"Justification
Now let us take take the issue of Justification, which was the major bone of contention between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Europe. The debate leaves is smiling. We cannot agree with our Roman Catholic brethen if they did say what the Apology of Melanchton attributes to them. I will cite at random some pharses from the Apology, attributing to the Roman Confutation that
....they teach only the righteousness of reason that is, civil works - and maintain that without the Holy Spirit, reason can love God above all thins.
....the scholastics have declared that by necessity - the necessity of unchanging order - God grants grace to those who do this,(attributed in a footnote to Gabriel Biel and Bonaventura).
However, we also do not agree with Melanchthon´s arguments against this position (e.g. "If we merit forgiveness.... by these acts of ours, what use is Christ?"). The point for us is that created existence itself is grace, and all good things come from God´s grace, including the good works of the unbeliever. Melanchthon´s undue reliance on augustine for most of his arguments is a clear indication that the great scholar was out of touch with the authentic tradition of the Church. He knew only a disorted western tradition stemming from Augustine.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the attributed Roman position "that faith is only historical knowledge, and.... that it can exist with mortal sin." We give less importance to the intellectual or propositional content of knowledge and do not have the distinctions between mortal and venial sin. Neither can we agree with Melanchthpn in his belaboured distinction between "faith as that worship which receives God´s offered blessings" and "the righteousness of the law as that worship which offers God our own merits." All that we have, including our good works, is from God. There is nothing contrary to faith, from our perspective, in offering him our good works in gratitude and humility.
Faith is not simply receiving promises and clinging to them. That is rather childish and unbalanced view of Biblical faith, coming from too much exclusive reliance on a particular understanding of St. Paul and Augustine. We think that the Pauline teaching about justification by faith is important, but we think it needs to be balanced by our Lord´s own teaching in the Sermion on the Mount and the parables, as well as the Johannine and Jacobean understanding of righteousness and "righteousification".
We do not obtain anything by faith -neither righteousness nor salvation, unless it is given to us by God´s grace. It is not by faith that we are saved. There is no use quoting Scripture to prove it. We are saved by the grace of God, in Jesus Christ. If we insist that it is each one´s faith that saves him, we make the grace of God vain and pointless. We cannot understand how Christ can forgive the sins of the paralytic looking at the faith of those who lowered him through the roof.
I do not think that justification by faith should now a days be a bone of contention between Protestans, Catholics and Orthodox. Neither do we need to resort to Augustine or the Reformers to understand what is really meant. St. Paul argues out of his experience. He was Pharisee who sought righteousness through the works of the Mosaic Law and failed to find it until Christ by an act of grace gave him repentance and faith in Christ. He found that Mosaic Law is incompetent to true righteousness and that the Law was merely a guide, a pedagogue to Christ.
With this all Christians agree. Roman Catholic magisterium would not today argue that "sacrifice and ritual justify before God ex opere operato." We can today with some effort come to a consensus among Catholics, Protestant and Orthodox about justification by faith. We certainly need not go to the Ausburg Confession to find such a formula of concord today, nor do we need the Roman Confutation for this purpose.
I hope, however, that the kind of forensic righteousness which the Ausburg Confession insisted upon will not be the position which Lutherans stand today. We as Orthodox would be interested in hearing a more contemporary Lutheran statement about justification and making that the basis of discussions."[A Dialogue Begins(Ed.K.M. George/Herbert Hoefer.)The Ausburg Confession in the Eucumenical Movement - An Orthodox Perspective by Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios. S. 139-141]
Now let us take take the issue of Justification, which was the major bone of contention between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Europe. The debate leaves is smiling. We cannot agree with our Roman Catholic brethen if they did say what the Apology of Melanchton attributes to them. I will cite at random some pharses from the Apology, attributing to the Roman Confutation that
....they teach only the righteousness of reason that is, civil works - and maintain that without the Holy Spirit, reason can love God above all thins.
....the scholastics have declared that by necessity - the necessity of unchanging order - God grants grace to those who do this,(attributed in a footnote to Gabriel Biel and Bonaventura).
However, we also do not agree with Melanchthon´s arguments against this position (e.g. "If we merit forgiveness.... by these acts of ours, what use is Christ?"). The point for us is that created existence itself is grace, and all good things come from God´s grace, including the good works of the unbeliever. Melanchthon´s undue reliance on augustine for most of his arguments is a clear indication that the great scholar was out of touch with the authentic tradition of the Church. He knew only a disorted western tradition stemming from Augustine.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the attributed Roman position "that faith is only historical knowledge, and.... that it can exist with mortal sin." We give less importance to the intellectual or propositional content of knowledge and do not have the distinctions between mortal and venial sin. Neither can we agree with Melanchthpn in his belaboured distinction between "faith as that worship which receives God´s offered blessings" and "the righteousness of the law as that worship which offers God our own merits." All that we have, including our good works, is from God. There is nothing contrary to faith, from our perspective, in offering him our good works in gratitude and humility.
Faith is not simply receiving promises and clinging to them. That is rather childish and unbalanced view of Biblical faith, coming from too much exclusive reliance on a particular understanding of St. Paul and Augustine. We think that the Pauline teaching about justification by faith is important, but we think it needs to be balanced by our Lord´s own teaching in the Sermion on the Mount and the parables, as well as the Johannine and Jacobean understanding of righteousness and "righteousification".
We do not obtain anything by faith -neither righteousness nor salvation, unless it is given to us by God´s grace. It is not by faith that we are saved. There is no use quoting Scripture to prove it. We are saved by the grace of God, in Jesus Christ. If we insist that it is each one´s faith that saves him, we make the grace of God vain and pointless. We cannot understand how Christ can forgive the sins of the paralytic looking at the faith of those who lowered him through the roof.
I do not think that justification by faith should now a days be a bone of contention between Protestans, Catholics and Orthodox. Neither do we need to resort to Augustine or the Reformers to understand what is really meant. St. Paul argues out of his experience. He was Pharisee who sought righteousness through the works of the Mosaic Law and failed to find it until Christ by an act of grace gave him repentance and faith in Christ. He found that Mosaic Law is incompetent to true righteousness and that the Law was merely a guide, a pedagogue to Christ.
With this all Christians agree. Roman Catholic magisterium would not today argue that "sacrifice and ritual justify before God ex opere operato." We can today with some effort come to a consensus among Catholics, Protestant and Orthodox about justification by faith. We certainly need not go to the Ausburg Confession to find such a formula of concord today, nor do we need the Roman Confutation for this purpose.
I hope, however, that the kind of forensic righteousness which the Ausburg Confession insisted upon will not be the position which Lutherans stand today. We as Orthodox would be interested in hearing a more contemporary Lutheran statement about justification and making that the basis of discussions."[A Dialogue Begins(Ed.K.M. George/Herbert Hoefer.)The Ausburg Confession in the Eucumenical Movement - An Orthodox Perspective by Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios. S. 139-141]
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.