A righteousness found in Christ...

In light of the debate regarding the competing views of the believer's righteousness as presented by Roman Catholics and Protestants, I wanted to highlight two sentences from comment #139, at Green Baggins, by Jeff Cagle who is responding to Jason Stellman.  Rome teaches an infused righteousness defined as agape in the believer.  Reformed Protestants teach a righteousness imputed to the believer in Christ Jesus.

From Jeff's comment:
-Our sins are forgiven on the basis of a righteousness that is not our own, but is had by being ‘in Christ’, by faith (Phil 3)... 
-It is ‘us in Christ’ and not ‘Christ in us’, that is the basis for our acceptance as God’s children. 

When it comes to understanding the argument for imputed righteousness against that of infused righteousness, the above sentences point to a crucial theme of Paul's summed up in the two words 'in Christ.'  That theme is found clearly Romans 6.  Here, it seems to me, Paul is strongly making the case that it is 'in Christ' that the believer receives the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection because His death is our death, His resurrection is our resurrection.  His penalty-paying is accounted to us.  We paid the penalty for sin in Christ.  His vindication/justification in His resurrection is our justification.

Several key phrases that Paul uses in the first part of chapter six of Romans:
- all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death
- buried with Him through baptism into death
- united with Him in the likeness of His death
- we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection
- our old man was crucified with Him 
- for he who has died is freed from sin.
- For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all

In those phrases, as well as others, imputation and substitution are interwoven into Paul's presentation of the good news of reconciliation to God of sinners in Christ Jesus.  Good news that the penalty for sin is paid in Christ... there is forgiveness of sins in Christ... and sinners are reckoned righteous through faith in Christ.

The righteousness that comes from God is not an infused-righteousness to be found within the believer, as if it were his own.  Rather it is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, when by grace he is "found in Him, not having [his] own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith..." (Phil. 3:9).

- A couple added thoughts from an earlier post in 2010:

And although Christians, as recipients of a new heart and right-will through regeneration by the Holy Spirit, may by His grace exhibit the fruit of godliness on many occasions, yet never in this life do they own inherent godliness within themselves.

Godliness and salvation are in Christ alone, received and held through faith in Christ alone by God's efficacious work of grace in our hearts. No work of merit on our part secures them nor maintains them.

Of Judaizers and the Gospel, the beat goes on...

Solomon's words, "That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" in Ecclesiastes 1 are no truer than when applied to the history of the Church and her battles against various false teachings and heresies. At the center of many, if not most, errant paths is the idea that fallen man, in order to be saved, must supply something of himself to supplement the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The first such challenge occurred almost right out of the gate with the Judaizers. These men taught that Jesus was the Savior.  Many had standing with the church in Jerusalem. They preached that Jesus died on the cross and that to be justified before God one must have faith and rely on grace. Yet there was more to their "gospel." And it is essentially that "more" which elevated man's own works to the level of co-worker with Christ in the sinner's justification before God.  Paul's verdict on that approach to salvation was unequivocal - I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought (Gal. 2:21).
   
The Old Testament prophets warned Israel against this idea that salvation could come by any other means than the gratuitous mercy of God. Jesus confronted the Pharisees again and again on their presumed acceptance before God based, in part, on their own righteousness. And this issue was what the Reformation in the 16th century was all about. Rome preached the grace of God and faith in Christ. Yet over a number of centuries she had added to the pure gospel other requirements to be met and burdens to carry in order for one to merit justification.

And today, we see all too often God's people weighted down by this same subtle, yet toxic teaching: the seemingly irresistible tendency in the Church (whether Rome, Orthodox, or Protestant) to add man's works to Christ's as part of the merit of one's standing before God. It was this very doctrine of justification by faith apart from works that John Calvin called the hinge on which all true religion hangs.  And it is the continuing challenge to that gospel that J. Gresham Machen concisely addressed in his book, Christianity and Liberalism.  Regarding the Judaizers, he comments on their false teaching which the apostle Paul confronted in his letter to the church in Galatia.

They, believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation.  But the trouble was, they also believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law...

Paul saw very clearly that the difference between the Judaizers and himself was the difference between a religion of merit and a religion of grace...

The difference which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ.  "Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me" - that is what Paul was contending for in Galatia; That hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won.  And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.  (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 20-21)

Rome vs. Reformed, a debate re: justification...

The current debate between Rome and Reformed that I've been blogging about, of course, isn't a new thing.  And, that bit of news isn't new.  With that in mind, it can be helpful, though, and educational, to go back to earlier chapters in that argument in order to get a clearer picture of the issues that separate these two church traditions.  And looking back to the 16th century, at the center of the Reformation debate there was no greater dispute than the one over the doctrine of justification by faith alone, a subject that continues to roil the waters today.  Martin Luther called it the article upon which the Church stands and falls.  So what did Luther mean by "faith alone?"  One could look to him as well as others for that answer.  It was not only Luther, but other reformers:  Calvin, Cranmer, Ursinus, Bullinger, to name a few, who adopted the same basic phrase and exact same doctrine.

By 1563 the doctrine "justification by faith alone"  had been roundly rejected as heresy by Rome in the Council of Trent, its official response to the Protestant reforms.  Yet several years earlier a forerunner of this split (for the book click here) took place in an exchange of letters between Roman Catholic Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto and reformer John Calvin.  Sadoleto wrote to the Genevan Christians in order to convince them to return to Rome.  The Genevans called on John Calvin, then in Strasbourg, to respond.  Both letters dealt with many doctrinal areas.  This debate is a good starting point for anyone considering the claims of Rome visa-vis the confessional doctrines of the Reformed tradition.  As a teaser, read the following excerpt of Sadoleto's and Calvin's correspondence concerning the path of justification.  Take note of the difference of how faith is defined by both men, how righteousness is obtained, and where the ultimate ground of a sinner's salvation lies:  Rome' paradigm of faith in Christ plus the grace-fortified works done by the sinner - contrasted with that of the Reformers - faith alone resting in Christ and His finished work alone, by God's grace alone.

Sadoleto:

If then, Christ was sent that we, by well-doing, may through Him, be accepted of God, and that we may be built up in Him unto good works; surely the faith which we have in God through Jesus Christ not only enjoins and commands us to confide in Christ but to confide, working or resolved to work well in Him.  For faith is a term of full and ample signification, and not only includes in it credulity and confidence, but also the hope and desire of obeying God, together with love, the head and mistress of all the virtues, as has been most clearly manifested to us in Christ, in which love the Holy spirit properly and peculiarly resides, or rather Himself is love, since God is love.  Wherefore, as without the Holy Spirit, so also without love, nought of ours is pleasing and acceptable to God.  When we say, the, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation...

... And if, at any time, overcome by frailty and inconstancy, we lapse into sin (would that this happened to us rarely at least, and not too often), we, however, rise again in the same faith of the Church; and by whatever expiations, penances, and satisfactions, she tells us that our sin is washed away, and we (always by the grace and mercy of God) restored to our former integrity, these methods of expiation and satisfaction we have recourse to and employ - trusting, when we do so, to find a place of mercy and pardon with God.

Calvin's response:

 You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us.  Is this a knotty and useless question?  Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion is abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown... you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that by attributing everything to faith, we leave no room for works.

... I will briefly explain to you how we speak on this subject.

First, we bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners.  Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition.  Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete.  As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our cure; and by His death, make satisfaction for us.  We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy.  When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

 ... But what notion, you ask, does the very term righteousness suggest to us if respect is not paid to good works?  I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture,you would have no difficulty.  For it does not refer to a man's own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which contrary to the sinner's deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness.  Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul (2 Cor. 5:19) that God hath reconciled us to Himself in Jesus Christ.  The mode is afterwards subjoined - by not imputing sin.  He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel.  But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification.  I answer that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works.  Hence his familiar inference - if by faith, then not by works.  On the other hand - if by works, then not by faith.

... We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous.  For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ never is where His Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration.  Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor. 1:30) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification.  Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.

The Church and the Mark of the Gospel...

Rembrandt's Two old men disputing, 1628. Peter and Paul

What is the appeal that draws someone from a Protestant church to join the Roman Catholic Church?  That question has been a hot topic in the blogosphere these past couple of months.  Of course, in attempting to answer that question one may fall into the role of armchair psychoanalyst. Nonetheless, let me plunge ahead, where all too many have already gone.

At a web site that majors in Roman Catholic Church conversion stories, former Protestant "A," now Roman Catholic, explains his decision to convert in a comment to current Protestant "B" and makes an appeal for "B" to consider making the move.

I know something else, in this case, because it is my experience but it seems a rather common experience for those of us leaving Protestantism in its various forms to become Catholic...

In my case, I found that the Catholic Church was true.  It was true in the areas where my old denomination was true, and it was true in the areas where my old denomination was false.  It was true in the areas of my life where I was false.  That is an indictment.  I was wrong and needed to be straightened out and neither my old denomination or myself were capable of providing that straightening.  It was beyond either of us to do that.

"Pick up your cross and follow Me" is what Jesus said.  Peter, speaking to Jesus, said, "You have the words of eternal life."

In my case, had I failed to act, I would have been condemned.  I was required to walk with our Lord, and not He with me.  I was required to act on the gift [the RCC?] He had given me.  I could not shirk that gift.  I had to count the cost, which I did, and then cost not withstanding, I made the move.  I haven't looked back.  I found the company that I had desired from the first.  I found the Authority and Leadership I was searching for (and it was not me).  In accepting this cross, I found my burden lightened.

If Jesus is standing at the door of your heart knocking, what will you do?  [emphasis added]

Another commented regarding his need to have one definitive answer from the Church regarding any number of doctrines:

Huh!? Isn't the Church supposed to tell me what to believe? Is the issue essential or not? Turns out I was wrong, and the Catholic Church does not see Paedo-communion as a big issue. They have both Paedo-communion and 'age of reason' communion. But I feel so relieved to finally at least have an answer! Being wrong doesn't bother me, I will conform my mind to the mind of the Church, but not knowing does bother me. Because if they leave it up to me to decide things, I will mess it up every time! Thank God for giving us a living Church to guide us!

Vivat Papa!

A bit disconcerting, but the above mindset can creep into the calculation of any believer.  It's a tendency to conflate the person and work of Jesus Christ with the visible expression of His body, the church, which eventually leads to elevating the church above Christ.  And this pitfall is not exclusive to any one church tradition.  How does this happen?  It's hard to say, but in a nutshell, it happens when the church and its traditions increase as the central focus and the centrality of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel recedes into the background.  As fallen human beings, we all-too-naturally direct our faith and trust towards that which is tangible and visible.  And an outward association with polished credentials can offer the promise of that elusive yet hard-to-beat satisfaction of certainty and predictability that we long for; at that point, a church becomes the answer.  We may find ourselves trying to vindicate and validate of our Christianity in ways which allow us to exclaim, "This is It!  I've arrived!  This is Home."  Being dependent creatures we must depend on something and we're more comfortable leaning on a visible kingdom than an invisible King (1 Sam. 8: 5-7).

Shouldn't the Church guide and teach true doctrine?  Indeed it should.  But the question (it keeps popping up throughout church history) to be answered is:  what is to be the distinguishing mark of the Church's teaching and truth?  What is it that the Church lifts up and proclaims?  The apostle Paul confronted this question again and again in the churches he planted.  To the Corinthians he wrote:

Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:22-24)

To the Galatians:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. (Gal. 2: 11-13)

And in his Colossian letter:

As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.  Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ... (Col. 2:6-8)

These excerpts describe challenges common to Christians in all ages.  In Corinth there was a drift toward "needing" a sign (visible witness) to confirm God's Word and/or a wisdom that provided rationally appealing answers to philosopical questions raised. There's nothing inherently wrong with a sign or wisdom.   But many times Christians look to the visible church to be the sign ("see, here it is... here is the real deal!") of true Christianity; and as an institution to be, if not flawless, unified around one authoritative and wise teacher.  This led many of the Corinthians to gravitate to their best camp:  I am of Paul... I am of Cephas... I am of Apollos... and even, I am of Christ!  And very likely this factional attitude grew out their perceived need to identify with and be seen as belonging to the right outward expression of the church.

In Paul's confrontation with Peter, we see that same carnal pull to belong to the right group in the eyes of men.  Paul speaks of those being carried away with hypocrisy, to the extent that even Peter and Barnabas dissembled and segregated together with the Jews in order to be identified with James of Jerusalem (one could say - the lead bishop of the Christianity's Mother Church).  Likewise in Paul's letter to the Colossians, he warns against philosophies (religious duties, observances, etc.) and vain deceits that, being added to the gospel and thus changing it, would rise in importance and lead the believers away from Christ.

These warnings were and are needed, not just because there exist these accessories and alternatives to the gospel of Christ.  He warns because within believers, themselves, is the pull to possess something outward in order to find that security of certainty that only heaven can supply.  Too often we want Christ plus something visible and tangible to mediate Him and validate us!  And those additions to the gospel are what end up diminishing it and ultimately supplanting Christ.  In each of these three examples, that which was being adopted by believers, practically and philosophically, stood in opposition to the centrality and supremacy of the gospel of Christ in the Church.

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake (2 Cor. 4:5) 

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel... (Galatians2: 14a).

As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving (Col.2: 6-7).

Paul counters the factional divisions and the supplemental philosophies not with an appeal to his authority, or a sign of his apostleship, or to his church.  But rather he appeals and points to the gospel of Christ.

I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1: 6-8). 

So what is the Church's distinguishing mark?  A philosophy?  An apostolic office?  A polity?  A teaching?  All questions of doctrine settled?  Rather than elevating any of these in order to prove that "This is the true church," what should be held above all is that pure testimony of the Church which proclaims clearly and unambiguously the gospel of Christ consistent with  the words found in Luke 9: 35-36a -

Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “ This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone.

Of Popes, maps, and the Gospel...

From a Roman Catholic commenter at a web site that promotes the merits of Roman Catholicism as the one and only true church.  He wrote:

Thanks for the conversation. In recap, we were discussing... whether or not the Catholic, because they use their fallible judgment to find an infallible Church, are in the same boat as a Protestant. I said:

A. The Catholic Church is what she says she is [i.e. infallible], or

B. The Catholic Church is fallible, and therefore NOT what she says she is

If A, then I have an epistemic advantage listening to the Catholic Church. If B, then you and I are equals (epistemically) because the Catholic Church is just like a Protestant church: fallible.

So, either way, I’m better off being Catholic — it is epistemically preferable to choose to be Catholic — maybe not morally if she is not what she claims to be — but epistemically, it would. Analogy: If I could hire a tour guide and have a map, or just have a map, it would be epistemically preferable to have the tour guide also, if only as a possibility the tour guide new what the heck they were doing. In other words, all I need you to do is grant “A” is possible to make following the Catholic Church epistemically preferable. Given your inquiry into the Catholic Church, do you find A to be impossible?

Me:  There are a few problems, as I see it, with this line of reasoning. Both camps, Rome and Protestant, agree that Scripture, as given in the original tongues, is the infallible word of God. Rome, though, claims the Pope is the sole infallible interpreter of all doctrine in Scripture and teaching of the Church. In other words, by definition, whatever Rome teaches is correct and without error whether implicitly or explicitly taught in Scripture or not.

Addressing the the line of reasoning in the above scenario, let me change the "I" to "the Church."  Stick with me here...  If the Church accepts the Papal office as the infallible tour guide following the Pope's directions regardless of what the infallible map (Scripture) indicates, and if the Papal tour guide is in fact actually fallible, then the Church is worse off.  Off-hand, there are a couple reasons for this.  First, if there is a contradiction between the fallible tour guide (the Pope) and the infallible map (Scripture), then the Church, relying on this tour guide as the final authority, is destined at some point to go off course.  By definition he will make errors.  Yet there will never be a course correction by repudiating those Papal errors because the fallible guide is regarded as one who is infallible.  Course corrections don't compute.  Even if doctrinal error is taught it won't be caught because the tour guide can't make mistakes!  The infallible map is no longer part of the equation. 

On the other hand, even if the map isn't clear in certain places, the Church, if relying humbly on the infallible map, can move with caution and even readjust its course if necessary.  Through the study of the map, the Church can recheck its navigational calculations and acknowledge when it veers off into a wrong direction.  The map as the Church's ultimate and final authority is its guide.  This approach is summed up in the Reformed Churches' refrain "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God."  There are no guarantees in either approach. Yet once errors have occurred in the Roman system, there are no course corrections or acknowledgement of error.  Why not?  By definition they don't need adjustments.  Their bedrock tenet of truth holds that their final authority, the tour guide, is infallible.  I suppose there can be certain changes and modifications, but never repudiation of error followed by a subsequent course change. Once an erroneous course is taken, the map is no longer referred to as far as changing course.  If they did do that, it would undermine the ground upon which Rome stands:  the Papal office.  "We're going in the right direction, led by our infallible tour guide!"

Lastly, since Scripture is not a road map, the above analogy is somewhat flawed or at least incomplete.  The Bible is not a manual or map to direct every step the Church takes.  Scripture's purpose is to communicate the Gospel of Christ by which sinful humans are saved.  That glorious good news is presented clearly in the words of Scripture and received by all whom are given eyes to see and ears to hear.  Is everything in Scripture equally clear?  No, but what is necessary for salvation is clear.  Can the Church, as a whole or in its various branches, confuse and obscure that salvation message?  Yes, she can and has.  This was at the heart of the reason why reforms were offered, vis-a-vis Rome, by the likes of Luther and Calvin; reforms which Rome emphatically rejected and still does (She's infallible).  The Reformers called for course adjustments in order remove errors which for centuries clouded the path by which sinful man could be reconciled to a holy God according to God's Word.  They wanted to make known and declare in the Church, clearly once again, the Good News of God's salvation of sinners which comes by His grace alone, as sinners trust alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection.  This is the purpose of the so-called map and it is the calling of the Church. to stand upon this gospel and proclaim.  And the Church, by standing upon the ground of this clear Gospel - that this Man Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God - ensures that the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

Partaking of Christ's flesh and blood; Augustine instructs - how to understand - Part 3

Lying at the heart of the differences of interpretation (addressed here, here, and here) regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, is the question of how one is to understand what the Scripture speaks concerning it.  How is the Church to read and understand difficult passages of the Bible in order to come to godly teaching?  The church fathers made their appeal to right doctrine from the teaching of Scripture.  This question must be answered, not only for Protestants, but Rome as well, since the "infallible" teaching of the Roman Church claims to true doctrine consistent with Scripture.

To help answer that question I thought I'd not call on any Reformed voices, of which there are many able and reliable.  Rather let me quote the eminent theologian Augustine, from Thomas Cranmer's Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ (1550).  Cranmer writes:

And yet most plainly of all other, St. Augustine doth declare this matter in his book De Doctrina Christiana in which book he instructeth Christian people how they should understand those places of Scripture, which seem hard and obscure.

"Seldom," saith he, "is any difficulty in proper words, but either the circumstances of the place, or the conferring of divers translations, or else the original tongue wherein it was written, will make the sense plain.  But in words that be altered from their proper signification, there is great diligence and heed to be taken  And specially we must beware, that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively.  For contrariwise, we must not take for a figure, any thing that is spoken properly.  Therefore must be declared," saith Augustine, "the manner how to discern a proper speech from a figurative; wherein, " saith he, "must be observed this rule, that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity, then it is a proper speech, and no figure.  So that if it be a commandment that forbiddeth any evil or wicked act, or commandeth any good or beneficial thing, then it is no figure.  But if it command any ill or wicked thing, or forbid anything that is good and beneficial, then it is a figurative speech.

So how does Augustine unpack what he is instructing?  He happens to focus on one of the most difficult passages for men to hear, that of Christ's words regarding the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood as found in John chapter 6.  It was because of these words spoken by Jesus that many stopped following him.  And even His chosen disciples were troubled.  Continuing with Augustine in the passage from Cranmer:

"Now the saying of Christ, 'Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you', seemeth to command an heinous and a wicked thing; therefore it is a figure, commanding us to be partakers of Christ's passion, keeping in our minds to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh was wounded for us."

 Thus in another part of his book Cranmer sums up St. Augustine's teaching on the sacraments:

And therefore St. Ausgustine saith, Contra Maximinum, that "in the sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify.  For they be signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another."

By this neither Augustine nor Cranmer were denying that Christians do partake of Christ's body and blood.  The confession of the Church of England's, The Thirty-Nine Articles, summarizes the Reformed understanding.  The relevant sections are shown below:

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. 

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. 

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

Again, the purpose of these last several posts is not to offer some definitive case against Rome's teaching of transubstantiation.  Rather, it is to provide evidence that the early church writers, in conjunction with Scripture, taught not the Roman doctrine.  And a case, therefore, can be made that the Reformers' teachings on this doctrine were consistent with those church patriarchs as well as Scripture.

Update 10-16-2013:
A question has been raised as to the authenticity of the early church fathers' quotes in this and the previous two posts.  So, I am adding this Link to Authorities in Appendix which is A Collection of Authorities cited by Cranmer and others in the Controversy on the Lord's Supper '.  In addition here is a footnote from the first page of that Appendix:

1 [Cranmer and his adversaries in the Eucharistic controversy seldom printed more than a version of the authorities which they cited : and mutual charges of mistranslation were the result. To enable the reader to form his own judgment on these charges, without referring to the voluminous works of the Fathers, a large number of the original passages have here been extracted. They have been arranged in chronological order, partly for convenience of reference, and partly for the purpose of presenting a series of citations on the Lord's Supper, from the time of Ignatius, A. I). 101, to that of the Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was finally established. The inquiry, it will be remembered, may be pursued further, by referring also to those authorities, which, being quoted by the contending parties in the original language, it has been thought unnecessary to repeat here.]

Cranmer's and his Roman Catholic adversary in this dispute wrote their works in Latin.  Thus the citations are in Latin.  I take the editors meaning to be that any disagreement over translation had to do with the citations of those who wrote in Greek or, in addition, subsequent English translations.

Rome's transubstantiation: There's a disturbance in the force (tradition) Part 2

In the last post I laid out some historical evidence which sounds a dissonant note in the so-called unified voice of tradition supporting Rome's teaching of transubstantiation. The purpose of these two posts is to show the inconsistency between Rome claiming the church fathers as supporting witnesses and the actual writings of those witnesses.  Those first examples were by no means isolated.  Rather, there were numerous early and later theologians and scholars that wrote of quite the opposite of Rome's doctrine.

Picking up where I left off, Thomas Cranmer, in his Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ (1550), wrote of the Bishop of Rome, Gelasius (late 4th century), who by the way advocated for the supremacy of the Roman bishopric.  Cranmer comments regarding Gelasius' argument that refuted the heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius:

The other example is of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; which, saith he, "is a godly thing, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still."

Cranmer continues with an example from Origen:

And Origen, declaring the said eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, not be undertood as the words do sound, but figuratively, writeth thus upon these words of Christ, Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you:  "Consider," saith Origen, "that these things, written in God's books, are figures; and therefore examine and understand them, as spiritual and not as carnal men..."

In another place the Arch-bishop writes of Ambrose:

And in the same book he saith, "As thou hast in baptism received the similtude of death, so likewise dost thou in this sacrament drink the similtude of Christ's precious blood."  And again he saith in the said book, "The priest saith, Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And concurring with Ambrose:

And therefore St. Augustine saith, Contra Maximinum, that "in the sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify.  For they be signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another..."

 And in his book De Doctrina Christiana, St. Augustine saith, (as before at length declared)' that "to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, is a figuative speech, signifying the participation of his passion, and delectable remembrance to our benefit and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us."

I'll finish with two examples that Cranmer supplies from the late medieval church period, not too many years before the Reformation and Rome's Council of Trent:

And Gabriel [priest and scholar - 15th century] also, who of all other wrote most largely upon the canon of the Mass, saith thus:  "It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the Scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained and received of Christian people under the kinds of bread and wine; yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of anything into it, or without conversion the body is there with the bread remaining still there, it is not found expressed in the Bible..."

and:

For Johannes Scotus, otherwise called Duns, the subtlest of all the school authors, in treating of this matter of transubstantiation, showeth plainly the cause thereof:  "For," saith he, "the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiation; but the Church chose this sense, which is more hard, being moved thereunto, as it seemeth, chiefly because that of the sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome holdeth.  But it holdeth that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body, and wine into the blood..."

Cranmer sums up the last two bits of historical evidence:

Thus you have heard the cause, whereof this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among Christian people; that is to say, because the Church of Rome hath so determined; although the contrary, by the papists' own confession, appear to be more easy, more true, and more according to Scripture. 

As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptism, if there be no water.  For as baptism is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration, without there be as well the element of water, as the Holy Ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is baptized, (which is signified by the said water), even so the Supper of our Lord can be no perfect sacrament of spiritual food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and blood of our Saviour Christ spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and wine is signified.

I'm afraid that Gabriel and Duns Scotus, if alive today, might be subject to the anathemas of Trent that followed less than a hundred years after their deaths, not to mention those church fathers (only a few of which have been cited) who did not conceive of the Supper as involving transubstantiation.

Eucharistic witness of the early fathers, part 1...

There's been quite a bit of debate going on over at The White Horse Inn Blog, both Here and Here, between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants.  Things have centered on the authority of Scripture, the place of tradition, the so-called infallibility of the teachings of the Roman Church, etc.  Some of the discussion have touched on the nature of the sacrament of the Lord' Supper.  I initially shared some thoughts on that in the earlier post Reformed and Catholic Eucharist.  I thought I'd add some additional snippets from one of the only two books the reformer and Arch-Bishop of the Church of England, Thomas Cranmer, wrote.  This book directly takes on the Roman view, which Cranmer argues is not consistent with Scripture nor with the early church fathers.

I'm under no illusions that what's posted here will convince someone who holds Rome's teachings to change their mind, and that's not my intention.  Yet not only Scripture, but early "tradition" seems to offer more than a few counter currents to be overcome by one contemplating a swim across the Tiber.  At a minimum Cranmer highlights a number of inconvenient historical nuggets mined from the early (and even later) church fathers.

Below are a few examples regarding the nature of the Lord's Supper that Thomas Cranmer, in his Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ (1550) presents. Which book, by the way, was the principle work used against him by the Roman Church in order to convict him of heresy and burn him at the stake under Queen Mary.

This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Justinus wholly in this matter, saying, "that the bread wherein we give thanks to God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon, it is not then common bread, but the bread of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one earthly, and the other heavenly."  What meant he by the heavenly thing, but the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God?  And what by the earthly thing, but the very bread, which, as he said before, is of the earth, and which also, he saith, doth nourish our bodies, as other bread doth which we use?

Of Chyrsostom he writes:

And yet more plainly St Chrysostome declareth this matter in another place, saying:  "The bread, before it be sanctified, is called bread; but when it is sanctified by the means of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lord's body, although the nature of the bread doth still remain."

"The nature of bread," saith he, "doth still remain," to the utter and manifest confutation of the papists, which say that the accidents of bread do remain, but not the nature and substance.

Of Augustine he quotes:

 "The sacrifice of the Church consiteth of two things, of the visible kind of element, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; both of the sacrament, and of the thing signified by the sacrament:  even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man.  For everything containeth in it the very nature of those things whereof it consisteth.  Now the sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ.  Therefore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, which is Christ's body."

Cranmer, like the continental Reformers, understood that the preaching of the word and the two sacraments of Baptism and the Supper as doing the same thing but in different ways.  Their commonality is in the spiritual nourishment they provide to the Lord's people by means of the gospel of Christ and the role that faith plays in both.  He writes:

And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment by known to all men by daily experience and by our common senses; yet this our spiritual generation and our spiritual nutrition be so obscure and hid unto us, that we cannot attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, but only by faith, which must be grounded upon God's most holy word and sacraments.

And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these things most plainly in his word, that we may hear them with our ears; but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, another visible sacrament in bread and wine, to the intent that , as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses.  For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears; so likewise the elements of water, bread, and wine, joined to God's word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses. 

 In Part 2 I'll follow up with more excerpts from the early writers as well as some of later periods that provide additional historical witness to the fact that tradition is far from being unified behind Rome on this matter.

Active Obedience - Imputed Righteousness

Tullian Tchividjian's recent post, Cheap Law, at Gospel Coalition sparked quite a debate regarding the relationship of Jesus' perfect obedience and suffering and the righteousness that is imputed to believers through faith.  Not a few think that Christ's forgiveness of sins is alone the basis for the righteousness counted toward his people.  And that that righteousness isn't Christ's imputed but that which comes to us based on forgiveness and being united to Christ.  I chimed in to the vigorous debate and, as is the often the case, I don't think any minds were changed one way or the other.  But to carry on the argument I was making, here is an excerpt from an article, A More Perfect Union - Justification and Union with Christ,  by John Fesko.  It can be read in its entirety at Modern Reformation:

The Reformed tradition bases the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, even his active obedience, on such passages as Romans 5:12-21 (WCF 6.3, 11.1; cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 60). Why, for example, does Paul contrast the disobedience of Adam with the obedience of Christ? Paul writes, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). As John Murray explains, "The parallel to the imputation of Adam's sin is the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Or to use Paul's own terms, being 'constituted sinners' through the disobedience of Adam is parallel to being 'constituted righteous' through the obedience of Christ." Clearly, Romans 5:19 restates what Paul has stated in the previous verse: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Rom. 5:18).

There is no mistaking the parallel between Christ's obedience, which is righteousness, and the imputation of this righteousness to the believer. Commenting on the abiding significance of Genesis 15:6 and the imputation of righteousness, Paul writes: "That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 4:22-24). Note here the English Standard Version translates the Greek word logizomai as "counted," which the King James Version translates as "imputed." Here Paul taps into the ancient stream of the special revelation of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, to argue for the imputed righteousness of Christ, and arguably also has other passages such as Isaiah 53 in mind when writing these things: "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:19-21).

And Charles Spurgeon eloquently makes the case for the indispensable connection between Jesus Christ's perfect obedience and his righteousness imputed to us:

The promises in the Word of God are not made to suffering; they are made to obedience. Consequently, Christ’s sufferings, though they may remove the penalty of sin, do not alone make me the inheritor of the promise. “If You will enter into life,” said Christ, “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). It is only Christ’s keeping the commandments that entitles me to enter life. “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable” (Isaiah 42:21). I do not enter into life by virtue of His sufferings – those deliver me from death, those purge me from filthiness; but entering the enjoyments of the life eternal must be the result of obedience. As it cannot be the result of mine, it is the result of His, which is imputed to me….See what Christ has done in His living and His dying, His acts becoming our acts and His righteousness being imputed to us, so that we are rewarded as if we are righteous, while He was punished as though He had been guilty.
Justification then comes to sinners as an act of pure grace, the foundation of it being Christ’s righteousness. The practical way of its application is by faith. The sinner believes God and believeth that Christ is sent of God. [He] takes Christ Jesus to be his only confidence and trust; and by that act, he becomes a justified soul. It is not by repenting that we are justified, but by believing; it is not by deep experience of the guilt of sin; it is not by bitter pangs and throes under the temptations of Satan; it is not by mortification of the body, nor by the renunciation of self; all these are good, but the act that justifieth is a look at Christ. We, having nothing, being nothing, boasting of nothing, but being utterly emptied, do look to Him Whose wounds stream with the life-giving blood. As we look to Him, we live and are justified by His life. There is life in a look at the crucified One—life in the sense of justification.

Reformed and Catholic Eucharist...

The Reformed tradition accepts the four councils of Nicea,  Constantinople, Ephesus 1, and Chalcedon.  In his 1559 edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote:

… we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

The ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431, regarding the Lord's Supper, stated in part:

Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honor, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word. For being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be life-giving, as also he said to us [in John 6:52]: “Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” .

Roman Catholics read transubstantiation and a misunderstanding of “sacrifice” into the Ephesus 431 quote and thereby judge that Reformed Protestant worship is not catholic, i.e. that the Reformed churches reject the council's teaching.  But that is not the case.  Looking to the Church of England’s Holy Communion service as found in the 1662 BCP (still in use) to help clarify the right understanding of this mystery one finds:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

THE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

The Reformed confession of the Church of England further explains the nature of the sacrament: 
 The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; Art. 28:

THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

 The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried, about, lifted up, or worshipped.

  
My reading of the Ephesus Council quote:

We “offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches…” i.e. the Sacrament of the Supper (which proclaims Christ’s sacrifice on the cross) is offered to the believers in the churches as real spiritual food for the soul’s nourishment. Note the word “unbloody”, i.e. not corporeal blood. In the same way, in preaching the Gospel, the “sacrifice of Christ is offered” for forgiveness of sins to all that hear it and believe.

This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honor, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word.

Note: “not as ordinary flesh”… in other words not actual physical flesh as one ordinarily would understand… “heaven forbid” i.e. put away the thought that this is physical flesh of a real man, even one “joined to the Word by union of honor.”

Jesus explains to his disciples after their confusion and the objections raised by many of the listens to the words of John 6:52 quoted in Ephesus 431:

61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble?
62 What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

Thus we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Supper by faith “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.” (39 Articles. 28)

The only sacrifice offered to God by the clergy or the people is expressed in the final prayer of the Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP service:

“O LORD and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.”