Aussie bishops head for Rome

Just an update on what is happening here. Australian bishops are taking the lead to go to Rome sweet Rome.

Here is the news from The Australian newspaper just out this morning.

The RC e-apologists must be very happy.

I should like to say "think before you convert".

No, I wasn't saying this to Anglicans. I meant this to the Lutherans who get so nervous, they are left out of the party.

Anyway, I have just thought of a technique for those RCs who want to become priests but are afraid of being celibate. Why not be an Anglican priest first, then convert. You can have your wife and the ministry too. I think that should do the trick.

Is self-reference required?

I often read other people's blog. My teachers here taught me that in order to write, you should read. So I read some comments and interactions that take place in other people's blog. Recently I have read of an RC Apologist saying that Scripture does not teach the Reformation principle -Scripture Alone, or sola scriptura. Hence, it is not taught by Scripture.

His objection (I paraphrase).

"There is no Scripture in Scripture, that says Scripture alone is sufficient for faith and practice".

In logic, this is called a self-reference. It is a statement that speaks about the statement itself.

Here is another example:

"This statement is a lie".

Our language is capable of self-reference, but such referencing is not capable of being evaluated. It goes into cycles. So in the above, if that statement is false, then it is true and is not a lie, which it said it is etc etc, you can go crazy at this.

So going back to the requirement of the RC apologist, he seems to be saying that in order for sola scriptura to be true, you should find a statement of it in Scripture. There is one in Scripture such as 2Tim 3:16-17 that matches this but this is dismissed by RC apologists because it is not explicit enough.

There is a fallacy going on in the apologist's requirement. There is no necessity that for a document to be true, it has to state something about its own truthfulness and if it does not, then it is not adequate to inform.

Another point is this, even if there is one such explicit statement, the apologist can come back and say - well self-reference is not valid anyway because you are simply stating your statement is true, does not make it true.

Sophistry is like that, your system is able to prove or refute too much. At first blush they think this is virtue, but as I often say - this is not virtue, instead it is vile. A form of reasoning that is able to prove anything you like is not a good thing because that means you have falsehood also inside it.

Ex falso quodlibet - from a contradiction (falsehood) you can deduce anything. This is the fallacy that sophistry includes and is hidding inside that form of reasoning and for this reason is able to prove anything.

As fallen people, we are capable of sophistry. Even in culture such as the pop culture of young peole, you can observe this happening today.

When people are swimming in their own sophistry, they are not aware of it or fanatical adherence makes them deny it. It is like telling the fish - hey do you know you are swimming in water? Huh, what water?

Purgatorial musings

HT: Carrie, Acroamaticus

See the HT. I have been looking at interchanges on this subject. One thing that attracted me is this book:

Hungry Souls:

Supernatural Visits, Messages, and Warnings from Purgatory
By: Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg

What got my attention is that this is purported to be written by a Luther dude. It says:

After a week of hearing ghostly noises, a man is visited in his home by the spirit of his mother, dead for three decades. She reproaches him for his dissolute life and begs him to have Masses said in her name. Then she lays her hand on his sleeve, leaving an indelible burn mark, and departs...

A Lutheran minister, no believer in Purgatory, is the puzzled recipient of repeated visitations from "demons" who come to him seeking prayer, consolation, and refuge in his little German church. But pity for the poor spirits overcomes the man's skepticism, and he marvels at what kind of departed souls could belong to Christ and yet suffer still...

Hungry Souls recounts these stories and many others trustworthy, Church-verified accounts of earthly visitations from the dead in Purgatory. Accompanying these accounts are images from the "Museum of Purgatory" in Rome, which contains relics of encounters with the Holy Souls, including numerous evidences of hand prints burned into clothing and books; burn marks that cannot be explained by natural means or duplicated by artificial ones.

Now think about this for a moment. So, God allows souls in Purgatory to bop up and down, visit earth and speak to people like this Lutheran pastor? And rather than this Lutheran pastor going to Scripture and rejecting his experience, no, he gets to become and Enthusiast.

Precisely, what kind of departed soul who belongs to Christ and yet suffer still.

When Saul visited the Witch of Endor, Samuel apparently appeared to him. Consulting mediums is not something God approves. I guess my point is that this pastor should have gone with his first impression, that these are demons coming to help spread false doctrine.

I do not believe Purgatory is Biblical for a very simple reason - If Jesus did not pay it all, Jesus did not pay it at all. (J.K. you might recall this is a Baptist quote). No matter what RC teaching on it happens to be and how nuanced their presentation of it happens to be, it is a spurious doctrine that has immense impact on the doctrine of justification.

Pope says to Anglicans... swim the river, the water is warm

Here is the article.

Looks like the Pope is making it easy for those un-easy Anglicans to switch their affiliation. Well if you are a conservative in the Anglican Church, and you are disheartened with what is going on with the your denomination, for it is obvious, the liberal group has the upper hand. They are into homosexual clergy and women's ordiantion, why not just jump ship? Kinda, take off from the frying pan, and dunk yourself down to the fire.

This behavior reminds me of the time when I was a Pentecostal. You hear of a congregation losing its pastor and another pastor hovers around and wheels and deals with members of the congregation who just lost its leader. They are like vultures (maybe the better word - wolves) circling the spoil.

Lets us face it, the Pope is a business man.

So I ask, if I was an Anglican, what am I buying when I go to Mother Church? Like I said to people I know, the Pope will allow you to be a Lutheran, Anglican and a Baptist or whatever, he will allow you to practice quietly what you will just don't make it formal and don't buck the Pope. The Pope will allow you to hold your views, so long as you know who is your daddy.

This could start a mass exodus from other denominations, there is power in what the bandwagon can do, you know.

This should give some ideas to people in the ELCA (perhaps even people from my own Synod?). Because just recently they have now allowed practicing gay/lesbian ministers to hold pastoral positions, so the conservatives in ELCA may have another option. Would that be the answer?

Why not go back to your Scripture and hold tenaciously to the Confessions? Would that not be the better option?

I guess if your loyalty is to conservatism per se and not to Scripture, you can make any excuses with your decision and won't loose sleep over where you belong.

Theory of Defection

I have a theory of defection.

It is no longer strange to hear some pastor from here or there defecting to Rome or Constantinople. 

Here is my theory why this thing happens. Well, if you believe people are already saved, they just have not believed it yet, you will defect too. Doctrine or what not won't matter, because if in the end, people are already declared righteous they just haven't believed it yet, what is the problem? It won't make a hill of beans if one moves to Rome or Constantinople, so they do move.

A few months ago, I sat under a lecture by a Lutheran theologian. I was just amazed how he spoke sweetly of Rome. I credit him for being composed at my questions, I challenged him why he hasn't converted yet! I really respect his gentlemanly way of answering my questions, but I was somewhat disappointed at his apparent naive romantic way of looking at Rome. I could have sworn he was a crypto-papist.

The more I read the Large Catechism, the more I am convinced Luther did not believe in this business - all are saved, they just have not believed it yet, or all are declared righteous, they just  have not believed it yet.  One time, one guy was trying to prove to me that God already was treating Abraham righteous because God was already speaking to him. I said Rom 4:3 was the time when he was declared righteous and not before, it was just water off duck's back.

In fact in the Large Catechism, Luther believed that those who do not believe the Gospel are under God's wrath - today, now!!! 

We could have people sitting with us in our churches who could be denying the Gospel, i.e., those who do not trust the Gospel, and are then in God's wrath. In fact Luther referred to them as false Christians.

Here is what Luther said...

Apostle's Creed III

61] This, now, is the article which must ever be and remain in operation. For creation we have received; redemption, too, is finished But the Holy Ghost carries on His work without ceasing to the last day. And for that purpose He has appointed a congregation upon earth by which He speaks and does everything. 62] For He has not yet brought together all His Christian Church nor dispensed forgiveness. Therefore we believe in Him who through the Word daily brings us into the fellowship of this Christian Church, and through the same Word and the forgiveness of sins bestows, increases, and strengthens faith, in order that when He has accomplished it all, and we abide therein, and die to the world and to all evil, He may finally make us perfectly and forever holy; which now we expect in faith through the Word.

---

66] These articles of the Creed, therefore, divide and separate us Christians from all other people upon earth. For all outside of Christianity, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, although they believe in, and worship, only one true God, yet know not what His mind towards them is, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him; therefore they abide in eternal wrath and damnation. For they have not the Lord Christ, and, besides, are not illumined and favored by any gifts of the Holy Ghost.

The best I have seen on sola scriptura

This is from Past Elder's Reply here.


I don't think sola scriptura is so much a complex position as it is a phrase used to mean several positions, some of which Lutherans reject and never meant.

Sola scriptura does not mean "only Scripture". It is a type of construction in Latin called an ablative of means, a way to state the means by which an agent does an action. It is translated "by Scripture alone". It does not mean, if you have Scripture you don't need anything else.

It also does not mean. if it ain't in the Bible we ain't doing it. There are those later in the Reformation to whom it does mean that, and many in our time likewise, and we reject that. For example, liturgy. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus set up a liturgy or ask anyone else to do so. That does not mean then that having a liturgy is against the Bible. Liturgy is something the church has adopted and adapted from the synagogue because of its benefit to the good order of the church, and good order in the church is a good reason to do something.

So what we mean is, there are many good reasons for the church doing this and not doing that, and as to those which are not laid out specifically in the Bible, we accept them, we for example again accept liturgy, not rejecting it because it isn't in the Bible, but only that which has crept into it that contradicts the Bible.

You can say then our position is, if it contradicts the Bible we ain't doing it. Something being in the Bible is not the only good reason for doing it, it is rather the only good reason with a divine guarantee. And our other good reasons must not contradict those good reasons that have that divine guarantee of Scripture.

Similarly church. Sola scriptura does not reject church at all, or that church grows and develops. It rejects, rather, those things that have come along with the church's growth and development that contradict what's in the Bible. One such would be some of the Roman church's ideas as to the nature and extent of its authority. And, if these are indeed contrary to Scripture, one does not reject the church, but in fact upholds it, to deny them.

You can say then our position is, the church has said these are the books and no other on which you can rely and on whose truths the church is built, then it quit relying on them and its truths as the norm for all else, and we simply recall the church to fidelity to its own book that it declares faithful to God's truth.

Obfuscations I

To say that Jesus died for you and at the same time give you the impression that you can do it, you can do good works that merit you righteousness is obfuscation.

When I was an RC kid, I certainly did here that Jesus died for me. Yet I also heard that what appeases God was my doing of penance for the sins I have committed. This became the center of approach. The matter is that I was not being given the impression that I was dead in trespasses and sins and that I could not ever free myself. Rather, I just have to try harder next time and don't be naughty again. Hope for the best, do some novenas, get on with the program.

So I talk to some RC friends who are faithful members of Mother Church and they tell me I was mis-catechized when I was a kid. I got it wrong? What changed, don't they still officially affirm Faith + Works = Justification? Strange, I thought my reading of the Baltimore Catechism (OK I am older than you) was at par, I got confirmed at St. Mary's College so should the nuns there take the blame?

All I could say is, what does a kid gotta do, but get obfuscated? Now it is all my fault.

I also feel amused when I speak to Lutherans about my experience when I was with Mother Church, how back home, you can see the teaching in action, at the ground level. They say "Oh the practice is of no concern, it is the teaching that counts". I get obfuscated by such an attitude. The practice is the teaching! Where else do they get what they practice; and and these practices mind you are quite public and are a part of tradition, see for example this one here.
----
Christine: You have always been an Augsburgean deep down, I am glad God showed you from Scripture the centrality of the Gospel. You are at home again, where you have always belonged. God keep us all in the most holy faith.

Some nice admissions

HT: BeggarsAllReformation, James Swan.

I have often stated in the last couple of years that dialoguing with RC Apologists in somewhat superfluous. Why? Because the only one really qualified to speak for Rome is the Magisterium itself. Unless the Magisterium speaks no RC Apologists really is worth listening. It is nice to know that a prominent internet RC Apologist recognizes this fact. This is what he says:

While I can appreciate the desire to set good standards in apologetics, most of what we do on this board is colloquial apolgetics and quite frankly NONE of us is qualified to set any standards in defense of the faith. Only the Magisterium can do that and so far, the hierarchy has viewed the diversity of Catholic lay apologists (with some notable exceptions) with general favor.
....
Nobody can claim to speak DEFINITIVELY for Catholic orthodoxy except the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. We apologists in the trenches may have our disagreements but we are all working for the same end. We need to respect that and not go attacking each other needlessly. Sometimes one needs to speak out, but this should be done only for grave necessity.

So caveat lector to the Evangelical thinking of going back to Mother Church due to the convincing arguments made by an RC Apologist to her. She needs to understand that she may not be getting kosher presentation of RC doctrine.

Past Elder has a nice history view of Church History here.

Love saves, so I was told

It seems that my impression of what friends in Mother Church believe in is still accurate.

In an interaction in one of the blogs I said this:

To us when a person is being legalistic it means the person is insisting the performance of the Law to the letter.

What the RC gentleman defender of faith said:

Which “Law” are you talking about? Natural law? Mosaic law? The Law of Love that Christ gave us at Jn 13:34? The first two do not save, but the last one does. Christ cries out to us, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and NOT DO WHAT I TELL YOU?” (Lk. 6:46).

I don't know for him but I know for me, The Law of Love is exactly the one that damns me. So for him, there is a Law that God could give that saves, a new Law, the other old ones are none doable, non-salvific, the new one is.

Also there is one thing that Jesus has left for you to do and so be saved - love. You need to use the love that Jesus gave to you so you thereby save yourself. Am I putting this crudely?

Do I have disagreement about love? Not really, except that if it is a Law, then I am failing it and would fail it even if I were suceeding in it today.

So there are two understandings and questions that are far apart. How does the Bible relate love with salvation, that is the subject at hand. Is love the cause of salvation? Or is love the result of salvation? Clearly our friend(the RC gentleman) is of the first, while we(Classic Protestants) are of the second.

The thief, JBFA and Origen

If there is an example of a man in the Bible who got saved by faith in Christ alone, it has to be the thief at Calvary. This is recorded in Luke 23...

39^(AH)One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? ^(AI)Save Yourself and us!"

40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

41"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in ^(AJ)Paradise." (NASB)

We note here that this man did not get a chance to do any good work, did not get the chance to undo what he had done. In fact this man was even a clear violator of the Law, he admitted his guilt. Lastly, this man did not even get a chance to cooperate with infused grace that manifests in action. This is simply a case of Acts 2:21.

It seems to me, the most offensive part of Justification By Faith Alone is the "ALONE" part. If one does not believe that it is by faith alone, then there must be something added along side faith.

I heard people claiming that this particle "alone" is not even used by ancient Christians in their language, that it was an invention of Luther. So I browsed through my book, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture VI Romans, edifted by Gerald Bray (I have not enough money to buy the entire set, so if there was a volume I had to get, it had to be Romans). On p.100, on Rom 3:28, Origen says this...

It remains for us who are trying to affirm everything the apostle says, and to do so in the proper order, to inquire who is justified by faith alone, apart from works. If an example is required, I think it must suffice to mention the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to save him and was told: "Truly, this day you will be with me in paradise"...A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

Now, this clearly shows it was not Luther who invented that kind of language. Further, I admit I have not studied all of Origen's doctrine, but let us say that in some portion he amplifies infused grace and righteousness. What can we conclude? Then at least we should conclude that Origen was not consistent with his own self! But surely we can not conclude that the "alone" language was invented by Luther... "alone". History is showing that the claim against Luther's contention is propaganda.

International Trademarking

I have been thinking.

What if the Pope applies to trademark internationally the word 'catholic' and succeeds?

Does that mean he can sue us when we recite the Apostle's Creed, since it appears in the 3rd Article?

The BoC lied about Augustine...

This is the charge that Dan Woodring of Beatus Vir is making against the BoC, (and perhaps the reason why he became an RC) .

You will find his charges in the post Lutheranism: Only Half of the Gospel. Here is the snippet...

The day I stopped being a Lutheran was when I realized that the Book of Concord lied about what Augustine and the Catholic Church taught on Justification. I realized I could not subscribe to a book that was untruthful. Why couldn't they make their case, and say "We disagree with Augustine" and present the Roman Catholic view accurately and make their case without distorting the position of their opponents?

His charge is worth discussing and is worthy of serious thought. Asside from that, I have never heard such a charge before, it is new to me and interesting. Note I do not know everything, if someone can show me why his charge should not be taken seriously, let me know since that is the purpose of the discussion. It is interesting because it entails an exercise on BoC exegesis. Lastly, I wish to answer the charge. My answer will need further development (I have to admit), but all I need is to cast reasonable doubt on the charge.

I asked Dan if he can cite in the BoC wherein it explicitly misrepresented Augustine or the Fathers on the subject of Justification. The best he could come up was this...

"We know that that what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole Church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier."

(you will find it in the comments here)

This is found in the Apology of Augsburg III(Love and Fulfilling the Law), 268.

We have a few questions: What is the meaning of the phrase "what we have said"? Did this refer to those things in Article III, Article II, or those things inclusive from the start? For Dan ,I believe this meant all of the things said thus far... at a minimum, perhaps Article II(Justification).

This raises several nuanced questions with my answers, what is yours?

1. What does it mean to subscribe to the BoC ?Is it verbatim subscription?
I for one do not consider the BoC inspired, I consider only Scripture is inspired. I examined the claims of the BoC against Scripture and I find its exposition accurate. Further, I do not subscribe to the words per se, but I subscribe to the meaning of those words. Thus I subscribe to the intent or semantics of those words. The BoC is not another set of Laws to me.

2. How should the BoC be read?
I read it paying particular attention to its context and the intent of the writer, i.e. content. For example, I have spotted Luther in the Large Catechism, quoting Scripture from memory and his reference was wrong.

So in this regard, I wish to answer the charge against the alleged lying performed by the BoC in AP III, 268.

1.) First let me note what its says i.e. what it asserts. Technically, 268 is not explicitly saying that the Fathers believed in Reformation Justification in toto like the Augsburgians do. Look again at the statement - it asserts that the Fathers believed that Jesus is the Propitiator and Justifier. Now, tell me, is there a Church Father that would deny this? Ask ourselves as reasonably as we can, would Augustine or Ambrose deny this - that Jesus is the Propitiator/Justifier?

2.) The assertion belongs to a whole swag of sentences and belongs in the paragraph which started in 262. Read it here for yourself. Notice it argues for the good thing called - faith (in the Christian sense), that faith produces a confession, that the Church ends its prayers in an appeal for the sake of Christ, that faith apprehends the promise of reconciliation, it quickens, that the Law cannot be observed without Christ etc. Proper hermeneutics says that the statement should be understood within its context and the domain of that context, it is safe to assume, is that paragraph and not necessarily beyond it. The question that one should ask is this...Would Augustine or Ambrose object to the statements made in this paragraph? I suggest NO.

The burden is with Dan to show that the Fathers denied this.

3.) I argue that the 268 clip forms part of Melanchton's rhetorics. For example when we are illustrating a point, our point is not in the minutae but in the overall thrust the statement is making. Hence, in saying "Good men, indeed, will easily judge these things", he was not implying he has interview all good men around the world. That is not his point, not in the details but what is reasonable to assume. Further he also used the phrase "many others" in the paragraph, and the phrase "we know what we said agrees". These phrases are rhetorical elements. To illustrate, I know certain things, and what I know, you as a reader do not necessarily know. I also could be wrong in what I know to be consistent with facts. For Melanchton, what is contained in the paragraph flows from the assertion that the Church has always made - that Jesus is Propitiator/Justifier. For him, this is what it means[at least those in the paragraph, or Article III ] to make such confession about the Christ. I argue that 268 forms part of Melanchton's rhetorics to show that what was just said (at a minimum) on Love and Fulfilling The Law, the Scripture (I believe for sure) and the Fathers would not assail.

On those 3 points I suggested above, I believe the charge is flawed.

Q.E.D.
[PS. Welcome if you are a visiting from Boar's Head Tavern]

More on Imputation/Impartation.

Dan Woodring is taking me to task on the above issue. I am glad we are having this exchange.

I am putting his comments in view so that others may see the discussion more prominently, and not miss the thrill of the discussion and excitement. Here is what Dan said...You can find what I and A.S. thus far have said here. Dan begins...

You said that the unregerate man cannot, on his own, trust in Christ. Rightly so.

However, that trust, or faith, is worked in us through the Holy Spirit. "I believe that I cannot by my own reason and strength believe in Jesus Christ..." Faith is something that can only come through the inworking of the Holy Spirit. That is the flaw in the whole impartation vs. imputation thing. Because of faith, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (extra nos). But that faith itself is something that the Holy Spirit imparts to us (in nobis).

Let me point out the logical inconsistancy another way. For Lutherans:

Faith (Trust in Christ) comes before Justification (because we are "justified by faith alone")

Justification comes before renewal. (FCSD III: 19ff.)

Yet, renewal must preceed faith, since the unrenewed man cannot trust in Christ.

Your comment about "it is finished", reminds me of the day this was discussed in seminary. The prof explained that on the cross, our justification was complete. One student raised his hand and asked "So why did Jesus rise from the dead." The prof answered "what else could He do?" I had that some prof for my theological interview, and he asked me to what event does St. Paul connect our justification. I answered "The cross." He pointed out that in fact it was the resurrection (Rom. 4). I replied, tongue in cheek, that I thought my answer was "more Lutheran."

Man's sin, his unrighteousness, consists in two things. Guilt, which is largely extra nos (the guilt of Adam) but also guilt for our own transgression. But sin is also corruption, which is entirely in us, in nobis. If our unrighteousness is twofold, so also must be our righteousness. It is a non-imputation of guilt and imputation of an alien righteousness (extra nos), but also the injury, the corruption of sin, must be repaired in nobis. The former is by imputation, the latter by impartation. The former is gained on Calvary, the latter comes through the empty tomb. If you read Augustine's anti-pelagian writings, you will see how the grace of pardon (imputed righteousness) and the grace of renewal (imparted righteousness) both belong to justification. Interestingly enough, it was Pelagius who, like Lutherans, accepted the former while denying the latter. Further, the insistance that renewal follows justification, and cannot precede justification, inadvertantly implies a pelagianism because it requires an unrenewed man to exhibit faith.

As far as "Mother Church" goes, we hold that the subject who both imputes and imparts righteousness is God, though Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Neither righteousness has its origin in man or is achieved through human effort. Both are by grace alone. Your presupposition that imputation is grace and impartation is works (by human effort) is off the mark.

As I see it, the problem with Lutheranism is that it only has half of the Gospel, but at least it's the better half.

My additional reply:

I have said a few things already in the comments. Dan has an interesting take on what his professor in theology taught him. For him, as a now confessing Roman Catholic, at Jesus' death is when the imputation happened -- the legal one, and at Jesus' resurrection is when impartation happened, the renewal. This indeed is an interesting formulation.

Presumably, because Dan says that at Jesus' death on the cross, imputation of righteousness happened there for everyone, then this means that justification happened for everyone there too. He can correct my impression of what he said.

I for one, believe in justification through faith - JBFA. Meaning, without faith no one gets the benefit of Christ's work. I do not believe in justification without faith, without means of grace - i.e. without Word and Sacraments. This faith is created by God out of nothing in an unregenerate man through Word and Sacrament. Yes - even the thief on the Cross had one of them effected on him - the Word. When the person brought by God to faith in the finished work of Christ, God treats that faith as righteousness - declared not guilty. It is a declaration/reckoning/ an assessment.

IMHO, Dan is mixing categories. Reconciliation/Atonement is not the same thing as Justification and neither are the other concepts such as sanctification, glorification as the same thing etc. I am a logician/mathematician by training, I was trained not to mix my categories. Concepts may relate but may not be precisely synonyms of each other.

According to Luther, Faith is nothing, even the Formula of Concord editors say this too. The reason why faith justifies is not because it is a quality or virtue that is worthy of God's smile, but it holds on to the work of Christ. That faith has value because of what it is holding on too and not because of itself. Quenstedt has a quote on this which I will share when time permits.

The difference between a unregenerate man and the regenerate is that the latter is brought to spiritual life in that the latter has faith in the Gospel. The former has faith not in the Gospel (outside him) but faith in anything but Christ's saving work.

...more later.

I did not know Piepkorn got tried[sic], no cited.

James Swan (of Beggars All Reformation) featured C. A. Piepkorn's take on Luther's alledged belief in the Immaculate Conception. Read James' post here.

At the tail end of that post, I was amazed with this little tidbit of information

Not that this has any bearing on Piepkorn's Mariological statements, but interestingly, Piepkorn was charged, convicted, and removed due to teaching false doctrine:

“During the mid-seventies amidst the storm of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod controversy, Piepkorn was among those of the faculty majority at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, cited as teaching false doctrine by the 1973 New Orleans Convention resolution 3-09. Piepkorn was a signatory of the Seminary majority's protest against this resolution and resolution 3-01, which declared that all of the synod's theological and biblical interpretation and teachings must be interpreted in accord with a presumed synodical tradition as articulated in the document entitled, "A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles," by Dr. Jacob A. 0. Preus, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.” (Plekon and Wiecher, The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, New York: ALPB Books, 1993, 300.)

This is interesting for me because Piepkorn is usually the icon of those Augsburgians who are swimming the Tiber, e.g. Neuhaus etc.

Imputation/Impartation

Justification and Rome by R. Preus is a most useful read. His themes have caused me to pause and reflect. One should read p. 72, but I won't get into that right now.

What occurred to me was that Mother Church has no concept of imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner. What she has is not imputation, but impartation. For her, God does not impute anything to us, specially not that of the righteousness of Christ. God imparts, rather than imputes, so the position goes. For her, by virtue of Christ's atonement, God imparts grace to the sinner by which the sinner may be justified. In other words, for Mother Church, nothing is finished, there are things left to be be done by the sinner. "It is not finished".

I do not think it is caricature to say that such a position is "salvation by grace through works", besides they deny JBFA anytime anywhere anyway, so it is no mis-characterization.

The idea of impartation is humanly appealing and even in Concordia land, I had to stop when I get to Apology IV, 72.

Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins.

The critical word is "makes", and some, like me, might misconstrue this as teaching that sin's presence is abolished rather than forgiven. But this was not what Melanchton meant by the word "make". What he meant was that the unjust man is made righteous by imputation of the righteousness of Christ, not by impartation of grace to achieve righteousness.

Then there is another angle on imputation that bothers me a lot. My former Pentecostal pastors and teachers spoke often of "impartation", too. They spoke of "impartation of the Spirit" as a matter of habit. The remarkable thing is that they are anti-Roman, yet they talk and take similar concepts/ teachings from Rome. Little do they realize that what their tongues deny, they affirm in their beliefs and practice....They don't seem to care or bother about that.

Gratia Habitualis

I have been reading R. Preus' Justification and Rome. I came to his chapter on Grace and this awakened some of my brain cells. Preus observes that the RC theologians tackle grace after Christology with the result that grace has been severed from God's act of redemption or reconciliation and has become more associated with the HS work in sanctification.

This separation of grace from the Cross is something I have observed as a tendency not only in RC teaching, but in some Calvinistic (perhaps in Puritan/Revivalist streams) and Arminian sections of Evangelicalism.

Firstly, I say such separating of grace from the Cross is present in Calvinism because of its view of God's Sovereignty. God is seen as a "despota" that distributes his grace to whom he wills. They talk of grace in the area of "gifting". This is also the way the Arminians speak of grace. Granted that in some astute Calvinistic positions, they do not believe in "infused" grace, but in the way that they speak of grace, they do not distinguish grace from the "gifting of graces" provided by God. The Arminian, in compartive terms, looks at God's grace as enabling you to do certain virtuous things.

Let me give an example, if I was born from a wealthy home, both RC/Evangelicals (Calvinistic/Arminian) will consider it God's grace that I was well provided for by my parents.

This is where the Lutheran view of grace comes in and is unique or rather if not unique, maverick (I am trying to be impassionate -but I really think it is Christological). The Lutheran view of God's grace is connected to the Cross in so much so that you can almost consider this grace as trumping any other perceived graciousness of God. Hence, this is the ultimate grace and hence, stands above other graces/gifts of God. It is the fountain and the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. To them, God's grace is specific, it is seen in God's action of sending His Son as the atonement for our sins. In this position, all giftings of God - i.e. charis of whatever sort do not get first class attention. Such graces sink in the truth of that Grace at the Cross.

Frankly this is quite Biblical ...

Mark 8:36
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

None do-able Law

It seems to me that when the Law is presented to be do-able, you will always find faith in the thing that helps you do it. It can never be a faith that cleaves to Christ. Once the Law is believed to be do-able, faith will be directed somewhere else, but not to Christ.

Of course, there is a view that what we are freed from is not the whole Law but only that part of the Law which is ceremonial, they say that this does not include the moral Law. That one you have to do by the grace of God, so they say.

I simply find that hard to believe, based on my reading of the Epistles and Acts.

The use of the term Law is collective, it includes all the laws of God - both ceremonial, dietary and moral. I find this true in Paul, for example.

I follow a simple logic, if say that the moral Law is not included in the term 'Law', meaning that is something you 'can do', then there is boasting, no matter how much one denies it. You can boast. You may not boast, but you 'can' boast - that possibility is there. Yet the principle of faith says there is no possibility of boasting. Want some Scripture? Let's discuss them.

This comes down to also making faith a work, i.e. if that faith allows you to boast - it is not faith as the Bible speaks of- that faith is mis-directed and cannot be the faith produced by the Holy Spirit from the Word. Faith in the Gospel is an I-less faith.

We got it right if that faith eliminates "you" in the equation.

Rick is really Roman Catholic and the Cardinal correct

Purpose Driven Pr. Rick Warren, may be Baptist in name but in spirit, he is absolutely Roman Catholic.

Here is what he said in a sermon...

You see it takes more than belief. It takes more than faith to really please God. He says it takes faith that results in loving others. Religion without love doesn't matter. It is not enough to say "I believe". What matters is how I love God and how I love other people, that is the Great Commandment.

Firstly, compare this with Heb 11

6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw
near to God(I) must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

What Rick says is denial of JBFA, this is saved by loving. This is going to damn us because we never love as we ought. There is only one who did that -- and you know his name. Though faith produces love, that love is not the basis of our justification. This is an old error - a guy by the name of Osiander believed like Warren and he was corrected by the Concordists.

We are not reckoned righteous by God based by what is inside us and not even on the basis that Jesus lives inside us. And above all, certainly not because we love (because we don't), we are reckoned righteous through faith on account of what Christ has done at Calvary.

So the RC Cardinal (see below) was correct in saying that Protestants should go back to Luther's faith. Why? because certainly Pr. Rick Warren is certainly miles away from that faith. He should not be identifying himself as a Protestant, because he is not.

Return to the faith of Luther

Rev. McCain is running a story on a comment made by a German Roman Catholic Cardinal. See the post here.

The Cardinal is Walter Kasper.

Kasper said he hoped Catholics would "get to know Luther better and not just interpret him from his polemical writings, still less from a few sentences taken out of context". The cardinal said he also hoped Protestantism would return to the faith of Martin Luther, "who would have been deeply averse to all of today's liberal tendencies".

ME: You know I agree with anyone who says what is true. He is correct and he is right - Protestants need to return to the faith of Luther!

ME again: Not only should he wish this for Protestants, but in fact he should wish that Roman Catholics should hold also to the faith of Luther!

Chopsuey

Over here, chopsuey is equivalent to stir fried. The chopsuey I remember back home is so yummy, it has that greasy starchy saucy element in it you can eat it all day - with rice of course. What is up with chopsuey? Well you can throw in it all meats and vegies you like and it will still taste good.

So where is this conversation going? It goes into the reduction of Christianity.

Recenly I have been encountering RC folk who are just at home with mixing world views from Taoism or Budhism. They are not bothered at all and even quite at home in importing these ideas into their catholic spirituality.

There is one theme that runs in my observation - when you reduce Christianity as also a religion of works, then Christianity is just one of those religions that incite you to work for your own salvation. It is just one amongst the rest. So if Christianity is giving you a formula for work - what is so special about that compared to Taoism or Budhism? None.

So it is not nonsense when one mixes Christian ideas with these eastern ideas. It is simply the fruit of what happens when Christianity has been reduced, levelled to the ground like the rest.

But Christianity is not another method of working out your own salvation.