In a recent essay posted on virtue Online, the retired Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina, Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison wrote:
Roland Bainton once quoted Jacob Burckhardt to the effect that "Luther saved the papacy," by forcing its reluctant leadership from its unbelievable corruption as a secularizing Italian city-state to something of its spiritual identity. Modern secular power has curtailed any lingering tendency to ecclesiastical coercion on the part of the church forcing her to evoke what she cannot command. But this requires friendly and respectful critiques from the Protestant principles, not merely from secular unwillingness to obey the pope.
The crucial contribution of non-Roman Catholic Christians should be to help Rome recover the defeated teaching of Cardinal Seripando and Reginald Pole at the Council of Trent. They objected to the claim that our given righteousness before God is the single (only) cause of our justification which thereby denies any sin in the regenerate (simul justus et peccator).
This is what Richard Hooker called the "grand question that yet lieth between us and the Church of Rome." Diego Lainez, General of the Jesuit Order, claimed that the position of Seripando and Pole "would undercut the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory" as indeed it would. There remains some Christianity Heavy today when even the wise and cogent voice of Pope Benedict can today issue plenary indulgences.
Although I have a few areas of respectful disagreement with Bishop Allison (for I respect the man quite a lot), I agree completely with his assessment of what he calls, in the essay, "Christianity Heavy." In this context he employs the term to label the opposite error of what another writer had called "Christianity Lite," reminding me of St. John Chrysostom's advice that, when preaching or teaching against a heresy, to be careful not to appear to endorse thereby the opposite error.1 In this context, the opposite error of "Christianity Lite" as embraced by such Canturian Anglican bodies as the modern Episcopal Church, is a wholly unreformed Roman system of thought that developed during the medieval period.
The question of justification was not invented by Protestants in the sixteenth century, but was, rather, the doctrine of the Church dating back to the time of the Apostles, which is why it is taught clearly in the New Testament. Whatever mistakes one may want to ascribe to Reformers, whether Continental or the more thoroughly Catholic (in the Creedal sense) English Reformers, the issue of justification by grace through faith is not negotiable. It is the teaching of the Apostolic Church, and is therefore the only position genuinely Catholic in the true sense of the word.
Justification is not dependent on the process of sanctification, but rather the reverse. Sanctification is a process dependent on justification, that the Holy Spirit gives grace to believers to become holy in their manner of life because the objective fact of justification has already taken hold. For this reason, St. Paul assures each baptized person who has turned to God by faith in His Son, that our new identity is summed up in that simple two word phrase, "in Christ."
When I speak of justification as an objective fact, it is from the perspective of Christ's finished work on the cross, with the emphasis on the word "finished" as in "it is finished," from John 19: 30. That three word phrase in English is one word in Greek (τελέω), and it implies a debt fully paid: "It is paid in full." As our Book of Common Prayer teaches us in Morning and Evening Prayer and in Holy Communion (and the Communion of the sick), far from meaning that we need no regular repentance and absolution, it is the basis of our confidence that, truly and in fact, we can repent and be forgiven. This is why "the Comfortable words" are recited after each General Absolution in Holy Communion, comfortable in the old sense of strengthening us, in this case fortifying our faith in God's mercy as given only through his Son by his atoning death.
The reason we may approach God in confidence is because we are in Christ, and therefore able to draw near to God and be accepted by Him. God has answered the ancient prayer of the Psalmist:
They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.
(Psalm 84:7-9)
"Thine anointed" means "thy Messiah," or "thy Christ." All are acceptable translations of מָשִׁיחַ.
The New Testament response to this prayer is summed up in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.2 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:14-22)
Full assurance of faith in what, if not that God accepts us in the Person of his Son, and therefore imputes no iniquity to us, just as if we had never sinned? The issue is, therefore, the Person of God's Son.
One simplistic but meritorious summary of Christology is that the conflicts of the fourth and fifth centuries were about the person of Christ, whereas the conflict of the sixteenth century was over the work of Christ. However, upon deeper examination, conflict about the work of Christ, whether or not it was "full, perfect and sufficient," cannot be divorced from the conflicts about his Person. The Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon defended the Apostolic teaching that Jesus Christ is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, fully God and fully man.
"The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) means the same thing as "Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man." This gives the fullest meaning to what follows: "And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures." If the Lord Jesus were merely a man like all others, his work on the cross could not "undercut the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory."
But, if he is fully God, the Word made flesh, Himself infinite and eternal, holy and separate from every created nature in his native Divine nature as one with the Father, made man by taking human nature into his eternal, infinite and holy Divine Person, then nothing can be added to the sufficiency of his "sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." To suggest that we have any need of a treasury of saintly merits from redeemed sinners and objects of the same mercy we have received, as if God owed a credit to sinful mankind due to alleged merits by the objects of his mercy and grace, is a frank denial of the Faith of the Church concerning Who is was that died for us and rose again.
In the final analysis, the English Reformers were contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) concerning not simply the work of Christ as an isolated subject. The entire understanding that nothing needs to be added, and therefore nothing can be added, to the sufficiency of Christ's work, is directly because of our belief that he is God of God, light of Light, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father...and that the Word was made flesh. If he is fully God, then who dares to teach that we have need of "the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory" as if his work needed some supplement? What Bishop Allison calls "Christianity heavy," 3 namely an unreformed Roman doctrinal system, denies the sufficiency of Christ's work, and thereby denies the Divinity of His Person, an inherent self-contradiction in their doctrinal system, and far worse.
The emphasis of our Book of Common Prayer is no mere poetic flight, stating boldly that Jesus Christ upon his cross "made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world." Until Rome reforms its doctrinal system and cleanses it of "the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory," justification as the "grand question that yet lieth between us and the Church of Rome" remains as a gulf that cannot be crossed.
1. St. John Chrysostom, Six Little Books on the Priesthood.
2. The Epistle quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 about the New Covenant.
3. "Christianity lite" implies something too light, perhaps missing the commandments of God, the call to repentance, the call to carry the cross as disciples. "Christianity heavy" implies that too much weight has been added, turning the joyous life of faith into an impossible burden of law. See Matt. 11:28-30, Acts 15:10.
Roland Bainton once quoted Jacob Burckhardt to the effect that "Luther saved the papacy," by forcing its reluctant leadership from its unbelievable corruption as a secularizing Italian city-state to something of its spiritual identity. Modern secular power has curtailed any lingering tendency to ecclesiastical coercion on the part of the church forcing her to evoke what she cannot command. But this requires friendly and respectful critiques from the Protestant principles, not merely from secular unwillingness to obey the pope.
The crucial contribution of non-Roman Catholic Christians should be to help Rome recover the defeated teaching of Cardinal Seripando and Reginald Pole at the Council of Trent. They objected to the claim that our given righteousness before God is the single (only) cause of our justification which thereby denies any sin in the regenerate (simul justus et peccator).
This is what Richard Hooker called the "grand question that yet lieth between us and the Church of Rome." Diego Lainez, General of the Jesuit Order, claimed that the position of Seripando and Pole "would undercut the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory" as indeed it would. There remains some Christianity Heavy today when even the wise and cogent voice of Pope Benedict can today issue plenary indulgences.
Although I have a few areas of respectful disagreement with Bishop Allison (for I respect the man quite a lot), I agree completely with his assessment of what he calls, in the essay, "Christianity Heavy." In this context he employs the term to label the opposite error of what another writer had called "Christianity Lite," reminding me of St. John Chrysostom's advice that, when preaching or teaching against a heresy, to be careful not to appear to endorse thereby the opposite error.1 In this context, the opposite error of "Christianity Lite" as embraced by such Canturian Anglican bodies as the modern Episcopal Church, is a wholly unreformed Roman system of thought that developed during the medieval period.
The question of justification was not invented by Protestants in the sixteenth century, but was, rather, the doctrine of the Church dating back to the time of the Apostles, which is why it is taught clearly in the New Testament. Whatever mistakes one may want to ascribe to Reformers, whether Continental or the more thoroughly Catholic (in the Creedal sense) English Reformers, the issue of justification by grace through faith is not negotiable. It is the teaching of the Apostolic Church, and is therefore the only position genuinely Catholic in the true sense of the word.
Justification is not dependent on the process of sanctification, but rather the reverse. Sanctification is a process dependent on justification, that the Holy Spirit gives grace to believers to become holy in their manner of life because the objective fact of justification has already taken hold. For this reason, St. Paul assures each baptized person who has turned to God by faith in His Son, that our new identity is summed up in that simple two word phrase, "in Christ."
When I speak of justification as an objective fact, it is from the perspective of Christ's finished work on the cross, with the emphasis on the word "finished" as in "it is finished," from John 19: 30. That three word phrase in English is one word in Greek (τελέω), and it implies a debt fully paid: "It is paid in full." As our Book of Common Prayer teaches us in Morning and Evening Prayer and in Holy Communion (and the Communion of the sick), far from meaning that we need no regular repentance and absolution, it is the basis of our confidence that, truly and in fact, we can repent and be forgiven. This is why "the Comfortable words" are recited after each General Absolution in Holy Communion, comfortable in the old sense of strengthening us, in this case fortifying our faith in God's mercy as given only through his Son by his atoning death.
The reason we may approach God in confidence is because we are in Christ, and therefore able to draw near to God and be accepted by Him. God has answered the ancient prayer of the Psalmist:
They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.
(Psalm 84:7-9)
"Thine anointed" means "thy Messiah," or "thy Christ." All are acceptable translations of מָשִׁיחַ.
The New Testament response to this prayer is summed up in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.2 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:14-22)
Full assurance of faith in what, if not that God accepts us in the Person of his Son, and therefore imputes no iniquity to us, just as if we had never sinned? The issue is, therefore, the Person of God's Son.
One simplistic but meritorious summary of Christology is that the conflicts of the fourth and fifth centuries were about the person of Christ, whereas the conflict of the sixteenth century was over the work of Christ. However, upon deeper examination, conflict about the work of Christ, whether or not it was "full, perfect and sufficient," cannot be divorced from the conflicts about his Person. The Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon defended the Apostolic teaching that Jesus Christ is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, fully God and fully man.
"The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) means the same thing as "Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man." This gives the fullest meaning to what follows: "And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures." If the Lord Jesus were merely a man like all others, his work on the cross could not "undercut the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory."
But, if he is fully God, the Word made flesh, Himself infinite and eternal, holy and separate from every created nature in his native Divine nature as one with the Father, made man by taking human nature into his eternal, infinite and holy Divine Person, then nothing can be added to the sufficiency of his "sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." To suggest that we have any need of a treasury of saintly merits from redeemed sinners and objects of the same mercy we have received, as if God owed a credit to sinful mankind due to alleged merits by the objects of his mercy and grace, is a frank denial of the Faith of the Church concerning Who is was that died for us and rose again.
In the final analysis, the English Reformers were contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) concerning not simply the work of Christ as an isolated subject. The entire understanding that nothing needs to be added, and therefore nothing can be added, to the sufficiency of Christ's work, is directly because of our belief that he is God of God, light of Light, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father...and that the Word was made flesh. If he is fully God, then who dares to teach that we have need of "the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory" as if his work needed some supplement? What Bishop Allison calls "Christianity heavy," 3 namely an unreformed Roman doctrinal system, denies the sufficiency of Christ's work, and thereby denies the Divinity of His Person, an inherent self-contradiction in their doctrinal system, and far worse.
The emphasis of our Book of Common Prayer is no mere poetic flight, stating boldly that Jesus Christ upon his cross "made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world." Until Rome reforms its doctrinal system and cleanses it of "the structure of satisfactions, indulgences, and purgatory," justification as the "grand question that yet lieth between us and the Church of Rome" remains as a gulf that cannot be crossed.
1. St. John Chrysostom, Six Little Books on the Priesthood.
2. The Epistle quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 about the New Covenant.
3. "Christianity lite" implies something too light, perhaps missing the commandments of God, the call to repentance, the call to carry the cross as disciples. "Christianity heavy" implies that too much weight has been added, turning the joyous life of faith into an impossible burden of law. See Matt. 11:28-30, Acts 15:10.
27 comments:
Bravissimo!
LKW
Absolutely and totally true! And yet this truth is mugged every time an Anglican goes into his or her parish and finds the altar, the chancel and ministers were the rags of the papacy. And just why is it that those who embrace the truth of what you have written don't understand that it is erased by the six candles and tabernacle on the altar, the Roman jig of genuflections and elevations, and the Roman colour sequence?
We believe first what we see and what we are led to see in too many Anglican parishes looks Roman and not Anglican. It mimics the innovations which began under the second Borgia pope and which were placed in the Roman missal under the one who excommunicated Elizabeth. They recall a period when Rome was awash with teen age cardinals with all which that should tell us about Rome's present troubles but probably won't. And, yet, we have still this whole group of Anglicans who still don't understand the message which they are sending, not even after AC and the whole TAC/ACA mess.
Forgive me. I am having a bad morning and the issue is very personal to me. I have seen too much of it in a long life.
Veriword: comachiz
I was not aware that the number of candles, or the style of vestments, sends any message. But, even if so, the words of our service ring out with clarity: "...Who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
I have never heard a Christian in my life argue that we are not justified by faith it is the alone part that is troublesome especially when as my wife has done the person believes that faith is an intellectual act. When the Jews asked Jesus what work they needed to do His reply was to believe. James 2:24 pretty much makes clear that we are required to do something but what we do is not the equal of what the Lord has done on the Cross. He is the wealthy man handing out money and we are beggars taking it. Why would I boast of my taking when it is only because of God's giving that I have any hope at all.
I do get troubled by the people who think that because they are "good people" they are somehow deserving of salvation just as it troubles me when people say they made a decision for God and need not do anything more than that. First it witnesses to faith through works, the very thing they deny which is confusing to the non believer, second it leads people like my wife to use that as an excuse to why they don't pray, attend church, confess their sins, etc.
My worry is that in trying to make sure people understand that we give all glory to God for our salvation that we don't go so far as to making it look to others like we think we are special enough to warrant God saving us by our seriousness of belief, piety, etc, etc. A Justified person is a sanctified person we just aren't good judges of that which we can not see. I can testify to theosis in my own life. I was at most danger when I thought I had crossed the finish line by my confession of faith (I can't tell you how many times I was saved at altar calls and reciting sinners prayers). My only hope, my "eternal security" comes not from me but from God. Rather than thinking I deserve Heaven because I am born again I am thankful to God for coming to me.
Do we credit the drowning fishermen for saving himself when the Coast Guard flies out into the middle of the sea and throws him a line? No.
David:
Your comment flies off in several directions at once. I will confine my response to this sentence in your top paragraph.
"James 2:24 pretty much makes clear that we are required to do something but what we do is not the equal of what the Lord has done on the Cross."
The problem is the word "required," which leads to a second problem of placing "what we do" on a scale with Christ's atoning death for us. Frankly, this is not a matter of degrees, for nothing we do is added to the full weight of the burden He alone bore. We cannot do anything to add to what he did, for we are disqualified to pay either for our sins, or for those of others (which is why "merits of the saints" cannot help us). In the scales of righteousness, every human being is utterly destitute, in absolute poverty, unable to redeem his own soul or the soul of his neighbor.
What James speaks of in his second chapter is not works that we add to Christ's work. Rather, he speaks of the fruit of faith, for faith cannot help but produce charity, and charity cannot turn a blind eye to the good works that, as St. Paul teaches us, "God has prepared for us to walk in." (Eph. 2:8-10) This is where Paul and James shed necessary light on each others writings, for both are saying the same thing. They are saying that the person who has faith will do good works, for how can he not? But, it is fruit, that is, the growth and result rather than the cause.
To deal with all the issues touched on in David's comment would requre a long dissertation. But while he is far off the mark in dealing with either Fr Hart's or Bp Allison's remarks, David is actually pretty much on the mark when he writes:
"I do get troubled by the people who think that because they are "good people" they are somehow deserving of salvation..."
Those people trouble me also, but I am even more troubled by people who suppose that God is too nice and indulgent not to save everyone just because.
.
".... just as it troubles me when people say they made a decision for God and need not do anything more than that."
Such a doctrine is 180 degrees away from the essays under discussion, and light-years away from the 16th century Reformation. Can anyone imagine John Donne preaching a sermon and inviting his hearers to "make a decision for Christ?"
The "decision for Christ" concept was a product of 19th century American revivalism, not classical Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism.
Charles continues:
"First it witnesses to faith through works,...."
Bingo! Here Charles hits pay-dirt!
The Arminian notion of faith as man's response to grace, blown up into Finneyite phantasies of "making a decision for Christ" is indeed a new and more deadly form of Pelagianism, teaching that faith is a meritorious action of the Will (a "virtue," in RC parlance) which earns Divine favor.
Let me amplify Fr Hart's comments on the verb "It is finished," (tetelestai in the Greek). Passive in voice, perfect in tense. The Passive frequently indicates Divine activity. "God has finished it!" The Greek perfect (obscured in our familiar translation into the English present) indicates a permanent and irreversible state of affairs. "God has finished it!" In the papyri, this verb was used by book-keepers to indicate that a debt had been perfectly satisfied, when the final payment was made. "God Himself has paid it in full!" (Those who allege that the "satisfaction theory" of atonement was concocted by Anselm in the high midle ages have obviously never had an encounter with the Greek NT.)
LKW
Who is Christ? The Son of God who came into the world to save sinners, like me. He is the fulfillment of the promise made to the Woman in Gen. 3:15.
As to justification by faith, there is none apart from living that faith radically - as Abraham did when he offered up his son.
Fr. Hart:
I think I've read Reformed Catholic sources that will go so far as to say that the Mass is propitiatory in the sense that it pleads the merits of the Cross before the Father. The Continental Reformers insisted that this an affront to the Cross and inconsistent with justification by faith alone.
Do you think it is proper to speak of the Mass as propitiatory in this sense, and if so, do you think this squares with justification by faith alone?
welshmann
From the Roman perspective:
"... an unreformed Roman doctrinal system, denies the sufficiency of Christ's work, and thereby denies the Divinity of His Person, an inherent self-contradiction in their doctrinal system, and far worse."
The Roman Catholic doctrinal system denies the Divinity of Christ, and far worse??
Are you gentlemen serious, or was this meant as bait? Such whoppers take an otherwise garden variety rehash of the old question of justification right into the twilight zone.
At any rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the tone of infallibility in that statement is near the double digits. A good example of infallibility envy.
Fr. Hart... you hit the nail on the head. And then drive it home with the comment to David:
We cannot do anything to add to what he did, for we are disqualified to pay either for our sins, or for those of others (which is why "merits of the saints" cannot help us). In the scales of righteousness, every human being is utterly destitute, in absolute poverty, unable to redeem his own soul or the soul of his neighbor.
As Thomas Cranmer wrote in the BCP, it is by Christ's 'mediation and merit' alone that we are accepted in the Beloved. 'Tis grace unto salvation that allows the ungodly man to believe this; by the unmerited gift of faith in Christ Jesus and His cross alone.
I have no idea what envy has to do with it. I do not envy Roman Catholics at all, which is one reason I have never considered joining their ranks. Anyway, Mark VA, what you miss is that I have said that in this matter an unreformed Roman doctrinal system is self-contradictory. Of course they teach the Trinity and the Incarnation. Nonetheless, they seem not to grasp the fact that one cannot add to the perfect work of the infinite and eternal Word. They need to reform their teaching and return fully to the Faith of the Apostles.
Welshmann:
Before discussing faith alone, we have to cleanse that expression from all the taint of modern evangelicals who have redefined it. For some of them it exempts people from repentance, obedience and sacraments, which is all very wrong of them. What sola fide means, when used properly, is shorthand for Romans 3:28, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Such faith is evident by sincere repentance, it lives with charity and hope, and it produces good works. A life of faith is, for Anglicans, a sacramental life. However, it is the faith itself that justifies; for no one, weak through the flesh as we all are, can perform the Law perfectly.
As for the celebration of the Eucharist being propitiatory, no celebration is. That the offering of the sacrament is called a sacrifice in connection to the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross, when He offered himself, is part of the deep mystery of the sacrament and embedded in the Words of Institution, when Christ said "do this in remembrance of me." Remembrance is not merely a mental recollection, but a re-presentation. In this way, while rejecting a medieval error called "the sacrifices of masses" in double plural, we celebrate knowing that there is only one Lord's Supper or Mass, in which we have communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. He instituted it on Thursday night, and signed and sealed it with his blood on Friday. That is our Passover, and it was done once for all. Yet we enter into the reality of it all over again, in our experience, each time we celebrate the Mystery by offering that one and only Eucharistic Sacrifice.
By the way, in 1930 the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote this in a footnote to his letter recognizing Anglican Orders:
We transliterate the term, thusia hilasterios, and do not translate it by propitiatory sacrifice, or expiatory sacrifice, because, as generally used, these terms present conceptions which are not attached by the Orthodox to thusia hilasterios. The words used by the Anglican Bishops in their discussions with the Orthodox Delegation, as recorded in the Resume, and endorsed by the Lambeth Conference are: "… that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice as explained in the Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII, on Anglican Ordinations: and also that in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Anglican Church prays that ‘by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion,' as including the whole company of faithful people, living and departed." Lambeth Conference Report, 1930.
And those words, Father hart, are to me the most beautiful and valuable in the history of Christian liturgy, not equaled by any others that i know or can think of. But as important or as beautiful as those words are when we say them or hear them, one of the great psychological truths which never seem to make it through the brains and consciousness of some is that the human brain gives priority to what we see over what we hear. And, of course, is why we so enjoy magic shows. We know that what we are seeing is false and that we are being deceived and for some strange reason it delights us. This is why movies and television shows are so dangerous because we put what they "show" us above even the things we "know" to be true.
When the purpose of the English reformers was to go behind the theological and liturgical distortions of the late middle ages, it seems very strange for us, or any part of us, to be attached to the innovations of renaissance and baroque Romanism. And what this says to anyone who isn't blind is that Rome is or was right and we are only a temporary respite, a way station on your way back across the Tiber. Now if that is truly the message, the gospel, you and others want to those in the pew to get, then say so plainly. But I don't believe it is. I just don't think that many, perhaps most, who are doing this understand the real message they are sending. Unfortunately it finally overwhelmed the bishops and priests of the TAC/ACA.
I want to see classical prayer book Anglicanism live and grow, but I want it to be the real thing and not as a Roman writer addressing the scandal of John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a little over a year ago "the high camp" one.
I meant to add also this part of Fr. Hart's comment:
This is where Paul and James shed necessary light on each others writings, for both are saying the same thing. They are saying that the person who has faith will do good works, for how can he not? But, it is fruit, that is, the growth and result rather than the cause.
The good works of sanctification, though never perfect in of themselves, flow from that justification freely given in Christ alone through faith and that new heart of repentant gratitude born within us of the Holy Spirit. So before God the Righteous Judge our only plea is Christ's finished perfect work... nothing of ours. Yet men will know we are his by our good works (even though we still sin)... the fruit of the Spirit. We are being changed, conformed to the image of his Son, as he brings many sons and daughters to completion in righteousness. This to me is such a wondrous and glorious salvation which has been given to the undeserving... me.
Father Wells,
I am so glad to have your opinion on the meaning of our Lord's final word from the cross. I have always taken it in that way, but thought that i was presuming rather much. It seems my intuition agreed with your judgment. I may be feeling entirely too smug - but it will be your fault.
Alice: While Gen. 3:15 has been recognized since Patristic times as the Protevangelium, it clearly was NOT a "promise made to the Woman." It was, on trhe contrary, part of the curse laid upon the Serpent. That's an important exegetical fact which I fear you have overlooked.
The deliverance from sin had to begin with a conflict with and defeat of Satan. Until the serpent was addressed, God had no good news for the woman.
As for Abraham's significance in the doctrine of Justification, that happened at Gen. 15:6, well before his great act of obedience in Gen 22. At Gen 15:6 we are told, "And he [Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness."
And I detect the usual chorus of threadbare complaints about to arise, over that little word "alone" in the "fide sola" formula. So I will meet you at the gate with the information that the "sola" was introduced long before Martin Luther. Thomas Aquinas and a galaxy of Patristic and Scholastic theologians also spoke of "faith alone," because long before the 16th century they read Paul with honesty and clarity. Hans Kung, Alister McGrath, and Thomas Oden are helpful and informative on the doctrine of Justification before the 16th century.
The question I would put to those who object to the formula "fide sola" is simple. What do you wish to combine faith with? Faith plus good works? Faith plus "living radically?" Faith plus spirituality or faith plus religious experience? These are all nonsensical concepts, revealing a proud sinful refusal to take God at His word and to rely on His grace alone. If you wish to combine faith with some other component, you had better think of something really good, something better than the perfect righteousness and all-availing sacrifice of Christ Our Redeemer. But I will stand with Augustus Toplady, who wrote, "Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling."
LKW
"Are you gentlemen serious, or was this meant as bait? "
Yes, I'm quite serious and I believe Fr Hart is also. It is a well-known fact that errors in soteriology (or ecclesiology, or any other epartment of dogmatics for that matter) always reveal something wrong at the heart, the doctrine of Who Is Jesus Christ? As one of our best theologians, Thomas Aquinas, once said, Veritas est omnis unum. And which of the Fathers (St Augustine?) said, It takes a Nestorian Christ to save a Pelagian man.
LKW
Fr Wells had said:
As for Abraham's significance in the doctrine of Justification, that happened at Gen. 15:6, well before his great act of obedience in Gen 22. At Gen 15:6 we are told, "And he [Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness."
I hesitated to wade into this discussion, but I wanted to comment on this particularly statement. It seems to me that the assumption being made here is that justification is a one time, once for all event that occurred in the life of Abraham at the time recorded in Gen 15:6. Scripturally, I see a couple of problems with this assumption (not including the fact that I've been unable to locate the specific verse that states that Jusitification is a one-time, once for all event in the life of the believer).
First, is the passage in James 2 in which it clearly states that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar (2:21), and that by works his faith was made perfect (2:22). It seems then at God was still reckoning Abraham righteous at Gen 22 and at this point he was reckoned righteous by the works (loving obedience) that perfected his faith (that he already had, of course) in contrast to the works of the law (that Paul mentions in Romans 4--obviously Abraham was reckoned righteous on account of his faith long before he was circumcised).
Secondly, is the fact that Hebrews 11:8 mentions that Abraham by faith obeyed God when he was called to go out to the place he would receive as an inheritance. This is a reference to events recorded in Genesis 12 which occurred years BEFORE those recorded Genesis 15:6. In other words, Abraham had already had faith long before the comment was made in Genesis 15:6, and one can therefore appropriately conclude that Abraham was justified (ie reckoned righteous) by faith all the way back in Genesis 12 when he obediently hearkened unto God's voice to leave Haran.
By saying all this I want to be quick to add my agreement to Fr Hart's essay, that the only meritorious GROUND of our justification is the work of Jesus Christ--His obedience in perfectly fulfilling the Law (when we couldn't) and dying on the cross on our behalf as a sin offering. I would thus also agree wholeheartedly with Fr Hart's statement that the works described in James 2:14-26 are not something we do to somehow earn our salvation or add to Christ's work (as if His work on our behalf could be deficient in any way!), but rather are the fruit of our faith ("by works faith was made perfect", to use James' language; "faith which works through love", to use Paul's). I just wanted to point out that Scriptures, when one uses Abraham's life as an example, seem to indicate that our justification, while beginning at certain point in time (at our new birth), is more of an ongoing status rather than a once-for-all, one time event. And while "our justification does not depend on our sanctification", both our ongoing justification and our progressive sanctification (notice the different modifiers) do depend on our union with Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost which produces the fruit of good works. His perfect finished work is imputed to us who are in Him through repentance, faith, and the participation in the sacraments.
Doubting Thomas
I don't see anything that indicates that Fr. Wells described Abraham's justification by faith as a one time event, or for that matter as an event at all. His faith was part of who he was, as it should be with us all. Look carefully at the words of James:
"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"
Perfect means completed. What we really learn is that faith is manifested by obedience to God, and in time by hope and charity. Charity, in turn, is manifested by good works. None of these things are events, but rather they are the path we walk, and they are who we are in Christ when opportunities arise for this fruit to be seen.
Nonetheless, remember two facts about justification. The repentant publican went to his house justified (δικαιόω) already, before having the opportunity to do good works. And, the thief on the cross had no time to receive sacraments or for the fruit of faith to bring forth good works. All he had was faith on his very agonizing "deathbed." Though it is very dangerous to use him as an excuse to put it off (as St. Bede taught so clearly), it does show that justification comes before good works. Good works happen when faith (having produced charity) meets opportunity, which it will for all of us who live long enough. (Eph. 2:8-10)
The word event was never used by Fr. Wells in his comment, and for good reason.
Dr. Ashley Null, expounding on a Cranmer quote regarding Paul/James and justification in his book "Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance: Renewing the Power to Love":
... Cranmer's fifth proposition addressed the common objection to claiming ancient authority for justification by faith, the relationship between James and Paul: 'St. James meant of justification in another sense, when he said, "A man is justified by works, and not by faith only". For he spake of such a justification which is a declaration, continuation, and increase of that justification which St. Paul spake of before.' Without any specific definition of justification as either forensic or intrinsic in 'Notes', this phrase could be construed as implying factitive righteousness. However, as in his great notebooks, Cranmer merely meant that good works which followed justification served as a testimony to that justification and an indication of the increasing inner rectitude against the infirmity of the flesh. Underneath this proposition, Cranmer recorded quotations which illustrated this point. Abraham was justified by his works in the sense that they demonstrated his faith. Paul excluded human works prior to justification, whereas James excluded the possibility that those so justified did not have to do good deeds. Finally, although good works augmented justification, they did not do so in the sense of increasing personal righteousness. Rather, good works strengthened the source of a believer's righteousness through Christ, his faith. Cranmer's reconciliation between Paul and James was consistent with Protestant thought.
I would not characterize justification as an event, but rather as God's declarative fact of righteous standing for those who trust and believe in Christ's finished work. How are we justified?... by faith in Christ - the merit of his perfect obedience imputed to us and the full satisfaction of his death for our sins imputed to him.
Fr Hart: I wpuld have no reservations whatever in saying that our Justification is an event which takes place in clock time. It is signified sacramentally by our Baptism, which is an event. The moment when the publican went down to his house "justified" was surely an event, as was the moment when the good thief (called "good" because he stole his salvation and never paid for it!) cried out "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
As Bp Allison explains in "Rise of Moralism," there is some wiggle-room
within classical Anglicanism between those who saw Justification as "once for all," and those who saw it as an event which recurs as necessary. The difficulty with the former view is that it has God acquitting sinners for sins they have not yet committed. But either way it is both temporal and punctiliar, as John Newton wrote,
"How precious did that grace appear,
the hour I first believed."
It is important to remember that "faith alone" Justification was very much an option on the table long before Luther himself was born. He learned in from his confessor, Von Staupitz, and that learning took place not in a classroom but in (of all places!) the Confessional.
But our Justification, like our regeneration or final resurrection, like the Incarnation or the Atonement, something which occurs within the space-time continuum in which we poor sinners live. Biblical religion takes time very seriously as a reality. It is the theatre where God both dwells and acts. Anything else would be Gnosticism.
LKW
(A continuation)
For me, the locus classicus for the whole doctrine of Justification is Luke 18:14,
"I tell you, this man [the publican, who had nothing meritorious to plead on his own behalf] went down to his house justified, rather than the other (the Pharisees, who had many good works to boast of]." The participle "justified" is another of those perfect tense constructions which show something final, decisive and irreversible. In the moment of the publican's prayer of faith, something has changed forever. He went into the Temple unjustified, he leaves it justified. The unrighteous man has been declared righteous. This is as clear and firm as the Judge's gavel when he says "Acquitted."
When was Abraham justified? Genesis gives no dates. But it was well before chapter 22, and very likely before Genesis 15. It was probably well before Genesis 12, when he stepped out in faith to go to the land God had promised to show him. The great point made in Gen 15:6 is that Abraham was accounted righteous because he trusted an incredible promise of God. That trust was not combined with anything else. His faith, and his faith exclusively, establish him as righteous in God's sight. The faith which established Abraham as have a right-standing with God was NOT compounded with any other element.
Now when this issue comes up for discussion, quite predictably certain parties will trot out certain texts
from James or Hebrews and drop them on the table as the Ace of Trumps. The common attitude is that "I have found a contradiction in the Bible, so take your doctrine of Justification and stuff it!"
I really wonder if anyone wants to go there. The Bible is, for Christians, the Word of a God who cannot err or lie. Finding a contradicition between Paul and James might run up a bill we are not able to pay. Arguments which prove too much are expensive and dangerous. Those who set text against text raise questions about their own Christian commitment.
In reconciling Paul and James, one approach I find valid is that Paul is speaking of our righteous standinf before God, whereas James is thinking of our vindication as Christians before the sight of men. James seems to be saying (in Matthew's words) "by their works ye shall know them," or "men shall see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
Alister McGrath, in his fine little book "Justification By Faith" writes,
after a long closely reasoned discussion, "Paul and James merely state in different ways, and with different emphases, the basic meaning of the doctrine of justification bvy faith: we are graciously offered our salvation as a gift, which we receive by faith, and which transforms our natures (Rom. 12:20, 2 Cor. 3:18) so that good works result." McGrath goes on the quote a Reformation slogan: "Faith is pregnant with good works."
LKW
An event in that it comes, but not an event in that it does not come to pass. For, after it comes, it never passes.
Fr Hart: Quite right. There is no double jeopardy in God's court. This is why I am uncomfortable with NT Wright's view of Justification, i. e., by faith for trhe here and now, by good works (which he calls "faithfulness") in the eschaton.
LKW
Fr Wells wrote:
In reconciling Paul and James, one approach I find valid is that Paul is speaking of our righteous standinf before God, whereas James is thinking of our vindication as Christians before the sight of men. James seems to be saying (in Matthew's words) "by their works ye shall know them," or "men shall see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
I have read of that approach before, but with all due respect I disagree that such an approach is valid. When taking the whole passage in context, particularly in considering the opening verse (2:14), one realizes James is teaching much more than vindication before men:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith SAVE him?" Obviously, for James salvation is in view when he is referring to 'justification', 'faith' and 'works' in this passage, not merely proving ourselves as Christians before men. That justification before God is in view is further supported by the fact when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, it was GOD who had said: "for now I know that you fear God" (Gen 22:12).
I submit a more fruitful and valid approach in reconciling Paul and James is to realize that when James is referring to faith he is using it in a more limited sense, and that of 'intellectual assent', while Paul is using it in it's fuller sense of 'trust' or confident submission of the will.
E.J.Bicknell, for instance, would make this argument:
"Further they [Paul and James] were dealing with different types of error from a practical point of view. Thus to S. James 'faith' meant 'intellectual assent'. 'Thou believest that God is one: thou doest well, the devils also believe and shudder' (2:19). Faith here corresponds to what S.Paul calls knowledge in 1 Cor 8:1. But faith for Paul means, as we have seen, personal adhesion. Again, when he speaks of 'works', S.James is thinking of Christian activities, what S Paul calls 'good works' (e.g. in Eph 2:10). S. Paul is always ready to admit that faith if genuine will will show itself in acts of love and service. He speaks of faith as 'working' or 'active through love' (Gal 5:6). On the other hand, when he speaks of 'works', S.Paul means 'works of the law', i.e works doen to earn God's favor and viewed as deserving a reward. Again, both use 'to justify' in a forensic sense, but for S.James has in view the final judgement (e.g.2:14), S.Paul the initial act by which the soul is placed in right relation to God. Both have a practical end in view. S.James wishes to rebuke barren orthodoxy, divorced from life; S.Paul is opposing Jewish legalism, the spirit of the Pharisee who supposed that by the excellency of his works he could earn God's favor."
(E.J. Bicknell, A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES, third edition, pp 205-206--commenting on Article XI; emphasis mine)
Second, and as alluded to in Bicknell's quote above, for the purpose of eliminating confusion and avoiding possible contradiction, is to recognize justification as an ongoing status or reality, which has an initial, definite beginning in time for the believer (which Paul is addressing in his disputes with the Judaizers) as well having ongoing and final aspects to which James is addressing. This of course would parallel our union with Christ which has a definite beginning in time (at our baptism) and has an ongoing reality as we continue to abide in Him (John 15) and bear fruit which shows our faith is 'lively' and not merely barren 'intellectual assent'. After all, it is for those actually IN CHRIST who are 'the righteousness of God' (2 Cor 5:21)--justification is not something extraneous to Christ Himself.
Doubting Thomas
I am not inclined to "fight, bleed, and die" over any particular exegesis of James. Dr. Thomas may well be right. My primary contention is that is is a serious error to set Paul and James in opposition. or to cite one to refute the other.
And he does make a very importanbt point (one with which I would concur vigorously)
by emphasizing that we are declared righteous when we are "in Christ." That union makes Christ's merits our merits and His righteousness our righteousness. Christ's own resurrection was His vindication as Messiah, therefore when we are "in Him" we are vindicated ("justified") as sons of God. And yes, this status or judicial decree is lasting, not merely a milestone we pass abd leave behind.
I recall a popularized verison of Justification bandied about years ago and still in secularized Christianity, which argued that "God accepts you just as you are, so you need to accept your acceptance, and that's what faith really is." That was how many people read or misread a short book by Paul Tillich, the name of which I no longer recall. Tillich mangaged to write quite a few pages on Justification with hardly a reference to Christ or the Atonement.
Faith in itself is not meritorious. God does not bestow Justification as some kind of reward on those who believe. Faith is the instrument which unites us to Christ so that what is His becomes ours as well. And faith is the only such instrument which may bring about that union, the only acceptable response to Divine grace.
J. V. Fesko in his book "Justification" (my absolute favorite on the topic) writes, quoting J. Greshan Machen, "The faith that James is condemning is not the faith which Paul is commending" Fesko goes on to say, "the works that James commends are not the works that Paul condemns."
Fesko goes on to quote John Calvin (of all people!!) writing "A man is not justified by faith alone--that is, only by a bare and empty awareness of God. He is justified by works--that is, his righteousness is known and approved by its fruits."
Bicknell is pretty good on Justification. For me this is the absolute litmus test of any Systematic Theology. If a house is unsound at its foundation, better not sleep under its roof.
LKW
Fr Wells writes:
My primary contention is that is is a serious error to set Paul and James in opposition. or to cite one to refute the other.
And read and reread all of his last post for it is gold. Thank you Fr. Wells for blowing a clear trumpet. There is so much confusion and mischaracterization of this precious doctrine that was "resurrected" in the 16th century. Not that Justification by faith was lost during the previous centuries... only clouded and somewhat buried under the many, many works innovations of the medieval church.
Calvin was recognized as a reformer compatriot (despite differences regarding ecclesiology) by the English reformers and as one who (along with Bullinger and others) clearly brought forth in their writings and sermons the ancient and true doctrines of the church. As Anglicans, though we took a different course regarding church polity, this is part of our heritage.
By grace alone... through faith alone... in Christ alone... we find and enter into this undeserved salvation. Mercy upon mercy.
Again thank you Fr. Wells.
Fr Wells,
Very good post, sir-- a lot of good points there:
I am not inclined to "fight, bleed, and die" over any particular exegesis of James. Dr. Thomas may well be right. My primary contention is that is is a serious error to set Paul and James in opposition. or to cite one to refute the other.
And that is a worthy contention.
And he does make a very importanbt point (one with which I would concur vigorously)
by emphasizing that we are declared righteous when we are "in Christ." That union makes Christ's merits our merits and His righteousness our righteousness. Christ's own resurrection was His vindication as Messiah, therefore when we are "in Him" we are vindicated ("justified") as sons of God.
Very well said.
Faith in itself is not meritorious. God does not bestow Justification as some kind of reward on those who believe. Faith is the instrument which unites us to Christ so that what is His becomes ours as well. And faith is the only such instrument which may bring about that union, the only acceptable response to Divine grace.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly--well said. (I would just add that faith encompasses repentance, baptism and communion, which I'm sure you'd concur)
J. V. Fesko in his book "Justification" (my absolute favorite on the topic) writes, quoting J. Greshan Machen, "The faith that James is condemning is not the faith which Paul is commending" Fesko goes on to say, "the works that James commends are not the works that Paul condemns."
Excellent quote--I'll have to remember to use that one. I would just clarify that the 'faith' (intellectual assent) James is not bad in and of itself. It is necessary and important, BUT by itself it is not sufficient for salvation (hence the condemnation of barren, dead, workless 'faith')
Fesko goes on to quote John Calvin (of all people!!) writing "A man is not justified by faith alone--that is, only by a bare and empty awareness of God. He is justified by works--that is, his righteousness is known and approved by its fruits."
Yep, a good word from Calvin. :-)
Bicknell is pretty good on Justification. For me this is the absolute litmus test of any Systematic Theology. If a house is unsound at its foundation, better not sleep under its roof.
Indeed.
Doubting Thomas
Post a Comment