The Gospel in Church History (Part 1)

The Cripplegate ^ | September 12, 2013 | Nathan Busenitz

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Because what Rome "defined" is not what was given to us by God."

"The same way you could discover it if you were to take off the Catholic blinders..."

The Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone, which God freely gives as He wills -- the article appears to attribute the discovery of this doctrine to Luther a thousand years after the Catholic Church defined it. So either Luther did NOT believe in salvation through grace alone, or the article falsely attributes the doctrine to him.

The only other option from your end is that sola gratia is only true if some entity other than the Catholic Church teaches it.

[sasportas]

From Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther forward, the history of Christianity has been, and is, first, a wrenching of itself from the pagan-sycretized Roman institution, then a continual restoration process trying to get back to the beliefs once held by original Christians.

[ravenwolf]

Thus, the Reformation was born...

---

Just think how great it would be if he had started in the Gospels and continued through acts 1 thru 5.

[Springfield Reformer]

The Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone, which God freely gives as He wills -- the article appears to attribute the discovery of this doctrine to Luther a thousand years after the Catholic Church defined it. So either Luther did NOT believe in salvation through grace alone, or the article falsely attributes the doctrine to him.

The only other option from your end is that sola gratia is only true if some entity other than the Catholic Church teaches it.

Let's be realistic.  If Martin Luther or the other Reformers were teaching the same thing as what you mean when you say "the Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone," then there would have been no Reformation, because there would have been no reason to excommunicate Luther or any of the others.  Obviously there is a difference. It isn't just that they agreed with Augustine in his war with Pelagius. Both sides say it's all of grace.  But they mean two different things.  The difference comes out vividly in the doctrine of justification. The evangelical view is that for the elect, grace isn't just a use it or lose it opportunity to get back into the Adamic state, from which one may still fall, if one does not turn in the requisite works.  Grace is an expression of the power and determination of God Almighty to finish what He starts.  

Under such a view, justification is not going to be based on something fallible, that can fall apart because it depends on the sinful heart of man. Instead, justification is first of all forensic, the passing of a judicial sentence of innocence that is final, beyond appeal, and will not ever be revoked.  Not because the poor sinner deserves such a good deal.  He does not.  But because there has been a complete exchange of life between Jesus and that sinner, the righteousness of Jesus put to the sinner's account, and the sin of the sinner put to Jesus' account.  Jesus did in fact pay the sinner's debt of sin, and God would be unjust to punish for it twice.  And because the righteousness we have through faith is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Himself, it is perfect, thoroughly adequate to satisfy the highest standards of God.  That sinner will make it.

What about personal righteousness?  No such person exists as can have this forensic justification who does not also have the new birth, the becoming of a new creation in mind and spirit, with new attitudes and a fervent desire to please God, to love the word of God, the people of God, the moral and spiritual rule of God.  

Yet in all of this, there is the wire of grace connecting everything.  He elects, He gives faith, He gives His own righteousness and absorbs in Himself the punishment of all our sin, He sanctifies and moves us toward ever greater likeness to Himself, and in the Holy Spirit He gives us a guarantee of fulfillment of all the promises of salvation.  There is no off ramp.  If there were, if in some sense our salvation came down to depending on our sin-broken nature, even after getting an initial "grace booster shot," then we have stealthily imported works of the flesh, and a difference between one man and another, whereby the man who remains faithful because of anything in himself, has occasion to boast, which would nullify grace, and become salvation by quid pro quo.  And if salvation could have been accomplished by any merit of mankind, Jesus would not have had to die.

So there is a difference.  We both use the word "grace," but the evangelical holds it close to their heart for the whole trip, for every facet of their life with Christ.  Which is why it can never be contained in an occasional sacrament.  It permeates everything we do.  We need it, and have it, not once a month or once a week or once a day, but every moment, sleeping and waking.  It's why we write songs about it.  It is the banner of God's love set over us.  How can one not be uplifted by that thought!?

Peace,

SR

[HiTech RedNeck]

Indeed I have wryly asked Catholics why it isn’t a problem that Christ is on the altar, because it seems He rarely is anywhere else. (Most of the people that they formally proclaim as saints did show a more or less portable Christ in their lives.)

Tying the fact of your salvation to sufficient repetitions of a ritual is a good way to run a “religion” where you want some men to control other men. But it’s not how God runs a salvation.

[mrobisr]

Better known as the Council of Trent make it up as we go and call it tradition.

[RnMomof7]

**protestant historian ** LOL!
As opposed to what kind of a historian?

A secular or Catholic one

I did not want to present this as an unbiased series.. but one written from the Protestant perspective ...

[RnMomof7]

Actually through the wonder of the internet..you may be able to find it on line :)

[RnMomof7]

art 1), Springfield Reformer wrote: Which scriptures is Paul talking about?

the ENTIRE OT is about Him...

[RnMomof7]

Paul never preached anything as the word of God but the ancient scriptures he had spent his youth studying under Gamaliel.
That was why he was picked as an apostle

Absolutely.. God ordained that he be an "educated"Jew of the Jews.. a citizen of Rome and one that actually persecuted the church..

[RnMomof7]

I assume then that you agree when Paul wrote the below scripture he was also talking about the old testament?

Peter called the letters from Paul the scriptures

[Gamecock]

**The Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone**

Define grace.

[RnMomof7]

The Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone, which God freely gives as He wills -- the article appears to attribute the discovery of this doctrine to Luther a thousand years after the Catholic Church defined it. So either Luther did NOT believe in salvation through grace alone, or the article falsely attributes the doctrine to him.

How does one get grace ?

[RnMomof7]

ndeed I have wryly asked Catholics why it isn’t a problem that Christ is on the altar, because it seems He rarely is anywhere else. (Most of the people that they formally proclaim as saints did show a more or less portable Christ in their lives.)

Christ is there neatly held captive in a piece of bread stored in a locked golden prison ...makes you wonder just who is God

[winodog]

Good answer!

[Zuriel]

Gamecock said:
“Because what Rome “defined” is not what was given to us by God.”

Iscool said:
\”The same way you could discover it if you were to take off the Catholic blinders...”

Weird bio fueled said:
**The Catholic Church defined that salvation occurs through grace alone,**

The Catholics preach grace, coupled with a response to certain teachings from God. Is it not so that Catholics teach that ‘Eucharist’ consumption results in receiving eternal life, but must be ate on a regular basis? Don’t Catholics claim to follow Peter’s teachings, yet baptize in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, instead of the name of Jesus?

The Reformists preach salvation by grace, and by and large leapfrog the commissions of the Lord (’scripture alone’?) and much of the conversion instructions found in the gospels and Acts. From there, they go on into the epistles to continue to teach ‘grace alone’, ignoring that the epistles were written to people that already knew the Lord’s commands for conversion. The reformers preach ‘believe in Jesus Christ’, yet are selective on his commands.

Here is an example of how the reformists view Hebrews chapter 11, starting with verse 4:

By faith Abel was righteous because God said so.
By faith Enoch was translated because God chose it to happen to him.
By faith Noah woke up, and found himself, along with his family in an ark.
By faith Abraham was placed in a land that God gave to him.
By faith Sara gave birth when past age, and felt no pain; not having to push either.
By faith Isaac, like Abraham, lived in a land given to him, and didn’t have to lift a finger, wells with water just appeared out of nowhere.
By faith Jacob (pretty much the same as Isaac)
By faith Joseph was made second in command of Egypt without any trials or tests along the way.
By faith Moses didn’t lead the Israelites across the Red Sea, seeing that they were already saved.
By faith Joshua showed up to find Jericho’s walls were alreay leveled.
By faith Rahab (wait,..Rahab has nothing to do with this story since the walls were already flattened).
By faith David walked up to an already dead Goliath and took his sword.

Reformers version of Acts 2:38:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”. (yeah, that’s from Acts 16, where the reformers ignore the rest of the story, but that’s their ‘house rules’.)

Folks,...believing on the Lord Jesus Christ means believing in ALL of his words, and ALL of his apostles words. And He expects us to act upon his words. HE defines how we enter into his grace, and Acts 2:38 is his ordained plan.

[Zuriel]

**...Marty’s heart was truly touched by God...Mary was a Christian but his heart was torn...**

Oh no!! Now you’re saying he was bisexual? (lol)

[mrobisr]

Your denomination teaches by Grace alone, seriously! If you truly believe that then by your own doctrine you are anathema (cursed).

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session VII - Celebrated on the third day of March 1547, under Pope Paul III

Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

Canon 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.

Canon 7. If anyone says that grace, so far as God’s part is concerned, is not impaired through the sacraments always and to all men even if they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons, let him be anathema.

I could keep going, but I won’t as the point is already proven by just three. Yes Luther did indeed define Grace by Faith alone.

[mrobisr]

Grace alone...

”There is no one, O Most Holy Mary, who can know God except through thee; no one who can be saved or redeemed but through thee, O Mother of God; no one who can be delivered from dangers but through thee, O Virgin Mother; no one who obtains mercy but through thee, O Filled-With-All-Grace!” -Saint Germanus of Constantinople, Patriarch of Constantinople, d. 733 AD

”It is impossible to save one’s soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection.” -Saint Anselm, Archbishop and Doctor of the Church, 1033-1109 AD

”To desire grace without recourse to the Virgin Mother is to desire to fly without wings.” -Pope Pius XII, 1876-1958 AD

He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.
-St. Ignatius of Antioch

Yeah sure Grace alone who are you kidding?

[mrobisr]

fact noun \ˈfakt\ : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true piece of information For facts see post 58 and 59.