Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

<<>> The silence on the heresies other than Gnosticism was (and still appears to be) deafening. Gnosticism was, as was said, probably the most prominent heresy mentioned in the New Testament. Its name comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge", but what the Gnostics were promoting was not the true knowledge of God as taught by the Apostles, but a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation. Some of the most prominent characteristics of this ancient heresy that so destabilized so many early Christians included the following: 1. A disdain for and impatience with the orthodox process of presenting God's propositional truth to the believer for him to understand and process with his reason, in favor of direct, intuitive insight gained by experience. The effect this had was to produce a sort of intellectual anarchy wherein the spectrum of Gnostic belief, though always having certain characteristics, was so broad as to almost defy definition, since its beliefs were determined by individual speculation. Now to be sure, receiving spiritual insight and revelation directly from the Holy Spirit is very Biblical. We need to remember that the heroes of the faith all got what they did directly from God long before there even were any holy writings. Moses and Paul for instance, received truth from God this way and what they got became what we now today call the Holy Scriptures. Abraham likewise was willing to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering based solely on a subjective experience (Gen 22). If that were you or I, we would probably have said, "I rebuke you Satan in Jesus Name!" But today we have a "more sure word of prophecy" (II Pet 1:19), the Word of God, and the Word and the Spirit agree. Therefore whatever we get by revelation must agree with the basic revelation of God as already given in the Scriptures. And it is here where the Gnostic error manifested, because for whatever reason, they would either take this principle too far or they would just come to the wrong conclusions. Whether it was out of vanity, stubbornness, a desire to be different, an honest misunderstanding or whatever, only God knows the motives lurking within the human heart. But regardless, it must be one of the great ironies of the Scriptures to read the Apostle John telling the believers that they can overcome the subversions of the Gnostics because "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (I Jn 2:20), such an unction in fact that they didn't even need a man--even John himself--to teach them (2:27)! 2. A tendency to spiritualize the Scriptures, always looking for deep symbolic and allegorical meanings to everything. For the same reasons the Gnostics were given to myth and poetry more than to literal meanings and historical accounts of things. In so doing they were turning on its head the orthodox dictum of, "Be literal where possible, and allegorical when necessary" in favor of, "Be allegorical as much as possible. It sounds more impressive." What we have to understand about this factor is the paradoxical nature of so much that we find about Biblical truth. For instance, First Corinthians 2:10 speaks of "the deep things of God" that the Holy Spirit "searches out", so there is a valid concept involved here. The works of say, Kevin Connor, who has written much about the types and symbols found in the Bible is an example of the good side of this. But there is a bad side too, a kind of "deep things" that are so deep and "spiritual", no one can understand what's being talked about! The Gnostics were given to this sort of thing in such extremes or in ways that were so out of bounds as to take a good concept and turn it into a bitter poison. In fact, the Gnostics had a phrase for this--"the depths of God". But their version of such things was so perverse as to prompt Jesus in Revelation 2:24 to sarcastically refer to them as, "the depths of Satan, as they speak." The Gnostics also regularly claimed that their teachings did in fact come from the Apostles, but were secretly handed down to them because only the very spiritual could handle such deep things. I imagine they used Jesus' words to great effect here when He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (Jn 16:12), as well as similar sentiments (Mt 13:11; 19:11, etc.). The apostles strongly condemn the ways of these false Gnostic teachers who are "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness", who "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness", (Jude 47,8,16; II Pet 2:10, 14, 18), etc. etc. As well, we have where Paul speaks of those who follow practices which have "the appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23 NKJ). In other words, here we have another great irony, (something Paul especially loved to savor), in that although these people go to great lengths to deny their physical flesh, they're walking in a kind of "spiritual flesh", that is, a kind of spiritual pride or showboatism. The Example of John There is the ever-evolving and ever-individualistic Gnostic dogma, which much of the New Testament is directed at correcting Gnostic ideas. But it's like listening to a phone conversation. You only hear one person talking and you have to speculate or ask for more information before you can find out what the other party was saying. The writings of John for example, were much given to dealing with this error. John did not write until toward the end of the first century, by which time the Gnostic influence was tearing apart the churches of the empire. In his Gospel for instance, when he said that Jesus is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," (Jn 1:9), he was making a concession to the Gnostics about that last characteristic. He was stating that, in essence, there was a half truth involved here, that the Holy Spirit can bear witness to every man's human spirit to bring that Light Who is Christ Jesus into a person's heart. But the thrust of his words is that Jesus is that uncreated God; not the human soul. Likewise, the First Epistle of John is almost totally devoted to helping people deal with the seductive Gnostic error in their midst (I Jn 2:26). When John writes, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8), he is actually addressing that Gnostic lie that there is no sin, only ignorance. In other words, what the second "we" in the verse is referring to is not "we Christians", but "we, the human race". I don't know how many times Bible teachers have used this verse to excuse sin in Christians, but they are always hard pressed to explain then John's obvious contradiction in 3:6-9 where he says among other things, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [i.e., the believer] remaineth in him; and he cannot sin [in good conscience, at least], because he is born of God." Then in chapter 2 verse 2 John addresses another Gnostic error. Like the Calvinists years later, Gnostics taught that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect (i.e., those who come into this wonderful "knowledge"). But John says here that, "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." In other places, John accuses the Gnostics among them of professing much love, but in reality "hating" the believers because they are trying to seduce them away from the true faith into a pseudo knowledge of God . He calls them "murderers" for this (3:15), following in the example of Cain who brought an offering that God did not accept (3:12). Yet their apparent superior "knowledge" was causing the believers to feel very inferior and condemned (3:20). John says these Gnostics were operating under the influence of deceiving spirits (4:1), and that they denied Christ was God in the flesh, but rather an enlightened adept who learned the gnosis way and upon whom the "Christ spirit" came while He was on the cross (4:2). Gnosticism Today To be sure, the early Gnostic heresies were serious errors, serious enough to damn the soul according to the Apostles (II Pet 2:3,12,17; I Jn 2:22,23; II Jn 9, etc.). If any of these doctrines are still around today, they're found in outright cults and New Age circles. But what I am alarmed at are the tendencies of similar principles to be found within orthodox Charismatic and Pentecostal circles today. And these principles follow the sorts of patterns outlined in the first two characteristics mentioned above. from http://intotruth.org/apostasy/NewGnostics.htm

MARK: Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.

FRUMANCHU: That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous.

Mark, you've now been corrected on your slip-up several times. When one errs on the forum, it's best to come clean and admit the error. Harley (post 9,909), Frumanchu (10,027), me (post 9,921) and probably others I haven't read yet highlighted your mistake which incorrectly stated that the Reformed believe in infused righteousness.

As your own catechism states, it's YOU who believes the "infused" error.

PART THREE
SECTION ONE
CHAPTER THREE
ARTICLE 2
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

There it is -- "infused." And further, the error is compounded by the RCC belief that salvation is conferred at baptism; same old baptismal regeneration error which says the church alone holds the keys to a man's eternal soul. Adding insult to injury, it's referred to as "deifying grace!" Again, the RCC believes we become God, rather than possessed by Him.

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

"Infused." Wasn't it you who just said (incorrectly) "Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ." If we believed that, we would be agreeing with your catechism! But you will find that word nowhere in the Reformed vocabulary (and probably not in any of the Protestant church.)

2024 Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.

Let's all note that's FOUR KINDS OF GRACE -- sanctifying grace, special grace, actual grace and habitual grace! Whew!

2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.

Please note here man's merit is "due to God." It is therefore not Christ's merit that saves us; it is merit made possible by Christ. "Infused" to make us good, rather than "imputed" and therefore reckoned as good by His goodness. According to the RCC, men actually become good and that is what God judges, rather than given the goodness of Christ and being judged by HIS goodness. It really is a fascinating and very telling distinction upon which the Reformation was waged. Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

Again, we "merit" salvation by our "charity."

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

Not only do we merit salvation, but we can actually merit it for others!

As Harley wrote in post 9,909...

The reason traditional Protestants never believed in infused righteousness is because the term "infused" is never used in scripture. Instead scripture uses the term imputed righteousness.

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Oh, the humanity. My apologies...

The silence on the heresies other than Gnosticism was (and still appears to be) deafening.

Gnosticism was, as was said, probably the most prominent heresy mentioned in the New Testament. Its name comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “knowledge”, but what the Gnostics were promoting was not the true knowledge of God as taught by the Apostles, but a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation.

Some of the most prominent characteristics of this ancient heresy that so destabilized so many early Christians included the following:

A disdain for and impatience with the orthodox process of presenting God’s propositional truth to the believer for him to understand and process with his reason, in favor of direct, intuitive insight gained by experience. The effect this had was to produce a sort of intellectual anarchy wherein the spectrum of Gnostic belief, though always having certain characteristics, was so broad as to almost defy definition, since its beliefs were determined by individual speculation.

Now to be sure, receiving spiritual insight and revelation directly from the Holy Spirit is very Biblical. We need to remember that the heroes of the faith all got what they did directly from God long before there even were any holy writings. Moses and Paul for instance, received truth from God this way and what they got became what we now today call the Holy Scriptures. Abraham likewise was willing to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering based solely on a subjective experience (Gen 22). If that were you or I, we would probably have said, “I rebuke you Satan in Jesus Name!” But today we have a “more sure word of prophecy” (II Pet 1:19), the Word of God, and the Word and the Spirit agree.

Therefore whatever we get by revelation must agree with the basic revelation of God as already given in the Scriptures. And it is here where the Gnostic error manifested, because for whatever reason, they would either take this principle too far or they would just come to the wrong conclusions.

Whether it was out of vanity, stubbornness, a desire to be different, an honest misunderstanding or whatever, only God knows the motives lurking within the human heart. But regardless, it must be one of the great ironies of the Scriptures to read the Apostle John telling the believers that they can overcome the subversions of the Gnostics because “ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (I Jn 2:20), such an unction in fact that they didn’t even need a man—even John himself—to teach them (2:27)!

A tendency to spiritualize the Scriptures, always looking for deep symbolic and allegorical meanings to everything. For the same reasons the Gnostics were given to myth and poetry more than to literal meanings and historical accounts of things. In so doing they were turning on its head the orthodox dictum of, “Be literal where possible, and allegorical when necessary” in favor of, “Be allegorical as much as possible. It sounds more impressive.”

What we have to understand about this factor is the paradoxical nature of so much that we find about Biblical truth. For instance, First Corinthians 2:10 speaks of “the deep things of God” that the Holy Spirit “searches out”, so there is a valid concept involved here. The works of say, Kevin Connor, who has written much about the types and symbols found in the Bible is an example of the good side of this.

But there is a bad side too, a kind of “deep things” that are so deep and “spiritual”, no one can understand what’s being talked about! The Gnostics were given to this sort of thing in such extremes or in ways that were so out of bounds as to take a good concept and turn it into a bitter poison. In fact, the Gnostics had a phrase for this—”the depths of God”. But their version of such things was so perverse as to prompt Jesus in Revelation 2:24 to sarcastically refer to them as, “the depths of Satan, as they speak.”

The Gnostics also regularly claimed that their teachings did in fact come from the Apostles, but were secretly handed down to them because only the very spiritual could handle such deep things. I imagine they used Jesus’ words to great effect here when He said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (Jn 16:12), as well as similar sentiments (Mt 13:11; 19:11, etc.).

The apostles strongly condemn the ways of these false Gnostic teachers who are “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness”, who “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness”, (Jude 47,8,16; II Pet 2:10, 14, 18), etc. etc. As well, we have where Paul speaks of those who follow practices which have “the appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23 NKJ).

In other words, here we have another great irony, (something Paul especially loved to savor), in that although these people go to great lengths to deny their physical flesh, they’re walking in a kind of “spiritual flesh”, that is, a kind of spiritual pride or showboatism.

The Example of John
There is the ever-evolving and ever-individualistic Gnostic dogma, which much of the New Testament is directed at correcting Gnostic ideas. But it’s like listening to a phone conversation. You only hear one person talking and you have to speculate or ask for more information before you can find out what the other party was saying.

The writings of John for example, were much given to dealing with this error. John did not write until toward the end of the first century, by which time the Gnostic influence was tearing apart the churches of the empire. In his Gospel for instance, when he said that Jesus is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” (Jn 1:9), he was making a concession to the Gnostics about that last characteristic. He was stating that, in essence, there was a half truth involved here, that the Holy Spirit can bear witness to every man’s human spirit to bring that Light Who is Christ Jesus into a person’s heart. But the thrust of his words is that Jesus is that uncreated God; not the human soul.

Likewise, the First Epistle of John is almost totally devoted to helping people deal with the seductive Gnostic error in their midst (I Jn 2:26). When John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1:8), he is actually addressing that Gnostic lie that there is no sin, only ignorance. In other words, what the second “we” in the verse is referring to is not “we Christians”, but “we, the human race”. Many times Bible teachers have used this verse to excuse sin in Christians, but they are always hard pressed to explain then John’s obvious contradiction in 3:6-9 where he says among other things, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [i.e., the believer] remaineth in him; and he cannot sin [in good conscience, at least], because he is born of God.”

Then in chapter 2 verse 2 John addresses another Gnostic error. Like the Calvinists years later, Gnostics taught that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect (i.e., those who come into this wonderful “knowledge”). But John says here that, “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” In other places, John accuses the Gnostics among them of professing much love, but in reality “hating” the believers because they are trying to seduce them away from the true faith into a pseudo knowledge of God . He calls them “murderers” for this (3:15), following in the example of Cain who brought an offering that God did not accept (3:12). Yet their apparent superior “knowledge” was causing the believers to feel very inferior and condemned (3:20).

John says these Gnostics were operating under the influence of deceiving spirits (4:1), and that they denied Christ was God in the flesh, but rather an enlightened adept who learned the gnosis way and upon whom the “Christ spirit” came while He was on the cross (4:2).

Gnosticism Today
To be sure, the early Gnostic heresies were serious errors, serious enough to damn the soul according to the Apostles (II Pet 2:3,12,17; I Jn 2:22,23; II Jn 9, etc.). If any of these doctrines are still around today, they’re found in outright cults and New Age circles. But what I am alarmed at are the tendencies of similar principles to be found within orthodox Charismatic and Pentecostal circles today. And these principles follow the sorts of patterns outlined in the first two characteristics mentioned above.

from http://intotruth.org/apostasy/NewGnostics.htm

Again, as evidenced on this thread over and over, if we get justification wrong, just about everything else that follows is off, misdirected away from the Creator and instead, toward the creature and his own ability.

We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone as revealed to us in Scripture alone via the Holy Spirit alone who works in us to bring us to understanding and to produce good fruit.

It is ALL of Him; and none of us. Thank God.

Christ's righteousness is counted as ours, and therefore we are acquitted of our sins and welcomed by God who sees His Son within us, according to His gift of the Lamb slain for His flock from the foundation of the world.

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 1:30-31

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21

OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT IN OURSELVES
by John Calvin

"...a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into His favor as if we were righteous. And we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. ..."

"...clothed in the righteousness of Christ." Amen.

You are correct. I was not using the correct terminology or definitions.

Although Catholics affirm many of the central Christian doctrines that Evangelicals affirm (i.e. the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the existence of hell, etc.), Catholics also affirm certain early Christian doctrines that Evangelicals adamantly reject (i.e. the perpetual virginity of Mary, the doctrine on the communion of saints, existence of purgatory, etc.). The doctrine on justification is one such example. For the Reformers in the sixteenth century and Evangelical Protestantism in the twentieth century, man’s righteousness is not inherent or intrinsic to his being since it was forever lost in the fall of Adam and Eve. The justification offered by Christ, says the Reformed tradition, is a legal declaration. It is an attribution or ‘imputation’ only.

This righteousness does not indwell in us; instead, it is a righteousness or justification that exists outside or apart from us [institia extra nos]. The remarkable aspect of this ‘justification by imputation’ doctrine is that it is not predicated on a comprehensive biblical defence. In fact, this doctrine is based on a relatively few number of biblical passages which have been grossly misinterpreted. They are understood out of context (Cf. Romans 3:10) and, as a consequence, contradict other scripture (Cf. Matthew 25:46). The Reformed notion of justification is, therefore, a legal declaration only since we cannot actually be holy ourselves.

Both Catholic and Reformed believe that a legal declaration by God is made. However, the Catholic does not hold to the belief as a legal declaration only. For the Catholic, the righteousness of Christ is not only imputed to the believer but is infused as well. When the faithful person co-operates with this infused righteousness, he then possesses an inherent righteousness, which subsequently becomes the grounds of justification. For Catholics, man’s righteousness becomes inherent rather than simply imputed or ‘credited’ to his account. The righteousness which man receives from God is located within man, existing as part of his being and intrinsic to his person.

While a comprehensive discussion on this question is beyond the scope of this paper, it would be useful to examine two difficulties with the Reformed view of justification. The Reformed way of making sense of Jesus’ commandment to be ‘perfect’ (Cf. Matthew 5:48), Saint Peter’s exhortation to be ‘holy’ (Cf. 1 Peter 1:15), or the plethora of other Scriptural references commanding us to be holy, clean, and pure (Cf. Leviticus 11:44, 2 Chronicles 23:6, Isaiah 6:3, Matthew 5:48, Hebrews 12:14, 1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 21:27, Revelation 22:11), is to conceive of these passages in the declaration sense. Evangelical Protestants claim that people cannot be holy but can claim Jesus’ holiness and, in that sense, ‘be’ holy. Yet, the Scriptures cited above, as well many others, do not say that at all. Jesus was not saying ‘I will credit righteousness to your account’. He said, “you are to be perfect. “ (Matthew 5:48). Likewise, Saint Peter does not say, ‘You can be holy by imputation of Jesus’ holiness’. He says, “Be holy yourselves. “ (1 Peter 1:15).

The only biblical way of initially making the person holy is the way that Jesus established it - in being ‘born of the water and the Spirit’ (Cf. John 3:5), and the way that the prophets had foretold long before - through baptism: “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” (Ezekiel 36:24-27). It is inconceivable to understand these passages in the Reformed tradition without entering into absurd speculation about what ‘to be’ really means. [Incidentally, this is the same problem that Protestants run into when Jesus says ‘This is my body’ at the last supper.]

Another point of contention arises when the whole concept of declaration is considered. Is it possible, for instance, for God to ‘declare’ something and it not actually ‘be’? This is a theological impossibility. When a human being declares something, it is not necessarily true or complete, but if God declares something, it comes into being and it is. To suggest that God can declare something and it not ‘be’ would contradict God’s perfect nature. In Genesis, God said “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), and there was light. The Pharisees were called hypocrites by Our Lord because they were hypocrites. Satan was called the ‘Father of Lies’ because he is the ‘Father of Lies’ - not simply ‘considered to be’ the ‘Father of Lies’. Hence, when God cleans us and makes us righteous, He really does make us righteous and holy. It is not a mere legal declaration or ‘accounting entry’. In essence, therefore, Evangelicals believe in a kind of ‘legal fiction’ which is captured by Luther’s rather absurd belief that we are ‘at the same time just and sinner’, meaning, we are just by imputation even while sin remains in us. The obvious difficulty with this teaching is that, at any particular time, a person is either righteous or he is not, just as he is either saved or damned. He cannot be both at the same time.

The Reformed believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit can fade away and will always be called back before he dies. A nice and satisfying doctrine, if you are one of the elect.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.