St. Thomas Aquinas on [the lack of] Certainty of Salvation

Did this man teach that Christians could be certain they were in a state of grace?

The final Reformation post, which is not a re-cycled post, but some comments I made on a blog elsewhere.  Years ago, Andrew Preslar of the Roman Catholic Called to Communion blog, wrote a post called St. Thomas Aquinas on Assurance of Salvation.  I had quite a conversation with him here, to say the least (it went on for many months)

I recalled this morning that my last comment there was deleted.  Andrew’s comment is the last one there now.  It says:

The words that you claim are “mitigated” by St. Thomas and the new Catholic Catechism are embraced not only by simple Catholics, they are embraced by St. Thomas himself and other learned Catholics, including those who compiled the Catechism. The theology and prayers of the Church, concerning the love and mercy of God, are most helpful precisely for persons with highly sensitive consciences, because those persons tend to be most aware of their own sinfulness, and therefore most aware of their need for the love and mercy of God, which is precisely what is confessed and celebrated in the theology and liturgies of the Catholic Church.

My deleted comments where these:

Andrew,

I just can’t see at all what you seem to think is clear and obvious. I agree some of the prayers are excellent – it is the formal theology I have problems with. At this point, it is probably best for me to bow out, for I will simply be repeating what I said in #86 in different ways. Persons can read what you say, what I say there (in particular) and then read Thomas, Trent, and the new catechism to see what matches up best. Maybe in the future we will have new things to discuss, which might shed more light on who is interpreting Thomas more in line with his own thought.

Best regards,

Nathan

Post number 86, which I mentioned in that comment, is this one, and I confess that it is very technical, as it came about as the fruit of months of discussion:

Andrew,

Good morning. I hope this latest entry from me finds you doing well. I have been thinking and reflecting and praying on these matters very much, and you’ll be happy to know that I condensed a 6 page response to you down to about two and a half!

I think I am beginning to understand St. Thomas much better (getting used to the vocabulary he uses, the grooves along which he thinks, and the way his “filing cabinet” is organized). I recently finished reading and re-reading him regarding the theological virtue of hope (II, II, Q 17, and 18), and related articles (primarily presumption, Q 21).

At one point, Thomas says that when we say “I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come” that future happiness pertains to hope. Hope is fundamentally about the goal of future happiness, which correlates with God Himself as the one who perfects us. Hope is indeed distinct from faith, and in this case “expectation is mentioned in the creed of faith, not as though it were the proper act of faith, but because the act of hope presupposes the act of faith”. “Hence an act of faith is expressed in the act of hope.” (II, II 17, Art. 6)

It is interesting here to unfold the logical implications of this. As regards not just an act of faith but the act of faith, this means that when we freely choose to assent to God’s words, we begin to have faith and with this, knowledge of revealed truth (logically speaking there is no knowledge before the act of faith, which also need not be justifying faith, or faith “formed by love”). On the other hand, as regards the act of hope, here knowledge of divinely revealed truth is presupposed, and the act of the will is likewise important, but also important is the expectation of future things.

This expectation is surely something that is certain, even if, since it has to do with future expectation, it is not “the proper act of faith” but instead the act of hope. This is something that hope can be certain of, namely that Christ will resurrect all people and the give “life of the world to come” to the sheep – those with justifying faith. In like manner, we can say with certainty that those who, in love, continually unite their wills (“hope resides in the will”) with God in this earthly life will be partakers of this “life of the world to come”. As Thomas says, “by leaning in His help”, “moral virtues” “are moved to their acts by the reason”, and therefore “hope [which resides in the will] tends to its end with certainty”

When it comes to the confidence of the believer in his own case (since he cannot have the certainty that he is in a state of grace, either by divine revelation [“the certainty of faith”] or otherwise), the dilemma is the following: is the believer’s hope of eternal life certain as it pertains to the present moment? Or only as it pertains to taking into account “the whole life lived”? Here, we might think of N.T. Wright and his approach to the matter of justification by faith alone. Wright insists that he holds to the doctrine of faith alone as regards the matter of justification in the present. For Wright, the believer can know that he is justified by faith alone in the present as a certain guarantee of his future: God’s final judgment is revealed beforehand. As it regards the actual future justification however, the believer is well aware that the final judgment will be not be simply according to one’s present faith, but will take into account the “the whole life lived”, as Wright puts it (here, many in the Reformation tradition see Wright smuggling in works, thereby undermining the purpose of the doctrine of justification, namely comforting terrified consciences who look to God for mercy). It is clear from Thomas that the believer looks to God – and not himself – for all grace and help. The question is simply whether the believer’s hope of eternal life can be certain as it pertains to the present moment. In other words, for all intents and  purposes, can the Roman Catholic, in the midst of the dark night of the soul, say “hope alone!” and gain peace?

As best I can tell right now, this whole matter is at the very least ambiguous and needs further clarification from the Magisterium. That said, right now, I have read very little of St. Thomas’ corpus. If he did not explicitly address distinctions like those I have laid out above, I wonder if there are things that he has written that would count as very clear evidence pointing in one direction or the other? As it stands now, I must lean with the second option – the certainty of hope pertains to the whole life lived – taking the whole thing into “account”. My reasons and arguments for this are the following:

• Thomas never says we can have “certainty of eternal life” – rather, wayfarers “apprehend happiness as a future possible thing”
• hope does not look to the present but the future
• Thomas is not focusing on a certain word of absolution in the present moment but rather the big picture – a hope that is found in the entire context of man’s nature being brought to ultimate supernatural fulfillment according to God’s arrangement.
• Thomas saying that the future good hoped for is “arduous but possible to obtain”
• it is the blessed in heaven, not those with justifying faith on earth, who “do not hope for the continuation of their Happiness”, “eternal life”, “but are in actual possession of it” (Q 18, Art 2)
• “many who are damned, in this life hoped and never despaired”
• Thomas’ handling of the matter of certainty of one’s “state of grace” – he leads towards and not away from doubt
• It seems that with Thomas, we only know there is certain knowledge (“indubitable knowledge”) and there is opinion (“conjectural knowledge”, guesswork) – and nothing in between
• the Trent passage above uses language pertaining to the emotions and affective aspect of life (i.e. the “sensitive”, “accompanied by passion” for Thomas), not the language of reason and the intellect (“without passion”)
• further, in that same passage, it the phrase “reconciliation with God” could mean two things: either the partial reconciliation with God given in the absolution (eliminating the eternal consequences of sin) or full reconciliation with God [and neighbor] after performing penitential acts (eliminating the temporal consequences of the sins that were at issue).
• I am aware of no RC theologian prior to 1900 (or even 1950) who advocated views like the ones you put forth in this post
• again, the recent catechism, as far as concrete advice regarding this matter is concerned, offers up Joan of Arc’s confession as our model, where doubt is part and parcel of faith

Andrew, I hope that you do not see this conversation as drawing to a close. Do you think that we can go anywhere else from here? What do you think might be the next productive steps? Do you agree with me regarding what I have said about the importance of some good historical research looking into this area in a more in-depth fashion?

Here is a bit more along those lines: “…in Mirror of a Christian Man[, on the ‘eve of the Reformation’,] a German priest named Dietrich Kolde lamented: ‘There are three things I know to be true that frequently make my heart heavy. The first troubles my spirit, because I have to die. The second troubles my heart more, because I do not know when. The third troubles me above all. I do not know where I will go.’” (Denis Janz, Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran (New York: Mellen, 1982), 127, quoted in Kolb and Arand, The Genius of Luther’s Theology, p. 35)

How common was this? Were cases like this isolated and simply exploited by the Reformers of the various stripes? If these cases were not isolated, should they have been, on the basis of the kinds of words you speak? (i.e. perhaps there was a widespread misunderstanding among the church’s priests – including among Thomistic experts like Cajetan – of what the church actually taught?) Or perhaps Thomas’ actual teachings really could have contributed to this lack of confidence? Perhaps Luther understood Thomas much better than some have said?

Again, it seems to me that if we want to really overcome the barriers that divide us, a more in-depth look at the realities on the ground is necessary… showing that the claims of the Reformers about Rome’s promotion of uncertainty as regards the individual’s salvation were false.

In the meantime, here are some more of my most recent thoughts and reflections on our conversation and what it means…. (these posts are a sort of tribute to you: https://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/hope-alone-christs-roman-catholic-candles-part-ii-of-ii/)

+Nathan

(bold not in original reply to Andrew)

FIN

Advertisement

 

Joan of Arc faith vs. infant faith

Today’s re-cycled Reformation post deals again with the issue of certainty in the Christian life (see Romans 5:1 and I John 5:12-13).  If you have been paying attention to previous posts, these first two quotes will look quite familiar to you:

In the heat the Reformation, Luther said some very damning things about Rome:

 “What kind of church is the pope’s church? It is an uncertain, vacillating, and tottering church. Indeed, it is a deceitful, lying church, doubting and unbelieving, without God’s Word. For the pope with his keys teaches his church to doubt and to be uncertain… It is difficult enough for wretched consciences to believe. How can one believe at all if, to begin with, doubt is cast upon the object of one’s belief? Thereby doubt and despair are only strengthened and confirmed.” (Luther, 1530, quoted at the beginning of one of the chapters in Hendrix, Scott, Luther and the Papacy, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981, italics mine).

Or try this one:

“There hasn’t been a more destructive teaching against repentance in the Church (with the exception of the Sadducees and the Epicureans) as that of Roman Catholicism. In that it never permitted the forgiveness of sins to be certain, it took away complete and true repentance. It taught that a person must be uncertain as to whether or not he stood before God in grace with his sins forgiven. Such certainty was instead to be found in the value of a person’s repentance, confession, satisfaction, and service in purgatory.” Luther, Martin. Antinomian Theses, Disputation #4, 1938 (translated by Pastor Paul Strawn) Minneapolis: Lutheran Press, Inc., 2005 (The whole book is available for free at: http://www.lutheranpress.com/)

Was Luther right for being so harsh in his assessment?  What does Rome say about this issue today?

Officially speaking, Rome offers up Joan of Arc for our consideration in its most recent catechism:

 “…according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits” – reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'”⁵⁸  (see here)

I’d say that is a very clever answer!  Presumably – this is the model we are to remember and live by.  Historically speaking, one of the ways the powers-that-were thought they could prove Joan was a heretic (evidently) was by finding out whether she thought that she really had forgiveness, life and salvation, or as the Roman Catholics would say, that she was in a “state of grace”.

Up until the recent past, this kind of attitude would have been labeled the “sin of presumption” – Roman Catholics knew that to be a strong Christian actually meant that you doubted whether you yourself were saved.   For example, right around the same time that Luther nailed the 95 theses to the Church doors in Wittenberg, the theologian Johann Altenstaig (in his Vocabularius theologiae, Hagenau 1517) was saying that the devil led people astray by making them think there was good evidence for being saved.  “No one, no matter how righteous he may be”, Altenstaig said, “can know with certainty that he is in the state of grace, except by a revelation”. Likewise, Cardinal Cajetan, a few weeks before confronting Luther at Augsburg, wrote that “Clearly almost all come to the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist in reverent fear of the Lord and uncertain of being in grace.  In fact theologians praise their continuing uncertainty and ordinarily attribute its opposite to presumption or ignorance” (both quotes from Cajetan Responds, a footnote from p. 269 and p. 66)

However, nowadays, among some Roman Catholic apologists the definition of this “sin of presumption” seems to have narrowed quite a bit!   I think that we can readily understand why this is the case.  If you are trying to appeal to evangelical Christians, for example, telling them they can’t be certain that they are in a stable and secure relationship with God is not a winning argument.  As such, several RC apologists now, distinguishing between different kinds of “certainties” (see here to see how they approach this) will say that the certainty of one’s current status before God need not always be in doubt (see here, for an example of this)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/treehouse1977/3645154144

I can understand this impulse, because it clearly is a biblical one.  One needs only to look at undeniable passages like Romans 5:1 and I John 5:12.  The only problem is, as best I can tell, is that they are rewriting their history.  Early on, the great Scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas had said that certainty of one’s “state of grace” was at best “conjecture” (i.e. only “guesswork” due to inconclusive or incomplete evidence – hence the reason this was a good way to nail Joan).  When Cardinal Cajetan, in his meeting with Luther in 1518 essentially told him that one could never be sure “one’s contrition was sufficient to effect the forgiveness one hoped to receive” (Hendrix, Scott, Luther and the Papacy, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981, p. 62), Luther – amazed at this position – never looked back.  When the Pope backed up Cajetan’s views when he condemned Luther in Exsurge Domine, nothing more was needed to convince the Reformer that he was dealing with the Antichrist.

After Cardinal Cajetan confronted Luther over his “presumption” (i.e. his confidence that he really was in a state of grace) at Augsburg in 1518, his tracts over the next 14 years show that there was no moving on this teaching that the faithful could not be certain.  One gets the definitive sense that through conjecture the pious and devout were to conclude, from the evidence, not that they were in a state of grace, but the opposite!  And Cajetan, I have recently learned, was more or less Luther’s most thoughtful, irenic, and dare I say, “liberal” opponent (and the top expert on Thomas Aquinas of that day)!  In spite of the consensus that no one could be certain about this issue (admittedly due to William of Ockham’s overwhelming influence), there were some Franciscans who followed Duns Scotus, arguing that a person did not need to “doubt whether his disposition was sufficient for justification through the sacrament [of penance]”, but could rather be confident of meriting God’s grace by sorrow over their sin.  But even their view did not hold sway at Trent (Antonio Delphinus, O.F.M., Pro cetitudine gratiae praesentis (Concilium Tridentinum, XII, 651-658), which came down on a formulation that seems to have left Duns in the dust, and Thomas reigning supreme.  (see Cajetan Responds, footnote 14 on p. 267).

Not long ago, I heard an interesting story from the Lutheran pastor Rolf Preus.  He talked about being at a conference where a highly informed and capable ecumenical Catholic scholar was convincing many Lutheran pastors that Rome and Wittenberg were not far about on the matter of justification by faith.  He seemed to be saying all the right things – that is, until one pastor asked him the first Kennedy Evangelism Explosion question: “If you died today, do you know for sure you’d go to heaven?”  This question threw him off, and at this point he evidently sputtered and flailed and didn’t know what to say.  This convinced the pastors that for all the other words they had heard that sounded so good to their ears, there were still significant differences that remained.

Again, many modern RC apologists would not be so tongue-tied over a question like this… in fact, they have ready answers.  I contend that they are new and innovative answers though – deviating from Rome historically – even if they don’t want to believe that it is true.

It truly is amazing to be reminded that Martin Luther, from Vatican II onwards, seems increasingly to be vindicated by modern Roman Catholic theologians….

“[Catholic theology] has to ask in a more unbiased manner about the contemporary consensus with the Luther of that time who has already formulated, sometimes in an uncanny way, so much of what is also today self-evident to the Catholic sense of faith” (Otto Pesch, quoted in Sobolewski, Gregory, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 50)

True, I would say.

So how can we sum all of this up?  Well, some modern RC apologists, rather than embracing the Joan of Arc model, are at once doing a right thing and a wrong thing.  The right thing they are doing is insisting that when a Christian who sees his sin says the words “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed,” they really should believe the words they speak, and receive the real peace with God that Christ delivers.  In other words, they should be as infants, who in simple, unassuming, unpretencious, and unreflective faith receive the wonderful words of absolution freely, and resist alternative voices that tell them not to be formed, shaped, and driven by these words.  The wrong thing they are doing is insisting that this is what St. Thomas taught – or what Trent taught – or even what Rome currently teaches.

Ecumenically speaking, all of this means that Rome would have to admit that they were on the wrong side of history on this most important of issues, and that Luther was fundamentally right.   If this were to happen, it would truly be a wonderful miracle!  Alternatively though, they could double down on the issue, which would continue to alienate those it calls “separated brethren”.  Either way, all the word games in the world will not hide the fact that ultimately, a choice will need to be made.

Semper reformanda!

P.S. – Any RC apologists reading this – If I’m wrong, please show me why.  I certainly am open to hearing where I may have gone off the rails here – historically, or otherwise.

 

Children of the Reformation: the Importance of Certainty in the Christian Life

Yesterday, in the post Unchildlike Reformation Eve, we saw the great need for the Lutheran articulation of the doctrine of justification that had arisen in the church.  For today’s re-cycled Reformation-focused post – taking a look at the importance of certainty regarding one’s “state of grace” in the Christian life – I am actually combining a couple of posts.

First, there is this very short post, A Child of the Reformation.  It was my first ever Reformation Day post, which the Lutheran Pastor Will Weedon was kind enough to link to some 5 years ago: 

In my admittedly small mind there is really only one question about the validity of the Reformation of the Western Church:

Are God’s commands, threats, and punishments – His Hammer which shatters – to be proclaimed so that persons may see themselves as sinners – sinners who should then be given the confidence of faith – i.e. be actively persuaded via the Promise (Christ) that they have God’s forgiveness for all their sins (and hence, life and salvation) – even as they tremble?

Is this to continually occur in the life of the Christian, until death comes, or not? Is this pattern of “Law and Gospel” to be that which the heralds of God’s Word bring – or not? This, in my mind, is *the* question for the Church posed by the Reformation – and everything else flows from this.

[end first re-cycled post]

These days, I would rephrase that to say that this is *the main* question for the Church posed by the Reformation.  To this I add this post, Luther on Certainty of Salvation, first published in January of 2013:

Luther and Aquinas on Salvation, published in 1965, when Ecumenical hopes were high.

In his book Luther and Aquinas on Salvation (1965), the Roman Catholic theologian Stephen Pfurgner nails Luther’s views  about what creates certainty in the Christian:

“To this notion of “grace” there corresponds also the manner in which I become certain of it.  For certainty does not come to me from any kind of reflection on myself or on my state.  On the contrary, it comes solely through hearing the Word, solely and because and in so far as I cling to the Word of God and its promise.  Certainty of grace for the believer therefore does not arise from a feeling of confidence; it is not psychological, as Catholic critics have often represented it.  Faith only as acceptance of the Word, effective of salvation, is for Luther the decisive source of certainty.  Not indeed that subjective experience is to be excluded: the experience of comfort can be incorporated in the certainty of salvation.  But God can withdraw feeling, at any rate for a time, without the confidence of faith being thereby dissolved.  A sense of comfort therefore is in no way the real basis for the certainty of salvation: this is the Word of God and the promise it includes.” (pp. 125 and 126)

To demonstrate this, he quotes Luther saying:

If you have received forgiveness of sins, do not on that account be secure (secures). You are just, holy, from outside yourself (extrinsece).  It is through mercy and compassion that you are just.  It is not my disposition or a quality of my heart, but something outside myself – the divine mercy – which assures us that our sins are forgiven” (WE 40 I, pp. 588f, in Pfurgner, 124, 125)

He also quotes Luther on how he teaches the certainty of grace or salvation:

[“We must daily more and more strive to get out of uncertainty into certainty and occupy ourselves with destroying at its root that utterly pernicious error”] (that man cannot know whether or not he is in a state of grace), by which the whole world is seduced.  If we doubt God’s grace and do not believe that God is well-pleased in us for Christ’s sake, then we are denying that Christ has redeemed us – indeed, we question outright all his benefits. (WE 40 I, p. 579, 17f, in Pfurgner, 37, and 120)

I would add here: holding to good and salutary thoughts like Luther’s here are not necessary for one’s personal salvation – but they are necessary!

Pfurgner also provides several other fine quotes on the topic from Luther’s Galatians commentary:

“Our ground is the following: The Gospel teaches us not to look to our good deeds and perfections, but to the God of promise, to Christ the Mediator himself.  The Pope on the other hand orders us not to look to the God of the promise, not to Christ the high-priest, but to our works and merits.  On that side there follow necessarily doubt and despair, but on this certainty and joy of spirit since I cling to God who cannot lie….” (WE 40 I, pp. 588f, in Pfurgner, 37)

Also this one where Luther emphasizes the “to me”:

“But do not pass over contemptuously the pronoun “nostris”, for it will avail thee nothing to believe that Christ offered himself for the sins of the other saints and to doubt in regard to thy own.  For the godless and the devils also believe that.  Much rather must thou accept with constant trust the fact that it holds also for thine and that thou art one of those for whose sins he was offered.  This faith justifies thee and makes Christ dwell, live and rule in thee.” (WE 40 I, p. 458, 20f, in Pfurgner, 37 and 38).

Pfurgner sums things up this way:

“Luther’s interpretation of Catholic teaching maintains therefore: the Roman Church (‘the Pope’) does not recognize the certainty of salvation.  It abandons the individual to doubt and despair.  For it bases justification on the works of men, on self-sanctification.  But by his own merits no man can become completely just before God.  It follows that he must remain in distress and turmoil of conscience.” (38)

[end second re-cycled post]

For more on the importance of this issue for Luther – and some more quotes from him on this very issue – be sure to see the re-cycled Reformation post from the other day, Forgiveness free and true: the crux of the Reformation, the essence of the Christian life.  For more on Pfurgner’s description of St. Thomas’ view on these matters – and a short critique of Thomas by me – see the post The felicitous* inconsistencies of St. Thomas.  For an exploration of the epistemological issues that seem to be at play here, see Knowledge first and foremost: baby King David vs. adult St. Thomas.

FIN

 

The questions that some Eastern Orthodox Christians can not abide

Confessional Lutheran Pastor Weedon on the Eastern Orthodox: more into venerating the icons of the fathers than actually reading what they wrote…

I regret to say that it seems I have worn out my welcome at Father Freeman’s blog Glory to God for All Things.  I will admit I was a bit feisty over there, but I felt that as long as he was willing to have me as a guest, I should show up and let him know that some of his recent posts had been been quite unfair and uncharitable towards confessional Lutherans.  I did make the mistake of coming right in, briefly explaining myself, and linking to a comprehensive post that made my case.  Father Freeman said that I was “trolling” which has to do with “fishing in someone else’s waters”.  I understood his point and admitted that I should have raised my concerns in a different way.

From that point on, there was some good back-and-forth between myself, Father Freeman, and other thoughtful contributors.

That said, let me share a couple of the comments that I just put up there this morning but were deleted shortly thereafter (on this thread).  I think they are very important.

When it became clear to one commentator that I was retaining my firm Lutheran (and Scriptural) convictions throughout the conversation, he asked:

“forgive me saying this, but I cannot help thinking : what are you really doing in this Orthodox blog then?”

Here is how I responded:

I am here spending time with persons whom, it seems to me, are my fellow believers in Christ. I have always been interested in EO ever since I learned about it, and my efforts here are to find out, through conversation, more about what they believe. I do not just want to believe what others say the EO believe or to think that I have firmly and fully understood the articles and books of EO authors. It is much better to talk with individual EO Chrisitians, in the flesh if at all possible, who can answer specific questions I have and who might be willing to explore their faith – what they believe – in conversation with what another person says (for perhaps we might find surprising points of agreement?). Of course, inevitably, I find out more what I believe in the process.

I continue to do this and will do this wherever persons welcome me. As a result of these kinds of inquiries, I wrote my series I did trying to get EO and Confessional Lutherans to take a new look at their similarities and what we have hitherto seen as differences. The series of posts, “If all theology is Christology, how wide the divide?” [that is here] was even promoted by Father Kimel on his blog, who I can only assume found it fair and useful.

Further, I commend to you the story in Galatians 1, where Paul talks about his joy in receiving the right hand of fellowship from those who seemed to be pillars….*

…I will end my comments here at this point. I did one more post on this blog over at the “Authority: Answers Without Questions” thread this morning as well. If any of you are willing to address my post there, I would be interested to hear what you have to say.

+Nathan

That comment above was the first one that was deleted.  And what were those comments on that other post (here it is)?

To set the context, I had made this comment:

I was seeking to better understand why you have labeled all Protestants Rationalists… and think that I find the beginnings of an answer in this post.

You say:

“Orthodoxy is truth-embodied. And though this can be described, no description is the same thing as the truth-embodied. An argument never approaches the true question of authority – it ultimately only distracts the soul and disguises the true and appropriate questions. The dogged resistance of Orthodoxy to various ecumenical overtures are found precisely in this organic instinct for the truth. For there are no propositions that can be accepted that would, in fact, make one Orthodox. And even accepting all so-called Orthodox propositions still fall short. For it is only the self-emptying life of repentance that has any standing. Its proof is found in a deified life.”

[I replied:]

I really do think I get the idea of Orthodoxy being truth-embodied and how no description can capture this. I believe I am someone who thinks more or less in the same way about my Confessional Lutheranism (who as you know, also have a reputation for dogged resistance to various ecumenical overtures, stubborn lot we are). The issue that perplexes me is this : are you not an authority making *an argument* about why we, for example, lack true authority? And if I listened to what you said and, by the power of the Holy Spirit turned from my Lutheran errors, how would I not become [Eastern] Orthodox?

I am guessing that I am not the only person thinking about questions like this. Or perhaps this is one of the first keys in helping me and others to understand our own captivity to the Rationalism you speak of? I am guessing that the word “understand” is not part of what you would say the problem is.

+Nathan

Father Freeman did not answer that specific question saying, in part: 

I’m not interested in answering questions viz. your continued monologue about Confessional Lutheranism. It belongs on your blog, not mine. If I’m interested in the topic I’ll visit it there. But it has become lengthy, repetitive and a distraction here. I “get it” that the self-understanding of Confessional Lutheranism is that it’s not Protestant, that it is somehow a continuation of the early Church, etc. Orthodoxy rejects that as spiritual delusion. But since it is a self-understanding I do not expect to disabuse you of the notion. But I’m not particularly interested in it nor in spending the time and space of the blog on it.

Maybe I should have taken the hint.  That said, I tend to be hopelessly optimistic, thinking that the Spirit of God will use us to break down barriers between us – helping us (not just him) to realize where we have perhaps been a bit blind.  I responded to him and another man in the following way:

Mule Chewing Briars, Father Freeman,

Thank you for answering the question about bowing in Revelation. My initial impression is that I would have no trouble bowing, kneeling, kissing the feet, kissing the ring, etc. of any great saint or Apostle. That I do not make this a part of my regular worship does not indicate that I would be unwilling to do so.

That said, I am re-reading Chemnitz now on the invocation of the saints, and if his survey of the early church is correct – and I have no reason that is was not, as I believe for good reasons that Chemnitz did in fact reverently read the entire corpus of the early church (more than most any of us) – there are very good reasons for not embracing such a practice even aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Scripture[s] about it (and Father – you never did tell me a resource that makes the case that a common use of the word “Scripture” goes beyond the canonical books). And yet, I have gotten the distinct impression here that not invoking Mary would be enough for the Eastern Church to not recognize us as brothers in fellowship – even if we believed you about most everything else.

Think about that for a minute: is this not absolutely scandalous? You would put the certainty of salvation and peace with God good Christian people have (I John 5, Romans 5:1) into doubt over this. I have held my tongue long enough but I believe I would be guilty and derelict at this point for not saying this: I do not think I can avoid concluding that that is absolutely un-Christian.

Finally – Father Freeman, I appreciate all the hospitality I have been shown up to this point. I really do. Thank you. I hope and pray that you will continue to think about the two questions I asked above (October 23, 2014 at 5:39 am) – and consider answering them in a future post. I think that everyone here knows that one need not be a confessional Lutheran to ask such questions, for they are eminently reasonable (rationalistic?) for a human being to ask another human being when they speak the way you do.

+Nathan

I’ll admit that comment about Mary was quite strong, and perhaps I should have not been surprised that my comment was deleted.  That said, it did seem right to me to make that point, since invocation to Mary was being pressed so strongly during the course of the conversation I had been privileged to have in Father Freeman’s home.  I don’t think I am wrong in concluding that, In effect, we are being told that because we do not pray to Mary we could not be considered to be “truly Church”.  Therefore, from the E.O. point of view, we have no reliable guarantee of our connection to Christ.

I recognize that I was a guest in Father Freeman’s house.  I know in some person’s homes they really do appreciate intense discussion, debate, questioning, etc.  I do not think that it needs to be that way everywhere even as that is what I prefer.  I do not begrudge Father Freeman for not allowing these comments to remain posted in his house.  He believes that I am a wolf and that he must guard the flock entrusted to his care there.  Or perhaps he simply could not make the time to continue to carefully answer me.  I do not think I am being un-humble, however, in suggesting that it would do well for Father Freeman and serious Eastern Orthodox Christians to reflect on the words that I said.

FIN

*the rest of the comment:

As for the saints question, of course we have many wonderful laypersons who are not professional theologians who I could mention and commend to you. Of course all of us are theologians though and I think most any saint would readily embrace the opportunity to know more about the Fathers of the Church, Church history, etc – if they were given the opportunity. Of course we do not all need to be intellectuals, but we do, as given the opportunity, strive to love God with all are mind as best we can – for the sake of our neighbor

xxxx, (response to a different person)

I went into some detail above explaining why your gloss on our view of salvation of “monergism” is incorrect and why Lutherans themselves have not traditionally talked this way. I maintain that whatever truth might be found in such a phrase (again see my comments above), it should strictly be avoided [as it is not a Scriptural word nor one that appears in our Confessions]

 

Good, Right, and Salutary Certainty vs. Brian McLaren, “Bible 3.0” and Protestant Confessionalism?

What hath Brian D. McLaren in common with Karl Barth – and most Reformed theology? Or no?

The issue of certainty – particularly as it regards the certainty of one’s salvation – has always been a monumental issue for Lutherans (read here).  This is one reason why Kierkegaard, for example, discussed in my last post, does not adequately represent the Lutheran tradition.  Kierkegaard wrote a lot to make persons doubt their Christianity, but not much to give them certainty about it….

Hence, I was quite surprised when I read in in the apologetics textbook by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Faith Has its Reasons that as regards evidentialist apologists…:

“It is surely no accident that theological traditions that downplay or deny human certainty about one’s salvation also downplay or deny the possibility of rational certainty in apologetic argument. Arminians and Lutherans believe that Christians should be reasonably confident of their salvation but should not expect to be absolutely certain of it….” (p. 493)

“Good grief, I thought – what kind of impression have confessional Lutherans been giving?” Lumped in with Arminians and those who have no certainty of salvation in an otherwise superior apologetics textbook! (I have run into this issue in the past, but I was not aware of how widespread this misconception is). On the other hand, Boa and Bowman say that “Reformed theology emphasizes personal assurance of salvation based on the certainty of God’s sovereign purpose and his promise in Scripture…” (p. 494)  That might be the case, but there are good reasons for questioning just how assuring this assurance is (see here for a short post summing up my amazement at the positions of Roman Catholic Andrew Preslar and the Reformed apologist Steve Hays).  From our side of the fence, let me be very clear: Lutherans insist that we can be certain – should be certain! – that we are in a “state of grace”, or that we are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1 and I John 5:12-13).

So the other morning I also came across this interesting bit from that same textbook:

“Fideists may even agree with postmodernists that some contemporary forms of apologetics operate under hidden modernist assumptions. The apologist should take this concern seriously. While we should not abandon our belief in absolute truth and the objectivity in reality, we ought to acknowledge that all human knowledge – even the knowledge that Christians have from reading the Bible – is partial, imperfect, and held from a limited point of view. In Scripture we have absolute truth presented to us, but we do not have absolute knowledge of absolute truth.” (p. 492, Boa and Bowman)

And so now, in the context of this apologetics textbook, we begin talking about certainty regarding one’s theology as well. Today, it is generally held that Christians of all stripes who take the Bible seriously should not be too tenacious in their own commitments. Children of Immanuel Kant all, when we discuss the Bible we are supposed to talk about our “perspectives” on the text.  We are not supposed to say things like “this is what the Bible actually says”, or, “what my church teaches is true” or, perhaps the biggest no-no of all: “by virtue of our doctrine, we are the church”.

Well. I could not help but think about that when I heard about a recent article talking about Brian McClaren’s “Bible 3.0” (talked about by Pastor Jonathan Fisk on Issues ETC the other day)

From the article that talks about this we read

What is different about this era, that is key to Bible 3.0, is the fact that everyone can now be involved in challenging not just what the Bible says, but the way we have traditionally understood what it says. “It’s not just that it’s being challenged and contested, it’s that everybody knows it is being challenged and contested.”….

….The very fact that so many people are now aware of how many different interpretations there are of single passages or entire books of the Bible is helping to move us into the era of Bible 3.0. Under Bible 3.0, he says, it doesn’t matter that the Bible is inerrant, because so many us derive completely different meanings from the same inspired, inerrant texts.

I think it does us well to see how what McClaren says here has some significance – at least as regards certain quarters of Protestant confessionalism.  From what I have come to learn (and feel free to attempt to unlearn me), we do not all view the meaning and significance of our confessional statements in the same way.  Check out this post from the LC-MS President Matthew Harrison quoting the 20th c. Lutheran saint Herman Sasse here.*

20th century Lutheran theologian Herman Sasse: “A church without patristics turns into a sect.” Has the confessional age for Lutherans also come to an end?  See here.

And this brings me back to the first quote from Boa and Bowman as I think there is a potential problem with what they say.  While on the one hand we can talk about our knowledge being “partial, imperfect, and held from a limited point of view” we should be more ready to talk about how it can also be sure, certain, and true – even if mystery remains and our knowledge has not been brought to its completion.

As Luther said, the Holy Spirit is no skeptic. This will be challenged of course, but the Lutheran Reformers – and it appears some of the very first Reformed confessors (again see the Harrison post mentioned above) – took this kind of approach for granted. And I suggest that it is precisely because of this stubbornness – faithfulness – that they were able to hold the line and preserve the heart of the Gospel against Rome who would make such certainty null and void.

And further, it is also because of this point of view that we can have good reasons for explaining how it is that Christians exist even in what we have called “heterodox” churches: because wherever the clear words of the Gospel are preached – drawn from the pure well of the Holy Scriptures – persons will be brought to faith in him.

I would suggest that this whole idea of surety and certainty is not a modernist point of view, but an ancient Christian point of view.

To read more about this kind of thing, you can look at a couple posts I did several years ago about the “arrogance of the infant”, making the connection of child-like faith with Lutheran theology (here and here)

FIN

 

Notes

*Also this short post.

McClaren image: thepublicqueue.com

 

If you want salvation you already have salvation!

That is true.  Period.

Of course, it presumes a certain context: that we are talking about forgiveness, life, and salvation for Christ’s sake – peace with God through the crucified and risen Son of God via words from God (so if you are talking about some other kind of salvation, that statement would not necessarily be true)

And if you don’t want forgiveness for sins God has shown you, it seems we are not talking about the same Jesus (see this interesting post to) – even if we are using the same words.  If you were baptized into Christ, it would seem that although your baptism was valid, it is not presently efficacious.  In other words, maybe you can say “I was baptized”, but can you honestly say “I am baptized”?

But what if you are not sure you don’t need forgiveness for such sins?  What if you are struggling – meaning that you are not complacently taking pride in your “noble struggle” – but are truly haunted and bothered by it?

The fact that you have warring motivations does not change the fact that you have eternal life – this war is evidence that you have His Spirit already, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is fighting in and for you.  The words of a “Mighty Fortress is our God” come to mind:

…He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit….

He has been reconciled with you and you with Him.

And that doesn’t mean everything is easy! – receiving all the salvation God has for us can be a difficult process to endure.

And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife….

But we must always remember that forgiveness, life and salvation do not just come to us at the beginning of our life with God, but throughout it (listen to this free audio of the Gospel for those broken by the church if this is sounds like something you need to hear more of).

Just remain in Him.  Remember Him.  Treasure all His words to you – ones that condemn and kill you and ones that comfort and raise you.  For he is everything to us and we look nowhere else.  In the past, the present and the future His is the only Source of life, love, and light!  By His word, He holds all that is good together.

Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
The kingdom ours remaineth.

“Jesus remember me in your Kingdom…”  And as I recently read on an E.O. blog, “We are able to say no to God, but God is no longer able to say no to us, for according to St Paul, “there is only yes in God” (2 Cor 1:19), the yes of his Covenant which Christ has given on the Cross….”

Yes in that He is the friend of sinners, of bruised reeds, and smoldering wicks…

Amen!

FIN

In the coming weeks, I hope to do some others posts going into much detail about things like “free will” and “prevenient grace”.

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10154402@N03/2838350875

 

Hope alone!: Christ’s roman [catholic] candles (part II of II)

Part I here.

To counter Andrew, I would say that even if 16th-century Thomas-experts like Cardinal Cajetan (who said the devout are those who doubt whether they are in a state of grace) got the Angelic Doctor wrong (perhaps under the influence of men like William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel?), we still have issues.  The way I understand most all Roman Catholic apologist’s current take on this issue (though interestingly, I cannot find it in the new Catechism), we can only conclude we are in a state of grace in part because of a positive evaluation of our own moral character and conduct – and this relates to what some Catholic theologians have only very recently (as best I can tell) begun to describe as a “moral certainty”.  After all, when it comes to looking at evidences within to determine whether or not one is in a state of grace , St. Thomas said that one could consider, for example, one’s conscious experiences of “delight in the things of God” (strictly speaking, this would be “conjectural knowledge” and hence “imperfect” knowledge, i.e. guesswork based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence).

What would these “things of God” include?  To be sure, it would include what Andrew notes, namely one’s experience of “enjoy[ing] God as an end in himself”.  In addition, I think Andrew’s colleague at the Called to Communion blog, Bryan Cross, can help us here, as he expounds on St. Augustine:

“The New Testament is the ‘ministry of righteousness’ because through the Spirit we work righteousness, and thereby are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression.  Our deliverance is not that Christ fulfills the law in our place and then imputes His obedience to us, but that by His work He merited for us the grace of the Spirit whereby we are empowered through agape to work righteousness and so no longer fear the condemnation of the law.”

This may not sound bad at first (sometimes I do sense God’s grace in me, making me love Him and neighbor) – but what about what Catholics have called the “dark night of the soul”?  What about those times when we sense that, in reality, we are truly sinners who don’t work righteousness through agape – whose perseverance in good works seems to fail miserably?  When all our good actions seem tainted by motivations not from God?  Perhaps due to the failures we sense, we question not the Object of our faith or hope – but rather the genuineness of these things in our own lives.  Maybe we thought we had been in a state of grace but now wonder if we’ve lost it (as the Scriptures say can occur) – or ever really had it to begin with!  Perhaps our faith is not actually alive – “formed in charity”, as Roman Catholics would put it – but dead?*  Perhaps we have only been fooling ourselves that we are enjoying God as an end in Himself?**

Perhaps Andrew might offer such a person hope here.  After all, as he clearly says, God, not the state of one’s own soul, is “the direct object of the assurance of hope” (in his original post ; but also note ***)

An excellent answer – but we still must ask whether one can know this to be true in one’s own case – and if we can know the way it is true as well.  Should we simply avoid reflecting on any troublesome internal matters like those described above – considering ourselves overly scrupulous – and hence suppress such unwelcome thoughts?  Or, as regards being confident of one’s state of grace, perhaps someone with a view akin to Andrew’s might distinguish between one’s delight in receiving the gracious, salvation-giving promises of God on the one hand, and one’s delight in performing the commands of God to love Him and neighbor on the other hand?  Or, given that Andrew, like Luther, certainly wants to focus us outside of ourselves in the act of absolution, perhaps he might suggest putting it like this: are we looking to God for the grace sufficient to give real eternal life/salvation in the present (this would mean that the Roman Catholic, in the midst of the dark night of the soul, could receive real peace with God though “faith/hope alone”) – or are we looking for the grace that we can only activate and preserve via our present and future love of God and neighbor? – in other words, eternal life/salvation wrought only through the loving cooperation of our wills?  (a key?: does grace transform because it forgives sins via words that are Spirit and Life?  Or does grace forgive sins because it transforms via an infusion that does not come via hearing only? See here)

The issue here is that even if Andrew would rightly say the first is the way to go (this would mean that due to our own honest evaluation of our sinful state, the issue of “moral certainty” here would really be about an evaluation of the character of God’s faithfulness in the relationship and not our own), Thomas never seems to consider any thoughts similar to these – and evidently felt no need to do so ***.  Even Pfurtner, the author of Luther and Aquinas on Salvation, also never takes this route – as he, unlike Andrew, never focuses on absolution as being God’s final judgment of us rendered now, nor uses words like “know” when it comes to one’s “state of grace” (on the contrary, see pages 101, 102, 110, 132, 133, and 157 ; also, again note part V here from Aquinas****).

Recently, I said this to Andrew:

“It seems rather clear to me that in Rome the emphasis is almost always on [the work that remains to be done] and not where you think it should be.  Of course you are right.  From where I sit, that’s why your article stands out like a bright shining light in a sea of darkness.”

I repeat, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that I have produced which I think clearly demonstrate that Rome teaches differently (see here, here to start and read the whole conversation for more detail), Andrew insists that Roman Catholic teaching must be what he says it is – that knowledge that one is in a state of grace is both desirable and possible.

Well, of course his spiritual instincts are right – this must be so (see here, here and here for how this plays out with Lutherans).

Again, unlike Andrew, I’m quite sure that right now this is not the Roman teaching, of course – but I am also confident that God desires Rome to go this way (strengthening what good remains), and I see persons like Andrew as reasons for having hope.

May those who cannot imagine how their church could mitigate Romans 5:1 (peace with God is attainable) and I John 5 (knowledge of our eternal life is attainable) continue to grow in their conviction of God’s desire to give His children – even His failing children – peace!  May this man and others like him determine and bend the doctrine to their will – for it is God’s will!  Whether this comes about in Rome as a whole as a conscious realization of those within it (accompanied by the necessary repentance for false past teaching) – or more unconsciously – may this come indeed!

Some may consider Andrew naïve, and express concern that he is putting his soul in quite a bit of danger by remaining in a church that actually is at odds with him.  On the other hand, I don’t want to downplay the true power of the actual word of forgiveness that creates and preserves forgiveness, life and salvation!  As Luther says, this word becomes the all-encompassing word that dares to die a thousand deaths!*****

If Andrew really can cling to the promise of absolution that Christ offers penitent sinners and be utterly confident in his salvation – and also forcefully articulate a case for why he believes all Roman Catholics should do the same – it gives me that much more hope than not that one day our Churches might see eye to eye.  For I suspect that when a church freely gives to broken sinners the forgiveness, life, and salvation found in Christ – that is, true peace with God and knowledge of eternal life in His Son – then all the other errant teachings that they might have must be overshadowed with this bright light – as they eventually fade into the background and lose their power to keep sinners from the light which saves (that said, the spirit of antichrist is clearly not without influence, and he will do all that he can to destroy that which gives life – eternal life – to the world… perhaps even trying to use such openness to the Gospel in Rome to his ultimate advantage)

The transformation of the world seen first in Christ’s resurrection is grounded in the individual sinner’s imputation.  Truly, there is nothing more powerful in this world than the simple Gospel of God’s forgiveness of penitent sinners in the simple and humble forms of God’s Word…. through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

Note: This message cannot be stopped.

FIN

*-I note that in Roman Catholic theology, being a true believer and being one who has “justifying faith” are not necessarily synonymous (see Pfurtner, 132, 133).  Also, Pfurtner says “As long as we remain on this earth, we are never certain of possessing faith and hope in the way that God calls us to possess them…” (p. 135) – of course this is precisely why Luther spoke of the doctrine of justification as he did (see here again) – to take our focus off of ourselves, and put it on Christ.  We do not look to our faith or have faith in it, but to Christ!

**-note that for Thomas, is it imperfect love, or love that intends to obtain possession of something for one’s self, that pertains to hope.  Perfect love pertains to charity, which adheres to God for His own sake (see II.II 17, 8)

*** Thomas does not, as Andrew claims, say we can enjoy the “certainty of eternal life”, but essentially that we can enjoy the certainty of the hope of eternal life.  See part V here from Aquinas – where he uses Psalm 18:13 (“Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant.”) and Ecclesiastes 9:1 (“Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred”) to lead persons into doubt over whether one really has God’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.  On the other hand, note that Luther, in focusing on receiving God’s promise of forgiveness, does not even put our focus on our delight or confidence we feel as a result of the absolving word, but rather the actual absolving word itself (which certainly creates delight and confidence – see here for more).  And yet, Luther, like Thomas, realized that self-evaluation – and hence introspection – on the basis of God’s law (commands about what we are to do) was a critical part of the Christian life.  And for consciences very sensitive to God’s law (and commands given in the church), he insisted that questions similar to the following would arise in many: “How do I know for sure that sins I might convince myself are venial are not really things that I have actually done with ‘full knowledge and consent’”? “Aren’t small sins big sins when they are considered small?” “If I am told that ‘confession of forgotten and unknown sins is beyond human ability’, but that I should confess all sins as lie within my human abilities, how do I know whether I have not forgotten some sins because of more sin and not innocent forgetfulness?” Also key to penance of course: not coming to communion if you’ve committed a mortal sin, fully trusting that the particular works of penance prescribed to you will do the job (in spite of the fact that they are not found in God’s Word!), fully trusting that one was in the right state of mind when doing what was required in the sacrament: i.e. that an accurate description of the circumstances of all mortal sins was given so that the pastor’s evaluation would be accurate…, and finally, trusting that the penitence performed was done in sufficiently pure love for God…

**** – Saying that we can have a “moral certainty” that we are in a state of grace is not something that Thomas ever said. In fact, on the basis of article V regarding “the cause of grace”, I would argue it is quite clear that he would have rejected such language (something Roman Catholics previous to our time would concur with). I would put it this way: for Thomas, although we can’t have knowledge, or certainty, that we are in a state of grace – by divine revelation *or otherwise* – we can have knowledge, or certainty, about the hope we have of eternal life.  This is the contrast that he wishes to bring to our attention.  Thomas specifically says one may *know conjecturally* – that is that is by one’s personal experience and guesswork regarding it – that he has grace, but that this *knowledge* is imperfect (i.e. it is not really knowledge, but “opinion”) – and it seems clear from the verses he quotes in this section that he wishes to discourage one from coming to a positive conclusion (see above note for more).  As best I can tell, Roman Catholics theologians seem to have unanimously realized this up until more recent, “ecumenical” times.  I wonder when it was first claimed that Luther had misunderstood Thomas…

***** – please note that I don’t think Andrew’s teachings would be good for those not already in the Roman Catholic Church.  In other words, a lack of pure doctrine is still a big problem here, and I would be concerned to have him teach my own children, for example (so much of what Rome teaches takes us away from the Biblical emphases, and binds consciences where it ought not ; in addition, I suspect that certain persons with highly sensitive consciences about the sins they know remain will not be helped by Andrews message – Luther’s full theology [with the doctrine of original sin] is still key).  Further, I think the ideal is for churches to have clarity about – and be honest about – the things they believe, teach, and confess (i.e. “pattern of sound words”)

 

Hope alone!: Christ’s roman [catholic] candles (part I of II)

Rome in the cleft of the rock?

Men like Called to Communion’s Andrew Preslar inspire me.  Not only is he, like many Roman Catholics I’ve had the privilege of talking with on the internet, a model of grace and charity, but I can’t help but sense this man is a fellow evangelical Catholic, or, if you will, a Lutheran.

That is, a Christian who knows what matters most – who has a sense of the fullness in Christ that is ours and awaits us.

Now yes, I know Andrew would remind me he is a firm Roman Catholic! (although he is pleased that I think him a Lutheran) After all, if I, in the interest of sharply distinguishing justification from sanctification (why do this?… see here), say “Christians are saved for good works, not saved by good works” or “the Christian makes the works – the works don’t make the Christian” or “the Christian reflects, not effects, their salvation” or say “we should not say good works are necessary for salvation” I don’t doubt that he would  have some issues with that!  Still, it seems that in spite of his Roman Catholicism (him: because of it!), Andrew defiantly clings to the promise that God’s forgiveness, life, and salvation in Christ is surely his.  He is utterly confident – he knows in his heart of hearts – that these things Christ gives and offers can and do seal him in a state of grace in the present time.*  And this is not just based on some good feeling or intuition that he has: he believes that eternal life is his when he hears the promise of mercy that is given in the absolution provided by the called and ordained servant of the Lord (perhaps he, with me, would say that, fundamentally, the Christian lives from peace with God, and not in order to obtain said peace).

What is his evidence for believing in this way?  First we note that in his article on this subject he mentions Stephen Pfurtner’s work Luther and Aquinas on Salvation, as an inspiration.**  Although this is left unsaid in his article, Andrew, like Pfurtner, assumes that “it is clear” that Aquinas’ teaching of the certainty of hope “must involve something of the content of the Lutheran teaching on the certainty of salvation” (Pfurtner, p. 53) – and correspondingly, that Luther only “superficial[ly] understood Aquinas” (Pfurtner, p. 59 see here for Luther’s view of Rome on this issue).  In Andrew’s article and the discussion that follows he frequently quotes from Thomas Aquinas and what he would say is the Thomas-affirming Council of Trent.  For example, Session XIV, Chapter 3 on the Sacrament of Penance, at the Council of Trent, says:

“But that which is signified and produced by this sacrament is, so far as its force and efficacy are concerned, reconciliation with God, which sometimes, in persons who are pious and who receive this sacrament with devotion, is wont to be followed by peace and serenity of conscience with an exceedingly great consolation of spirit.”

This quote surely seems to have some promise for the Christian desiring comfort and confidence regarding where he stands with God!  But what about the great 16^th century doctor of the Church, Saint Bellarmine, who wrote “The doctrine that in the present life men cannot attain to an assurance of faith regarding their righteousness, with the exception of a few whom God deems worthy to have this fact revealed to them by a special revelation – this doctrine is a current opinion among nearly all theologians.”  Does he not represent Rome and put the quote from the council of Trent into its true context?  Andrew explains that while Bellarmine is talking about the certainty of faith, he is not addressing the Thomas’ teaching about the certainty of hope!

Still, when a German priest by the name of Dietrich Kolde, writing in his early 1520s work Mirror of a Christian Man, states he does not know where he will go when he dies – and that this “troubles him above all” and “frequently makes his heart heavy”***, are we to assume that his experience was uncommon?  And that St. Thomas could not possibly have anything to do with this?****

This statement from the earliest times of Luther’s reform efforts is just one of many reasons I think the Trent quote above deals with the Sacrament of penance as a whole and would not preclude Thomas’ view that presumptive hope (that is “the sin of presumption”) would be that which chiefly banks on the “grace already received” in the present, as opposed to banking on God’s present and future “omnipotence and mercy”.  In other words, knowing that He is strong enough (He is an “infinite power”, see Pfurtner, 75 and 77) to – and also will – provide all the graces that we need to merit the end that is eternal life (the “infinite good”) – starting even now with the willing reception of His sacrament(s)!  This is the good news!

In other words, good workers are rewarded with the knowledge that even they to, can have a firm hope that they *will* obtain eternal life with God if they choose, by His grace, to consistently and lovingly cooperate with His grace (His “omnipotence and mercy”) – striving for perfect love for God and neighbor, starting with the necessary works of penance prescribed by the priest.  I think that this is the promise that Rome says may give peace of conscience and consolation of spirit.*****

On the other hand, when it comes to talking about penitential acts and beyond, Andrew prefers to speak like this: “forgiveness and restoration to a state of grace are presupposed by the works of satisfaction performed by the penitent, which complete and perfect the reconciliation with God and neighbor by way of the penitent’s participation in the work of reconciliation.” (italics mine)

He explains his statement in this way: genuine works of penance/satisfaction only proceed from the person who is in a state of grace.  Further, the eternal punishment for sin is removed by absolution, with the performance of penance only being needed to counteract the temporal effects of sin.  Now, I am not convinced that the absolution is a performative utterance in Roman Catholic theology (see here), but for the sake of argument, I will grant this.  What is really at issue is this: in Roman Catholic theology, what we are able to say is true about justified persons (not just “true believers” – there is a difference between these) in general – objectively and abstractly speaking – and what a particular individual can know about one’s own case, are two different things.  If it is indeed Roman Catholic theology that “when one enjoys God as an end in himself (which is like a foretaste of eternal happiness, or beatitude), he is in a state of sanctifying grace, which includes the gift of charity” (Andrew) the real question is whether one can actually know – and not just feel – this to be true of one’s self.

Andrew says “Because God’s grace precedes and is the principle of all good works done by the Christian, those who persevere in good works can enjoy a moral certitude that they have already obtained the grace of God that brings salvation.”

Is that indeed what Rome teaches?

Part II coming in a couple days

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/4117106164

* – Nothing is being said about his future perseverance in the faith.  Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics believe salvation can be lost.

**- “I must note at the outset that my thinking on this topic has been stimulated by Fr. Stephen Pfurtner’s insightful contribution to ecumenical…” – found via Google, Feb. 6, 2013.  I don’t see this in the current version of the post, which Andrew told me in our conversation he feels free to change anytime as needed.

***-Denis Janz, Three Reformation Catechisms: Catholic, Anabaptist, Lutheran (New York: Mellen, 1982), 127, quoted in Kolb and Arand, The Genius of Luther’s Theology, p. 35

**** – read article 5 here.

***** – It seems to me that this goes hand in hand with what Stephen Pfurtner says: “Essentially, certainty pertains to knowledge, that is – in our case – to faith; not to hope, which is in the sphere of affections.  But certainty does also enter into a movement of the affections, because of its participation in the knowledge directing this and because of the inner strength and unchangeableness of the movement.  Both these belong to hope: it shares in the certainty of faith and overcomes all human inconstancy, since the Christian ‘does not hope to gain eternal life by his own power’ – for then his own weakness would also undermine the certainty of his hope – ‘but in virtue of the help of grace.  If he perseveres in this, he will obtain eternal life absolutely and infallibly.’  Thus Aquinas can extend to hope and its unfailing reliability what he has said of faith and certainty: ‘in hope also there can be nothing false,’ even if the certainty of hope does not imply any certainty of security of fulfillment.” (p. 97, Luther and Aquinas on Salvation)  Also this: “The fullness of hope with its undisturbed confidence is present only when man has become completely reconciled and at peace through friendship with God.  Nevertheless, the sinner may – indeed, he must – as long as he only believes, be certain without any reservations also of God’s saving will in regard to himself.  Otherwise, he does not rightly believe, but doubts God’s promises”. (pp. 102-103, Luther and Aquinas on Salvation).  Here, I think about how Catholic theologians have historically talked about certain persons receive a divine revelation (i.e. “the certainty of faith”) that they will persevere because God knows that they will not abuse such knowledge!

 

Luther on certainty of salvation

Luther and Aquinas on Salvation, published in 1965, when Ecumenical hopes were high.

In his book Luther and Aquinas on Salvation (1965), the Roman Catholic theologian Stephen Pfurgner nails Luther’s views  about what creates certainty in the Christian:

“To this notion of “grace” there corresponds also the manner in which I become certain of it.  For certainty does not come to me from any kind of reflection on myself or on my state.  On the contrary, it comes solely through hearing the Word, solely and because and in so far as I cling to the Word of God and its promise.  Certainty of grace for the believer therefore does not arise from a feeling of confidence; it is not psychological, as Catholic critics have often represented it.  Faith only as acceptance of the Word, effective of salvation, is for Luther the decisive source of certainty.  Not indeed that subjective experience is to be excluded: the experience of comfort can be incorporated in the certainty of salvation.  But God can withdraw feeling, at any rate for a time, without the confidence of faith being thereby dissolved.  A sense of comfort therefore is in no way the real basis for the certainty of salvation: this is the Word of God and the promise it includes.” (pp. 125 and 126)

To demonstrate this, he quotes Luther saying :

If you have received forgiveness of sins, do not on that account be secure (secures). You are just, holy, from outside yourself (extrinsece).  It is through mercy and compassion that you are just.  It is not my disposition or a quality of my heart, but something outside myself – the divine mercy – which assures us that our sins are forgiven” (WE 40 I, pp. 588f, in Pfurgner, 124, 125)

He also quotes Luther on how he teaches the certainty of grace or salvation:

[“We must daily more and more strive to get out of uncertainty into certainty and occupy ourselves with destroying at its root that utterly pernicious error”] (that man cannot know whether or not he is in a state of grace), by which the whole world is seduced.  If we doubt God’s grace and do not believe that God is well-pleased in us for Christ’s sake, then we are denying that Christ has redeemed us – indeed, we question outright all his benefits. (WE 40 I, p. 579, 17f, in Pfurgner, 37, and 120)

I would add here: holding to good and salutary thoughts like Luther’s here are not necessary for one’s personal salvation – but they are necessary!

Pfurgner also provides several other fine quotes on the topic from Luther’s Galatians commentary:

“Our ground is the following: The Gospel teaches us not to look to our good deeds and perfections, but to the God of promise, to Christ the Mediator himself.  The Pope on the other hand orders us not to look to the God of the promise, not to Christ the high-priest, but to our works and merits.  On that side there follow necessarily doubt and despair, but on this certainty and joy of spirit since I cling to God who cannot lie….” (WE 40 I, pp. 588f, in Pfurgner, 37)

Also this one where Luther emphasizes the “to me”:

“But do not pass over contemptuously the pronoun “nostris”, for it will avail thee nothing to believe that Christ offered himself for the sins of the other saints and to doubt in regard to thy own.  For the godless and the devils also believe that.  Much rather must thou accept with constant trust the fact that it holds also for thine and that thou art one of those for whose sins he was offered.  This faith justifies thee and makes Christ dwell, live and rule in thee.” (WE 40 I, p. 458, 20f, in Pfurgner, 37 and 38).

Pfurgner sums things up this way:

“Luther’s interpretation of Catholic teaching maintains therefore: the Roman Church (‘the Pope’) does not recognize the certainty of salvation.  It abandons the individual to doubt and despair.  For it bases justification on the works of men, on self-sanctification.  But by his own merits no man can become completely just before God.  It follows that he must remain in distress and turmoil of conscience.” (38)

 

You know you are in the End Times when…

You know you are in the end times when you get a call from a professional fundraiser representing a Christian organization at 9:00 am on a Sunday morning (yesterday).

Or, when you realize that there are serious Roman Catholics that insist a person can be sure where they currently stand with God (“state of grace”)  and serious Calvinists (i.e. vs Arminianism) who do not think it is a big deal whether or not Christians know they have eternal life and peace with God.

(The Gospel is certainty.  Christianity is certainty.  For we are those who are given and give real peace with God [Rom. 5:1] and real knowledge of eternal life [I John 5:12,13])

Or, when you explain the original reasons for the Lutheran distinction between justification and sanctification (namely, to “to assure true Christians that they were true Christians”, which in general corresponds to comforting sinners who are genuinely terrified due to their sins before God – see here) to a learned Eastern Orthodox gentleman and he responds:

“[if the distinction between justification and sanctification] was made in order to help the weak… [this] leads to the inevitable conclusion that for those who aren’t, the distinction does not obtain. We should not let peoples’ misunderstandings drive our theology and what it should say.”

Huh.

More on that later this week…

Image credit: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/04.11/getready.html