The Reformation was, in many ways, a politically-motivated religious movement of the 16th century. Even Roman Catholics today affirm that the Church of the time was in desperate need of reform. Yet, Martin Luther came to understand that the true dividing line between him and Rome was not in papal authority, the sale of indulgences, the existence of purgatory, or even the place of tradition. The fundamental difference was found in how the gospel worked… in other words, on what basis is a person justified before God?

Infusion versus Imputation

The Protestants differed from Roman Catholic on justification in several important ways. First, they believed that justification was a declaration of righteousness made by God regarding human beings. They countered the Catholic notion that justification was God’s action of “making” someone righteous by infusing grace into them. Instead, justification was being “declared” righteous, not being “made” righteous.

The Protestants believed that righteousness was not infused into the believer, but imputed to the believer. In other words, God justifies sinners by seeing them as righteous on account of Christ’s righteousness reckoned or imputed to them. How does God justify the ungodly? By declaring an ungodly person as “righteous” based on the righteousness of someone else.

God does not accept sinners by making them righteous, or by giving them heavenly grace, but solely on the basis of the death and resurrection of His Son in the place of the sinner.

Christ’s death was the moment in which he took our sins upon himself and died a substitutionary death in the place of the sinner. In the moment of salvation or justification, the sinner’s wickedness is placed on Christ and Christ’s perfect righteousness is placed on the sinner. Luther called this “the Great Exchange.” Christ takes our sin and we take His righteousness. God then declares us “righteous” on the basis of Christ’s work alone.

Faith Alone 

The way to appropriate this righteousness is by faith alone. One must simply receive the salvation that God has provided in Christ Jesus. One receives this salvation by faith alone.

“Faith alone” according to the Reformers, does not refer to a mere mental assent to certain propositional truths or Christian doctrines, but an all-encompassing trust in the mercy of God for salvation. The Reformers saw faith itself as a gift of God, given to be the instrument by which one appropriates Christ’s righteousness and can then be declared “justified” or “righteous” before God.

Good Works? 
It should be noted here that the Reformers did believe in the necessity of good works in the Christian’s life. As Calvin said, “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.” The Reformers believed that good works would necessarily follow as an outworking of true faith. Good works were commanded and expected of the Christian, but good works did not form the basis for a person’s justification before God.

This doctrine differed sharply from the Roman Catholic theology of the day, which saw saving “faith” as including good works. One earned salvation by cooperating with God’s grace which was infused into the believer at the moment of baptism. The Reformers rejected the idea of cooperation and synergism, because they believed any compromise on this doctrine left room for human boasting, as well as the abolishment of any assurance that one was truly faithful.

The Protestants believed that Roman Catholic theology had mixed “justification” and “sanctification” and had thus mixed faith and works. I should note that Protestants had a robust doctrine of sanctification, the doctrine of growing in Christ and doing good works. None of the Reformers believed that Christians were free to sin as much as they wanted because of their salvation. They believed that sanctification followed justification as the place where one worked out personal salvation and cooperated with the Holy Spirit in growing in grace.

The Protestants sought to distinguish between these two doctrines, in order to show how the good works of the Christian are necessary and indeed important, though they in no way form the basis of one’s salvation. The Catholics argued that divorcing justification from sanctification would lead to unrighteous living.

The Protestants believed that the Catholic doctrine of justification led to human despondency. Without assurance of right standing before God, a person could never rest in God’s mercy and unmerited love. Instead, people were driven to despair as they sought to buy and earn their salvation before God. No one could ever be sure of salvation and thus people were chained to the prison of their mind, always questioning and wondering whether or not their good works would suffice.

The Roman Catholic theologians and pastors believed that the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide would necessarily lead to lawlessness. If a person’s good works are unnecessary to gain a right standing before God and avoid his just wrath, why would a person do them? If one can be assured of salvation based on faith alone, then the rationale for good works is ripped away. There is no incentive to holy living and righteous behavior. The Roman Catholics were worried that the Protestant doctrine would lead to wicked behavior and lawlessness.

The Protestants believed that it was the Catholic system of theology which ultimately led to self-centered, unrighteous living. If a person’s good works are motivated by the desire to gain heaven, they are not done selflessly, but selfishly – and thus are not truly good at all. According to the Catholics, a person does good works in order to earn favor with God.

The Protestants believed that only the doctrine of justification by faith alone properly freed people to love their neighbors without thought of reward or selfish prize. Once one was assured of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ’s finished work of redemption, one could freely love people unselfishly, with thoughts of their neighbor’s wellbeing instead of their eternal state.

Some Thoughts about Luther

Luther himself was a traditionalist. If you go into most Lutheran churches, you will see that the service itself is not too different from the Roman Catholic services. Luther had no problem with liturgy, written prayers, vestments. He had no problem with stained glassed windows and statues and beautiful sanctuaries. He maintained his belief that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Lord’s Supper, so that when one eats the bread and drinks the wine, they are chewing on Christ’s flesh itself. Other Protestants would take a more symbolic view, or would defend the idea of Christ being spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper.

Luther also defended the idea of baptizing infants. He believed that the infant could actually believe the gospel.

Luther translated the Scriptures into German, and his translation became for the German people much like the King James Version became for English speaking nations. He married several years later. He continued to write. Towards the end of his life, his testimony was marred by a severe anti-Semitic bent. Some of his writings, sadly, paved the way for Hitler’s atrocities against the Jews.

Though we would disagree with Luther in many ways, he himself would say, “I am both a sinner and a saint.” And his life showed that. On his deathbed in 1546, his last words were, “We are beggars. This is true.” His life indicates the truth of that statement. We beg for God’s mercy and receive it in the robe of Christ’s righteousness, becoming simultaneously righteous and sinful – but forgiven by God.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Your agrarian defense is left wanting. Sure, as you’ve said, dead wheat gives us bread, and one can see from that a similarity to Jesus’ death giving us life, but if you intend to use it as defense of it being as clear symbolically as the “door” or “vine” stories, I’ve got to disagree. Jesus is the symbolic door through which we enter eternal life (simple), as opposed to Jesus symbolizes a wheat seed, who died and was made into a food stuff (which symbolizes his teachings, his Spirit, etc.), and we feed on that. I reiterate that it doesn’t make much sense symbolically.

If Jesus intended this symbolic meaning, he blew it by not saying, “This represents my body,” and then explaining that wheat, not the bread, is the symbol which is the object of meaning. Also, where’s the blood? This agrarian wheat manipulation ignores half of the equation by not addressing the blood.

Why not accept Jesus’ words at face value when he says, “My flesh is real food?” and “My blood is real drink”? Again, half the equation is left out if the point is made (when reversing his words for effect as you did) that he did not say “This food is real flesh”, for the other half would be “This drink is real blood.” If you think the RCC applies these reversed meanings, folks would remain baffled by the blood references, even from the agrarian standpoint. It just doesn’t make sense.

Continue

Brian’s Letter 

Since we found some common ground on liturgy, and since the Eucharist is the high point of the RCC liturgy, let’s tackle the whole symbolic vs. literal thing with regard to communion.

You acknowledged earlier that although you don’t personally believe the Bible teaches it, the “literal” Body and Blood meaning can be gleaned from scripture (once again, so much for sola scriptura).

You go on to make the point that Jesus was speaking symbolically and compared this to Jesus saying he was door or a vine. This actually proves a buttress to my point. For example, a door does indeed symbolize that Jesus is how we pass to eternal life. It makes sense. Or to say he is a vine, one sees that through the sap (his Spirit) we receive nourishment and are part of something larger. Easy symbolism to follow, and again it makes sense. But, if Jesus was trying to get across some symbolic sentiment by comparing bread to his flesh, there’s a disconnect. Where’s the symbolism in that? It doesn’t make sense.

Continue

Previous Posts in this series:
Conversations with a Catholic 1: The Church
Conversations with a Catholic 2: Tradition
Conversations with a Catholic 3: Glasses
Conversations with a Catholic 4: Interpreting Scripture 
Conversations with a Catholic 5: Liturgy 

Trevin’s Letter 

I think you’re right to move this discussion in a particular direction. We’ve been sort of all over the place up till now.

So, you want to talk “liturgy.” That’s fine with me. You’ll actually find little disagreement with me here on liturgy and the importance of our worship services.

You use several passages to prove your point about their being the need for specific rhythm and time, and then you use these as a way of transferring the importance in both Old and New Testaments to our present day. I could not agree more. You refrain from using proof texts, and instead, you point to ways in which we can see that how we worship is very important.

You are right to see the Passover parallel in Mark’s Gospel. (It’s in the other Gospels too, actually.) And of course, did you really think you would find disagreement with me on the issue of Jesus being the Lamb of God, whose death is the sacrifice pictured in the OT sacrificial system?

All churches have a liturgy, whether they realize it or not or whether they admit to it or not. I will gladly agree that many Protestant worship services could benefit from the depth of a RCC worship service. But don’t lump all Protestants together here. Anglicans have a beautiful liturgy that includes both Service of the Word and Eucharist. So do many Lutherans, Presbyterians, and yes, even Baptists.

Continue

My conversation with Brian, a Roman Catholic, continues. You can read previous posts by clicking on the links below.

Conversations with a Catholic 1: The Church
Conversations with a Catholic 2: Tradition
Conversations with a Catholic 3: Glasses
Conversations with a Catholic 4: Interpreting Scripture 

Brian’s Letter 

Let me address the Eucharist, statues and icons, etc. later. Remember, a 2000 year old Church has a lot more to explain than does a church started two weeks ago in someone’s living room. Getting too much thrown at me leads to a disjointed discussion which accomplishes little.

For now, I think it’s important to return to your statement that you don’t see hierarchy and liturgy in scripture. I didn’t go in depth with regards to hierarchy and only cited a passing example or two, which were summarily pooh-poohed. But, let me exert a more thorough attempt at showing liturgy. (Although more thorough, it scarcely scratches the surface, but you should be able to catch the gist of it.)

This isn’t about “proof texts”, but is more an arms length view of scripture. So, lay your Baptist glasses on the desk for a moment, and try on these Catholic glasses…
Continue

My dialogue with Brian, a Roman Catholic, continues. Check out previous posts in this series.

Conversations with a Catholic 1: The Church
Conversations with a Catholic 2: Tradition
Conversations with a Catholic 3: Glasses

Brian’s Letter

…picking up where we left off… Of course I can learn from the Baptist tradition. You’ve got to understand that Montgomery is a piddly 4% Catholic and is waaaaaaaaay predominantly Baptist. Many of my best friends are Baptist, and I can only but hope to approximate the piety with which they live their lives. They are powerful witnesses. And yes, obviously I read scriptures through RCC glasses, and I can say, like a convert friend of mine says… “they are the original pair… 2000 years old.”

So, continuing the “glasses” discussion, I never said patristic writings are on the same level of scripture. I merely state that those writings as historic documents tell us what the Church was like immediately following the death of the last apostle and for the next few centuries after that.

The challenge is for the Protestant to produce one writing from the first thousand years, or even the first 1500 years, of Christendom which states the Jesus spoke only symbolically about communion in John 6, or that Baptism is only symbolic, or that statues were a forbidden as idolatrous.
Continue

I have been corresponding with a Roman Catholic regarding the differences between our theological traditions. See previous posts here and here. 

Brian’s Letter

Trevin,

You don’t see liturgy, hierarchy, and sacraments in the NT because you read the NT through Baptist glasses. Plus, folks seeking to “find the church of the upper room” are looking for the infant church, rather than the church which has matured in understanding through the centuries. The early creeds, doctrine of the Trinity, canon of scriptures are examples of a matured understanding which occurred centuries after the upper room and which aren’t explicitly explained in scriptures. These truths are as true today as they were in the centuries in which they were formalized as well as in the time of the upper room. Yet, it took some time to hash them out.
Continue

My dialogue with Brian, a Roman Catholic, continues. See previous discussion here: 

Trevin’s Letter 

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the feedback on the interviews. I’m glad you enjoyed them and thought they were the basis of a good discourse.

I do not wish to dismiss the patristics. There is much that we can learn from their writings, and Baptists (and Protestants) in particular would do well to revisit the ancient church and benefit from the treasures left for us there.

I too am weary of a continual search for the “authentic New Testament church.” When I think of the early church, I consider Corinth and Galatia and other churches that were far from where they needed to be. Which church do we want to imitate? Even the early church had serious problems, with sin and with doctrine. Within a generation after Jesus, Paul condemned the Galatians for forsaking the very Gospel their church was founded upon.

Looking at the patristics, I do see liturgy, heirarchy and sacramental theology. I do not find these so much in the New Testament itself, though. Baptists believe that the early church serves as an example to us, but that ultimately, our authority lies in Scripture – the inspired Word. The New Testament is relatively quiet about church heirarchy and liturgy, which gives me the impression that the church is free to adapt and shift, as long as it remains tied to the pier of Scriptural authority.

The main difference between the RCC and Orthodox churches and Protestants on justification by faith alone is in our definition of grace and our definition of faith.
Continue

Over the past two weeks, I have been corresponding with a Roman Catholic via email. Brian has graciously allowed me to make our correspondence public, so I will begin posting on this blog our letters to each other. 

Trevin’s Letter

Hi Brian,

It was nice to meet you on Friday and to hear of your mission work to India.

[You asked about my view of the Eastern Orthodox Church.] I have definite opinions on the Orthodox Church, since I did work for 5 years in Romania, which is an Eastern Orthodox country. I have had good and not-so-good experiences with the Orthodox, but I have sought to understand the theology better by reading Orthodox authors and books laying out the differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

I did an interview on my blog with an Eastern Orthodox convert from evangelicalism, and then an interview with a convert the other way. If you are interested, here are the links to those interviews, as well as my thoughts on them.

Theron’s Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy
John’s Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism
Sola Scriptura: The Dividing Line between the Orthodox and Evangelicals

God bless you Brian, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Brian’s Response

I read the articles and came away thinking “What a great discourse!” …And you preserved a sense of fairness and impartiality irrespective of your Baptist background (with minor exception addressed below).

On the whole, I have a few thoughts. First, don’t be quick to dismiss the patristics. There are many first and second century writings (some purely secular historical accounts and others penned by early Christians) that give a detailed accounting of what Christian life was all about. Some of these writings are from men who learned the faith at the knee of Apostles, for example Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Reading these one sees that the early Church closely resembled the Orthodox church. It was deeply liturgical, hierarchical, and sacramental. These accounts will not reveal a church which in any way resembles Protestantism.

Most of the earnest Protestants I know espouse, “We want to go back to the church of the upper room,” and then they cobble together their vision of what this might have looked like, not realizing that we have solid account of exactly what this church looked like. I highly recommend a book called “Four Witnesses” which examines the life of four of the early church fathers.

Secondly, in Theron’s interview it appears you’ve confused justification by “faith” alone and justification by “grace” alone. Such confusion is common, but the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches (RCC) have always condemned as heretical any teaching that there is salvation aside from God’s grace alone. Theron recognizes this and shifts the discussion to salvation by “faith” alone, although I’ve never heard salvation couched in “medical terms” as you eluded too – familial terms, yes, but not medical. Too lengthy to address here, I’ll simply state that Orthodox and RCC teach that faith and works flow from God’s grace, and they are inseparable (like two sides of the same coin). Mysterious yes, but fully supported by scripture. (Perhaps in some later correspondence I’ll produce supporting scripture.) Our faith is a gift of God’s grace, as are our works, and faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, nor are works wrought by our own effort (pelagianism).

One criticism where I see some unfairness in the treatment of Theron’s interview was bringing up the priests who threatened to cut off fingers. This seemed like dirty pool. With the roles reversed, Theron I’m sure could easily produce unsavory activity by Baptist pastors or youth ministers if he so desired, yet doing so might seem unfair, and indeed would be.

Is sola scriptura is the dividing line as you say? In a sense, but ultimately the dividing line is a broader question of where one’s authority lies. Did Jesus form one Church? If so, I want to be a part of it and want to submit to it (Mt 18:17, 1 Tim 3:15). Where is that Church? Is there a lineage that can be traced, or is it invisible? What role does scriptures have within this church? Does holy scriptures belong to the Church, within her bosom, or has the Church sprung from scriptures? Might Mt 16 more aptly said, “Thou art Peter, and on later writings I will build my church”? All such questions are important fodder for finding truth.

Lastly, like others who responded to your blog, I feel sad about the Orthodox guy who left for Protestantism. Don’t get me wrong… I’m glad he’s on fire for Jesus. But, it reminds me of how the social and political forces negative impacted the RCC, and how similar forces in Geneva negatively affected Calvin’s efforts. Governments and monarchies, acting in the name of Christianity, will muddle things every time. It’s sad that it happens, and it’s sad that John couldn’t find the proper perspective which would enable him to see Jesus, both in the Eucharist and in general in the Orthodox church.

This conversation continues here.