The Doctrine of the Means of Grace

Top 3. Jan 27, 1999 1:34 PM

» Dan_Ellsworth - Adding one to the tripod

United Methodists (and probably several other groups) point to the "Wesleyan quadrilateral" of Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience. (You can make the acronym REST out of all this, but in use, the "quadrilateral" is not always restful.) This seems allied to Bill's mention of direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We look for coherence among the four, to establish truth. I'm not sure where this places us in a classification system.

-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth

Top 4. Aug 7, 2002 3:32 PM

» sicarri - The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

It's too bad. I thought I was going to read a nice discussion about the points of belief and disagreement between what was catagorized as 3 major tenants of faith in the U.S.

Instead, all I got was the same tired nonsense against Catholics that hardly anyone believes anymore. I would be embarrassed to accuse someone of worshipping other people without asking and trying to understand what they are doing first.

Good grief! This author is as bad as any who believe the pope is the antichrist!

The very least he could do is to quote the 'official' catechism of Catholics.

What a waste of time.

-- posted by sicarri

Top 5. Aug 7, 2002 8:42 PM

» H2O - Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

In response to message posted by sicarri:

I am reasonable. And I am willing to make corrections if I am in error. What, specifically, do you disagree with? How do you see that issue differently?

Which is the "official" catechism? I cited two sources that bore the official "imprimatur" of Rome, thus I expect the books reflect the official teaching of Rome. Can you supply me with the official catechism currently in use?

It is easy to make broad accusations when someone disagrees with you. But we learn when we dialogue and discuss issues.

I assume the reference to "worshipping [sic] other people" was to praying to the saints. Please explain this tradition to me. Scripture states that we can approach our heavenly Father directly. The Augsburg Confession does not deny that the saints in heaven do pray for us, but that Scripture says nothing about praying to them. And isn't prayer a form of worship? In the Old Testament when a person sought to pray to an angel the angel stated that one can only pray to God. The *only* exception is the "angel of the Lord," which leads many theologians to believe the "angel of the Lord" was the pre-incarnate Christ.

john

-- posted by H2O

Top 6. Aug 19, 2002 3:46 PM

» sicarri - Re: Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

In any dialogue with Catholics, one should use as a reference the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," Second Edition, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing (green-colored cover). This affords everyone involved the opportunity to acquire the exact same catechism which is in print, available and can be utilized for free on the internet. Using only one, officially appointed catechism also prevents any suspicion that can be raised by an author who chooses to vary between several catechisms.

You state you cited two sources that had Imprimaturs, yet your Endnotes indicate at least four catechisms (Note numbers 3, 8, 9, 11 and possibly 12). I am to assume then than at least two of the catechisms you used did not have an imprimatur.

Prayer is communication. Prayer is not a form of worship. Go to a Catholic religious service (called a “Mass”) or prayer meeting. There, you will hear Catholics say (pray), “Jesus, we worship you”; and to the saints they say, “St. Joseph, pray for us.” You will never hear a Catholic say that they worship a saint or angel, and it is shocking to see people insisting - or believing - such outdated lies.

I would like to request at least one retraction be made to this article:
“Rome, however, finds that the Gospel in visible form does not seem to be effective or powerful.”

This is an example of the attitude Catholics have to face when it should be common knowledge by now that Catholic beliefs are founded in Scripture.

Catholics try to follow what Jesus said - “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16).

Strangely, by following the Gospel, Catholics are accused of not finding the Gospel “effective or powerful.”

Other passages in the New Testament that refer to God’s appreciation for good works (Douay-Rheims 1899 edition - also available free for reference on the internet):

Matthew 27:10-11; John 10:30-33;Acts 9:34-37
Romans 2:4-9; Romans 13:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:1-9
Ephesians 2:1-9; Philippians 1:5-6; Colossians 1:9-12.

Even if the author does not agree with the literal, Catholic explanation of these passages, he must agree that Catholics are acting according to their understanding of (and 2,000 years of experience with) Scripture, have a right to interpret it as such, and it is self-evidently incorrect to state, “Rome, however, finds that the Gospel in visible form does not seem to be effective or powerful.”

The errors of the Semipelagians were condemned in the year 432 by Pope Celestine I; in 529 by Pope Felix IV, in the Synod of Orange and the Synod of Valence, both of which Councils were confirmed by Pope Boniface II. These errors were: the beginning faith depends on man's free-will, while faith itself and its increase depend absolutely upon God; nature has a certain claim to grace; final perseverance is not a special gift of grace but depends upon mans own strength; some children die before baptism and others after, on account of the foreknowledge God possesses of the good or evil they would have done if they had lived; some are predestined to heaven, others to hell.

I have no way of knowing for sure if the “Basic Catechism” had Scripture quotations or not for the Catholic belief in Purgatory, because I don’t have a copy and couldn’t find it on the publishers web site. My 1951 Ripley edition of “This is the Faith” (as well as the official Catechism) have plenty of Scripture quotes and witnesses from the Early Church Fathers, but I see you’re using the 1960 edition of the Ripley book . . . I hope the author understands that I am not being difficult in requesting one central catechism be used. I’m simply showing why it is the common procedure I dialogue.

It is not my intention to refute every claim the author of “The Doctrine of the Means of Grace” has made against the Catholic Church. I only wish he would wake up to the 21st century - Lutherans generally don’t treat Catholics like this. The Scripture passages I have provided on the necessity of good works would cause ant man of good will to honestly sit down and consider the Catholic position on all its' points. I hope the author has this good will.

One last Correction: The Christian Faith is shrouded in mystery: If every part of Scripture was “comprehendable [sic] to the human mind,” we wouldn’t need Faith. Does the author pretend to understand the Trinity? How can he? The distinction used is based on philosophical definitions, the idea is only alluded to in Scripture, the term isn’t in Scripture, and a complete formulation of the doctrine isn’t found until the year 675 at the Council of Toledo.

God bless you all,
Sarah

-- posted by sicarri

Top 7. Aug 19, 2002 9:10 PM

» H2O - Re: Re: Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

In response to message posted by sicarri:

You are correct in stating I cite four catechisms. However, one is Luther's Catechism, which I have never seen as bearing the Imprimatur (will it ever?). The other is the Common Catechism, a catechism of the American Reformed movement which I would also expect to not bear the imprimatur. Remember, this treatise deals with the three branches of Christianity and how the official doctrines reflect the importance of Tradition, Scripture, and Reason in their theology.

I have yet to see Scripture support for Purgatory, Mary being sinless, her Assumption. If you could cite the passages on Purgatory from the catechism, I'll be glad to look them up (although why would an older version have Scripture support and a newer one not have it?). As for Mary being sinless, she herself calls her son "my Savior" in her Magnificat. Would she need a Savior if she were sinless? As for the Assumption, it may likely be part of Tradition as Paul being beheaded. We cannot prove or disprove it. Certainly it's possible--Elijah and Enoch were likewise translated to heaven.

While I appreciate the passages on good works, the differences between Lutherans and Catholics still exists. Even the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was amended by Rome to reflect Rome's continuing insistence that good works are part ofg our salvation. Lutherans believe that we are saved by faith; good works are the fruits of that faith. Yes, we can say that good works in a way become necessary since they are the display of faith and, as James states, "faith without works is dead." But a person coming to faith on the death bed cannot perform good works--is that person saved or not?

Prayer is a form of worship. Angels in the Old Testament (outside the Angel of the Lord, which has historically been ackowledged by Catholic, Lutheran, and Protestant as the pre-incarnate Christ) never accepted prayers. That was reserved for God alone. I have to question why we need to ask someone to pray on our behalf? Jesus tells us we can come to God with anything in prayer (yes, that includes football players and their pre-game prayers; there a question might be whether they pray in faith but only God can judge that). Do the saints in heaven pray for us saints on earth? Even the Augsburg Confession acknowledges that could very likely be happening (the angels pray for us, so why not the saints?). But we are given carte blanche to appraoch God directly!

No, no one can understand the mysteries (mystery literally means "things that are hidden") of God. The Trinity is an example. We might try to give a representation, such as St. Patrick did with a clover. But too many things are still mysteries: Trinity, Eternity, Heaven and Hell, the power of Baptism, the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in, with, and under the bread and wine. Here is where our Reformed friends let Reason rule over Faith and Tradition and deny Bible truth.

john

-- posted by H2O

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Luther-Ref...

Top 8. Nov 12, 2003 2:50 PM

» rjp7 - Three branches? Reformed reason-bound?

Sir,

While researching into the Reformed doctrine on the means of grace, I came across your article.

First, may I respectfully suggest that your division of the Christian Church into Lutheran, Catholic and Reformed is a description of 16th century Mitteleuropa more than of the 21st Century church. For one thing you omit any mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church or of the Methodist-Pentecostal-Charismatic 'branch' of the visible church. Both represent large numbers of professing Christian believers and a significant section of historic Christianity.

Also, I was dismayed by the following quotation: "The Reformed branch subjugates the Scripture to Reason. To the Reformed, if what God says in the Bible doesn't make sense, then it is tailored so that the human mind can accept it."

Initially I couldn't work out where you had got this from. Modern liberals still claiming allegiance to the Reformed camp, perhaps? The only thing I can think is that you are particularly thinking of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper and also on the doctrine of election.

I still think the comment is grossly unfair. The Reformed doctrine of the Supper, long maligned by Lutherans, affirms a real partaking of Christ in the Supper. On the doctrine of election it seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of election is precisely born of a willingness to believe some of the 'hard words' of Scriptures such as Romans 9. You may not agree with the Reformed teaching, but please do not dismiss it wholesale as the distortions of reason. It would be like us accusing Luther of being captive to the superstitions of his Roman past. If that sounds offensive, that's how your own comments about the Reformed come across.

Given the audience apparently of Lutheran believers these sort of comments serve only to deepen divisions between brethren and to stultify serious engagement with the theology of others. The Reformed would be the first to acknowledge our debt to Luther and to praise his theology, including his sacramental theology - while not concurring on all points.

I would refer you to the more informed and irenic Reformed-Lutheran dialogue on the internet.

Respectfully,

Russell Phillips, Reformed Baptist, Edinburgh, Scotland

-- posted by rjp7

Top 9. Nov 13, 2003 6:37 AM

» H2O - Re: Re: Re: The same, tired anti-Catholic stuff

In response to message posted by sicarri:

I know I referred to Luther's Catechism and a Reformed Catechism (not Heidleberg), which would not carry the imprimatur. I would have to review the endnotes and consult the catechisms in question.

Thanks for pointing this out.

john

-- posted by H2O

Top 10. Nov 13, 2003 6:54 AM

» H2O - Re: Three branches? Reformed reason-bound?

In response to message posted by rjp7:

It might be that I used terms that are more divisive than descriptive of the three main branches of Christian belief. While historically they may have been accurate, the current scene makes historical divides moot yet the Christian scene still follows three camps, each camp stressing a different tool (Scripture, Reason, Tradition) as its primary tool. Not all Lutherans are of the classic Lutheran thought, but many have become more Tradition-bound (and my own WELS is guilty of this at times); others are Reason-bound (liberal theology). Elements of Catholicism have used Reason above Scripture and Tradition. And I have met people from all faiths who believe we are saved by Grace alone and uphold Scripture over Reason and Tradition.

Reason is not wrong, per se, but is troubling if one uses it to trump Scripture. It undermines faith. There is nothing wrong with Tradition, but tradition for tradition's sake can lead one to feel comfortable in a type of works-righteousness. Tradition can also block out those not of that "tradition" (the "go to church every Sunday" tradition could exclude those who need to work shift-work on Sundays or those not used to the church scene--do we follow the Tradition of being in church on Sunday, or follow Scripture that says "Go into all the world and teach all nations?")

As I noted in the description of the article, this was a seminary paper and in the seminary one, unfortunately, is all too prone to "nail the 95 theses on other church's doors." We need to remember Luther nailed them on his own church's door!

I hope we can keep this dialogue going as I would like to learn from others. Maybe someone sees the differences differently? I saw that there are basically three approaches (that today span all elements of Christianity--even Eastern Orthodoxism in the traditional sense followed the Tradions but segments were Scripture-oriented and other segments followed Reason). You can look at early church heresies and define the heresy by whether it used Tradition or Reason as the dominant tool (Judaizers would have used Tradition; Arianists used Reason).

There are differences among Christians. That doesn't negate anyone's faith or salvation. But we also need to know what the differences are and why. We also need to remain in dialogue as we seek truth in God's word.

And sometimes that means taking the Lutheranism editor to task if his wording is harsh or imprecise.

I would be happy to post (or you can write here) your views of the differences in Christian thought and faith.

john

-- posted by H2O

Top 11. Nov 13, 2003 9:23 AM

» Zanzi - "Spirit of legalism"

You are entirely correct in presenting the rules and regulations as what you coin to be the spirit of legalism. Much like the Pharisees, many a congregation today is so caught up with the rules and regulations, and the invention of new ones, that they have lost sight of the heart of the gospels. Structural obedience is nice, but whole-hearted obedience is what Jesus called for.

Additionally, I appreciate the way you identified false doctrines and were not afraid to expose them. I'm sorry you received so much criticism for an article that was not only well thought-out, but also researched in depth.

-- posted by Zanzi