Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 5:20-26.I remember having a discussion with a Protestant about this passage once. The context of the debate was around the problem of our different understandings of justification. I was quite impressed with his response to the question of our righteousness surpassing that of the scribes and Pharisees, which i thought he would struggle with. He said his did in fact surpass the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, because his was the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Jesus said to his disciples: «I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgement.' But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.
That may be, and impressed as I was I don't think it is enough in response to Jesus' challenge to us here, even though I might wish it was! Matthew Henry though, seems to acknowledge that this passage does indeed point towards us having to act in righteousness, albeit as proof of conversion. Protestant commentary thus;
Matthew Henry Commentary
5:17-20 Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.The end of this passage does seem to suggest that works are necessary, albeit as a proof of conversion, protestants would prefer to say "as the fruits of a proper conversion."
This for me raises the question of justification by works in another sense.
Last word goes to the Catholic with a big "C" Haydock Commentary citing Aquinas and Augustine:
Of the Scribes and of the Pharisees. The Scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses; the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. Ch. — See how necessary it is, not only to believe, but to keep all the commandments, even the very least. B. — Our Saviour makes this solemn declaration at the opening of his mission, to shew to what a height of perfection he calls us. Aquin. — "Your justice." It is our justice when given us by God. Aug. in Ps. xxx. l. de. spir. & lit. c. ix. So that Christians are truly just, and have in themselves inherent justice, by observing God's commandments, without which justice of works, no man can be saved. Aug. de fide & oper. c. xvi. Whereby we see salvation, justice and justification, do not come by faith only, or imputation of Christ's justice.So there we have the typically Catholic and Protestant positions on that part of today's Gospel Reading. Now, as for the rest of it....phew!
I find Luther's description of a Christian, 'Simul justus et peccator', very attractive - 'justus' because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to the believer. It's even better in the form I heard one pastor put it: 'Always sinning, always penitent, always right with God'. It's disappointing to me that this is not accepted by the Church, on the grounds, if I understand correctly, that as Catholics we have times when we are indeed free of sin, e.g. immediately after baptism and after a good confession, and because 'faith without works is dead'.
ReplyDeleteThe Church should teach what his biblical and what is truth, rather than accept what makes it easier for us to be Christians. I have to say the Pastor's description you quoted sounds to me like a sure route to a spiritual car-crash.
ReplyDeleteEither Christ is present in the sacraments and they do what it says on the tin by his power working through His Church or He isn't.
Also I hope my Catholic faith - putting on Christ - will result in more this side of death than His turning a blind eye to my pitiful sinful existence.
Protestants are also engaged in an interesting, and often very acrimonious (at least on the internet), debate about whether the salvation 'imputed' to the sinner means 'once saved,always saved', or can be lost due to deliberate sin. Each side claims that the other is leading multitudes to Hell with their version of either conditional or unconditional salvation. As usual with Protestantism, and particularly the modern evangelical variety, both sides cite copious Bible verses to back their positions, but the lack of a central theological authority means that the debate just goes on and on.
ReplyDelete"Once saved , always saved" is an even more attractive doctrine than 'simul justus et peccator', and from my own observations, at least here in North America, is bringing in huge numbers to churches which preach this. My own parish has just lost a large family to a nearby Baptist church, which is why I've been reading up on Luther and the many and various denominations which followed him.
I think you've put your finger on the reason for the new, and 'easier', doctrines - the lack of sacraments. Luther seemed to particularly 'have it in' for the sacraments, presumably because he had a lot of resentment for the authority of the Cathoiic Church, and the sacraments (except in certain circumstances) require a priest. Baptists have no sacraments at all, just two ordinances, baptism and communion, both symbols only. Perhaps this lack of access to the righteousness of Christ 'infused' in the believer through participation in the sacraments, rather than 'imputed' by faith, is why there are 30,000 or so Protestant denominations, and one Catholic Church.
Thanks for your comments, CT!
I think I'm the one who should be doing the thanking. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe Arminian/Calvinist debate isn't so widespread in Scotland.
Luther himself developed the Reformation doctrines on the back of his own inability to persevere in the Catholic economy of salvation. His rhetoric would not have been unlike the pastor you quoted, and his reasons not unlike the ones we have discussed.
God Bless.
My reading up on Luther has given me 2 particular points of puzzlement re Christian doctrines of salvation. The first is why Calvinism, with its doctrine of double predestination to either Heaven or Hell, gained so many adherents. (Retains them, too - the Wesleyan/Methodist/Arminian churches are very few and far between here, while the Calvinist Reformed ones and the Baptist churches with strong Calvinist influence from preachers like Spurgeon are flourishing.) I cannot understand the attraction of a theology which tells the individual that his salvation or damnation has been pre-determined. Even if he persuades himself that he is probably one of the elect, wouldn't the eternal fate of his family members be a source of concern - not that there would be anything to do about it. I just don't understand how this doctrine became a widespread one when there are alternatives which seem so much more consoling, a not unimportant facet of religious faith.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't understand the role of Christ's Passion and the Redemption if everyone's fate has been predetermined anyway. I believe this was Luther's main point of disagreement with Calvin. Trying to understand predestination , prescience, free will, etc. makes my brain thoroughly confused, just as trying to figure out films about time travel does, so perhaps I am just not mentally equipped to grasp Calvinism.
My second point is one closer to me personally. The Catholic Catechism definitely teaches conditional salvation i.e salvation can be lost due to deliberate mortal sin. This seems both Biblical and logical to me. But why is skipping Mass, with no good reason such as illness, on a Sunday or a holy day of obligation a mortal sin? (This is rather glossed-over by Catholics here, it's only those who were raised before Vatican II who even know this. One friend, a cradle Catholic, employed for decades in a Catholic school, assured our parish Confirmation candidates that missing Sunday Mass is a venial sin, and I had to show her the relevant passage in the Catechism that names it a grave sin.)
The popularity of the 'once saved, always saved' churches is obvious to me when I think that I could be in a state of grace on Saturday, miss Mass on Sunday, get hit by a truck on Monday, and go straight to Hell.
Particularly as our current shortage of priests makes it difficult, to say the least, to find one to hear confession after a weekend!
CT - I'm glad I found you again, I thought you had been posted missing. I got here via LPW and Cum Lazaro. I think it is seasonally appropriate to note the essential nature of the twin approach of works and faith is expressed in the classic Lenten text: "repent and believe the Gospel". The second element is faith, but repentance requires "works". It is an actual modification of behaviour.
ReplyDeleteUnknown - isn't missing Mass on the Sunday the classic example of the mortal sin of sloth?
I'm glad you found me too. And I was posted missing. :-) Thanks for coming back.
ReplyDeleteRe missing Mass being a mortal sin, I had a problem with that myself too. I suppose, sloth or not, the real point is that if you are in a state of grace, then missing mass without a good reason will not be an option.
I suppose it is like other mortal sins, where there is damage being done prior to the "technicality" of committing an actual mortal sin. Probably by the time we commit them we are already almost in a "state of mortal sin", or at least not in a state of grace. Certainly not enough to avoid the sin.
Probably not theologically accurate but my best guess on missing mass.