I periodically struggle with God just like Jacob. Too often I want God to listen to my theology instead of my listening to God's revelation.
Below is a follow-up email that I sent. Obviously, I have taken out any personal notes and simply put in the meat of the ongoing discussion.
====
I have been enjoying the discussion on Sola Fide immensely. It has been very exciting to be able to review theology on this subject, particularly since it has to do with my personal future someday! I had thought of posting again, but my post would have had to be too long. So, let me sketch out very briefly a couple of thoughts that would need lots of filling in.
1. Eastern theology is much less based on a forensic approach to the atonement. We still tend to concentrate much more on the Christus Victor approach toward the atonement as our primary model of understanding. Because we do, works do not play as much of a part in the argument over atonement as they do in the post-Augustinian West.
2. Some of the problem is of definition, and, if I can control the definition, I can win the debate. For the Protestant West, no work is pure, therefore no work is acceptable, by definition. Philosophical arguments are made about intentions, unexpected results, etc., to prove that none of our works is perfect. That is coupled with the Romans verse on “filthy rags.” However, as even Luther points out, the place of works before and after salvation is different. There is quite a bit of merit to the quotation from Luther about the difference between a dead faith and a living faith.
3. The Orthodox would not say with the Roman Catholics that we are working out our justification.
Here is a quote from St. Philaret’s catechism:
Question 1. What must the orthodox-catholic Christian do to gain eternal life?
Response. Right faith and good works. For whoever has these two is a good Christian and has certain hope of eternal salvation, as Scripture says: “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” A little later in the same place: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” Elsewhere St. Paul says the same thing: “Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith.” The same thing in another place: “Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. ”
Q. 2. Should a Christian first believe and then do good works in lifeR. Since “without faith it is impossible to please God”, as St. Paul teaches, “he that comes to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.” Therefore, so that a Christian may please God and his works may be accepted by him, first it is necessary that he have faith in God and then he must form his life according to this faith.
Notice a most important sentence that separates us from both Romans and Protestants, “Therefore, so that a Christian may please God and his works may be accepted by him, first it is necessary that he have faith in God and then he must form his life according to this faith.” Like Protestants, the statement says that faith is necessary first. Salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, Romans miss this point. St. James’ phrase on justification by works is not equated to forensic justification but to a twofold of faith and conscience. But, we are then called to form our life. If we fail to do this, then we do make a shipwreck concerning the faith. We would tend to say that Protestants miss the second part. By defining all works as intrinsically impure they make a tautology that blocks out a correct balance. Our approach is medicinal. Works are the medicine for our soul, which begins to form us and heal us of our sin in a practical way. Works are not forensic, but medicinal. That is a very major difference. But, there is a warning to those who fail to take their medicine that their disease may ravage them to the point of great loss, like he who had only one talent and would not even invest it.
4. It is a particularly modern idea that unless works are spontaneous, they are not true. That has more to do with existentialism than with the Bible. Yet a person who plans, who does works with the intent of growing towards union with Christ (ahem, not forensic union, as in justification, practical union, as in sanctification), is not that person more like the athlete which St. Paul cites approvingly, who beats not the air without purpose? When I think of all the Christian volunteers who go to nursing homes, homeless shelters, thrift shops, etc., even when they do not wish to go, even when they are tired, must I tell them that because their attitude is not correct that their works mean nothing? When a Mother Theresa emotionally feels that God is no longer present, but lays that aside and perseveres in Christian commitment, does her work mean nothing? And, if any of those people has the slightest thought in their mind that by doing these actions they will grow in God, must I then tell them that their thought is selfish, their work is impure, and that it means nothing? No, I would rather tell them to plan to grow, to aggressively schedule their spiritual exercise in the thrift shop, the nursing home, etc., so that in serving others, as a deliberate decision of the will, they may learn to mortify their flesh which would rather sit at home.
5. I cited the parable of the talents in point 3. Part of Jesus’ point was to use what you have and to not compare yourself to others. Our walk towards union with God is one that we must take. There is a path which leads to eternal life. But, not everyone has the same resources or opportunities. We are only asked to use what we have, not what others have. And, if you follow the parable, the one talent guy only had to give it to a bank for investment. He did not even have to do great things with the talent. Our salvation is not dependent on doing great things. Great things have been done for us and to us. Nevertheless, making no use of our talent is a sure path to the loss of our salvation.
6. I find the arguments over how little one has to believe or do to be saved a little frightening. The Early Church Fathers always pointed us towards doing more, not less. Inevitably, the discussion over how little has tended to lead to a minimalist Christianity rather than a Living Way. It is here that St. James is ever so handy, as well as St. Paul’s appeal to a good and pure conscience.
I hope I have pointed out some of the differences between East and West a little better.
Fr. Obregon, I was raised and educated Roman Catholic and attended a Roman Catholic Seminary, and I am curious: could you cite a source in Catholic Doctrine or even the Catholic Catechism which explicitly says that Catholics believe they “work out their justification”. I never heard that – I did hear often that Christians were to “live out their justification”. I think there is a rather substantial difference.
Hey Dan, it is Sunday, so a very busy day for me. Let me just give you a very insufficient fast quote and a promise to post either late tonight or early tomorrow. I was thinking of the following decree of Trent.
===
CHAPTER X.
On the increase of Justification received.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified . . .
===
I realize more has been said since by both Vatican Council II and the Roman Catholic / Lutheran joint statement on justification. The problem statement is “. . . increase in that justice . . . and are still further justified. . .”
More to come when I have time.
Fr. Ernesto,
Could you explain to me how the Christus Victor approach over rides Paul, and the forensic approach?
Perhaps I am showing great ignorance here. The Bible uses many analogies, and terms to show how Christ has attained salvation for us men. I don’t think any of them should be pitted against the other.
It seems to me that what you give with the right hand you take back with the left. The gospel it seems is only for unbelievers, once they become believers you give them law, as a whip to drive them to works. If you don’t do them you will lose salvation, your faith will die. What a soul torture. I’ve watched it, I’ve seen it. Gotta go to the nursing home, gotta babysit for you neighbor, gotta gotta gotta, or you won’t be good enough for heaven. Doesn’t seem like an easy yoke, or a light burden to me. I’ve seen that nonsense ruin families and destroy lives.
Truth is believers need the gospel as much as unbelievers. It is the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit that creates a clean conscience, and a pure heart. Torturing souls by telling a mom and a wife that she has to mortify her flesh by going to a nursing home to volunteer after changing dirty diapers, loving her husband, feeding the family, and getting them all up for church on Sunday morning, making sure they are dressed and hair is combed, off to school etc. (All of those things God has called her to do, making it her vocation, and seeing them as perfect good works in Christ) should not leave you with a clean conscience but a very dirty one. Christ has called you to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Not to preach repentance, forgiveness of sins, and now you have to work to get to heaven.
The Christus Victor theme does not override St. Paul. St. Athanasius speaks of substitutionary atonement and of the Christus Victor theme. Nevertheless, in the Early Church Fathers, the Christus Victor theme is the predominant theme.
I hope that you have read (or seen the movie) C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe,” otherwise my example will make no sense. Also, please read my longer post at InternetMonk.com for a more extensive explanation. Click on that post, then go down to the comment that I made today.
In that work by C.S. Lewis, Aslan allows himself to be sacrificed towards the end of the book. He is sacrificed because of Edward’s sin, but all that is accomplished is not simply explained by the fact that Aslan substituted himself for Edward.
Rather, Aslan refers to a “deeper magic” that took effect once an innocent was killed substituting for a guilty person. In other words, the substitutionary explanation is not rejected, but rather, it is pointed out that there is something more going on and that it is the deeper explanation. The Orthodox would agree with C.S. Lewis on that matter.
Substitutionary atonement is true. But, it is not the whole story. There was a victory to be won.
I have no doubt that Roman Catholics go through agony, since they tie justification in to works. However, see my post on InternetMonk. The Orthodox do not do so, and, as a result, do not necessarily experience the same angst as Roman Catholics used to. I say used to because that is not as true of American Roman Catholics nowadays.
I have seen the movie, read the book once, and I don’t know that C.S. Lewis was hinting to all you have read into it. However I am glad you aren’t saying it has to be one or the other.
I really don’t see though, and perhaps this is because of my Lutheran rather than reformed view point, how Christus Victor cancels out the solas. Or how Christ winning a victory for us, allows for works righteousness, or any form of progressive justification.
Well, since I am still trying to read up on Lutheranism, I do not have a good answer for you on that one. But, I have already downloaded the joint Lutheran / Roman Catholic joint statement on justification of faith, and have skimmed the Shorter Catechism online. I might be able to answer better after a little more reading.
Fr. Ernesto,
Don’t bother with the joint declaration. The people who signed that were/ are not Lutheran. they gave up on the Sola Scriptura along time ago and the house of cards fell. That was a dishonest statement on both sides anyway. So you won’t find a shred of Lutheranism there. Go ahead with the Small Catechism though.
Hey Bror, you asked enough questions that it has led to a new post. GRIN. Thank you for your questions!
Please go to my post today (11/19) on The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, and we can continue there if you wish.