still holding to the original Tradition of the church, that handed down by Christ through the apostles.
Next,
Q. What is necessary for salvation?
A. Christ is necessary for salvation. Doctrine, in its best sense, is a full life-giving knowledge of God and his kingdom. Unfortunately, "doctrine" often becomes a set of propositions to be memorized whose content (in theory) could convey some knowledge of God and his kingdom if only people weren't so busy mistaking doctrine for salvation. It would be like mistaking the nutrition label on the can for a nourishing meal. (See, it says right there, "100% iron, 100% calcium ... and I already read the label so I'm set! I read it twice, so I'm more nourished than you!") What Christ said about Scriptures could easily be said about doctrine: You eagerly search them because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are they that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me and have life.
There are all kinds of things that are true (Lutheran doctrines, Roman Catholic doctrines, doctrines of all kinds of other groups too numerous to name) that are not "necessary for salvation". There are things that are true about God, but knowing them is not "necessary for salvation". If doctrine isn't necessary for salvation, then what is the purpose of doctrine? To bless us through knowledge of the Holy One. I have often asked myself, "Is there really any other blessing besides God?" To know God is to have peace and patience and perseverance. To know God is to have the fullness of love. To know God is to have complete freedom from fear. To know God is to have all wisdom. To know God is to be joyful. What good thing is outside of him? That is what doctrine is about: there is no higher blessing than God.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Rome, Having Christ, and Meriting Eternal Life
Continuing a conversation with Japhy, a kind Roman Catholic blog neighbor, about why the Protestants have been Protesting. This current is a response to "part 3".
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
I'm going to break out this conversation into two sections: What does it mean to have Christ, and what merits eternal life.
What does it mean to have Christ?
As we had discussed before, to have Christ is to have eternal life; not to have Christ is not to have eternal life.
Japhy writes
What merits eternal life?
Japhy, I believe you're quoting from the Council of Trent here when you say:
There is no objection to the idea of God working in us to will and to work good things. There is no objection to the idea that our good works done in Christ may be recognized. The objection is when someone starts imagining that we have therefore satisfied the law, that we have therefore merited eternal life. We all sin daily. We all need mercy daily. And not one of us merits eternal life. It is a gift.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
I'm going to break out this conversation into two sections: What does it mean to have Christ, and what merits eternal life.
What does it mean to have Christ?
As we had discussed before, to have Christ is to have eternal life; not to have Christ is not to have eternal life.
Japhy writes
What does it mean to "have Christ" (that is, to fill the need for Christ)? Does it mean...I think we might even disagree at square one on this one. There's the part where you say "to 'have Christ' (that is, to fill the need for Christ)", that sets off red flags in my head. The only way to fill the need for Christ is to have Christ; I'd question whether "having Christ" needs to be interpreted at all. I think that "having Christ" ought to be seen as self-explanatory. Let me use an analogy; since you're a newlywed I'll use marriage as an example. What does it mean to have a wife? Does it mean wearing a ring (what happens if you take it off to do the dishes)? Does it mean showing kindness to someone you love (what happens if you're a grump for a day)? Does it mean sharing a bed (what if you're on a business trip or in the doghouse for a couple of days)? Or maybe "having a wife" just means having a wife, and all those things are pretty darn likely to follow but shouldn't be mistaken for having a wife. Maybe 50 different answers about what it means to "have a wife" are all legitimate if you're making a list of what follows, but are all an exercise in missing the point if they're mistaken for the thing itself. Having a wife (for you) means that a kind-hearted and friendly girl named Kristin is forever part of who you are: having Kristin means having Kristin; the rest follows. Back to "having Christ". Having Christ means having Christ; if we ask "what it really means" we have to be careful. Are we asking what follows? Then there are lots things that follow, none of which should be mistaken for the thing itself. Are we asking if "having Christ" really means something else and we can look somewhere besides Christ (maybe a Bible study regime or participation in charity or attendance at church) for whether we really "have Christ"? Then we've missed the point very badly. I've known people who wear rings and are not married; I've known people who attend church and do charity work and do Bible studies and write theology, and nothing is further from their minds than Christ. So on this one, I want to go back and underline where we started: having Christ means having Christ, just as (in your case) marriage is not primarily about rings but about Kristin.
- saying the sinner's prayer?
- being baptized?
- going to church on a regular basis?
- loving your neighbor and your enemy?
- doing corporal and spiritual works of mercy?
- reading the Bible often?
- evangelizing?
I could ask 50 different Christian communities and get 50 different sets of answers! Some might say that a person who professes to believe in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior (that is, to "have Christ") yet who does not do some of the things I have mentioned doesn't really have Christ (or is in danger of losing Christ).
What merits eternal life?
Japhy, I believe you're quoting from the Council of Trent here when you say:
Christ ... continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life. (Emphasis Japhy's)There it is; that's what we're protesting. Let's see if I can explain to you exactly what the objection is. I have no objection, by the way, to the fact that you mention the parable of the talents and point out that there is a legitimate reward given to those who willingly serve God. The question comes when we get to whether believers have "fully satisfied the divine law" by such works, whether believers have "truly merited eternal life" by such works. It's difficult to explain to you just how wild I think those assertions are, made by the Council of Trent, that our human efforts could "fully satisfy the divine law". Where is the acknowledgment that we still sin daily in thought, word, action, and omission, and primarily in lack of love? How could anyone possibly imagine that, just because by the grace of God we sometimes do the good works he lays before us, we have somehow "fully satisfied the divine law"? "Be holy" and "be perfect" are divine law. Not to hate is divine law. Not to lust in our hearts is divine law. If the one without sin were to throw the first stone, even in a church today or a convention of supposed saints, the wrongdoer would still walk away without a scratch. Nobody "fully satisfies the divine law". Nobody gets through without forgiveness and mercy, neither before nor after the gifts by which we slowly learn to love God's will. May I never imagine that whatever good works I have "truly merited eternal life". Not only did it begin as a gift, but it also ended as a gift. I never merited it. It was not merely a gift at first until God could make me good enough to earn it; it was a gift all along. Let's look at a parable: the workers in the vineyard. The people who are workers in the vineyard from the earliest morning may have merited their pay at the end of the day. But the vast majority of people who were paid at the end of the day, according to that parable, never merited what they got: not at the beginning, not in the middle, not at the end. There alone Trent's blanket statement about believers meriting eternal life flies in the face of what Christ taught. Now, if you could find someone who had been working at the kingdom's work without running out once their whole life, maybe you've found someone who merited eternal life. But I know already that you don't know any such person: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace.
There is no objection to the idea of God working in us to will and to work good things. There is no objection to the idea that our good works done in Christ may be recognized. The objection is when someone starts imagining that we have therefore satisfied the law, that we have therefore merited eternal life. We all sin daily. We all need mercy daily. And not one of us merits eternal life. It is a gift.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Does Rome "Add to Jesus"?
My blog-neighbor Japhy, a very gracious Roman Catholic fellow, has been discussing the view that Protestants typically have of his group, that they add to Jesus. He says
The phrase "adding to Jesus" was one Japhy chose to frame his post, but I'd have to say that it doesn't really sum up the Protest very accurately. Having a liturgy isn't "adding to Jesus" in the sense of the Protest any more than singing Amazing Grace is "adding to Jesus" or studying the Bible is "adding to Jesus". The "Christ Alone" of the Protest was not a call to forget the Trinity or stop having role models or have only the Jesus Prayer. It was a reminder that Christ alone is our savior, and that nothing else is needed for salvation except Christ alone.
In this much Rome and all branches of Protestants agree: that, with Christ in us, works necessarily follow. But Rome goes further and states that such works merit the attainment of eternal life (Council of Trent). That is cause for protest; something has been added where Christ alone belongs. Granted that, with Christ in me, I find myself drawn to works of compassion: feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, forgiving as we have been forgiven, and so forth. Any idea how often I fail at those? Plenty. If anyone thinks that on count of such feeble works God owes us eternal life, I beg to differ. Between us and eternal life are always our sins and shortcomings. It is through Christ that we have eternal life, not through our merits.
Or again, in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, the church of Rome states
In a way, I sympathize with Rome for some of the insulting and uninformed attacks they receive -- for Jack Chick tracts and that kind of thing. A certain number of the objections to Rome are mean-spirited; others are just misinformed. I think the original point of the Protest would stand a better chance of being heard and considered if some of the throwaway objections against Rome could be discarded once and for all. As it is, the misguided protests only serve to reinforce the Roman idea that there are no valid protests, that there could never be a valid protest.
I once saw a post where a convert (revert?) to Rome had worked through his estimate of the probability that Rome was the true church. I couldn't find it tonight but will gladly trade this sentence for a link if anyone knows where it is. At any rate, if memory serves, the fellow had come up with an estimate that it was in the upper 80%'s probable that Rome was the true church factoring in pro's such as apostolic succession and con's such as the Inquisition. (I'm going to use 87% on the hopes that I'm remembering correctly or close to it. If the original article turns up I'll set the percentages straight.) But I remember reading that post and thinking, if I granted those numbers I would come to a much different conclusion: not that there's an 87% chance that Rome is the true church, but that Rome is 87% of what the true church should be. The point of the protest is that we can do better than a B. There's an 87% chance that Rome gets 100%? How about there's a 100% chance that Rome gets an 87%. And the only way to state your disagreement with Rome is to not be a member. The only way to help the church be what it should be is from without, because Protest on that level is not allowed from within.
I disagree. Because of our faith in Jesus Christ, it therefore follows that there are works, and sacraments, and a visible leadership (the Pope), and role models (like Paul and Mary).I'm hoping to explain to him the point of the Protest, but we're definitely not there yet. Down in the comments, he asks whether having a liturgy is adding to Jesus, whether belief in consubstantiation is adding to Jesus, and so forth.
The phrase "adding to Jesus" was one Japhy chose to frame his post, but I'd have to say that it doesn't really sum up the Protest very accurately. Having a liturgy isn't "adding to Jesus" in the sense of the Protest any more than singing Amazing Grace is "adding to Jesus" or studying the Bible is "adding to Jesus". The "Christ Alone" of the Protest was not a call to forget the Trinity or stop having role models or have only the Jesus Prayer. It was a reminder that Christ alone is our savior, and that nothing else is needed for salvation except Christ alone.
In this much Rome and all branches of Protestants agree: that, with Christ in us, works necessarily follow. But Rome goes further and states that such works merit the attainment of eternal life (Council of Trent). That is cause for protest; something has been added where Christ alone belongs. Granted that, with Christ in me, I find myself drawn to works of compassion: feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, forgiving as we have been forgiven, and so forth. Any idea how often I fail at those? Plenty. If anyone thinks that on count of such feeble works God owes us eternal life, I beg to differ. Between us and eternal life are always our sins and shortcomings. It is through Christ that we have eternal life, not through our merits.
Or again, in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, the church of Rome states
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.Now I know Roman Catholics are honor-bound to say that's right, but from the outside looking in, that statement looks like proof that Rome has lost the plot about what is really necessary for salvation. It looks like Rome has forgotten what Christ said about the greatest of the apostles: He shall be servant of all, and "The lords of the gentiles lord it over them, but not so with you." Even for someone who grants in principle that Rome had a place of honor among the ancient sees of the united church (pre-Chalcedon), this papal bull demonstrates "lording it over", the opposite of what Christ taught would be the hallmark of Christian leadership. "Absolutely necessary for salvation" to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is why the Protest looks at Rome and sees "Jesus plus something else" in a place where it should be Christ alone.
In a way, I sympathize with Rome for some of the insulting and uninformed attacks they receive -- for Jack Chick tracts and that kind of thing. A certain number of the objections to Rome are mean-spirited; others are just misinformed. I think the original point of the Protest would stand a better chance of being heard and considered if some of the throwaway objections against Rome could be discarded once and for all. As it is, the misguided protests only serve to reinforce the Roman idea that there are no valid protests, that there could never be a valid protest.
I once saw a post where a convert (revert?) to Rome had worked through his estimate of the probability that Rome was the true church. I couldn't find it tonight but will gladly trade this sentence for a link if anyone knows where it is. At any rate, if memory serves, the fellow had come up with an estimate that it was in the upper 80%'s probable that Rome was the true church factoring in pro's such as apostolic succession and con's such as the Inquisition. (I'm going to use 87% on the hopes that I'm remembering correctly or close to it. If the original article turns up I'll set the percentages straight.) But I remember reading that post and thinking, if I granted those numbers I would come to a much different conclusion: not that there's an 87% chance that Rome is the true church, but that Rome is 87% of what the true church should be. The point of the protest is that we can do better than a B. There's an 87% chance that Rome gets 100%? How about there's a 100% chance that Rome gets an 87%. And the only way to state your disagreement with Rome is to not be a member. The only way to help the church be what it should be is from without, because Protest on that level is not allowed from within.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Security, Apostasy, and Knowing Christ
These are the things which drive Lutherans to distraction, and I have to admit that I am writing this post with a head full of steam, something I usually avoid. But when I see perfectly reasonable people whom I respect wrestling with questions like, "Are believers eternally secure or can they fall away?", it does light a fire under me. The Bible gives a resounding "yes" to both, with the difference lying in the focus of the question. I have seen debates rage over the 'net time and again over these two "contradictory" views. It may be we're due for another round. Dr. Platypus succinctly sums up the two views in this way:
"Security and apostasy" is just another way of saying "God is faithful and humans are not." It's another way of saying "Trust in the LORD and not in yourself." It is another way of saying "Fix your eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith," and "take care lest you should fall." Again as it says "Nothing can snatch his sheep from his hand" but "all we like sheep have gone astray." Look up all the passages on security and see whether they do not all point out God's faithfulness. Look up all the passages on apostasy and see whether they do not all point out human waywardness. These are both true and both need to be preached and taught and known and believed. The idea that they contradict each other only comes in when someone tries to detach these things from Christ and tries to turn the question into, "Do I have salvation?" But there is that deadly and wrong-headed separation embedded right in the question, to take Christ out of the question of salvation, to imagine that it's possible to only imply him or assume him here instead of bringing him to the forefront as the entire point of the question and the entire answer as well. If the question "Do I have salvation" does not mention Christ, then where is the understanding that Christ *is* our salvation? Where is the understanding that the grace of God is not by works or by efforts or by our will but through Christ? When people find this question perplexing, it is often because Christ is not mentioned in the question and not remembered in the answer.
Steps back off soapbox ...
- Christians possess the freedom to turn away from God, thus "losing" their salvation.
- Christians possess "eternal security" and need not worry about "losing" their salvation.
- Christians have Christ and need not worry about losing Christ because Christ is faithful.
- Christians can turn away from Christ, thus forfeiting Christ, because humans are not always faithful.
"Security and apostasy" is just another way of saying "God is faithful and humans are not." It's another way of saying "Trust in the LORD and not in yourself." It is another way of saying "Fix your eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith," and "take care lest you should fall." Again as it says "Nothing can snatch his sheep from his hand" but "all we like sheep have gone astray." Look up all the passages on security and see whether they do not all point out God's faithfulness. Look up all the passages on apostasy and see whether they do not all point out human waywardness. These are both true and both need to be preached and taught and known and believed. The idea that they contradict each other only comes in when someone tries to detach these things from Christ and tries to turn the question into, "Do I have salvation?" But there is that deadly and wrong-headed separation embedded right in the question, to take Christ out of the question of salvation, to imagine that it's possible to only imply him or assume him here instead of bringing him to the forefront as the entire point of the question and the entire answer as well. If the question "Do I have salvation" does not mention Christ, then where is the understanding that Christ *is* our salvation? Where is the understanding that the grace of God is not by works or by efforts or by our will but through Christ? When people find this question perplexing, it is often because Christ is not mentioned in the question and not remembered in the answer.
Steps back off soapbox ...
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Link-spotting: Bible reading plan
Now that I'm having a little more time for blogging again, I wanted to catch up on a tiny bit of link-spotting. I haven't had enough time to link-spot properly lately but if you're looking for a manageable and balanced Bible-reading plan, check out the one at Dr. Pursiful's. He's put a lot of thought into it, and it's definitely among the most workable and well-rounded I've seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
