Reformaation aikalaiskritiikki


#1

Olen monessa mielessä oikeassa. Mutta lähtökohtaisesti luterilainen vanhurskauttamisoppi ei eroa katolisesta. Augsburgin tunnustuskin toteaa esitettyään uskonkohdat 1-21 (joista mm. kohta 4 käsittelee vanhurskautusta): opissamme ei ole “mitään, mikä on ristiriidassa Raamatun tai katolisen kirkon tai Roomankaan kirkon kanssa- -”.

Joitakin vuosikymmeniä myöhemmin Trenton kokous tuli sitten kaanoneissaan tuominneeksi Augsburgin tunnustuksen joitakin osia. Tätä erimielisyyttä ei sitten ole ratkaissut edes “Yhteinen julistus vanhurskauttamisesta”.


Luther ja Jeesuksen syntisyys
Stlk:n kirkkokunnanjohtaja eronnut virastaan ja liittyy ortodoksiseen kirkkoon
#2

Tässä tulee linkki jonka olen linkannut tänne jo usein ja pyytänyt luterilaisten kommentteja.
Usein nimittäin näkee tämän väitteen että luterilaiset eivät opettaneet mitään Rooman kirkon opetuksesta poikkeavaa.
Meillä on kuitenkin aikalaisen kardinaali Cajetanuksen (Tommaso Vio Gaetano) raportit siitä mikä Lutherin opeissa meni eri teille Rooman kirkon opetuksen kanssa. Raportti on lyhyt ja ytimekäs.

Saisinko nyt joltain tähän kommentteja, onko esim. mahdollista että katolilaiset ymmärsivät Lutherin väärin ja pitivät hänen puheitaan kirkon opeista eriävinä.

http://rels365fa10.pbworks.com/w/page/31108522/Cajetan%2C%20On%20Faith%20and%20Works

PS: @timo_k , tämä on se teksti mistä puhuttiin viimeksi nähdessä, minkä englanninkielisen käännöksen luulin jo kadottaneeni


Stlk:n kirkkokunnanjohtaja eronnut virastaan ja liittyy ortodoksiseen kirkkoon
#3

Ok, kiitos siitä. Koska tuollaiset foorumeille menevät linkit ovat herkkiä katoamaan, kopsaan tekstin tähän. En nyt ehdi itse siihen perehtyä, mutta ehkä myöhemmin.

Cajetan: On Faith and Works (1532) - osa 1/2

Cajetan, On Faith and Works (1532)

Of the many Roman Catholic theologians who took up the pen against Luther, Cardinal Cajetan (1468–1534) ranks among the best. This Thomist, who had met with Luther in Augsburg in 1518, was one of the few in the next decade who recognized the issue that was at the heart of Luther’s attack on the church. His careful response to it in this essay allows us to compare Luther’s theology of justification with a contemporary and indisputably Roman Catholic perspective on the issue.

To the Supreme Pontiff, Clement VII:

Obedience to the commands of your Holiness is always due, but now it is for me a delight since I was wanting to refute the poisonous Lutheran views on faith and works. Fearing these were infecting even the hearts of the faithful, I had shortly before receiving your Holiness’ command felt called to write this treatise. This is consequently an agreeable act of obedience which I hope proves fruitful for Christ’s faithful and pleasing to your Holiness, whose office it is also to judge this short work.

1. The Lutheran Doctrine of Faith
The Lutherans exalt the evangelical doctrine of man’s eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, our human Mediator between God and man. They teach that men attain the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ, but they enlarge the term “faith” so as to include that conviction by which the sinner approaching the sacrament believes he is justified by the divine mercy through the intercession of Jesus Christ. They assign such great value to this conviction that they say it attains the forgiveness of sins through the divine promise. They affirm that unless one has this firm conviction about the Word of God, one is despising the divine Word by not believing the divine promise. But if in receiving the sacrament one firmly believes he is justified, then he is truly justified. Otherwise the divine promise would not be true and effective.

Some Lutherans so extol this kind of faith that they teach it attains the forgiveness of sins before the sinner has charity. They base this on extended texts of the apostle Paul which distinguish justifying faith from the law. Charity, they hold, is included under the law, since the first and greatest commandment of the law is to love God with one’s whole heart, and so on, as our Lord said in the gospel, in Matthew 22 [:37].—These views make up the heart of Lutheran teaching concerning faith.

2. A First Error: Equivocal Use of the Term “Faith”
“Faith” means one thing when Holy Scripture refers to that which justifies men, and means something else when it refers to that conviction by which one believes he is justified by Christ and the sacraments. Justifying faith is that which Hebrews 11 [:1] defines: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen.” Taken in this sense, faith is one of the three theological virtues referred to by Paul, “Now faith, hope, and charity remain” [1 Cor. 13:13]. Taken in this sense faith is the gift of God, as written in Ephesians 2 [:8], by which we are saved and without which it is impossible to please God. By such faith we believe all the articles of faith and whatever is to be believed as necessary to salvation.

But faith, taken as a conviction by which a person believes he is justified as he here and now receives this sacrament by the merit of Christ, is much different from faith taken in the first way. As a first indication of this, consider what is believed. Now faith cannot hold to something false, but this conviction can be deceived, since it concerns a particular effect here and now. This conviction arises in part from the faith that is necessary for salvation and in part from human conjecture. Concerning the merit of Christ and the sacraments, it is faith that calls for such a conviction; but concerning the effect here and now in one’s own case, it is human conjecture that gives rise to the conviction.

It is a matter of Christian faith that anyone trusting in the merit of Christ and inwardly and outwardly receiving the sacrament correctly is justified by divine grace. But Christian faith does not extend to the belief that I am at this moment inwardly and outwardly receiving the sacrament correctly. Similarly I am held by Christian faith to believe that the true body of Christ is in a correctly consecrated host, but Christian faith does not extend to the belief that the host consecrated at this moment by this particular celebrant on this altar is the body of Christ, since this latter can for various reasons be false.

A second consideration is that all Christians share in one and the same faith, according to Ephesians 4 [:5], “One Lord, one faith.” Obviously, my own faith does not entail believing that this man who is receiving the sacrament is here and now justified or that the body of Christ is in a particular host. Consequently no one’s “faith” entails believing this particular effect of this sacrament in the case of this individual. Therefore, the unity of faith brings to light the second difference between faith and the conviction described.

Hence the first error of the Lutherans in this matter is that they attribute to this conviction what Holy Scripture attributes to faith. When they teach this conviction they constantly cite texts of Holy Scripture on faith, such as, “As justified by faith, we have peace with God” [Rom. 5:1], and “by faith purifying their hearts” [Acts 15:9] and countless texts like these.

3. The Second Error: Teaching That This Conviction Attains Forgiveness of Sins
Their assertion that a conviction of this type attains the forgiveness of sins can be said and understood both rightly and wrongly. If it is said and understood that this conviction informed by faith and charity attains forgiveness of sins, this is true. But if the informing influence of charity is excluded, then it is false. As Augustine says in De Trinitate, Book XV, Chapter 18, there is no more excellent gift of God than charity, which alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom from the sons of eternal perdition.

One should know that this conviction is in fact shared by all who devoutly approach the sacraments. A person devoutly approaching any sacrament does believe that by receiving it he is justified by the merits of the passion and death of Christ, or else he would not so approach. But this conviction is not the same in all, since one person may believe more than another that he is justified. Generally the devout join to this conviction a doubt, namely, that the contrary may be the case. They do this since no text of Scripture and no document of the church teaches us that we must hold this conviction against all doubt. The reason for doubt is that generally no one knows whether on his part something impedes reception of the gift of forgiveness of sins. Generally, one does not know whether he is lacking the grace of God. Hence such a doubt entails no despising of the divine promise. One is not doubting about God, not about the merit of Christ, and not about the sacrament, but one is doubting about himself. It is written [Ps. 18:13], “Who understands his own sins?” Further evidence for this ordinary doubt about a particular effect of the divine mercy, that is, the forgiveness of sins of an individual now devoutly turning to God, is found in chapter 2 of the prophet Joel. After speaking of those who had turned to God with their whole heart in fasting, weeping, and lament, and after referring to the greatness of God’s mercy toward sinners, the prophet added [Joel 2:14], “Who knows whether God will turn and forgive?” Thus no one among those who were converted was certain, but each had some doubt whether God forgave them.

A confirmation of this lies in the fact that the doubt affecting this conviction would only be justifiably removed by one of three causes. First, divine revelation could bring this about, but this is not to the point here, since although God has revealed that all do attain forgiveness who inwardly and outwardly trust correctly that they attain this, he has not revealed that this person is now correctly turning to God inwardly and outwardly. This particular effect is not included in the revelation on which Christian faith is based. Second, a sufficient number of testimonies can motivate one to believe in a particular fact. For instance, a sufficient number of testimonies can bring one who has never left Rome to believe that the island of Calicut or Taproban does exist. But obviously in the case of the conviction by which one believes he is justified there do not occur any testimonies that bring the mind to be convinced about this effect now in oneself. Third, the special competence of witnesses could remove the doubt, for instance, if they were beyond all objection, as in Romans 8 [:16] where the apostle writes that the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirit that we are sons of God. This witness presupposes that the forgiveness of sins has been conferred, because it presupposes that the one about whom witness is given is in fact a son of God, as the text clearly indicates. But the conviction asserted by the Lutherans does not presuppose in one the forgiveness of sins, but is itself the way of attaining this, as a prior reality attains what follows.

Hence it is to posit an arbitrary dogma to say that this sort of conviction about the word of Christ, based on the merit of his passion, and so on, infallibly attains the forgiveness of sins. Consequently Leo X included the following among the condemned articles of Luther:

Sins are not forgiven unless when the priest forgives one believes they are forgiven; in fact, sins remain unless one believes he is forgiven. It is not sufficient that sins be forgiven and grace be given; one must also believe he is forgiven. . . . You should in no wise trust you are absolved because of your contrition, but because of the words of Christ, “Whatever you loose. . . .” Rely on these if you receive the priest’s absolution; firmly believe you are absolved, and you will truly be absolved, however it might be with your contrition. . . . If perchance, as could not occur, one is not contrite when he confesses, or if the priest gives absolution in jest and not seriously, still if one believes he is absolved, he is in fact truly absolved.

4. The Third Error: Forgiveness of Sins Preceding Charity
It is intolerable that one’s sins would be forgiven before charity is infused in the person forgiven, as the following will convincingly show. An enemy cannot be made a friend unless he have the attitude of friendship. A friend devoid of the quality of friendship would be incomprehensible, just as something white is incomprehensible without whiteness. But when the unrighteous man is made righteous through Christ, an enemy of God is transformed into a friend of God, as the apostle says in Romans 5 [:10], “When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” Reconciliation makes the reconciled person a friend. Hence it is impossible and incomprehensible that a sinner be justified in the absence of friendship toward God. Charity is this friendship between man and God, being both man’s love of friendship toward God and God’s toward man. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” [1 John 4:16]. We read in the same epistle, “We love God, because he first loved us” [4:19].

Since friendship consists in mutual love, the forgiveness of sins takes place essentially through charity. Hence what we call the righteousness of faith is identical with charity. We speak of the righteousness of faith, since by it a person is righteous before God, conformable to the divine realities and deeds in which we believe. The sense appetites are subject to the will, the will to right reason, and right reason is subject to God in conformity to what we accept in faith about him and about our heavenly homeland. We call the same thing charity since it also involves the love of friendship toward the God who is granting us citizenship in the heavenly homeland. Philippians 3[:20] says, “Our citizenship is in heaven.” And Ephesians 2[:19], “You are no longer guests and strangers, but citizens with the saints and members of God’s household.” Also, in the Canticle, “My beloved is mine, and I am his” [2:16].

This reasoning suffices in itself to convince the mind, but it is further supported by the authority of Christ, and of Peter, John, and Paul, all of whom attribute the forgiveness of sins to both faith and charity. In Luke 7[:50], Christ said to the sinful woman, “Your faith has saved you.” But he also said about her: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much” [7:47]. In this text the conjunction “because” shows that love is the proximate cause of the forgiveness of sins, that is, “because she has loved.” Faith is the cause inchoatively, but charity is the cause completing the forgiveness of sins.

Peter the apostle said in Acts 10 [:43], “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone receives forgiveness of sins who believes in his name.” Then in his First Epistle, chapter 4 [:8], he wrote, “Charity covers a multitude of sins.”

In a similar way the apostle John wrote in chapter 5 of his First Epistle, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” [5:1]. And in chapter 3, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. One who does not love remains in death” [3:14]. Granted that John wrote specifically about love of the neighbor, but this does not disprove our point, since obviously the charity by which we love God for his own sake is identical with that by which we love the neighbor for the sake of God. John’s First Epistle says this in chapter 4 [:7–12] and finds evidence for the passage from death to life only in such love of the neighbor [3:14].

Finally, the apostle Paul, in Romans 5[:1], wrote, “Justified by faith, we have peace with God.” But in 1 Corinthians 13[:2], “If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing,” nothing, that is, in the spiritual realm where we are made children of God. In Galatians 5[:6] he wrote, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but rather faith working through love.” What avails in Christ is evidently not just any kind of faith but that working through love.

It is evident therefore that the ordinary teaching of the church is true: that the forgiveness of sins occurs not by uninformed faith but by faith informed by charity. The normative texts teaching that we are made righteous by faith are consequently to be understood in the precise sense of faith informed by that friendship toward God, which we call charity.

Now it was objected that faith is made distinct from and opposed to the law, and that charity is included under the law. We answer that when Christ spoke of the first and greatest commandment of the law, he used “law” in a different sense than did the apostle in distinguishing faith from the law [Matt. 22:37f.]. Christ used “law” to indicate all the divine commandments written in the books of Moses. But the apostle spoke of “law” in a narrower sense, as embracing moral, ceremonial, and juridical precepts.

I have not invented this distinction, but have taken it from Scripture itself, so that even the adversaries should accept it. The fact that Christ used “law” in a broad sense is proven by the text of Deuteronomy 6 from which he cited the precept concerning love of God [6:5]. Immediately before this, there is a precept concerning faith, where it says, “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” [6:4]. In the same passage of the law there is laid down a precept of faith, believing God is only one, and a precept of loving the same God. We are to understand that a precept concerning charity is no less included in the law than a precept concerning faith, when we take “law” in a broad sense. Hence it is also clear that just as the apostle distinguishes faith from the law, one can equally well distinguish charity from the same law.

But the fact that the apostle speaks of the law in a manner excluding the elements of faith and charity is obvious when he calls it the “law of works” [Rom. 3:27, Vg.], and says that the gentiles observe it by nature, as in Romans 2 [:14], “the gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires.” It is certain that they do not do by nature what charity requires.

Since this objection equivocates in speaking of “law,” it consequently is of no worth. Love of God is not embraced by the law of works which is distinguished against faith, but is under the same law that includes faith, as in Deuteronomy 6 where precepts of faith and love of God occur together. Answers to the other objections of the Lutherans are obvious from what has been said.—This is sufficient treatment of faith.

5. The Lutheran Teaching on Works
The Lutherans teach that our works are neither meritorious of grace and eternal life, nor do these works make satisfaction for sins. They argue that since Christ has superabundantly merited for us both the grace of forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and since he satisfied superabundantly for all, it is consequently perverse to attribute to our works the merit of grace (or of forgiveness of sins) and of eternal life, and to say our works satisfy for our sins. Such teaching is said to insult Christ, since it is blasphemy to attribute to ourselves what is Christ’s own work. If there is need of our merits and satisfaction, this detracts from the merit and satisfaction of Christ, implying they are inadequate.

These denials are made on the basis of many texts of Scripture, beginning with those asserting that we do not merit by our works the forgiveness of sins. This is proven by Paul’s demonstration in Romans and Galatians that we are justified not by works but by faith. He cited Habakkuk 2[:4], “The man righteous by faith will live” [Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11]. Paul wrote to Titus, “Not by works of righteousness that we did, but through his mercy, he saved us” [3:5]. Also, in Ephesians 2[:8f.], “By grace you have been saved through faith, not of your own doing, but by the gift of God, and not because of works, lest one should boast.”

The fact that we do not merit eternal life through works, but attain it by the gift of God, is shown in Romans 6[:23], “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.” Luke 17[:10] is cited to prove the same point and at the same time to demonstrate that no matter how righteous we may be, our works do not make satisfaction for sins: “When you have done all that I command you, say, ‘We have done what we ought, we are unworthy servants.’” If they are unworthy servants who have kept all the commandments of Christ, then clearly the reward is not merited. Those then who have not kept all the commandments, and so need to make satisfaction, are much more unworthy and incapable of making satisfaction.

I can omit the texts proving the sufficiency of Christ’s merit and satisfaction on our behalf. About this there is no controversy.

The Lutherans therefore teach that good works are to be done, because they are commanded by God as the fruit of justifying faith, but not because they are meritorious of eternal life and satisfactory for sins.

6. The Meaning of Merit in This Context
Before determining whether our works are meritorious or not, we must first briefly examine what is meant by merit and how theologians understand it in this context concerning our works.

Merit is said of a voluntary work, whether interior or external, to which by right a payment or reward is due. The apostle says in Romans 4[:4], “To one who works payment is not accounted as a grace, but as his due.” Hence four elements go together to constitute merit: the person meriting, the voluntary work of merit, the payment due for the merit, and the person rendering payment. The last is essential, since it would be pointless to merit unless it be from some person rendering one payment.

Since we are discussing our merit before God, we must explain how men can merit from God a reward for their works. It appears problematical that God would by right render payment for our work, since between ourselves and God there is no right, strictly and absolutely speaking. Scripture says, “Enter not in judgment with your servant, Lord” [Ps. 142:2]. There is only a derived kind of right, which is much less than the right of a son toward his father and of a slave toward his master. How much less are we in relation to God than a man who is slave in relation to the man who is his master, and than a son in relation to the earthly father who begot him. So, if as is written in Book V of the Ethics, there is no right strictly and absolutely speaking, but only a derivative kind of right between slave and master and between father and son, then much less is there a right between ourselves and God.

All that the slave is belongs to the master. A son cannot render as much to his father as he received. Hence a right, strictly and absolutely considered, cannot exist between master and slave and between father and son. It is true to a much greater extent that all that a man is belongs to God and that man cannot render as much to God as he received. Hence man cannot merit something from God that would be due him by right, unless this be a right so weakened that it be far less than the right between master and slave and father and son. Even such a weakened right is not, absolutely speaking, found between man and God, because absolutely speaking man’s every voluntary good action is due to God. In fact, the more and the better a man’s interior and outward works, so much more does he owe to God, since it is God who works in us both to will and to complete our every action [Phil. 2:13]. This weakened right is found between man and God by reason of the divine ordination by which God ordained our works to be meritorious before himself.

When man merits anything before God, God never becomes man’s debtor, but rather his own. If even this weakened debt were given in an absolute sense between man and God, then God would owe man the payment he earned. But it is obvious that God is in debt to no one, as Paul says in Romans 12 [sic = Rom. 11:35], “He who has given the gift, shall he then reward this?” God is therefore indebted to himself alone, that he should carry out his own will by which he granted that human works would be meritorious so he would render to man the reward for his work.

This is undoubtedly true about the simple and absolute sense of merit. In other cases, an agreement is presupposed between God and man on some matter, as among men when a master makes a pact of some kind with his slave. In this case a right can arise between master and slave. Thus if God deigns to make a pact with man, a right can arise between man and God with reference to the matter of the agreement. We often read in the Old Testament that God deigned to enter covenants with men. Genesis 9[:9–16] records God’s covenant to never again permit a flood over the whole world. Genesis 15 [:18–21] describes God’s covenant with Abraham concerning the land of Canaan which was to be given to his offspring. Genesis 17 [:1–11] tells of the covenant of circumcision. In Exodus 24[:8] Moses says, “This is the blood of the covenant. . . .” In Jeremiah 31[:31–34] God speaks explicitly of the covenants of the old and new law. In the New Testament our Savior reveals God under the form of the householder hiring workmen for his vineyard for a day’s wages, in Matthew 20[:1–16]. “After making an agreement for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard” [20:2]. Further on [20:13], “Did you not enter into an agreement with me?”

These texts make it clear that there can be in our works an element of merit even by right, with reference to the reward concerning which an agreement has been made with God.

Keep in mind though that to whatever extent there is a pact between God and man concerning a reward, still God never falls into our debt, but is only in debt to himself. For in view of the agreement made, there is due to our works the reward on which was agreed. God does not thereby become indebted to us regarding this reward, but rather indebted to his own prior determination by which he deigned to enter a pact with us. Consequently we profess in full truth that God is indebted to no one but to himself. One can therefore ascertain a double aspect of merit before God in our works. There is first the weakened right, and second the agreement. But never is God indebted to us.—These, then, are the initial considerations for a right understanding of the terms used in treating our merits before God.


#4

Ja loppuosa:

Cajetan: On Faith and Works (1532) - osa 2/2

7. Human Works Merit Something from God
God has revealed in Holy Scripture that human works have some merit with himself. To avoid becoming occupied in explaining each text of Holy Scripture on this point, we should realize that whenever God promises man a reward, merit is to be understood as entailed, since reward and merit are correlative to each other. Merit is merit of a reward and a reward is reward for merit.

Consequently, whenever you read in Holy Scripture that God promises man a reward, no further explanation is required for you to conclude that man can have merit with respect of the reward God will render. But in both testaments God openly promises men rewards. In Genesis 15 [:1] he said to Abraham, “I shall be your own great reward.” Isaiah 40 [:10] says, “Behold, the Lord will come; behold, his reward is with him.” In Ezekiel 29 [:18] God says, “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, made his army labor greatly against Tyre . . . but no payment was given him.” Then he added, “The land of Egypt shall be his army’s payment” [29:20]. In Matthew 20[:8] God says, “Call the workmen and pay them their wages.” Also, in Revelation 22[:12], “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my reward, to render to each one according to his works.”

In these texts there is clear evidence that not only the works of the saints are meritorious of some benefit from God, but also the works of evil men and even of pagans such as the king of Babylon and his army. The latter besieged Tyre without any intention of serving God, but nonetheless God bore witness that they have merited a reward as he decreed that Egypt shall be given them as this reward. Hence we are to understand that the divine goodness is so generous as even to bring the wars of mankind into his service and to rejoice in admitting even evil actions as meritorious of some benefit from himself. From this we have impressive evidence that God is by far more willing to admit the good deeds of men as meritorious of some reward from himself.

8. Eternal Life Merited by Living Members of Christ
Many agree that human works are meritorious of some benefit from God, but not of eternal life. Therefore we must show specifically that the works of the living members of Christ are meritorious of eternal life. Our Savior said in Matthew 5[:12], “Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven.” Thus the heavenly reward of those who suffer for Christ’s sake entails first of all beatitude, or eternal life. When Matthew 20[:9f.] describes the payment given the workmen, saying they received a denarius, it is obvious that the payment given to all the workers in the Lord’s vineyard is eternal life.

Paul wrote in Timothy 4[:7f.], “I have fought the good fight, completed the course, and have kept faith. For the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the just judge, will grant me.” Clearly the crown given Paul is first of all beatitude. Also, unless the reward was due by reason of his previous works, it would not be true that God is giving him the crown precisely as the just judge. Paul obviously teaches that eternal life is due to him by right because of the works he referred to. Our Lord made the same thing clear in describing how in judging the world he will give eternal life in return for the works of mercy. “I was hungry and you fed me . . .” [Matt. 25:35]. This scene ends: “These go away for eternal punishment, but the righteous enter eternal life” [25:46]. The judge determines this by reason of the diversity of works, as the works merit; otherwise, he would not have given the reasons on each side.

According to Holy Scripture, therefore, the works of some men are clearly meritorious of eternal life. What is more, according to Matthew 20, the workmen merit this by reason of an agreement. Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, and Chrysostom all explain the denarius given to each as the beatitude in which the blessed share.

9. How Our Works Merit Eternal Life
Theologians say that our works are meritorious of eternal life, because they arise from charity, from sanctifying grace, and from the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Human works, as proceeding from our free choice, are not meritorious of eternal life, except by a certain kind of fittingness, by which it would be proper for God to reward out of the abundance of his grace a man who uses his free choice rightly in the things pertaining to God. However, insofar as these works stem from the Spirit dwelling in a person through grace and charity, they are meritorious of eternal life.

Grace, or charity, is comparable to the seed of God mentioned in 1 John 3[:9], whose power extends to producing fruit, so that just as the fruit is due by natural right to the action of the seed, so the fruit of eternal life is due to the actions of divine grace in the soul. Also, divine grace, as our Lord said in John 4[:14], becomes in the man having it a spring of water welling up unto eternal life. This clearly indicates the efficacy of grace in us to attain to eternal life. By saying that the grace given wells up unto eternal life, he teaches that the attaining takes place by an intervening activity, since what occurs in me after accepting grace occurs with my cooperation. Especially, the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in a person is adequate for attaining eternal life and for bringing it about that eternal life is due to his works in us.

A more manifest and convincing reason for merit of this kind can be seen in the fact that meriting eternal life is less our own action than the action of Christ who is Head in us and through us. When we begin with the apostle’s teaching, in Romans 12[:4f.], Ephesians 4[:15f.], and Colossians 2[:19], then persons in grace are living members of Christ the Head. Christ the Head and the persons who are his living members do not make up a body of a political type, like the body of citizens in a well-governed state. Rather they constitute a body like a single natural body, since Christ the Head gives life to his members by his own Spirit. As is clear in Paul’s texts, he unites the members of the body by spiritual bonds and ligaments. Going on from this, we find that Holy Scripture also teaches that the sufferings and deeds of Christ’s living members are the sufferings and deeds of Christ the Head. Christ himself gives evidence concerning the sufferings in Acts 9[:4], “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” But Saul was persecuting his members. In Galatians 4[=3:1, Vg.] Paul reminds the Galatians that Christ had been crucified in them, no doubt referring to the sufferings they had undergone for Christ. Concerning actions, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 13[:3], “Do you desire proof of him who speaks in me, that is, Christ?” He said in an all-embracing manner in Galatians 2[:20], “I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me.” Hence I can most truly say, “I merit, now not I, but Christ merits in me; I fast, now not I, but Christ fasts in me,” and so on, about the other voluntary actions carried out for God by Christ’s living members. In this way the merit of eternal life is not so much attributed to our works as to the works of Christ the Head in us and through us.

Consequently we discern a difference between the merit of eternal life by baptized infants and by adults advancing in God’s grace. Eternal life is due the infants solely by the merit Christ gained as he lived, suffered, and died in this mortal life. But to adults progressing in grace eternal life is due in a twofold manner, first by right of the merit Christ gained in his own person and then by right of the merit of Christ working meritoriously as the head in and through this adult person. It is appropriate to the divine munificence to grant the merit of eternal life in both manners to adults who are God’s sons and daughters. As we read in Romans 8 [:29], “He predestined them to be conformed to the image of his son.” Those however are more conformed to Christ who have merit of eternal life in both manners rather than only in the first. Christ’s own glory was due him by a twofold right. First it was his by right of the grace of personal union by which the Word was made flesh, a right devolving on Christ without his meriting. Second, the same glory was due Christ by the merit of his obedience unto death, as Paul says in Philippians 2[:8f.], “He became obedient unto death, death on the cross. Therefore God has exalted him. . . .” Hence Christ has glory by a twofold right, and we are made conformed to him by attaining eternal life by a twofold right, namely without our own meriting but through the merit of Christ in his own person, and with our meriting through the merit of Christ the Head in and through us.

As it pertained to Christ’s excellence also to gain eternal life for his body, glory for his name, and the like, by his own merit, so it belongs to the dignity of a member of Christ to cooperate with his Head in attaining eternal life. “The most divine thing of all is to become a cooperator with God,” says Dionysius in the Heavenly Hierarchies, chapter 3. Thus, you see it is not superfluous for us to merit eternal life, for this is to make eternal life our due in another manner or by an additional right, just as Christ merited his exaltation, making it due to himself by an additional right.—We will respond below to the objections urged against this.

10. Works Performed in Mortal Sin
We agree that the works performed by persons in mortal sin are neither meritorious of eternal life nor of the forgiveness of sins. Nonetheless they are of considerable importance for a man caught in mortal sin, since Holy Scripture says they lead to attaining forgiveness of sins. Although these works have no power to merit forgiveness of sins, they do have power to impetrate this forgiveness, since in the manner of a supplication they are of great value in attaining from the divine goodness the forgiveness of sins. Our Savior bears witness that prayer is of considerable importance toward gaining forgiveness of sins, when in Luke 18[:13] he described the publican as praying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner.” Thereby he obtained mercy. Joel witnesses to the value of fasting when he speaks in God’s stead, “Turn to me with all your heart, in fasting, weeping and lament” [2:12]. The remark follows [2:14], “Who knows whether God will turn and forgive?” The value of alms is shown by Daniel in chapter 4 [:24], where he counsels King Nebuchadnezzar, “Redeem your sins by alms.” Hebrews 13[:16] says, “Forget not giving aid and sharing what you have; by such offerings God is appeased.” The same can be affirmed concerning pilgrimages, hardships, continence and other acts of this kind.

Over and above this power of supplication, Holy Scripture points to a greater power of impetration in the observance of all the commandments of God. Ezekiel 18 teaches us that the conversion of the sinner to keeping the commandments of the law leads eventually to the forgiveness of sins. The text reads:

You say, “the way of the Lord is not just.” But hear now, house of Israel. Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he shall die in the sin he committed. When an evil person turns away from the sin he committed and lives righteously, he will gain life for his soul. Because he took thought and turned away from all the sins he committed, he shall live and not die. [Ezek. 18:25–28]

This text indicates that the justice of God’s ways consists in this, that just as the turning of a righteous person from righteousness to sinful deeds leads to the death of the soul, so the conversion of a sinner to good deeds leads to life for his soul. It was revealed to the prophet that the conversion of a sinner with regard to works (that is, from evil works to good works for God’s sake) is so pleasing to God that he no longer considers all his previous sins. This is the same as granting forgiveness of sins and the life of grace.

God revealed a yet greater power of impetration in works of this kind by men caught in sin in a passage of Isaiah: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean, remove the evil of your thoughts from my sight, cease to act wickedly; learn to do good and seek what is right, aiding the oppressed, defending the orphan, and taking the part of the widow, and we can reason together, says the Lord. If your sins are like scarlet, they will become white like snow; if red like crimson, they will become like white wool” [Isa. 1:16–18].

From this we learn that God’s largess is so great that to those converted from wickedness to works of righteousness and mercy God presents himself as arguing their case if he has not forgiven their past sins.

We have therefore gained this from divine revelation: the good works of sinners are not only of importance toward the forgiveness of sins, but when they stem from the heart of one turning to God, God’s generous love so accompanies them that they do lead to forgiveness of sins and impetrate this as if an agreement had been made. God is truly generous toward us, arranging that in spite of our inability in the state of sin to merit the forgiveness of sins, we are capable of impetrating this by prayer, fasting, alms, and other good works.

God’s immense love for sinners and desire of their salvation is shown in his deigning to grant the power of impetrating forgiveness of sins to our good works even done in sin. In addition, as we showed in chapter 7 from the text of Ezekiel, these works are meritorious of certain temporal benefits from God. Consequently sinners should be urged to perform good works, since they are in fact of value in impetrating and attaining the forgiveness of sins, when done devoutly.

11. Works Satisfying for Sin
Since the Lutherans deny any element of satisfaction in our works, we must indicate the mind of the church on this topic. One must first distinguish according to the state in which the works are performed, whether in mortal sin or in the state of grace. Also one must distinguish concerning satisfaction for sins between guilt and punishment.

We say first that none of our works satisfies for the guilt of our sins, since no deed done in the state of mortal sin satisfies God for our offenses, as is clear. Our deeds in the state of grace presuppose the removal of the guilt or the offense by divine grace through the satisfaction Christ made to God for our offenses against God, when he offered up his life to God on the altar of the cross.

We say secondly that none of our works done in mortal sin satisfy God for the punishment due for our sins, even if these were forgiven previously in the sacrament of penance. The reason for this is quite clear, since when God forgives the offense of sin, the sinner is changed from being an enemy to being a friend of God. Consequently he is no longer subject to punishment in a hostile manner as in the punishment of hell. But if with forgiveness of guilt the gift of grace is not given so abundantly that all punishment is remitted, one remains bound to fulfilling the rest of the punishment in a loving manner. If one in this latter condition falls back into sin and again becomes an enemy of God before he has completed the rest of the punishment, his works are then done in a state of hostility, not a state of friendship, and so they cannot satisfy for the previous punishment.

We say thirdly that the works of one continuing to love God are in no way prevented from being satisfactory for the punishment that may remain. On this point the Lutherans err in a twofold way. They first teach that when the guilt of sin is forgiven all punishment is remitted as well. One who has attained mercy from God upon his sin is no longer bound to any punishment. This is patently contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches in 2 Samuel 12 that even though David gained the forgiveness of sins when he said, “I have sinned against the Lord” [12:13], still he did not attain remission of all punishment but remained bound to many punishments, as Scripture bears witness. The second Lutheran error is denying the satisfactory power of the works of Christ’s living members regarding punishments not yet remitted. This is contrary to the effectiveness in us of Christ the Head, since “I satisfy, now not I, but Christ satisfies in me.” It is also against the practice of the Catholic Church by which salutary acts of satisfaction are customarily imposed through the ministry of priests upon those who truly repent and confess.

12. Response to Objections
It remains for us to answer the objections. The first arose from the sufficiency of the merit and satisfaction of Christ. We answer that the merit of Christ was completely and utterly sufficient, and that this satisfaction was more than adequate for our sins and for the sins of the whole world, including original sin, mortal sins, and venial sins, as 1 John 2 [:2] teaches. Therefore it is not because of an inadequacy in the merit and satisfaction of Christ that we attribute merit and satisfaction to the works of Christ’s living members, but rather because of the excessive riches of Christ’s merit which he shares with his living members so that their works as well may be meritorious and satisfactory. A greater grace is conferred on us by Christ, when he our head merits and satisfies in and through us his members than if we were only to share in the merit Christ gained in his own person.

To the objection that what is proper to Christ must not be attributed to us, we answer that it should not be attributed to us in the manner in which it is proper to Christ. It can be attributed to us in another manner, namely by participation. Something proper to God can be attributed to no one in that manner proper to God, but it can be shared by others by participation. For instance, the vision of the divine essence is proper to God, and no creature can see God as he is, since he alone by his own nature sees himself. But God can by grace grant a share in the vision of God, and this he does to all the blessed. In the present case merit of eternal life is proper to Christ, when this is understood as merit by one’s own power. But this can be granted to his living members, not that they merit by their own power, but that they merit by the power of Christ the Head. The same thing can be understood concerning satisfaction.

There is no need to respond concerning the forgiveness of sins, since we already said that this is not granted to Christ’s living members, because their good works presuppose that their sins have been forgiven. No one merits that which he already has. Merit is gained concerning something not had. For this reason Christ apportions to his members the merit of an increase in grace and of heavenly beatitude. He does not apportion to them merit of forgiveness of sins. Eternal beatitude is something lacking to Christ’s members in this life, while they do have forgiveness of sins by the very fact of becoming members of Christ. No one merits what he has but what he hopes to attain. This makes it clear that our merits and satisfactions in no way detract from the merit and satisfaction of Christ, but rather that the grace of merit and satisfaction Christ gained in his own person is extended to himself as Head working in and through his members.

All the texts cited as showing that we do not by our works merit the forgiveness of sins require no answer, since we agree with this conclusion. But we must respond to the texts cited to prove that we do not merit eternal life by our works. To the text of the apostle from Romans, “The gift of God is eternal life” [6:23], we answer that we indeed say and teach this, since it is by God’s gift of sanctifying grace that we are members of Christ, and by the power in us of Christ the Head that we merit eternal life. We do not say that we merit eternal life through our works specifically as ours, but in so far as they are in us and through us from Christ.

We propose the same distinction in answer to the objection raised from Christ’s words, “Say, ‘we are unworthy servants’” [Luke 17:10]. However much we might fulfill all the commandments of Christ, to the extent we fulfill them by our own free choice, we are unworthy servants regarding our Father’s heavenly household. We are unworthy of our homeland in heaven and whatever concerns it, such as the forgiveness of sins, the grace of the Holy Spirit, charity, and other things proper to God’s children. The reason is obvious, since when we act on our own we are too weak to reach the higher order in which are conferred the proper goods of God’s children. This goes together with the other truth, namely, that insofar as our deeds proceed from the influence in us of Christ the Head in his living members, we can contribute much through our works to gaining the heavenly homeland and our Father’s household. As his members, we are raised to the order of God’s children, not to be unworthy servants, but worthy members of our Father’s household and the heavenly homeland.

An argument can be made from these words of Christ against the capability of good works done in the state of mortal sin to impetrate the forgiveness of sins. . . . If the argument is made that our good works have no usefulness in impetrating the forgiveness of sins, we answer that insofar as prayer, fasting, alms, and other good works arise from them as sinners they are not capable of impetrating forgiveness of sins. But insofar as the divine goodness orders them to impetrating forgiveness of sins, they are highly effective for impetrating this. Consequently, in Ezekiel these works are called “the ways of God” and not “our ways” [18:29]. The divine goodness has arranged that we impetrate many things we never merit. As Christ, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the apostle (in Hebrews) bear witness, the divine goodness has conferred on the good works of persons returning to God the power of impetrating the forgiveness of sins from the divine mercy through the merit of Christ. Because of this, the fasting, prayers, alms, and other righteous works of sinners are beneficial, not for meriting, nor for satisfying, but for impetrating forgiveness of their sins.

This, I believe will suffice to explain these questions about faith and works. May it bring glory to almighty God and consolation to the devout.

Rome, May 13, 1532.


#5

Kiitos linkistä. Ensimmäinen huomio: Cajetanus näyttää kritisoivan Lutherin kaikkea siihenastista tuotantoa - josta minä en tietenkään voi mennä takuuseen -, kun taas itse viittasin Augsburgin tunnustukseen - joka taas on luterilaisille virallisluonteinen ja yleisesti hyväksytty teksti.

Toinen huomio: Cajetanuksen teksti on syvällinen ja valitettavasti hämäräkin. Kaipaamasi kommentit voisi parhaiten antaa joku luterilainen teologi - minähän olen maallikko ja teologiassa pelkkä harrastelija. Toki Cajetanuksen teksti on epäilemättä jo moneen kertaan tullut analysoiduksi teologisessa ammattikirjallisuudessa! Esitän seuraavassa vain irtohuomiota.

Cajetanus väittää, että luterilainen vanhurskauttamisoppi sivuuttaa rakkauden puhuessaan vain uskosta. Cajetanus esittää seuraavia väitteitä kirkon oikeana oppina (muotoilut omiani):

  • Syntien anteeksiantamus ei tapahdu ihmisessä ennen kuin hän on rakkauden täyttämä.
  • Syntien anteeksiantamus tapahtuu oleellisesti rakkauden kautta.
  • Se, mitä kutsutaan uskonvanhurskaudeksi, on sama asia kuin rakkaus.
  • Kohta “rakkaus peittää syntien paljouden” (1.Piet.4:8) on yksi näyttö siitä, että usko ja rakkaus ovat samanveroisia syntien anteeksiantamuksen perustana.
  • Anteeksiantamus ei perustu pelkkään uskoon vaan rakkauden muovaamaan uskoon.
  • Kristus-ruumiin elävien jäsenten rakkaudenteot tuottavan ansion jopa iankaikkiseen elämään, mistä todisteena “palkkanne on suuri taivaissa” (Matt.5:12); tosin tämä edellyttää, että teot kumpuavat Hengestä, joka asuu kristityssä uskon ja rakkauden kautta.
  • Pikkuvauva (kastettuna) ansaitsee iankaikkisen elämän pelkästään Kristuksen maan päällä ennalta hankkiman ansion tähden, mutta aikuinen kristitty ansaitsee sen osittain Kristuksen ennalta hankkimalla ansiolla, osittain taas ansioilla, jotka Kristus kirkon päänä vaikuttaa aikuisessa kristityssä itsessään.

Luterilaisen mielestä nämä eivät voi olla kirkon todellinen oppi, sillä ne ovat ristiriidassa Raamatun kanssa, ja katolinenkin kirkko tunnustaa Raamatun normiksi. Luterilaisen pitävät Raamatun oppina sitä käsitystä - jonka Cajetanus kuvaa aivan oikein kohdassa “The Lutheran Teaching on Works”! - että kristityn on tehtävä rakkauden tekoja, koska ne ovat Jumalan käskemiä ja uskon oikea hedelmä, mutta että syntien anteeksiantamus otetaan vastaan yksin uskolla.


#6

Tässä artikkelissa käsitellään lyhyesti Cajetanuksen kritiikkiä.


#7

Ks. viestini:

Luterilaisten ja vanhojen kirkkojen dialogissa vallitsee jatkuva ristiin puhuminen sillä kukaan ei suostu myöntämään että kaikki puhuvat omilla termeillään jotka eivät koskaan kohtaa.
Kirjoitukseni kautta voidaan suoraan johtaa mm. perustavaa laatua olevat termieroavaisuudet, esimerkiksi eroavaisuudet armon käsitteessä.


#8

Osa näistä termeistä löytyy Raamatusta, kuten usko, armo, rakkaus ja vanhurskaus. Voisiko keskustelussa päästä eteenpäin, kun tutkittaisiin, mitä nämä sanat tarkoittavat Raamatussa? (Tietenkin voi osoittautua, että yhtä sanaa käytetään eri paikoissa eri merkityksessä.)


#9

No, tästähän juuri on kysymys pohjimmiltaan, kai. Viittasin samaan ihan äsken toisessa ketjussa!

Olisi hienoa jos voisi lukea tästä keskustelua jossa on kunnioitus ja maltti periaatteina.
Minä ainakin haluaisin oppia uutta, enkä tapella. Ei hiekkalaatikkojuttua eikä kenenkään vakaumuksen mollaamista, kiitos! :grinning:


#10

Nyt kyllä sanot aivan väärin. Luterialaisuudessa nimenomaisesti erotetaan vanhurskautus ja pyhitys. Tämä on aivan keskein erotus, mikä on se, mikä on ollut omiaan sekoittamaan keskustelua.

Lisäksi termien erilainen käyttö on asia, mihin koko ajan ekumeenisessa dialogissa kiinnitetään huomiota. Juuri tämän asian ymmärtämisen kautta on kyetty ottamaan askeleita eteen päin. Shibboletit on kyetty jättämään paljolti syrjään. Toki kaikkia eroavaisuuksia ei voida siloittaa vain sillä, että puhutaan eri käsittein.