The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms [Ecumenical]

ic ^ | July 21, 2009 | Mark Shea

[MarkBsnr]

***Interesting. I posted from John 14 and Acts 5 and 19 and you label them babble. May I ask your position on Scripture?

Look at your post and it’s layout. It’s quite confusing. If you can’t lay out a proper Bible quote, then it’s not worth following. ***

Scripture is not worth following because it is not pretty enough?

***You may not agree that Ford Motor Company was started and run for many years by Henry Ford, but there is enough history to prove your disagreement irrelevant.

History from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. That’s where we part company.***

Scripture and the Fathers are the exclusive viewpoint of the Church? May I ask again (in case you forgot), your views on Scripture?

***But Christ commanded you to follow His Church, with Peter as his steward, which you apparantly do not.

I follow Christ’s Church. I do NOT follow the Catholic Church ***

Men don’t get to choose which church is Christ’s. It’s like men choosing which way is up or what colour the sun is.

***as it’s been shown to have deviated from Christ’s true teaching.***

By whom and where is this thesis?

***Your (and the Catholic Church’s) saying it is the one true church does not make it so.***

Scripture and the Fathers does.

***Why would you remain friends with a babbler? :)

Because I have no enmity. Goodbye.***

Umm, goodbye. May your conversion find you on the Via of Christ.

[bdeaner]

Scripture doesn’t teach the exact nature of the Trinity, and why should it? It isn’t needed for coming to God, believing in God, repentance, rebirth, living for God - so why do men worry about it?

You might be able to make that argument about the Trinity, but not about issues central to salvation, including what I have already discussed above. The Eucharist and baptism are hardly inconsequential doctrines for salvation.

Protestants also differ on other soteriological issues: most Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denominationalists and other groups are Arminian and accept free will and the possibility of falling away from salvation (apostasy), while Presbyterians, Reformed and a few Baptist denominations and other groups are Calvinist and deny free will and the possibility of apostasy for the elect.

In contrast to the former denominations, the latter groups have a stronger view of the nature of original sin, deny that the Atonement is universal, and believe that God predestines the reprobate sinners to hell before the foundation of the world, with no free will exercised by these damned sinners as to their eternal destiny.

Traditional, orthodox Methodism (following founder John Wesley) and many "high church" Anglicans have had views of sanctification (that is, the relationship of faith and works, and of God's enabling and preceding grace and man's cooperation) akin to that of Catholicism. These are questions of how one repents and is saved (justification) and of what is required afterwards to either manifest or maintain this salvation (sanctification and perseverance). Thus, they are primary doctrines, even by standard Protestant criteria.

The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don't baptize at all (the latter doesn't even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism – the predominant evangelical outlook at present (judging by scholarly influence, at any rate).

We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:

"Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle."

{The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197}

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

"Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

{From ed. by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224,230, 162, 165}

Anglicanism concurs with Luther on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:

"Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ."

{From The Book of Common Prayer, NY: The Seabury Press, 1979, 873}

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17), stating that it is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth."

The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of perspicuity. Again, the Bible is obviously not perspicuous enough to efficiently eliminate these differences, unless one arrogantly maintains that sin always blinds those in opposing camps from seeing obvious truths, which even a "plowboy" (Luther's famous phrase) ought to be able to grasp. Obviously, an authoritative (and even infallible) interpreter is needed whether or not the Bible is perspicuous enough to be theoretically understood without help. Nothing could be clearer than that. Paper infallibility is no substitute for papal infallibility.

The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and the very gospel itself – are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.

Or, of course, people like Martin Luther, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and denominations such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Churches of Christ, and the Salvation Army can be read out of the Christian faith due to their unorthodoxy, as defined by the self-proclaimed "mainstream" evangelicals such as Baptists, Presbyterians and "Reformed" (even the last two groups baptize infants, although they vehemently deny that this causes regeneration).

Since most Protestants are unwilling to anathematize other Protestants, perspicuity dissolves into a boiling cauldron of incomprehensible contradictions, and as such, must be discarded or seriously reformulated in order to harmonize with the Bible and logic.

The Catholic Church at least courageously takes a stand on any given doctrine and refuses to leave whole areas of theology and practice perpetually up for grabs and -- too often -- mere individualistic whim, fancy, or subjective preference, divorced from considerations of Christian history and consensus. For this so-called "dogmatism" and lack of "flexibility," the Catholic Church is often reviled and despised. But for those of us who are seeking to be faithful to Christ within its fold, this is regarded, to the contrary, as its unique glory and majesty.

Orthodox Catholics believe that Christians can place full confidence in the firmly-established Tradition which is found not only in Holy Scripture, but in the received doctrines of the Catholic Church, appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ as the Guardian and Custodian of the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

[Cronos]

Protestants object to this , saying that there is only one mediator: 1 Tim 2:5. We agree that there are many ways in which Christ is the only mediator between God and man. 1) There is only one mediator who is such by very nature, being both true God and true man. 2) There is only one mediator whose whose work is necessary, without whom, in God’s plan, there could be no salvation. 3) There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary differs on all three counts. 1) Mary only a creature, but it was appropriate that God be freely choose her as Mediatrix because he had made her Mother of the God-man, the Redeemer—it was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God’s plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord. 2) Her role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore. 3) Her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son, and hence we are not contradicting Lumen gentium # 62 which says no creature can be ever counted together with Him.

Really, the Father did not need her at all, except that if He decreed the incarnation, He necessarily decreed a Mother: she was and is that Mother. But everything else in which He has employed her is not needed.

Yet, if we recall the economy of redemption, it is clear that the Father wants everything to be as rich as possible, so that He will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. Really, the incarnation in a palace, without death, would have been infinite in merit and satisfaction, as we have seen in the section on her cooperation in the redemption.

Further, the principle of St. Thomas helps here. In Summa Theologiae I. 19. 5. c., Thomas says that it pleases God to have one thing in place to serve as a title or reason for granting something further, even though that title does not move Him. It is His love of all goodness and good order that leads Him to act this way. Hence too, even though Calvary earned infinite forgiveness and graces, the Father wills to provide titles for giving out these, in the Mass. Even though He did not need even our Lady, yet He willed to employ her. Even though there is no need of any other saints, in objective or subjective redemption, yet He wills to add them—all to make everything, every title, as rich as possible.

Lumen gentium speaks of her as taking care of all her children. We are extremely numerous, but yet not infinite in number. Therefore, we are not too numerous for her to see and care for. For her capacity for that infinite vision of God is in proportion to her love on earth, so great that Pius IX, as we saw, said it was so great that “none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it.”

Is her mediation merely by intercession, prayer for us to her Son and to God the Father? Or does she also play a role in the distribution of graces from the Father through her Son to us? Many today, influenced by Protestant theology, tend to speak of grace merely as favor, and so say grace is not a thing given. But that would imply Pelagianism, the heresy that says that we can be saved by our own power. For if God merely sits there and smiles at me, and gives me nothing, that would mean that I had to do it by my own power.

So we answer, since Mary was associated with her Son in acquiring grace for us, she will also share with him in distributing that grace to us.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

so, you would call her Christokos? Mother of Christ?

That would get closer to the matter, true.

The term "theotokos" suggests the heresy on the Trinity known as Sabellianism. Sabellianism posits that all three Persons of the Trinity are really just sequential "manifestations" of God, but would not be co-existing Persons. The closest modern example would probably be the Oneness or "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, who reject the traditional Trinity in favour of God's manifesting Himself as ONLY Jesus (though some say ONLY the Holy Spirit). The Sabellians in ancient times were also known as Patripassianiasts because of their belief that the Father suffered on the cross - a result of their belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not separate Persons, but only "masks" that God put on.

The term "theotokos", meaning "God-bearer" implies Sabellianism for the same reason that the ancient Sabellians were called Patripassianists. Saying that Mary was the "GOD bearer" suggests that "all" of the Godhead was carried by her - which would suggest that Jesus was a "mask" of the Father, etc.

The term "Christotokos" can be heretical, if it is meant in the way the Nestorians meant it - which is to say that Christ was not really God. However, the term can also be entirely orthodox, if we understand it in the sense of the Biblical truth that Christ, as Messiah, certainly was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. And Mary did indeed near Him, though she did not bear the Father and the Spirit, as the term "theotokos" could imply.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

In many early manuscripts (and commentators), the section “in heaven: the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit; an these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth” does not appear.

True....but, we should note that the Greek textual line which started the deletion of the Comma was perpetuated by Arians - who would have had a perfect reason to delete this passage - who more or less controlled the Eastern (Greek) portion of Christianity for around 50 years.

At the same time, we also see the Comma being cited by early Western (i.e. Latin) writers such as Tertullian and Cyprian. Augustine also later alludes to it as well. The Latin evidences suggest the presence of the Latin in the early pre-Vulgate Latin translations, which would have been made from very antique Greek mss.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

IOW, you don't accept the hypostatic union? Just to clarify...

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that on chesley's part, from what s/he has said. "Theotokos" has some severe theological problems itself, see my post #144.

[Cronos]

so, you would call her Christokos? Mother of Christ? That would get closer to the matter, true

Good points -- and you're right when you say that if we use the term "theotokos" to mean that Mary bore ALL of the Godhead, that is wrong. You also correctly point out that Christotokos could be used to infer that Christ was not part of the Godhead.

So, like in all things when we mortals discuss the nature of the Godhead, we can't find the proper words to express it :)

However, back to the crux of this -- I agree with your points about the delicacy of the term Theotokos, and I see that you agree with my point about the delicacy of the term Christotokos. I will also say that we both believe that Christ IS God, of the one being with The Father, not created, begotten not made. We also both believe that Mary bore Christ the wholly human and wholly divine part.

I'll leave it at that and not belabor on the semantics.

[chesley]

Just to clarigy, I am a “he”

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

So, like in all things when we mortals discuss the nature of the Godhead, we can't find the proper words to express it :)

However, back to the crux of this -- I agree with your points about the delicacy of the term Theotokos, and I see that you agree with my point about the delicacy of the term Christotokos. I will also say that we both believe that Christ IS God, of the one being with The Father, not created, begotten not made. We also both believe that Mary bore Christ the wholly human and wholly divine part.

Oh yes, I'm definitely in agreement with you on these. Christ IS God, I will readily and wholeheartedly affirm - the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity - and I would find your statement about Mary's bearing of Christ to be correct as well!

True - semantics and the limitations of our human languages render us unable to perfectly express the wholeness of Who and What God is!

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33)

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Just to clarigy, I am a “he”

Heh, sorry, thanks for the clarigication!

[ConservativeMind]

There is, in fact, only “one church” that follows Christ, but it is made up of those congregations that are not putting pedophiles, adulterers, etc. as their leaders and who are glorifying God in their hearts, minds, and actions.

[Salvation]

152