Reflections on Augsburg

[JVAC]

I was reading over the Augsburg Confession again, and it got me wondering, what differences (other than sacramental) do others have from its confession?

What differences do the Catholics and Orthodox have?
What differences do the P/R/E's have?

I guess what I am looking for is a friendly chat trying to figure this out. The confession looks pretty straight forward to me (I guess I am a little biased though [wink]).

-James

(p.s. if you don't know what I am talking about check out... http://www.bookofconcord.org (click this one www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.html (http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.html) )

[Philip]

What differences do the Catholics and Orthodox have?

Are you asking what differences exist between Catholics and Orthodox? Or, are you asking for the differences between Orthodoxy and the Augsburg Confession?

[theologia crucis]

James,

FYI, here's the The Confutatio Pontificia (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc.html#ccf) to the Augsburg Confession, and here's some very interesting background information (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/bente/conc-int-03.html) that I hadn't read before until recently.

But, to answer your question, and from what I can tell, the biggest issues they (RCC and EO) have with the AC is our position on original sin, repentance, justification, and the relation of faith to works, etc. Of course, the RCC disagrees with Part Two (Disputed Articles, Listing the Abuses That Have Been Corrected)...

Most P/R/E's disagree with us on the sacraments, and often times on the new obedience (Article VI), and (unfortunately) sometimes even on original sin and justification.

One thing I do want to say is that (thankfully), we all (Lutherans, RCC, EO, P/R/E) DO generally believe the same things when it comes to the Trinitarian God, and is one thing that binds us all together as Christians.

How Jesus perfect life, death and resurrection gets applied to us in our daily life is where we differ...

[JVAC]

Are you asking what differences exist between Catholics and Orthodox? Or, are you asking for the differences between Orthodoxy and the Augsburg Confession?
The confession and Orthodoxy

-James

[Philip]

The confession and Orthodoxy


I presumed as much, but I want to be sure. I will present my understanding of the Orthodox position. If you wish to discuss this further, we may need to move to another forum.

Article I: Of God
We agree. It should be noted that we teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, not the Father and the Son.

Article II: Of Original Sin
We do not accept the concept of Original Sin, but we do agree with the condemnation of the Pelagians. Our position is between those of St Augustine and Pelagius. St John Cassian summerized it well.

Article III: Of the Son of God
We agree as to the nature of the Son. We agree that through His death and ressurrection we are reconciled to God, but we disagree as to the method His death accomplished this.

Article IV: Of Justification
We do not use the term "justification". We prefer "made righteous". We agree that we are made righteous by the Grace of God alone. We disagree as to the some of the means by which His Grace is distributed.

Article V: Of the Ministry
We agree in principle, but we have a broader sense of Sacrements.

Article VI: Of New Obedience
We believe that we receive (but not earn!) grace through "good works". By "good works", I mean those works which are born of Christian love, not those that are done for other reasons.

Article VII: Of the Church
We partially agree. We believe that there is a visible unity of the Church.

Article VIII: What the Church Is
We agree.

Article IX: Of Baptism
We agree, although I am concerned about the word "necessary".

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper
We agree with what is written here. We do not agree with consubstantiation.

Article XI: Of Confession
We agree with what is written.

Article XII: Of Repentance
We agree, but would place a stronger emphasis on the good works that proceed from repentance. Without such works, one must ask if one is truly repentant. I will state again that these works do not earn us anything.

Article XIII: Of the Use of the Sacraments
We agree, but have a broader idea of what constitutes a sacrement.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order
We agree except to say that any baptized Christian may baptize in extreme circumstances.

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages
We agree, but we do take some vows and abstain for periods of time. We do this as spiritual exercise, not to merit anything.

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs
We agree.

Article XVII: Of Christ's Return to Judgment
We agree except to say that we believe the wicked will bring the torment upon themselves. (There is much more to this, but since this is the PRE forum, I will leave it at that.)

Article XVIII: Of Free Will
We partially agree. We believe that God calls us, but we have the ability to turn from that call. Once God has placed the spark of faith in us, it is our responcibility (with His help, of course) to nurture the flame.

Article XIX: Of the Cause of Sin
We agree.

Article XX: Of Good Works
There is much here that could be discussed. I will only say that we believe that good works, when given the oppertunity, are necessary. We believe that we experience God's grace through these works, but not because of any merit on our part.

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints
We do not worship the Saints. We worship God alone. We do honor the Saints because God has honored them. We seek their intercessions because the prayer of the righteous avails much.

Article XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament
We agree.

Article XXIII: Of the Marriage of Priests
We agree. Some of our priests are married. Some are celibate.

Article XXIV: Of the Mass
We agree with many of these doctrines. There are some issues to be discussed since we have a different view of justification.

I do not comment on the allegations.

Article XXV: Of Confession
We consider private confession and the guidence of a priest to be essential to Christian growth. While we do not claim that a sin must be enumerated to be forgive, a known sin can not be hidden. We confess our sins to God in the presence of a priest so that the priest in his pastoral duty can guide us to not repeat the sin.

Article XXVI: Of the Distinction of Meats
Article XXVII: Of Monastic Vows
We agree that these merit nothing. However, they do serve as spiritual exercise.

Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power
No comment. This seems to largely be a Western issue.

[JVAC]

Thank you for your response, I have a few questions still, but I don't have time right now, just wanted to say thanks.

-James

[Philip]

I'll be happy to answer. I will be travelling this week, so my responce might be delayed.

[JVAC]

What then do the orthodox believe about original sin, is man born fallen? Relating to that doesn't this fallen nature relate to Article XIX, that is, the sinful nature of ungodly men. (I am just a very curious person, and I don't have any hidden agenda.)

-James

[ChiRho]

[QUOTE=Philip]
Article VI: Of New Obedience
We believe that we receive (but not earn!) grace through "good works". By "good works", I mean those works which are born of Christian love, not those that are done for other reasons.

Could you elaborate on this point? Maybe I am thick or dull, but it seems that this makes no sense at all. You receive grace from "good works," but grace is not earned?

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper
We agree with what is written here. We do not agree with consubstantiation./QUOTE]


That is fine you object to "consubstantiation." We do too.
We do not believe in "consubstantiation." That term was given to Lutherans, by non-Lutherans, who misunderstood (and misunderstand) our belief regarding Holy Communion.

"Lutherans believe and teach that in the other Sacrament, Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus Christ, according to How own plain Word, gives us His body and blood for the remission of sins; that the Lutheran belief, call the ‘Real Presence’, does not imply, either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, any king of change in the visible elements, that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by virtue of Jesus word of institution, this bread is the Body and this wine is His blood; that all who eat and drink at the Lord’s Table receive His body and blood in and with the bread and wine, those who believe to the strengthening of their faith, those who reject to their condemnation; and that this Sacrament ought therefore to be withheld from those who are unable to examine themselves in the Christian faith."

-www.lutheran.co.uk/docs/Believe.doc


Also...

“Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).

I hope this is clarifies our belief regarding the Lord's Supper.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

[QUOTE=Philip]
Article VI: Of New Obedience
We believe that we receive (but not earn!) grace through "good works". By "good works", I mean those works which are born of Christian love, not those that are done for other reasons.

Could you elaborate on this point? Maybe I am thick or dull, but it seems that this makes no sense at all. You receive grace from "good works," but grace is not earned?

Article X: Of the Lord's Supper
We agree with what is written here. We do not agree with consubstantiation./QUOTE]


That is fine you object to "consubstantiation." We do too.
We do not believe in "consubstantiation." That term was given to Lutherans, by non-Lutherans, who misunderstood (and misunderstand) our belief regarding Holy Communion.

"Lutherans believe and teach that in the other Sacrament, Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus Christ, according to How own plain Word, gives us His body and blood for the remission of sins; that the Lutheran belief, call the ‘Real Presence’, does not imply, either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, any king of change in the visible elements, that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by virtue of Jesus word of institution, this bread is the Body and this wine is His blood; that all who eat and drink at the Lord’s Table receive His body and blood in and with the bread and wine, those who believe to the strengthening of their faith, those who reject to their condemnation; and that this Sacrament ought therefore to be withheld from those who are unable to examine themselves in the Christian faith."

-www.lutheran.co.uk/docs/Believe.doc


Also...

“Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).

I hope this is clarifies our belief regarding the Lord's Supper.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

“Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).


Excellent quote, thanks for posting it!

[Philip]

What then do the orthodox believe about original sin, is man born fallen?

Man is born fallen, but bears no guilt for that. Given time, he will sin.


Relating to that doesn't this fallen nature relate to Article XIX, that is, the sinful nature of ungodly men.

Without the help of God, people will wander further and further from God.

[Philip]

Could you elaborate on this point? Maybe I am thick or dull, but it seems that this makes no sense at all. You receive grace from "good works," but grace is not earned?

Do you receive grace through the Eucharist? Have you earned that grace by going to the altar? Of course not. The grace is received as a gift from the Holy Spirit. Yet, you must still act to receive it.

I will say more when I have time. Part of the confusion is due to the difference of our understanding of justification.

I hope this is clarifies our belief regarding the Lord's Supper.


Thank you. How does this differ from the Calvinist position of a "spiritual presence"?

[JVAC]

Here is a quote from the "Pagan Servitude of the CHurch"

When I fail to understand how bread can be the body of Christ, I, for one, will take my understanding prisoner and bring it into obedience to Christ; and, holding fast with a simple mind to His words, I will firmly believe, not only that the body of Christ is in the Bread but that the bread is the body of Christ.
-James

[ChiRho]

Do you receive grace through the Eucharist? Have you earned that grace by going to the altar? Of course not. The grace is received as a gift from the Holy Spirit. Yet, you must still act to receive it.

I will say more when I have time. Part of the confusion is due to the difference of our understanding of justification.



Thank you. How does this differ from the Calvinist position of a "spiritual presence"?


1. I think the problem lies in our definition of a "work" or "good works." How is receiving Christ's True Physical Body and Blood, and yet still true bread and wine, a work?

1a. You may be correct to assume we have a different understanding of justification and this may lead to confusion.


2. Physical Body and Blood, Physical Presence = Lutheran



Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Philip]

1. I think the problem lies in our definition of a "work" or "good works." How is receiving Christ's True Physical Body and Blood, and yet still true bread and wine, a work?

1a. You may be correct to assume we have a different understanding of justification and this may lead to confusion.


As I mentioned before, we prefer the phrase "made righteous" over "justified". We do not have a concept of forensic justification. We believe that we, by the grace of God, are made more Christ-like as we continue our journey of faith. We must have faith that God will work this good in us despite all of our fallen tendencies.

We draw a distinction between the term "works" as used by Sts Paul and James. In Paul's writings, particularly Romans and Ephesians, "works" (of law) refers to actions done with the expectation of gain God's favor or causing his to act. These works are of no use. In James' epistle, "works" refer to those works done out of Christian love – without expectations of reward or feelings of obligation. James tells us that we are made righteous through these works, and it is through these works that are faith is made complete. Since we can only be made righteous by the grace of God, these works must be a means by which God distributes His grace.

Does this help explain our position?

[theologia crucis]

We need to define grace: gratia infusa (infused grace), gratuitis Dei favor (God's benevolence to a fallen mankind; Lutheran definition), or something else?

[Philip]

Can you elaborate?

[theologia crucis]

I'll try to later tonight or tomorrow (I've got dial up and am waiting on a phone call!).

[theologia crucis]

I wasn't able to finish it tonight, but I'll get to it ASAP.

[Philip]

We need to define grace

I did some reading online and think I have an idea of what you mean. Correct me if I am wrong. (Remember, these come from online sources.)

gratia infusa (infused grace),

This seems to refer to an ability placed in believers to do good/God's will. It sometimes seems to suggest that through this new ability, one can be justified before God. Some authors connect it to Catholic theology, and some to Pentacostal/Charismatic theology.

gratuitis Dei favor (God's benevolence to a fallen mankind; Lutheran definition),

This seems to refer to God's love and willingness to help sinners. In someway, it seems to refer to the "relationship" God has with sinners. Obviously, this is connected with Lutheran theology. I have not been able to determine what, if any, role the believer plays in this relationship. Is he free to accept or reject this grace? I get the impression that he is not, but this seems to run into problems with predestination.


or something else?

As is often the case when comparing Eastern and Western theologies, this is probably the correct choice. I think that our idea of grace may at the same time fall both between and outside these two definitions.

Let me know if I am on the right track. Once I understand these definitions, I can try to explain our understanding of grace.

[theologia crucis]

Phillip, that's not too bad. I hope to be able to right my response soon (dang real life getting in the way of discussing theology! ;)). I think I can answer your questions, though, if I can get some free time!



James, I appologize if I hijacked your thread! I'll probably put my response in a new thread. I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!

[Rechtgläubig]

I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!
I have a habbit of stepping on toes :( , I will wait patiently for your response Theologia. :wave:

[JVAC]

James, I appologize if I hijacked your thread! I'll probably put my response in a new thread. I was hoping others (RCC & P/R/E) would also respond to the OP... Though, I guess nothing is stopping them!
No need to apologize, I am enjoying the discource, quite educational. I like to, sometimes, sit back and watch. No need for another thread either, this thread has enough room for everyone's post.

(I think no one else is responding because they might be afraid this is a trap [wink])

-James

[Philip]

(I think no one else is responding because they might be afraid this is a trap [wink])


Yes, I have just where I want you. ;)

In the East, grace is an attribute (technically, an energy) of God. We try to use the phrase "experience the grace of God" rather than "receive the grace of God" as this is more consistent with our definition of grace. By experiencing His grace, we become more like God. When we do good works*, we experience His grace and are drawn closer to Him. This is the goal of the Christian life: to regain, by the guidence, protection, and power of the Holy Spirit, the communion with God that was lost at the Fall. Salvation is the completion of this, when we enter into communion with God. I think this process is closer to the Western idea of Sactification rather than Justification.


*By "good works", I mean those that are born out of Christian love as a result of the Holy Spirit working in us. "Good works" do not include works done out of some ceremonial/legalistic obligation or works done to try to earn favor.

[theologia crucis]

I'm MAD! I almost had my response worked up, but I hadn't saved it yet. And then my computer locked up and I had to reboot without being able to recover it!!! ARGHH!!!

I'll try and rewrite it this week, but with Holy Week upon us, I'm not sure when I'll get it done now!

However, I'm going to do some quick cutting and pasting from a document worked up by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations after the JDDJ was signed, and it discusses grace to a degree (not quite the way I had been working on!). It may not directly deal with the Augsburg Confession, but these are the same issues both sides have been arguing over for nearly 500 years.

In short, if Christianity is ever going to truly get anywhere in ecumenical discussions, they are going to have to define theological terms, and use those definitions to come up with truy doctrinal and inward unity, not the outward appearance of unity.

So: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

Unresolved issues:
Justification, Grace, Faith, Original Sin

4. JDDJ does not settle the major disagreement between Lutheran theology and Roman Catholic theology on justification. Lutherans teach that justification is essentially a declaration of “not guilty” and “righteous” pronounced by God on a sinner because of Christ and His work. Roman Catholics teach that justification involves an internal process in which a believer is transformed and “made” more and more righteous. The non-settlement of this issue forms the chief defect of JDDJ.

5. Correspondingly, JDDJ fails to define clearly the word grace. Content to use the term “justification by grace,” the document does not resolve the classic question whether such grace is God’s undeserved favor (Lutheran) or whether it is a spiritual power poured or “infused” into the soul that enables one to love God and merit salvation (Roman Catholic). Rome’s view of grace as infused stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process.

6. Although JDDJ uses the biblical phraseology “through faith” or “by faith,” at critical points it speaks of justification “in faith.” This new wording is ambiguous and allows for the Roman Catholic idea of infused grace. It does not clearly state that faith’s role in justification is exclusively to receive Christ’s benefits given to sinners by God in His grace. Therefore, it fails to make clear that the cause of justification is God’s saving work in Christ, not ourselves or anything in us.

7. JDDJ contains an expression of the Lutheran position that original sin, which remains after baptism, is really sin. It also includes the Roman Catholic view that original sin is eradicated by baptism, and that the desire to sin that remains after baptism is not really sin. JDDJ leaves this historic disagreement, like other disagreements mentioned above, unresolved.

Failures of the Declaration:
A Confessional Lutheran Perspective

1. Justification: Forensic or Transformational?

The foremost defect of the document is that it does not come clean on the most glaring conflict between Augsburg and Trent. For Lutherans, justification is essentially forensic, that is, God declares the sinner righteous on account of and in Christ. Roman Catholics define justification as an internal transformation of the believer, a “process,” which Lutherans place in the area of sanctification, about which too there are different understandings. Roman Catholics have understood grace as if it were almost a substance, gratia infusa, which is poured into the soul initially by Baptism. Lutherans, with Paul, see justifying grace as the favor Dei, God’s gracious attitude whereby He accepts sinners. The title of paragraph 4.2, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous,” to be sure, could be understood in a Lutheran way. The famous paragraph 72 of Apology IV makes it clear that faith “being made righteous” in justification means only receiving “the forgiveness of sins.” Clearly this is not what is meant in the Joint Declaration. However, the Formula of Concord expressly rejects the view that justifying righteousness “consists of two pieces or parts, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins and, as a second element, renewal or sanctification” (SD, III, 48).

2. Sola Gratia: No Real Advance

The present Declaration is willing to grant sola gratia simply because the Lutheran and Roman parties had different understandings of “grace.” If saving grace is God’s undeserved favor, as in Rom. 4:4 and 11:6, then, in the article of justification, grace and works (Law) are clearly mutually exclusive. Justification is either by grace or by works, but not both. But if grace now means infused grace, a spiritual power poured into the soul by which we love God and merit salvation, then such infused grace and works in justification are related as “both/and.” Neither the Joint Declaration nor the background dialog have come to terms with these contradictory meanings of “grace.” This would have unraveled the illusory “consensus” on justification.

4. Original Sin?

Behind the Lutheran-Roman Catholic differences on justification are equally fundamental differences on how original sin is understood. Differences on one doctrine mirror differences in others. Lutherans hold that original sin is really sin and that it remains after Baptism. Roman Catholic doctrine holds that original sin is eradicated by Baptism and that concupiscence is not really sin.

Rome’s view of grace as an infused substance, gratia infusa, stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process. Lutherans hold that justification is first of all a universal, world-embracing act and judgment of God in Christ, which is received by faith alone: “The first and chief article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, ‘was put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification’ (Rom. 4:25)” (Smalcald Articles, II/I/1). “Indeed, the entire Gospel that we preach depends on the proper understanding of this article. Upon it all our salvation and blessedness are based, and it is so rich and broad that we can never learn it fully” (Large Catechism, Creed, Second Article, 33). The Formula of Concord (SD, III, 25) lists four “essential and necessary elements” of justification: 1. the grace of God; 2. the merit of Christ; 3. the Gospel; and 4. faith.

15. “A Call for Discussion” notes that Trent sees “justification as a process of growth in holiness empowered through the gift of grace given in the sacraments. Grace is understood as an infused causal power that transforms the soul.” Aristotle’s four causes are taken into the Tridentine definition. Predisposing or helping grace [first cause] turns the sinner from sin to “the church’s ‘instrumental cause’ of justification, which is baptism [second
cause]. In baptism, the cleansing of original sin and the remission of actual sin (up to the time of baptism) are received, together with the infusion of grace which renews the soul and enables the observance of the commandments. This is supplemented by the rite of penance for post-baptismal sin [third cause] and by the necessary but always uncertain grace of perseverance in holiness of life until the end [fourth or final cause], when, for those who persevere, God grants eternal life both as a further gift and as reward promised for good works.”

I do fully intend to post my own writing, so please bear with me, and thanks for being so patient (a gift from God!).

[Philip]

Quick question: What is JDDJ?

[theologia crucis]

Quick question: What is JDDJ?

I was going to explain that in my post before I lost it last night, but "JDDJ" is the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", signed the Eve of All Saints, 1999, between the Roman Catholic Church (The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) and the Lutheran World Federation (the largest Lutheran group in the world, of which the LCMS is not a member).

[theologia crucis]

Okay, I actually have to give thanks to Microsoft. I forgot about the autorecovery stuff in Word, and I recovered what I typed!!! I've still got to finish the Lutheran discussion of grace, but I don't have to start over! Woo hoo!

I don't have time to finish tonight, but I'll get back to it as soon as possible (Friday, perhaps?). I've got an elder's meeting tomorrow night at church, and after I get home, I want some quality time with my daughter. And Thursday night is church, and I gotta practice trumpet for easter afterwards. Friday, I intend to take off work and go to the noon Good Friday service, so maybe that morning or afternoon... Thanks for being patient (if anyone's still interested)...