Church Voices

47 Responses to “The Death of the Restoration Movement”

1. Rob B. Says:
   January 7th, 2005 at 11:00 pm

   Tim,

   Great, though unfortunately accurate post. This is a much better way of putting the same criticisms I had of contemporary Restorationism than I chose on my blog in that post we’ve already discussed.

   This is going to sound like blatant self-promotion, but confessional Lutheranism has many of the attributes you’re longing for. After visiting many churches, I am convinced this doctrine does the best job of explaining scripture, rather than explaining it away.

   I long for the church to be unified in creed, confession, and communion, but let’s face it: It’s not. In order to deal with this fragmentation, we’ve got to pick a room (as C.S. Lewis puts it in _Mere Christianity_) that gives us a doctrine with which to live out our lives, rather than remaining in the hallway of Christianity, as much of non-denominational evangelicalism has chosen. There is no perfect church, but some are better than others.

2. TIm Says:
   January 8th, 2005 at 7:55 am

   I do like much of what I’ve seen of confessional Lutheranism, however, we’ve not yet seen the complete assimilation of the RM into evangelicalism. Besides, from my understanding I doubt they’d give me a job, and if I have job in the RM there will be guaranteed at least one church that won’t sink into the slutty mediocrity of an evangelical mold.

3. Steve C Says:
   January 10th, 2005 at 8:49 am

   This article is now being referenced on a forum on the official [un-official] website of the Restoration Movement.

   Hey, at least we have a website now. We can’t be that close to dead, can we?

   http://www.christianchurchtoday.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=606

4. Chad McIntosh Says:
   January 10th, 2005 at 6:48 pm

   Tim, you should write a book on the Restoration Movement.

5. TIm Says:
   January 10th, 2005 at 9:47 pm

   Chad,

   There’s a already a couple of excellent books written on it, most notably by Dr. North. I probably still have it around here if you’d like to borrow it.

   I humbly stand on the shoulders of giants.

6. Tim Says:
   January 10th, 2005 at 10:53 pm

   Awwww……they do care!

7. Kibble Says:
   January 11th, 2005 at 6:53 pm

   I suppose it is unfortunate that I was born so late in time, as my experience with the Restoration Movement has indicated that they are only strong on the second of your three points.

8. Joannicius Says:
   January 16th, 2005 at 11:58 pm

   I just happened over to your site because I just set a forum up on my very simple site and was caught by the “Restoration Movement” term as I was in the movement for seven years in Santa Ana, CA. I’m thankful for the time with them as I learned much about scripture and about our God.

   But I find my desire is to know Him, not know about Him. In my 30 plus years as a Christian I finally realized that salvation is not static but the culmination of our life in Christ. Doing away with a lot of question about when and how am I saved.

   Thankfully, God is the judge of that and not myself or anyone else. As for the standards of conduct, worship, baptism, marriage, death etc. etc. I decided to accept what our fathers in the faith determined in the first 700+ years in the formation of Christianity, believing them to be “closer” to the history and understanding of the Apostles.

   I find that this gives me a foundation that I had never seen or heard and that the foundation has been preserved by the Holy Spirit from Petecost til now.

   May God have mercy on our souls!
   Joannicius

9. Henry Wilson Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 9:20 am

   Joannicius,

   Thanks for sharing your story, it’s great to hear. I’ve been going through what I think is a similar journey through Christendom. The realisation that salvation is not a single static experience, but instead a process, has been integral to this.

   Mainly because of the way my mind is wired, I think that knowing about Him is, for me, closely related to–and inseperable from–knowing Him. To an extent, this is probably true for everyone. Even in earthly relationships, we get to know someone with both our minds and our emotions, though we don’t all give the same amount of emphasis to each faculty of knowing.

   Pax tecum

10. tim Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 10:54 am

    I don’t want to play the role of the killjoy, because I think that this is largely an issue of terminology, but strictly speaking salvation (ie the guarantee of eternal life) is something that is accomplished at a single point in time, guaranteed by the blood of Christ. If we claim that salvation is something that is worked at over a lifetime then we transform the gospel from a message of grace to a message of works.

    What it seems like both of you are saying is that working out the ramifications of salvation (ie sanctification, knowing God, etc.) is something that is worked out over a lifetime. Which I can certainly agree with.

11. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 12:37 pm

    What do you mean by saying that a “guarantee of eternal life” is accomplished at a single point in time? If you are suggesting that through a “conversion” or “baptism” or “rebirth” or “whatever” we are guaranteed eternal life forevermore, I highly disagree. That is to say, “assurance of salvation”, in the sense that most people use it, is absurd and highly opposed to the NT. There is, in another sense, a true assurance of salvation, which is the assurance that we will be saved if we continue in God’s grace. However, we can choose to lose our salvation at any time.

    If you are referring to Christ’s passion as that single point in time, then it is a matter of terminology. Through that passion, we are all already REDEEMED, but we are not all already SAVED. Our salvation also comes through Christ’s suffering, but in a different way. I tried to explain this in my comment on “Sex and Scripture”.

    Now, this quote is something I’ve heard hundreds of times:

    “If we claim that salvation is something that is worked at over a lifetime then we transform the gospel from a message of grace to a message of works”

    The problem with it is that GRACE AND WORKS ARE IN NO WAY INCOMPATIBLE. Works, at least the kind of works that increase grace, our in fact a gift of grace. It works in much the same way that faith is a gift of God at the same time it is an act of our own will.

    Here’s a question: if we are saved apart from being sanctified–so that, strictly speaking, a saved person could be just as dirty as anyone else at the time of his death–how is it that we can enter Heaven immediately upon our death? How can Heaven possibly be a perfect place with still imperfect people? It seems to me that the only way around this problem is perfect sanctification, in this life and in Purgatory, and then entry into Heaven where we at last complete the process of “literally” uniting our souls with the person of God.

12. tim Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    Henry,

    You can certainly make a deliberate act of will to give up salvation, however, that’s hardly a barrier to claiming a guarantee isn’t a guarantee.

    Additionally, saving works are incompatible with a doctrine of grace. I have no problem with saying works flow out of a life lived in grace and have value both to the worker and the workee, but to claim that works in any way are necesary for salvation is a negation of the doctrine of grace, and a faith that is wholly dependent on Jesus Christ as its basis.

    The problem of sanctification is largely a problem of misunderstanding exactly how Christ has dealt with sin. When Christ bore our sins he bore them all, even the sins (and Sin) that come after baptism. The entire 10th chapter of Hebrews slams this point home, but I’ll quote only the 13th chapter: “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”.

13. Joannicius Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    If you think by just “claiming and believing” your salvation makes it yours there are two serious problematic issues that arise.
    1. What do you do with the time Christ proclaimed

    7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    7:22 “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
    7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
    7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
    7:25 “and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
    7:26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
    and
    13:23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them,
    13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
    13:25 “When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’
    13:26 “then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’
    13:27 “But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’
    13:28 “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.

    Also, remember when Paul himself said of himself that He couldn’t count himself as having attained salvation (of course he knew as we should, that until you’ve finished the race no one can say how you placed)

    P.S.

    The confussion lies in the Calvanism heresy and his false basis of the Augustinian view of redemption, which is false.

14. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    “You can certainly make a deliberate act of will to give up salvation, however, that’s hardly a barrier to claiming a guarantee isn’t a guarantee.”

    Tell me what you mean by ‘guarantee’.

    “Additionally, saving works are incompatible with a doctrine of grace.”

    That’s just not true. You surely agree that in some mysterious way, the human will must cooperate with God’s Grace in order to be saved. You would probably say this is purely faith, but regardless of what it is called, it is a cooperation of the will with Grace. I’m saying that works are in fact a gift of God’s Grace, but the human will must cooperate with it. If you say that works are incompatible with Grace, how do you say that faith is compatible with Grace? I hope it becomes sufficiently clear that Grace and works are entirely compatible.

    “The problem of sanctification is largely a problem of misunderstanding exactly how Christ has dealt with sin.”

    This is very probable. The problem, as I see it, is that you are not understanding how Christ has chosen to deal with sin. Christ’s sacrifice is “once and for all”, but it is surely not isolated in one point in history. Even in his Apocalypse, John finds the Lamb slain, not [at first] risen. What Jesus Christ was, he is now, and ever shall be. When we are part of the body of Christ, we are crucified with Christ, slain with the Lamb, so that we may be resurrected with him. This seems to make so much sense if we accept that works and faith together are necessary for salvation, not just one or the other. Even Hebrews 10 says that we must not continue sinning, or risk or immortal souls. The author here seems to be drawing faith and works together into one package, rather than separating them like Luther, and hence breaking them both.

    I’m going to repost an old comment here, as I feel it relate to our present discussion.

15. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 3:22 pm

    It seems quite clear that the Gospel’s message is that we are saved by faith and works together, not by either one alone. James (the epistle of straw) says quite succinctly that we are not saved by faith alone. Paul writes to the Philippian believers, “So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, _work out your own salvation with fear and trembling._”

    C.S. Lewis paralleled faith and works to the two halves of a pair of scissors. It is useless to wonder which scissor does the cutting; it is also useless to insist on making an important distinction between the two, because they are only useful as part of the very same thing: the unified scissors.

    The important thing is that our works are not really our own, in that they do not originate from ourselves. They are a gift of God, who, by His Grace, grants them to us. All our own righteousness is but as rags, but God’s righteousness is perfect. The way God has chosen to clothe us with His righteousness is through our faith and cooperation with Grace.

    So, like the apostle Paul, we “fill up on [our] part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in [our] flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” We become part of Christ’s body (”incorporated” you could say), and it is Christ’s body that is sacrificed to purchase our salvation. It all comes full circle, in a way: we now participate in our salvation, but only insofar as we are truly not ourselves, and truly Christ instead.

16. Joannicius Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 6:59 pm

    RIGHT ON HENRY
    (are you the “blameitonHenry”?

    Anyway, I conpletely concur with your understanding of the marriage of works that the Holy Spirit enables us to do (synergism) is a vital understanding in the salvic operation in and through us.

    When Luther opened the “grace alone” box, he opened a catastrophe and decline of Christianity introducing the “Reformation” falsely called because the Church was already formed and healthy, he and his followers ignored the fact mostly and went their own way. But in all honesty he was only following the example given him by his spiritual father the Pope who had rebelled against the rest of the leaders in the Church at that time and started many heresies of his own such as indulgences and purgetory and eventually led to infalability of the Pope etc. etc.

    We need to go behind that part of history, which I was never taught in the 20+ years in many branches of Christiandom I studied.

    Now that I have a basic understanding of the early church (the first 700 - 1000 years) I now see we are way off the mark here in this secular humanistic culture and have a re-learning to experience before we see a production of righteousness in our culture that our Lord obviously requires for us to enter into the eternal celebration with Him.

17. Joannicius Says:
    January 17th, 2005 at 7:24 pm

    I must add an addendum to my post - being a quote from one of many of our Great Fathers in the faith - John Damascene, speaking on the subject of salvation in eloquency of which I know no match.

    “In the first place, grasping as a kind of pillar, or foundation, the teaching of the Church, which is our salvation, I have opened out its meaning, giving, as it were, the reins to a well caparisoned charger.† For I look upon it as a great calamity that the Church, adorned with her great privileges and the holiest examples of saints in the past, should go back to the first rudiments, and fear where there is no fear. It is disastrous to suppose that the Church does not know God as He is, that she degenerates into idolatry, for if she declines from perfection [3] in a single iota, it is as an enduring mark on a comely face, destroying by its unsightliness the beauty of the whole. A small thing is not small when it leads to something great, nor indeed is it a thing of no matter to give up the ancient tradition of the Church held by our forefathers, whose conduct we should observe, and whose faith we should imitate.”

18. Amy Says:
    January 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pm

    “It seems quite clear that the Gospel’s message is that we are saved by faith and works together, not by either one alone.”

    This statement troubles me very much. As you stated, our works are like filthy rags. If this is so, then how can our works even be on the same level as the grace that God has gifted us through Christ?

    As Christians we are only saved by our faith in Christ. Paul makes that perfectly clear in Galations. He says, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (damned)!” The gospel Paul is talking about is being saved by faith in Jesus Christ who gave himself up as a living sacrifice so that we may not die, but inherit eternal life. If you read on he does mention the fruits of the spirit and such, but they have nothing to do with our salvation. They are an indicator of a person who walks by the Holy Spirit (is saved) much like how James talks about faith without works being dead. They are not what gets us into heaven.

    We do not work out our salvation, we have been saved through the grace of God from the beginning when we accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior. I think that it is a little arrogant to say that our works do anything for our salvation. Grace only saves us from damnation.

19. Calvin Lutherstine Says:
    January 19th, 2005 at 7:23 pm

    Geez, the way you two are expounding upon James you sound like the Mormons I live around. It appears you’d agree with 2 Nephi 25:23, “it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.”

    As for the church history lesson, you know more than I about the early church, but I know revisionist Catholic propaganda regarding the Reformation when I see it.

20. Joannicius Says:
    January 21st, 2005 at 4:44 am

    The bantering that many have entertained themselves with over the years as to whether salvation is by works or grace is a moot point for we are in the process of being saved by the life of the son of God that abides in us, if it be that we have the Spirit of God.

    Only our own conscience can tell us that. No one else can tell us whether we do or not, nor can we tell if anyone else has the Holy Spirit. We can guess pretty close by the love that abides when trials and tribulations are faced. I think Theophan the Recluse c1894 says it more completely and accurately than I ever can. But most anything he has written is quite a lengthy read. Now there was a man who it seems knew God.

21. Kibble Says:
    January 22nd, 2005 at 11:05 am

    Well, at least one of you is including the Holy Spirit in sanctification.

22. joannicius Says:
    January 22nd, 2005 at 12:37 pm

    Actually Kibble, I was speaking of the full salvation which include
    1. Purification
    2. Illumination
    3. Theosis or Deification

    Remember God said “ye are gods”
    Jesus Christ God became man that
    we may be united to God and become god.
    That is in the subjective sense to the Trinity.

23. Kibble Says:
    January 22nd, 2005 at 9:39 pm

    Ok, never mind. I think you follow an entirely different religion than I. Do you get your own planet when you become a god?

24. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 pm

    Amy, er… I mean, Calvin Lutherstine,

    “This statement troubles me very much. As you stated, our works are like filthy rags. If this is so, then how can our works even be on the same level as the grace that God has gifted us through Christ?”

    Did you read my posts? :-) Works done in faith ARE gifted to us by grace.

    “As Christians we are only saved by our faith in Christ. Paul makes that perfectly clear in Galations. He says, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (damned)!” The gospel Paul is talking about is being saved by faith in Jesus Christ who gave himself up as a living sacrifice so that we may not die, but inherit eternal life. If you read on he does mention the fruits of the spirit and such, but they have nothing to do with our salvation. They are an indicator of a person who walks by the Holy Spirit (is saved) much like how James talks about faith without works being dead. They are not what gets us into heaven.”

    This statement troubles me very much. Are you trying to tell me that I’m damned? I want you to keep an open mind about this. Almost all Protestants are blinded by the traditions of men, insisting on the doctrine of “sola fide” or “faith alone”. I do believe that we are saved by faith. If you are trying to suggest otherwise, you are showing me that you did not comprehend what I posted. James simply cannot be twisted to say that faith is all that saves us, and works just show that faith. That’s why Luther tried to throw the book out altogether. (Luther then boldly inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28 to justify his own beliefs, and tried to throw our many books of both the old and new testaments, calling them “apocrypha”. I am honestly certain that this must have been demonically inspired.)

    “So you see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

    If you believe in the authority of the Bible, why do you maintain that we are saved by faith alone? James makes it clear that works are NECESSARY, and not simply a manifestation of faith. James says precisely what I’ve been trying to show in all my many words:

    “Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.” (James 2:21-22)

    This is what C.S. Lewis’ scissors analogy expresses.

    But we’re falling into rut here that many have fallen into: one side quotes James and the other quotes Paul until one runs out of breath. But even Paul shows that faith MUST be completed by works. Galatians 6:7 & 9 says “… A man reaps what he sows… Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”

    Compare Galatians 3:6 and James 2:21-22. These verses make it obvious how Paul and James in contrast are using the word “faith” and “works”. Jame’s use of faith refers to something maintained purely in the intellect. Paul’s use referred to something in both the intellect and real actions of the will, which equals FAITH + WORKS in James’ phrasing. Pauls speaks of the obedience of faith. For example, read Romans 6:15-23. Paul expressly shows that works are a necessary and inseparable part of faith. In fact, he says that the result of obedience in slavery to God results in ETERNAL LIFE! Paul makes the important distinction between works of the law and works under grace, promising eternal life to the latter.

    Paul makes it obvious that we are not “saved” as the result of a single experience, but it is a process (e.g. I Corinthians 9:27, 10:12). Notice that Paul makes it evident that he HAS NOT YET achieved eternal life and could LOSE ETERNAL LIFE at any time.

    “We do not work out our salvation, we have been saved through the grace of God from the beginning when we accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior. I think that it is a little arrogant to say that our works do anything for our salvation. Grace only saves us from damnation.”

    You are plainly showing me that you do not understand what I said, or what Paul said in Philippians 2:12-13.

    “As for the church history lesson, you know more than I about the early church, but I know revisionist Catholic propaganda regarding the Reformation when I see it.”

    Why do you insist on remaining blind? Please try to understand what I am trying to say. I don’t care what you call it, but I am presenting an honest and legitimate theological argument. I understant you may think it is wrong, but at least consider it instead of writing it off as propaganda. You are clinging to the traditions of men taught to you, and you have hardened your heart against what I am trying to say.

25. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 23rd, 2005 at 3:37 pm

    Kibble,

    “Well, at least one of you is including the Holy Spirit in sanctification.”

    Why are you being so arrogant as to launch haught remarks about things you haven’t bothered to understand. All this time we’ve been talking about Grace, do you really think we don’t realise the Holy Sprit’s role in giving it to us? This is a non-issue in the current debate, because both sides accept that the grace is given to us through the Spirit. Christ and the Spirit have a mysterious co-responsibility in sanctification, for we are washed in the blood of Christ, but sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This is an interesting subject, but it is not relevant. That is easy enough to see.

    “Ok, never mind. I think you follow an entirely different religion than I. Do you get your own planet when you become a god?”

    You are showing us that all you want to do is misunderstand people so you can make fun of them. The point is that through Christ we become divine, in the process of salvation/justification/sanctification, which includes the various elements described in Joannicius’ post. We are not made into separate gods, but we truly become part of Christ, and thus become God.

26. joannicius Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 12:39 am

    Henry said it right, we aren’t out on some new age - have my planet and do my thing theology. We become one in Christ and He being divine shares his divinity through, in and with us. The “difference” in our religion is not small or unimportant and discardable. Paul talked of the “mystery” of Christ in us which causes us to partake of the divine energy of God, not divine essense, as only the Holy Trinity has the essense of God, co-eternal, co-equal, consubstantial.
    When we separate the spiritual from the material we deny the incarnation of Christ and make Christianity less than applicatble to this and the next life.
    Christ, as God, coming in the flesh, join the immaterial with the material and Santified all matter, even the air we breath that we might be brought to His Love……….He who is the Only Lover of Mankind!

27. Josh S Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 7:26 pm

    Misquoting Psalm 82. Now if THAT isn’t classic EO, I don’t know what is! I think Bulgakov does the same thing…or maybe it was Romanides? I’m not sure. In any case, swimming through the exegetical fallacies and the utter lack of any self-awareness as to their own presuppositions makes reading EO theologians pretty difficult. After all, if you’re plugged into the Tradition, why bother to think critically about anything you say? Energies and essences isn’t a neo-platonist philosophical construction, it’s reality, dangit! The Tradition tells me so!

28. Joannicius Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 9:00 pm

    John—10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
    10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ‘?
    10:35 “If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
    10:36 “do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
    10:37 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
    10:38 “but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

29. joannicius Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    Also, I must add that “being plugged into tradition” is a command by Paul and Christ and ……

    There IS HOLY TRADITION and man’s tradition. We need the Holy Spirit, scriptures and the fathers of the faith to discern which we are tending to follow. I also have to add that while I was in many churches searching for the true faith, I followed many, many mans traditions rejecting the fact that they were just that…..man’s traditions and inventions.

    Do a search of the word tradition/s in your new testament and find the references to what I speak of.

30. Tim Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 9:30 pm

    It seems to me if you’re going to claim tradition as a scriptural mandate and place it on the same plane as scripture EO tradition isn’t the place to start. The fact is that the EO church is a schizmatic church and has been since 1054. Catholic tradition has a far stronger historical claim.

    But if a tradition isn’t going to be judged by historical roots then what makes the EO tradition anymore correct than any other tradition?

31. joannicius Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 4:14 am

    In my experience and exposure to Roman Catholic Doctrine and Practices they have strayed from the Apostles (especially in the area of claiming a doctrine or practice as “unchanging and unchangeable, because it is spoken by the “infallible” and then a few or more years later it is changed) and are becoming more minimalistic themselves each decade, where the EO have kept the faith in tact with their blood.
    The EO hold the first seven ecumenical counsels and having the authority in doctrine, worship and practice because the Holy Spirit did establish the Church that has not fallen to the gates of Hell and will not. There are numerous examples we can enumerate and get into. Tradition is subject to the Scripture and Scripture to Holy Tradition, which are subject to The Holy Spirit. Our conscience and heart bears witness to the truth and the purity of the Holy Fathers point us to the wholeness that is available in the Christ our God and His Church, which is the body of Christ.
    I must add, to prevent preconceived ideas, that the EO does not claim exclusivity!!! We say that we know where the Holy Spirit is but aren’t to claim where He isn’t. We know true teaching and doctrine but it is not our right nor desire to judge a persons salvation, for there is but one Judge who has the wisdom, knowledge and power to do that. i.e. I can not say another is condemned for what he believes but the life that is lived gives a good indicator as to whether or not a person could have a relationship with their creator.
    In studying the various aspects of the doctrines, worship and practices of all tenets of faith in “Christianity”, there is only one that has kept consistent with the first seven to eight hundred years of the history of Christianity. Even up until the 16th century ALL of Christianity except for the ones that denied the deity of Christ had many practices that have been tossed aside by Most of “Christianity” today. The term applied is “minimalism”.

    1. Crossing oneself in the sign of the precious and life giving cross.
    2. Recognition of the ever virgin Mary, the bearer of the God/man Christ Jesus.
    3. Recognition of the importance of the scripture stories being depicted in visual form – the icon – known as the “windows into heaven”. And just for a side note, these portrayals of Christ, Mary, the Saints were given canon just as scripture, by the same councils and are seen in the Old as well as the New Testament history as a correct practice in showing the beauty of God coming to bring heaven to our humanity. We can even see icons and foundation of liturgical worship in the catacombs and in historic Jewish places of worship.
    4. Worship in liturgical format – as a likeness and type and participation in the eternal liturgy going on in heaven. Etc. etc. etc.

    It’s getting late and I must admit, I had no intension of writing this much. But I have lived in Christianity now for over fifty years and have seen a lot of vacillation in all parts of Christianity but in my experience the EO has the only true claim to overall consistancy with the scripture and tradition with the tools to produce holiness that Christ our God loves.

32. Tim Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 11:49 am

    You really don’t want to start this conversation because it will end the same way it did in the 1054. The RCC claims the ability to change tradition based on the authority of the Papacy which itself is rooted in tradition (as well as a very thin scriptural claim in Matthew 16 which RCC theologians should be embarressed to even put forward).

    So again, I pose the question. Why should anyone consider the heresies of a schizmatic church to be a more valid claim than the orthodox theology of the one true church?

33. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    When did the Catholic Church ever make and ecumenical or ex cathedra pronouncement on faith or morals, and then change it a few years later? The RCC has never “changed” any dogma that it has previously defined. It has changed disciplines, but there is a vital distinction to be made between dogma and discipline.

    Celibacy in the clergy, for example, is a discipline. The RCC created it as a discipline, and has the authority to remove it as a discipline. In fact, it is only a requirement in the Western rite. Eastern rite Catholics are not bound by the same discipline. These can change.

    I insist that the RCC has never contradicted itself in infallible statements on faith or morals.

    The papacy has a great amount of traditional and scriptural support. True, the infallibility of the papacy wasn’t defined ex cathedra until long after the first 7 ecumenical councils. However, the bishop of Rome had always been seen as the chief bishop throughout Christendom, and the final authority on ecumenical disputes. There is a great amount of patristic evidence for this, that’s beside the scriptural support, which is based on much more that Matthew 16 alone.

    “I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 16:18-19a) or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.’ (Matthew 16:19b) that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed onto you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter?”
    - Tertullian, On Modesty, 200 A.D.

    As for the scriptural evidence, I see no sense in which Matthew 16 provides a weak case for the papacy. There are some absurd theories suggesting that the “Rock” of Matthew 16 is actually Peter’s faith or Jesus Himself, but none of these have any substance. Even many Protestant scholars admit that Peter is the Rock. But there is much more evidence for the papacy and Peter’s pre-eminence than that contained in Matthew 16. There can be no doubt, based on Scripture, that Peter is chief among the apostles. He is also bestowed with many titles and responsibilities of GOD, apart from the other apostles. He declares the first anathema (Acts 5:2-11). Jesus makes Peter the chief shepherd beside Himself, though the other apostles have subordinate roles as shepherds (John 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Jesus prays for Peter alone that his faith may not fail and asks him to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32). Peter presided over the first ecumenical council (Acts 15:7-11).

    These are just a very few of the evidences for Peter’s primacy. Together, they form a great support for the papacy.

34. Josh S Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 3:38 pm

    EO has tons of consistency with Scripture…except when people are weeping over and kissing icons. Or falling prostrate before them. And there’s that whole monasticism deal…Jerome (I mean the Ever-Blessed St HIERONYMOUS) just couldn’t keep his manic obsession with perfecting himself out of his exegesis of I Cor 7, I suppose.

    If you put HOLY TRADITION in all caps, it makes it a lot MORE SPIRITUAL and adds a lot of credence to your arguments. Glad you got that much down.

    I also like the circular logic necessary for the pope to define his own infallibility ex cathedra. If you look at the medieval popes, none of them regarded their bulls to be fallible…it’s revisionist history to try to impose the 20th-century notion of ex cathedra on them. But that’s the RC way, I suppose. Redefine something, then claim that’s the way it always was, just like what Trent was saying about indulgences was redefined at Vatican II, and Trent redefined what previous popes had said about them to begin with.

    But hey, it’s all HOLY TRADITION, so we need to just venerate it and not ask any questions.

35. joannicius Says:
    January 26th, 2005 at 8:13 am

    Tim,
    Conciliar is a key understanding and word for study. I think the facts of the time the great schism took place and the resultant actions of both sides of the schism speaks dynamically as to who was in error.
    In the first place if you have five patriarchs that are in unison and ONE splits off it seems clear to me as to who is the schismatic. Also looking at the history of both sides actions throughout the centuries puts weight to the consistency of the EO, who has time and again had to go back and allow the authority of the councils to govern…. I know this is an old debate and I am one of the least qualified to discuss this, but I am just giving my perspective from the small amount of study I have done and gleaned some from scholarly men I know personally that have spent their lives in these studies. Namely: Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, Michael Dunbar, John Pierce etc.

    The logic of one man being able to espouse dogma is quite problematic thus the reason for the Ecumenical Councils to canonize the need for conciliar and ecumenical establishment of Dogma. (Similarly, this is the reason the EO take the first seven and only Ecumenical Councils and their foundational canons. For anyone to call a council Ecumenical afterwards is deceiving themselves. If I have a family of five and one splits off and I claim that the whole family is meeting together when only one and his portion of the family is meeting, I would call that self deception, wouldn’t you? The EO recognizes the RC as PART of the Church and at the same time recognizing the they have separated themselves from the rest of the Church. For the RC and EO to find unity the RC would have to go back to the foundations built by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Like Sean Connery said in Entrapment “Impossible but doable” :-) )

    I see many problems with the governmental structure of the RC. Of course when we have men involved we have sin and error therefore we must rely on God the Holy Spirit to correct the Church and set Her back to a true course when she tries to move from truth. There is a lot more wisdom is requiring all 5 parts of the family to agree in making rules than one on their own.

    Also, as for not opening this discussion, how will there be establishing of truth without discussion? If it ends the same as it did in the years prior to and including 1054, I contend that we are all led astray for if I read the scriptures correctly there will be a unity that God will bring to the last day Church that the world has desired to witness.

    And, the base of judgment for finding the true Church is the understanding and the teachings (dogmas) and practices (worship) of the Apostles, their disciples, and the true Ecumenical Councils, which the WHOLE Church recognizes.

    I find that if we can follow the money trail and the evil influence men have allowed by “bribery”, such as “indulgences” we see easily where truth follows the opposite direction. By the way which includes the shedding of our blood and not causing others the shed theirs.

    Henry,
    Pax tecum
    To me there is a vast chasm between the word “chief”, your terminology, and “first among equals”, the orthodox terminology. This is the place the dear Patriarch Bartholomew is presently in error thinking chief instead of equal.

    But remember, follow the money. The “Papa” (lets take the mystery out of the word pope. A comical side note: The Coptic Church calls all of their Priests “Pope”, so they have the Pope with them each week :-)) of Rome abdicated the place of “first among equals” when the mutual excommunication took place.

    Josh,
    Holy Tradition produces holiness, therefore it isn’t all Holy. To much of the traditions we have in Christianity is the condemned, made by and for man and for our glory and not God’s.

    The gauge I belive in says: “The Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”

    I must admit that some worship, not venerate Mary and/or the Holy Icons, but I am responsible to know the difference and to venerate them as the Seventh Council canons tell us.

    The restriction to kissing icons is pride not humility which is the entrance into the kingdom. Humility includes the rightful fear of worshiping anything or anyone except The Blessed Holy Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit whom I adore.

    Veneration is dangerously close to worship, I pray that The Holy Spirit of God grant me the wisdom to know the difference and follow accordingly.

36. joannicius Says:
    January 26th, 2005 at 8:16 am

    I was just noticing the length of this discussion which started on another subject and wondered if one of you had a good idea as to what title to start another discussion under for I would like to continue this thread titled correctly. How about you all?

37. Kibble (aka Cal L.) Says:
    January 26th, 2005 at 11:31 pm

    HOLY TRADITION, BATMAN! “For the RC and EO to find unity the RC would have to go back to the foundations built by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.” Or, just pit one of each against a group of “Sola Fide” folks.

    *Ok, turning off sarcasm and mean-spiritedness.*

    Seriously, I’m glad that you two are so firm in what you believe, instead of like many today who are wrapped up in a new ecumenism, where all they care about is love and worship styles.

    Anyway, just so you know, Amy is my wife, so don’t let the same email address fool you into thinking we’re all her. Sorry for the confusion.

    First, Henry, “if you believe in the authority of the Bible, why do you maintain that we are saved by faith” AND works? For it clearly states in Ephesians 2, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; NOT as a result of WORKS, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” Now, none of us are antinomians. We understand that being God’s workmanship means that he has good works that He wants to accomplish in us. And we understand that “God, … even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ” so that the good works he created for us could be accomplished. We were made alive (saved) in order that good works would result, not we do good works in order to be saved.

    As far as James goes, we need to understand the way in which he was writing, and to whom. As his was the first NT epistle, he was writing to a church that was still mostly Jewish Christians. As such, he is not like Paul in the way he says things. Also, he builds on the eschatological perspective of Jesus and John the Baptist, as well as the OT prophets. In fact, James’ opening example (continued from earlier in chapter 2) of those “without clothing and in need of daily food” clearly hearkens back to the words of Jesus about final judgment in Matthew 25 (sheep and goats). This moves the argument from “how do I know I’m saved now” to “what will prove my faith in the end?” It is a divine courtroom scene where the issue is forensic justification. In some Biblical divine courtroom scenes, the child of God is brought up on charges by Satan, and the judgment from God is consistently “he is clothed with Christ by faith, and I see the perfection of my Son. Those offenses you bring up do not matter.” That is the “how do I know I’m justified” portion. However, when the courtroom is the Last Day judgment, the jury is the world, and the question is “How does the world know I am justified?” That is why “someone may well say, ‘… show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” Works are indeed a manifestation of faith, and this manifestation is effective for the world to see.

    Furthermore, the contrast of Galatians 3:6 to James 2:21-22 is a bit disingenuous, as
    James uses the same quotation about Abraham a verse later (Gen. 15:6 – “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”). Regarding this, David Scaer writes the following:

    “If James were teaching a doctrine of justification by works, especially as an antidote to an antinomian perversion of Paul’s theology of grace, he would have destroyed his own argument in quoting Gen. 15:6, which ascribes justification to faith and makes no mention of works. … James’ quotation of Gen. 15:6 proves the exact opposite of his often-alleged doctrine of a justification by works. … James’ phrase, literally “justification out of works,” uses the preposition “out of, from” (ek, ex) and not “through” (dia) as Paul uses with faith. … The believer through faith accepts Christ’s righteousness as his own and is viewed by God as righteous (Paul). By works the Christian vindicates God’s verdict of righteousness on him by demonstrating to the world the correctness of that verdict (James).”

38. Kibble Says:
    January 27th, 2005 at 12:13 am

    A few more points:

    1. Jesus quoting Psalm 82 in John 10 is completely out of context for setting forth a doctrine of the divinity of Christians. A doctrine cannot be set up on only one such elusive passage. What is other scripture that points to this? Even in Revelation at the coming of the Kingdom, the church does not achieve divinity, but is the Bride of Christ (indicating a distinction).

    2. Henry, my accusation of Catholic propaganda referred not to your theological arguments, but to joannicius’ claim that when Luther reformed the church, it was only he and the Pope that were off base. A brief review is all it takes to see that most cardinals and bishops were quite in line with the Pope’s indulgence and purgatory stance, etc. etc. But now it also refers to the assertion that Luther single-handedly de-inspired the Apocryphal books, as if he were the first to hold this position. In fact, your 4th century buddy Jerome said, “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” This view was also held by prominent Catholics like Pope Gregory the Great, Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan, and sounds remarkably similar to Luther’s preface, “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read.” Oh, and calling Luther demon-inspired is just one example of the strong language you have used; thus I am surprised at your offense at Amy’s quotation of Paul.

    3. Finally, as far as the traditions go, joannicius, I defy you to inform us as to where the Word of God places itself under “Holy Tradition.” And Henry, I am not attempting to be haughtier than thou. In fact, we are both accusing each other of following man’s traditions. That is why I compared your and joan’s words to those of Mormonism; I have been 3 months living around it in Utah now, and it is the highest example of blindness by commitment to man’s tradition you can find. I was reminded of their salvation by works and faith and eventual achievement of godhood doctrines by what you’ve been saying. From what I’ve read from you two, it’s not a problem to follow what men say, it’s just a matter of which men, and how many you can quote. As for me, I see my beliefs in the Bible free and clear.

39. joannicius Says:
    January 27th, 2005 at 1:55 am

    Kibble,
    I’m curious, what is your take on the salvation that is dynamic not static and is the synergistic working in and with God to be joined to him? Christ in us the hope of Glory. It is clear as Henry stated, that Paul was dogmatic in is statement that he had not yet “attained” the place in heaven, but pressed on for the high calling in Christ Jesus.
    I didn’t state that the scripture was subject to Holy Tradition alone, they are subject to each other for the understanding of the workings and doctrines of the Church that Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail over. Having Scripture alone is having 25,000 protestant denominations. Having Scripture and Holy Tradition married to each other is having the EOC and the RCC disagreeing on what the foundation of Holy Tradition really is and where the authority lies.

    Is Christ not divine in your doctrine?

    If so, are we not joined with divinity, when we are joined with Christ, giving us his divine life, making us gods? How can one be joined to divinity and not partake of the divine life at the same time?

    If anyone is reading this that doesn’t believe that Christ is God and Divine, I would like to know why they doubt it.

    Grace, by the way, is the Spirit of God. Not the work of God, but the person Himself.

    By the way, I didn’t mean to sound as if I thought Luther and the RC Pope were the only ones that had gone into error, but for the sake of brevity and historical reference they are the focus in my mind when referring to the reformation – so called. I know of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin and others that were ready to take advantage of the problems that were evident in the RC at that time and possibly do the best with what they had in the way of understanding and knowledge of truth. There was quite and ignorance of the EO in the general populace at that time in Europe and a lot of disinformation that would probably prevent most of us from considering the Eastern Patriarchs and Eastern Fathers of the faith. There was a lot of political advantage taken also, and again I say…………follow the money!

40. joannicius Says:
    January 27th, 2005 at 2:11 am

    Oh yes, I forgot to address the likeness to Mormonism……….
    Mormonism is an obvious concoction of Joseph Smith inspired by an Angel of Light. Taking parts of truths and applying them to humanism in a very deceptive way bringing mankind equal to God and God down to the level of man. As I stated previously, my search for truth has led me many places….Salt Lake and the “Temple” was one of the first places when I set out on the long road traveled.

    I’m sorry that’s my answer to that. To try and go into detailed issues and doctrines etc is beyond the energy I have at the moment. Suffice it to say if someone is caught up in Mormonism the can really be good people, as any religion, but to me it is to ridiculous in the depth of doctrine, formation to even consider debate. It is the “good” Islam religion in my book. Both were started by individuals of questionable character and with no other support than there word. In Christ there were numerous witnesses and 12 major players who gave their lives to the end for the revelation they collectively experience and reportedly 11 dying in martyrdom and the other in exile on Patmos. If my eternity is resting on anything (and of course it is) I’ll go with the multiple witnesses and inexhaustible historic and written support.

41. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 27th, 2005 at 12:03 pm

    I don’t have time to respond to all this right now, but I have a question to ask: now that the entry is fading fast into the abysmal archives, should we post a new blog entry to create a place to carry on this discussion, or should we open a thread in the forum?

    I feel very comfortable with the “flavour” of this discussion right now, because I think that the three major branches of Christianity are rather equally represented, and it’s not degenerating into straw men and ad hominem attacks. Since this is a decidedly Prot site, the three branches probably would not be as equally represented as they are now if we started discussing on the forum. Still, that would probably be the most convenient location.

    Well, what would you have?

42. Amy Says:
    January 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm

    I think what Tim was getting at with the reference to Mormonism is that they have added works onto the prerequisite for salvation. He thought you were coming dangerously close to agreeing with them.

    We know that this can’t be the case because Paul states all throughout his letters, but most certainly makes it obvious in Galations, that we are saved through God’s grace and not of ourselves.

    I think an excelent example for this discussion is the thief on the cross. Jesus accepted his statement of faith even though there were no works to back him up.

43. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 28th, 2005 at 6:01 pm

    Amy,

    “We know that this can’t be the case because Paul states all throughout his letters, but most certainly makes it obvious in Galations, that we are saved through God’s grace and not of ourselves.”

    Remember, I agree with you here, as I believe “sola gratia”.

    “I think an excelent example for this discussion is the thief on the cross. Jesus accepted his statement of faith even though there were no works to back him up.”

    Hmm, let’s see:

    39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
    40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
    42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
    43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

    - Luke 23

    So, he is suffering on a cross and publicly proclaiming Jesus to a non-believer. That sounds like good works to me. Presupposing that he had faith, they are works under grace, and thus part of salvation. He didn’t have enough time do anything more.

    Here’s a quote for you:

    “That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism”

    - St. Augustine, _On Baptism, Against the Donatists_, 4.22.29

44. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 28th, 2005 at 6:02 pm

    Kibble,

    “First, Henry, “if you believe in the authority of the Bible, why do you maintain that we are saved by faith” AND works? For it clearly states in Ephesians 2, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; NOT as a result of WORKS, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” Now, none of us are antinomians. We understand that being God’s workmanship means that he has good works that He wants to accomplish in us. And we understand that “God, … even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ” so that the good works he created for us could be accomplished. We were made alive (saved) in order that good works would result, not we do good works in order to be saved.”

    The Ephesians 2 quote really doesn’t apply to this discussion, because it is clearly referring to *initial* justification. “For by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED…” The Bible sometimes speaks of justification in the past tense (in this case, the perfect tense in Greek). At other times, it speaks of justification in the present tense: “… CONTINUE TO WORK OUT your salvation…” (Philippians 2:12). At still other times, it speaks of justification as a future event: “… our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11).

    So, the Bible refers to justification and salvation in the past, present, and future. What could this mean: that salvation is a one-time static event, or that salvation is a process? The answer seems plain to me.

    Now, if we take a look at the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the relationship between initial justification and works, Ephesians 2:8-9 seems to make perfect sense. These churches teach — and have always taught — that works are of no avail PRIOR to initial justification. We cannot save ourselves by our human works. However, we must continue in grace (Acts 13:43) and our faith must express itself through love (Galatians 5:6).

    That last point is important, and it seems to be where Catholics and Protestants diverge. Catholics say that faith MUST express itself through love, and Protestants say that it just DOES express itself through live… sometimes, at least. An older translation of Galatians 5:6 renders it as “faith formed by charity”. I’m sure you’ve heard about the important distinction between formed faith (”fides formata”) and unformed faith (”fides informis”). The NT uses the word “faith” (actually, the word “pistis”) in a number of different ways: referring to an intellectual belief (Romans 14:22-23, James 2:19), referring to assurance (Acts 17:31), referring to trustworthiness (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10), or referring to formed faith (Galatians 5:6). It is important to keep in mind exactly which kind of faith we are talking about in any particular passage.

    Catholics believe that we are saved by FORMED faith alone. Thus, in a sense, we are saved by faith alone. Early on, however, the term faith was refined so that it meant specifically intellectual belief. This is for several reasons: the word “pistis” in the NT most commonly refers to intellectual belief as it does in Romans 14 and James 2; “pistis” is often connected to a set of theological truths, which are obviously grasped by our intellect, as in Jude; using “pistis” or “faith” in the more precise sense allows us to focus on the triad of faith, hope, and charity (i.e. love), which Paul lays great importance on, most famously at I Corinthians 13:13.

    Formed faith = [unformed] faith + hope + charity/love

    “As far as James goes, we need to understand the way in which he was writing, and to whom. As his was the first NT epistle, he was writing to a church that was still mostly Jewish Christians. As such, he is not like Paul in the way he says things. Also, he builds on the eschatological perspective of Jesus and John the Baptist, as well as the OT prophets. In fact, James’ opening example (continued from earlier in chapter 2) of those “without clothing and in need of daily food” clearly hearkens back to the words of Jesus about final judgment in Matthew 25 (sheep and goats). This moves the argument from “how do I know I’m saved now” to “what will prove my faith in the end?” It is a divine courtroom scene where the issue is forensic justification. In some Biblical divine courtroom scenes, the child of God is brought up on charges by Satan, and the judgment from God is consistently “he is clothed with Christ by faith, and I see the perfection of my Son. Those offenses you bring up do not matter.” That is the “how do I know I’m justified” portion. However, when the courtroom is the Last Day judgment, the jury is the world, and the question is “How does the world know I am justified?” That is why “someone may well say, ‘… show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” Works are indeed a manifestation of faith, and this manifestation is effective for the world to see.”

    Sure, works are a manifestation of faith. It is a non sequitur, however, to conclude that works are not necessary, since they are a manifestation of faith. The idea of works purely as forensic evidence so that Jesus will be sure we really did have faith is a Protestant innovation, and it really doesn’t square with the Bible. What makes you think that God needs to see works to prove your faith? He doesn’t. And yet Jesus repeatedly appeals to works and “keeping the commandments” as the means to salvation. Joannicius — it feels like a long time ago now — quoted Matthew 7, which is another fine example. He says that you will know a tree by its fruit, in other words, works manifest faith. But, does he say that works are not really necessary? Contrariwise, “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 2:21).

    This is where some Protestants turn to word-twisting in order to save “sola fide”. They may say that works are necessary, but only to show that you have faith. So… only faith is necessary, but works are in fact necessary, though they are not necessary. Then you get silly phrases like, “by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone”. What the heck does that mean?

    Furthermore, the contrast of Galatians 3:6 to James 2:21-22 is a bit disingenuous, as James uses the same quotation about Abraham a verse later (Gen. 15:6 – “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”).

    I never intended to hide James 2:23, or anything like that. I’m sorry you didn’t see from what I wrote that I knew James was referring to the same incident that Paul was referring to.

    “If James were teaching a doctrine of justification by works, especially as an antidote to an antinomian perversion of Paul’s theology of grace, he would have destroyed his own argument in quoting Gen. 15:6, which ascribes justification to faith and makes no mention of works. … James’ quotation of Gen. 15:6 proves the exact opposite of his often-alleged doctrine of a justification by works. … James’ phrase, literally “justification out of works,” uses the preposition “out of, from” (ek, ex) and not “through” (dia) as Paul uses with faith. … The believer through faith accepts Christ’s righteousness as his own and is viewed by God as righteous (Paul). By works the Christian vindicates God’s verdict of righteousness on him by demonstrating to the world the correctness of that verdict (James).”

    Mr. Scaer is scrambling to explain away James’ obvious meaning. The difference between “ek” and “dia” is of no consequence, as it is only a minor grammatical matter, and the meaning of both Paul and James is readily apparent from the context. Here is James 2:24,

    20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

    Now, how does James say that Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled? His faith was MADE COMPLETE BY WHAT HE DID. “Made complete” is effectively the same as “formed”. James is clearly showing that plain ol’ intellectual faith cannot save, but a formed faith is credited to us as righteousness.

    Furthermore, it seems that Mr. Scaer offers no new interpretation of James 2:20-24, and so his argument is rendered useless until he finds some new meaning for the verses. The verses remain, and no matter how much dirt somebody digs up about their prepositions or whatever else, there must be some meaning in these verses.

45. Henry Wilson Says:
    January 28th, 2005 at 6:12 pm

    “1. Jesus quoting Psalm 82 in John 10 is completely out of context for setting forth a doctrine of the divinity of Christians. A doctrine cannot be set up on only one such elusive passage. What is other scripture that points to this? Even in Revelation at the coming of the Kingdom, the church does not achieve divinity, but is the Bride of Christ (indicating a distinction).”

    Marriage is a very mysterious union. God says that husband and wife become one flesh, inseperable (Matthew 19:4-6). Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife, and the wife is the body of the man, just as Christ is the head of the Church, and the Church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33). In this way, the Church comes to share in Christ’s divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

    “But now it also refers to the assertion that Luther single-handedly de-inspired the Apocryphal books, as if he were the first to hold this position… Oh, and calling Luther demon-inspired is just one example of the strong language you have used; thus I am surprised at your offense at Amy’s quotation of Paul.”

    I was fully aware of the opinions of men such as St. Jerome when I made my remarks about Luther. I was certainly aware of th fact that many have questioned the canonicity of the deuteros well before the “Reformation”. What I said about Luther was not primarily referring to his view of the deuteros. (However, Jerome did accept the authority of the Church, and did include the deuteros in his translation of the Bible into Latin.) But, Luther did far more than reject the deuteros: he rejected Job, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation; he then boldly inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28 to support his new theory of “sola fide”; after all this, he insisted that Scriptures be the only authority on all matters of faith and morals. That really looks demon inspired to me. Pleas note, however, that I don’t mean to suggest that Protestants are demon inspired. I believe they are wrong, but that is a far different thing. And I do not believe that Paul has damned them.

    “3. Finally, as far as the traditions go, joannicius, I defy you to inform us as to where the Word of God places itself under “Holy Tradition.” And Henry, I am not attempting to be haughtier than thou. In fact, we are both accusing each other of following man’s traditions. That is why I compared your and joan’s words to those of Mormonism; I have been 3 months living around it in Utah now, and it is the highest example of blindness by commitment to man’s tradition you can find. I was reminded of their salvation by works and faith and eventual achievement of godhood doctrines by what you’ve been saying. From what I’ve read from you two, it’s not a problem to follow what men say, it’s just a matter of which men, and how many you can quote. As for me, I see my beliefs in the Bible free and clear.”

    Tell me where the Bible claims to be the sole authority on all matters of faith and morals.

    Tell me how you know what the true canon of Scriptures is. Do you know for sure what the canon is? Has some infallible decree come down so that you know the exact extent of the infallible Bible? How can you know that the Bible IS infallible without having an infallible definition of exactly what is contained in the Bible?

    Tell me how you know what the true interpretation of Scripture is. Conservatively, there are dozens (by some counts, hundreds) of thousands of Protestestant denominations. The Bible obviously is not perspicuous. What good is an infallible book if it is incapable of infallibly showing you the truth?

    Tell me how following the Scriptures is different from following sacred Tradition (assuming such a thing exists). The Bible is what men said, but you don’t deny that it is God-breathed just because it is men who said it. What reason have you for suggesting that Tradition is not God-breathed, if the fact that men say it is irrelevant?

    In the Bible, “Tradition”, “Gospel”, and “Word of God” are largely synonomous:

    * 1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

    * 2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

    * 2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

    * 1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

    * Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

    * 1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

    * Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

    * 1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

    * 2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

    * Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

46. joannicius Says:
    January 29th, 2005 at 11:16 pm

    The only thing I have to say about what you have said Henry, is that you and I are close to the same page. You didn’t respond to my diatribe on the Great Schism, or did I miss it?

    One thing that simplifies the understanding of salvation for me is to look at our covenant relationship with Christ as a marriage, and as we all understand, a marriage can be for a lifetime or cut short as mine by my former wife choosing another.

    Christ will not force us to stay with him once we have made the coventant but does all he can to show us his love and acceptance, just as the theif who happen to enter into the covenant on the cross as he was dying.

    In His Love He meets us where we meet Him.

    If you all want, we can continue this (3 way) conversation at: http://forum.sovereign.us

    This is a new forum I put up for this purpose.

    If this offends the rules of the forum or such we will retract this!

47. joannicius Says:
    January 31st, 2005 at 2:02 am

    I just found this and had to share it with you all: It is from an interview with a great thinker - Phillip E. Johnson. —-

    “The first thousand years of the Christian faith was the era of the great councils and of unity in the faith. The second millennium was the millennium of the schisms—the great East-West schism, the Reformation, and the splintering of Protestantism—and then the near destruction of the whole thing in the wake of materialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But I see that ground being recaptured. All those centuries of strife and conflict and hatred—the engine has run down. There are still people who want to keep it going—I’ve met some of them—but I think the overwhelming sense is that we’re tired of that. The third millennium has to be the millennium of reconstitution—from the bottom up. It’s about recapturing the sense of the mystical union of the Body of Christ at the grassroots level. I see that happening all the time.”

    I believe I see the same as he!

    Here is the reference if you want the whole read:
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-05-037-i

Leave a Reply