Posted on 08/13/2007 1:13:20 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
Printed below is a remarkable document, translated by Dr A.N.S. Lane of The London School of Theology, England. Before the Roman Catholic Council of Trent met and proceeded to reject the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone that was being confessed and taught in the Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican Churches in Europe, theologians from the Roman and Protestant sides met in Germany for study of their differences. Eventually, and amazingly, they came to a common mind on the doctrine of Justification— probably because they were all reading the New Testament in Greek not Latin, and seeking to understand it on its own terms.
Had this approach and agreement been accepted by the Council of Trent in 1547 then the whole history of European, and thus also worldwide, Christianity would have been very different. Protestant leaders such as John Calvin and Martin Bucer believed that it was a good and acceptable statement, but in the Council of Trent the majority was not much influenced by the study of the Bible in its original languages—a vocation made possible by the Renaissance—and it fell back into the safety of known medieval definitions and doctrines.
What then does the Article on Justification produced by the united theologians teach? Dr. Lane explains:
“Underlying the entire article is the idea of duplex iustitia or twofold righteousness — that conversion brings both inherent and imputed righteousness. The term itself (duplex iustitia) is not found in the article, but the article is built on the idea that there are these different ‘righteous- nesses’ (inherent and imputed), which are clearly set out.
What is the significance of this idea of twofold righteousness? Catholics and Protestants were offering two contrasting models of justification. The Protestant teaching was that God accepts us as righteous (what Protestants understand by justification) because Christ’s righteousness is reckoned or imputed to our account. That is, we are accept- able to God not because of anything that we have done, nor indeed because of the change that God brings about within us, but because of what Christ has done for us on the cross. We are acceptable not for what we are or do (which remains imperfect) but in Christ. The Catholic teaching, by con- trast, was that justification is about God changing us by the Holy Spirit and thus making us acceptable to himself. At baptism/conversion we are transformed within by the grace of God, by gratia gratum faciens, grace that makes us pleasing or acceptable, that brings about within us an inherent righteousness. Thus we have the contrast between the Protestant view that we become acceptable on the basis of imputed righteousness (the righteousness of Christ reckoned to our account) and the Catholic view that we become righteous through Christ’s righteousness being imparted to us or infused in us, through an inner change which gives us an inherent righteousness. The key contribution of Regensburg was to insist that with conversion we receive both of these: inherent and imputed righteousness.”
We need to be aware that later Protestant Confessions of Faith did not speak of two different forms of righteousness, but rather of righteousness imputed and then of sanctification (= righteousness inherent and growing by grace).
The Regensburg Agreement (1541),
Article 5
The Justification of Man
1. No Christian should doubt that after the fall of our first parent all men are, as the apostle says, born children of wrath [Eph. 2:3] and enemies of God [Rom. 5:10] and thereby are in death and slav- ery to sin [Rom. 6:16-20].
2. Likewise, no Christian should question that nobody can be reconciled with God, nor set free from slavery to sin, except by Christ the one mediator between God and men [1 Tim. 2:5], by whose grace, as the apostle said to the Romans, we are not only reconciled to God [5:10] and set free from slavery to sin [6:18, 22], but also made sharers in the divine nature [2 Pet. 1:4] and children of God [Rom. 8:14-16].
3. (1) Likewise, it is quite clear that adults do not obtain these blessings of Christ, except by the prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit, by which their mind and will are moved to hate sin. (2) For, as St. Augustine says, it is impossible to begin a new life if we do not repent of the former one. (3) Likewise, in the last chapter of Luke [24:47], Christ commands that repentance and forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name. (4) Also, John the Baptist, sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached repentance, saying [Matt. 3:2]: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is drawing near’. (5) Next, man’s mind is moved toward God by the Holy Spirit through Christ and this movement is through faith. Through this [faith] man’s mind believes with certainty all that God has transmit- ted, and also with full certainty and without doubt assents to the promises made to us by God who, as stated in the psalm [145:13], is faithful in all his words. From there he acquires confidence on account of God’s promise, by which he has pledged that he will remit sins freely and that he will adopt as children those who believe in Christ, those I say MandatEwho repent of their former life. (6) By this faith, he is lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit and so he receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputa- tion of righteousness and countless other gifts.
4. (1) So it is a reliable and sound doctrine that the sinner is justified by living and efficacious faith, for through it we are pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ. (2) And living faith is what we call the movement of the Holy Spirit, by which those who truly repent of their old life are lifted up to God and truly appropriate the mercy promised in Christ, so that they now truly recog- nise that they have received the remission of sins and reconciliation on account of the merits of Christ, through the free goodness of God, and cry out to God: ‘Abba Father’ [Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6]. (3) But this happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused which heals the will so that the healed will may begin to fulfil the law, just as Saint Augustine said. (4) So living faith is that which both appropriates mercy in Christ, believing that the righteousness which is in Christ is freely imputed to it, and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love. (5) Therefore the faith that truly justifies is that faith which is effectual through love [Gal. 5:6]. (6) Nevertheless it remains true, that it is by this faith that we are justified (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) inasmuch as it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness imparted to us in Christ.
5. (1) Although the one who is justified receives righteousness and through Christ also has inher- ent [righteousness], as the apostle says: ‘you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, etc.’ [1 Cor. 6:11] (which is why the holy fathers made use of [the term] ‘to be justified’ even to mean ‘to receive inherent righteousness’), nevertheless, the faithful soul depends not on this, but only on the righteousness of Christ given to us as a gift, without which there is and can be no righteousness at all. (2) And thus by faith in Christ we are justified or reckoned to be righteous, that is we are accepted through his merits and not on account of our own worthiness or works. (3) And on account of the righteousness inherent in us we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous, according to the saying of John: ‘who- ever does what is right is righteous’ [1 John 3:7].
6. Although fear of God, patience, humility and other virtues ought always to grow in the regener- ate, because this renewal is imperfect and enormous weakness remains in them, it should nevertheless be taught that those who truly repent may always hold with most certain faith that they are pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator. For it is Christ who is the propitiator, the High Priest and the one who prays for us, the one the Father gave to us and with him all good things [Rom. 8:32].
7. Seeing that in our weakness there is no perfect certainty and that there are many weak and fearful consciences, which often struggle against great doubt, nobody should be excluded from the grace of Christ on account of such weakness. Such people should be earnestly encouraged boldly to set the promises of Christ against these doubts and by diligent intercession to pray that their faith may be increased, according to the saying: ‘Lord increase our faith’ [Luke 17:5].
8. (1) Likewise, every Christian should learn that this grace and this regeneration have not been given to us so that we might remain idle in that stage of our renewal which we at first obtained, but so that we may grow in everything into him who is the head [Eph. 4:15]. (2) Therefore, the people must be taught to devote effort to this growth which indeed happens through good works, both internal and external, which are commanded and commended by God. To these works God has, in many passages from the Gospels, clearly and manifestly promised on account of Christ a reward — good things in this life, as much for the body as for the soul (as much as seems right to divine providence) and after this life in heaven. (3) Therefore, although the inheritance of eternal life is due to the regener- ate on account of the promise, as soon as they are reborn in Christ, nevertheless God also renders a reward to good works, not according to the sub- stance of the works, nor because they come from us, but to the extent that they are performed in faith and proceed from the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, free choice concurring as a partial agent.
9. The joy of those who have performed more and better works will be greater and more abun- dant, on account of the increase of faith and love, in which they have grown through exercises of that kind. (1) Now those who say that we are justified by faith alone should at the same time teach the doc- trine of repentance, of the fear of God, of the judge- ment of God and of good works, so that all the chief points of the preaching may remain firm, as Christ said: ‘preaching repentance and the remission of sins in my name’ [Luke 24:47]. (2) And that is to prevent this way of speaking [i.e. sola fide] from being understood other than has been previously mentioned.
[Two fascinating essays on this Agreement by Dr Lane are to be found in two recent collections of essays on Justification: (i) M. Huisbands & D.J. Treier (eds), What’s at stake in the Current Debates on Justification, InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, 2004 & (ii) B.L. McCormack (ed), Justifi- cation in Perspective, Baker, Grand Rapids, 2006. These two books are necessary reading for anyone wishing to find a reasonably quick entry into the contemporary debate concerning Justification.]
If anyone ever wondered what a ‘tempest in a teacup’ was, this dispute should end that speculation for a while. :)
29 books? My NT has 27 books. What are the other two? Gospel of Thomas? Gospel of Judas?
You are absolutely right. I apologize for the brain fart (or senior moment).
By 1541 Luther was physically sick much of the time, spiritually-battle-scarred, and frankly just old and cranky. Most of the stuff Lutherans apologize for by Luther were written in the 1540s, the last years of Luther's life which ended in 1546. The "sides" were being drawn up by this time, not just between Catholic and Protestant, but already amidst Protestants, and lots of blood had already been spilled--usually in the name of punishing heretics.
In my opinion the 2nd generation of the Reformation--starting in the era of the Roman Counter-Reformation, was incredibly destructive to unity, in the name of orthodoxy, on all sides. The Church catholic has been desiring to get back to something like Regensburg for a long time....
This “teacup tempest” has divided Christendom for almost 500 years now. The document posted was the best attempt, done in the middle of the Reformation, to end it.
I often get the general impression from the conservative Romanists on this board that you wish Roman Catholic authorities had burned or drowned more of the Evangelicals when they first appeared in Luther’s day. Perhaps if they had, in your opinion, this pernicious split would have been avoided?
However with the ability to read the Word for oneself and interpret and debate its meaning with other Christens is what, IMHO, make up the real church.
I view organized religion as institutions of men not of God. A quick look at their countless failings over past and recipient history shows this to be true. Power is what is at its heart and power corrupts. Just look at all the silly sectarian nonsense over the years. I view all christens as brothers not just people from the church I grew up in.
It is ones personal relationship with God that counts, not ones standing in a man made institution.
Not to discount any FReepers out there who enjoy the fellowship that church membership brings, it’s just not my thing.
Calvin, not Luther was the signal figure at Ratisborn, and if he found the statement acceptable, one must say that this made Charles V’s hopes for reconciliation vitually impossible. Recall that Luther had broken with Erasmus, and now we have a ferocious reasoner in Calvin, whose views were anithetical not only to those of Rome but of Constantinople. The East had not accepted Augustine and the West had softened his view; Now we have the arch-Augustinian, who for the last 25 years of his life dominated the Christian world.
Ping to read later
Since you seem to know your stuff, just a few questions that have kept popping up and no one seems to be able to give a good answer on this forum... I know that it is a lot to cover, but has gone unanswered for a while.
>Since I do not belong to the Church of nmh, and since neither Christ nor Scripture itself says sola scriptura, I will go with the unbroken teaching of the Christ passed down through His Apostles and their successors, rather than nmh or what might well-have been the 16th century equivalent of Catholics for a Free Choice. The only tragedy of the Council of Trent is that it was about 50 years too late.
So where is this unbroken teaching of traditions? The Protestants claim that this is only found in the Scriptures. Do any of the Early Church Fathers suggest “Hey, Peter taught me this...” ? Or is it just assumed and not really mentioned anywhere?
Since Luke 1:1-4 clearly states that Luke did a bunch of research and told the story as best as he could put it together, as completely as he could, probably even interviewing Mary, and the other Apostles, why is it that much of what Rome claims is not included, but instead merely claimed that you gotta get the whole story via a mysterious tradition that no one can actually point to?
Is the claim by Paul that the whole gospel which he has taught is shown in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, why is Mary’s central role not shown, neither is the concepts of purgatory or the saving grace instilled by the sacraments?
How do we know that the slow development of the doctrines of Rome are not of the false brothers seeking to lead the flock astray which the Apostles did write about in nearly any of the letters in the NT?
Since nearly none of the Early Church Fathers seem to 100% agree with each other, how do we know which Tradition to follow, or why does the RCC adopt a ‘cafeteria catholic’ attitude with them, taking what it seems to think is ‘inspired’ whilst rejecting a lot?
If the ECF’s were all apostolically taught, what gives the RCC, a johnny-come-lately, the right to reject or perhaps choose which doctrine was taught by the Apostles and which are just added, but not inspired? If there is THAT much that is added but not inspired, does this not make the entirety of the traditions suspect?
Should we weep that Beckwith didn’t convert to the Russian Orthodox church rather than revert to the Roman church of his youth?
If it is rather the “burning in the bosom” of the Pope and the Councils, why do I not look to the JW’s or Mormons, as they have the same claim, just not the pedigree or the billions in art and real estate?
I know, I know, I must trust Rome to give me the right teaching...
Unfortunately, all too true. The Reformation was ultimately 45% theology and 55% money and power politics. Had it not been for the latter, the former would have eventually been worked out in an ecumenical council, whether held in Trent or elsewhere. Due the politics, the council was delayed for years and when it finally was held, it was no longer possible for it to truly be ecumenical.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Perhaps you don’t realize it, but your tone has a tendency to put off potential Tiber-swimmers. Reasoned discussion, as practiced by certain other members of this forum, can have the opposite effect.
Brother, please consider this:
Hebrews 10:25 (New International Version)-- Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Brother, please consider this:
Hebrews 10:25 (New International Version)-- Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
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.