How much did the Reformation reform?

[ntchristian]

Growing up in Eastern Orthodoxy, where I lived, we were in the minority. We were surrounded by Roman Catholicism. There were not that many Protestant churches around. So I came to know a lot about the Roman Catholic Church and how it differed from us. But I did not know a lot about Protestantism until I engaged in an in-depth study of it. I recognized how the Reformation changed Protestant beliefs in contrast to the RCC which it came out of. In that sense, Protestantism was indeed a rebellion from and reformation from Roman Catholicism, but not from Eastern Orthodoxy since the Protestant reformers did not come out of Orthodoxy.

Now what I'm about to say may shock many of you and find you in disbelief or denial of it, but this is what I found. Protestantism, while seeking to return to more Biblical/ancient doctrines and practices, still held and holds to basic premises that Roman Catholicism holds. Protestantism, just like Roman Catholicism, holds to an Augustinian soteriology, unlike Orthodoxy. Further, Protestant atonement theories are just expansions of Roman Catholic atonement theory, which are neither ancient nor Biblical, and neither is Augustinian soteriology.

So, in basic ideas of salvation, both Roman Catholic and Protestant (including Baptist) views are akin. These are different from Orthodoxy. Another specific difference is in the doctrine of justification. I will include a link to an article which is good at highlighting these differing views: Justification (theology) - Wikipedia

One big problem I am having in converting to Protestantism, and Baptists, is in this area of soteriology. In all my studies, I did find something astonishing, and I found it almost by accident. In reading about the Reformation, I stumbled on the Radical Reformation, and in those radicals I found a soteriology very close in some important aspects to Orthodox soteriology. And yet the Radical Reformers in other aspects were seemingly almost totally opposite to Orthodoxy. This has led me to study of the offspring of the Radical Refomers such as the Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers (Friends).

All of this is fascinating and intriguing to me. I'll be glad to see comments from all who care to respond to my thread. I hope we can have a good discussion of this. I am glad to have found this forum. Your comments and responses are really making me think.

 

[Yeshua1]

Growing up in Eastern Orthodoxy, where I lived, we were in the minority. We were surrounded by Roman Catholicism. There were not that many Protestant churches around. So I came to know a lot about the Roman Catholic Church and how it differed from us. But I did not know a lot about Protestantism until I engaged in an in-depth study of it. I recognized how the Reformation changed Protestant beliefs in contrast to the RCC which it came out of. In that sense, Protestantism was indeed a rebellion from and reformation from Roman Catholicism, but not from Eastern Orthodoxy since the Protestant reformers did not come out of Orthodoxy.

Now what I'm about to say may shock many of you and find you in disbelief or denial of it, but this is what I found. Protestantism, while seeking to return to more Biblical/ancient doctrines and practices, still held and holds to basic premises that Roman Catholicism holds. Protestantism, just like Roman Catholicism, holds to an Augustinian soteriology, unlike Orthodoxy. Further, Protestant atonement theories are just expansions of Roman Catholic atonement theory, which are neither ancient nor Biblical, and neither is Augustinian soteriology.

So, in basic ideas of salvation, both Roman Catholic and Protestant (including Baptist) views are akin. These are different from Orthodoxy. Another specific difference is in the doctrine of justification. I will include a link to an article which is good at highlighting these differing views: Justification (theology) - Wikipedia

One big problem I am having in converting to Protestantism, and Baptists, is in this area of soteriology. In all my studies, I did find something astonishing, and I found it almost by accident. In reading about the Reformation, I stumbled on the Radical Reformation, and in those radicals I found a soteriology very close in some important aspects to Orthodox soteriology. And yet the Radical Reformers in other aspects were seemingly almost totally opposite to Orthodoxy. This has led me to study of the offspring of the Radical Refomers such as the Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers (Friends).

All of this is fascinating and intriguing to me. I'll be glad to see comments from all who care to respond to my thread. I hope we can have a good discussion of this. I am glad to have found this forum. Your comments and responses are really making me think.

Actually, the reformers did indeed unstand the Sotierology of the scriptures, especially Pauline Justification, my biggest complaints with them would be did not reformed enough their views on the sacraments and eschatology!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

RCC - water baptism = salvation, rebirth, being born-again. Even baptism with water while the child is in the womb!

Baptist - believers baptism to show-forth the result of being born-again through repentance and accepting Jesus as savior.

Eastern Orthodoxy - ???

 

[Yeshua1]

RCC - water baptism = salvation, rebirth, being born-again. Even baptism with water while the child is in the womb!

Baptist - believers baptism to show-forth the result of being born-again through repentance and accepting Jesus as savior.

Eastern Orthodoxy - ???

Do not believe that they hold to saved by Grace alone thru faith alone.

 

[Walpole]

Do not believe that they hold to saved by Grace alone thru faith alone.

Salvation by faith alone was the "theological novum" invented by the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.


James 2:24 ---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

 

[Yeshua1]

Salvation by faith alone was the "theological novum" invented by the progenitors of the various Protestant religions.


James 2:24 ---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Both the Greek and Roan Church really misunderstand what James meant there "Justified by works"
Calvin had this right, as he saw that one was indeed saved by Grace alone thru faith alone, but real saving faith is not alone, as salvation will produce in the redeemed now good works!

 

[Walpole]

FYI, the Orthodox Church condemned both the Lutherans and Calvinists at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 A.D.

 

[Walpole]

Both the Greek and Roan Church really misunderstand what James meant there "Justified by works"
Calvin had this right, as he saw that one was indeed saved by Grace alone thru faith alone, but real saving faith is not alone, as salvation will produce in the redeemed now good works!

James 2:24 ---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."


Does Scripture (above) say faith alone is salvific? Yes or no?

If you believe the answer is yes, faith alone is salvific, then you must believe a dead faith, that is one apart from ANY works, is a salvific one. This again would contradict the explicit words of Scriptures.

James 2:26 ---> "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

 

[Yeshua1]

FYI, the Orthodox Church condemned both the Lutherans and Calvinists at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 A.D.

How about the Church of Rome?

 

[Particular]

James 2:24 ---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."


Does Scripture (above) say faith alone is salvific? Yes or no?

If you believe the answer is yes, faith alone is salvific, then you must believe a dead faith, that is one apart from ANY works, is a salvific one. This again would contradict the explicit words of Scriptures.

James 2:26 ---> "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

Your conclusion is wrong. Paul lays it out in Ephesians 2:8-10.
By Grace you are saved.
Through faith, that comes not from yourself, but is God's gift
That you will carry out the works God has ordained for you.
James agrees with this when he argues against people who claim to have faith, but no works are evident. Therefore he states that faith, without works is dead, which Paul says in Ephesians 2:1 when he says the unsaved are dead in their trespasses and sins. No dead man can produce faith. God must make them alive and give them faith that, by the nature of the gift, produces good works.

This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to scripture.

 

[ntchristian]

Your conclusion is wrong. Paul lays it out in Ephesians 2:8-10.
By Grace you are saved.
Through faith, that comes not from yourself, but is God's gift
That you will carry out the works God has ordained for you.
James agrees with this when he argues against people who claim to have faith, but no works are evident. Therefore he states that faith, without works is dead, which Paul says in Ephesians 2:1 when he says the unsaved are dead in their trespasses and sins. No dead man can produce faith. God must make them alive and give them faith that, by the nature of the gift, produces good works.

This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to scripture.

If you believe that Luther thought James taught the same as Paul on this, then why did he wish that James was not included in the NT?

 

[Particular]

If you believe that Luther thought James taught the same as Paul on this, then why did he wish that James was not included in the NT?

Ask Luther.

I see the congruity of the scriptures and both Paul and James are expressing God's work in the gift of faith.

 

[ntchristian]

Ask Luther.

I see the congruity of the scriptures and both Paul and James are expressing God's work in the gift of faith.

But James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Taken literally, that denies justification by faith alone, does it not?

 

[Particular]

But James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Taken literally, that denies justification by faith alone, does it not?

John Piper says it well.

when James says in verse 21 that Abraham was "justified by works" he has a meaning in mind different from Paul's when Paul denies that a man is justified by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2; 4:5). James is answering the question: Does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham's righteousness depend on works as the necessary evidence of true and living faith? James' answer to that question is Yes. And Paul's answer is also Yes, in Galatians 5:6 (the only thing that counts is "faith working through love"). If you ask James and Paul, "How does an ungodly person get right with God and receive the righteousness of God in Christ as a gift?" both James and Paul would answer with the words of James 2:23: "Trust God (trust Christ) and that faith alone will be reckoned as righteousness."

But if you ask them, "Does justification as an ongoing and final right standing with God depend on the works of love?" Paul is going to say, "No, if by works you mean deeds done to show that you deserve God's ongoing blessing (the point of Romans 4:4)." And James is going to say, "Yes, if by works you mean the fruit and evidence of faith like Abraham's obedience on Mount Moriah." And Paul is going to say, "I agree with James, based on his definitions." And James is going to say, "I agree with Paul, based on his definitions."

So when Paul renounces "justification by works" he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. But when James affirms "justification by works" he means that works are absolutely necessary in the ongoing life of a Christian to confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies.

For Paul, "justification by works" (which he rejects) means "gaining right standing with God by the merit of works." For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love."

To put it yet another way: When Paul teaches in Romans 4:5 that we are justified by faith alone, he means that the only thing that unites us to Christ for righteousness is dependence on Christ. When James says in James 2:24 that we are not justified by faith alone he means that the faith which justifies does not remain alone. These two positions are not contradictory. Faith alone unites us to Christ for righteousness, and the faith that unites us to Christ for righteousness does not remain alone. It bears the fruit of love. It must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith and does not justify.

The glory of Christ in the gospel is not merely that we are justified when we depend entirely on Christ, but also that depending entirely on Christ is the power that makes us new, loving people. Depending entirely on Christ is how we are justified and how we are sanctified. Paul struck the one note. James struck the other. Both are true and together they bring Christ the glory due his name.

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/does-james-contradict-paul

 

[Walpole]

Your conclusion is wrong. Paul lays it out in Ephesians 2:8-10.
By Grace you are saved.
Through faith, that comes not from yourself, but is God's gift
That you will carry out the works God has ordained for you.
James agrees with this when he argues against people who claim to have faith, but no works are evident. Therefore he states that faith, without works is dead, which Paul says in Ephesians 2:1 when he says the unsaved are dead in their trespasses and sins. No dead man can produce faith. God must make them alive and give them faith that, by the nature of the gift, produces good works.

This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to scripture.

I'm sorry...I didn't realize we were still playing "Who can build the biggest straw man?"

I guess it's my turn so here I go...

---> This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you and Baal are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to Scripture.

Your turn. This is so much fun!

 

[Particular]

I'm sorry...I didn't realize we were still playing "Who can build the biggest straw man?"

I guess it's my turn so here I go...

---> This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you and Baal are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to Scripture.

Your turn. This is so much fun!

My goodness you have no clue. I specifically answered and because you have no reply you claim the nebulous strawman.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your conclusion is wrong. Paul lays it out in Ephesians 2:8-10.
By Grace you are saved.
Through faith, that comes not from yourself, but is God's gift
That you will carry out the works God has ordained for you.
James agrees with this when he argues against people who claim to have faith, but no works are evident. Therefore he states that faith, without works is dead, which Paul says in Ephesians 2:1 when he says the unsaved are dead in their trespasses and sins. No dead man can produce faith. God must make them alive and give them faith that, by the nature of the gift, produces good works.

This is elementary stuff, yet you seem to stumble over it and imagine you are the cause of faith and good works, which is clearly contrary to scripture.

That sort of theology is what spawned the reformation!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you believe that Luther thought James taught the same as Paul on this, then why did he wish that James was not included in the NT?

he misunderstand what Paul and James were teaching?

 

[Yeshua1]

But James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Taken literally, that denies justification by faith alone, does it not?

No, for Paul address Justification from [menbers idea of] God's perspective, and James describes what that looks like in practical terms in our lives!

 

[ntchristian]

I appreciate all the excellent comments, but it still seems to me that Paul and James disagree. In interpreting scripture, I tend to read things literally and first take the literal sense of a passage. I have also observed that different denominations interpret passages literally when it suits their doctrines and explain away the literal rendering when it doesn't. All denominations do this.