Ecumenical Catholicism & Protestantism or “Let’s Change Theology & History”

An article on the Catholic blog, Pontifications, caught my attention. It’s a few years back, but it’s ideas demand a few comments even today. The article by Fr. Kimel is about the ecumenical Joint Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification, signed by Catholic and Lutheran theologians and wants to believe that all those old spats in centuries past are outmoded and no longer apply. I quote:
“On what grounds do Anglicans maintain separation from the Roman Communion? Are we justified in maintaining this separation? The current dissolution of the Episcopal Church, and of Reformation Christianity in general, requires orthodox Episcopalians to thoughtfully answer these two questions.
Martin Luther broke the unity of the Church because he believed that the gospel itself, expressed in the slogan “justification by faith,” was at stake. This, and this alone, justified schism.
Is it any longer reasonable to justify separation from the Catholic Church because of differences on the doctrine of justification by faith? …”

Whatever the issues that led to the “dissolution” of mainline Protestant denominations, I would say that the ecumenical coziness with Rome is a symptom of the problem. Firstly, Fr. Kimel should look to his Roman Catholic church, and ponder whether it is calling the kettle black to speak of Protestant “dissolution”. Ecumenical compromise is the result of a weary discernment; a spiritual compromise with error. Remember that little thing called “another Gospel”? It was identified by the Apostle Paul because of the grace choking error of legalists in the early church. Their error was not so much pure law (too obvious), but a co-mingling of law and Gospel, so that justification by grace through faith was obscured. I quote further:
“First, the document clearly states that “the mutual condemnations of former times do not apply to the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification as they are presented in the Joint Declaration” (Annex to Common Statement). The Lutheran understanding of justification, as defined by the document, is not considered to be church-dividing by Catholicism; the Catholic understanding of justification, as defined by the document, is not considered to be church-dividing by Lutheranism. In other words, one can hold a “Lutheran” understanding of justification and be a Catholic!”

Miracle of miracles! Lutherans can be bona fide, sola gratia Protestants, and sacerdotal, indulgence and penance Roman Catholics can let bygones be bygones, ‘cause the old disputes about the Gospel in medieval Europe just no longer apply to a more contemporary and inclusive age. IF this is the way it is now, then my Protestant brothers in the Lutheran bodies that have partaken of this error have truly lost their way.

It’s not that the signatories of the Joint Declaration forget the bloody disputes and condemnations of the past. What they want to do is find a common ground on the doctrine of justification that evades the divisions of the past. How do they do this? As stated in the document of the Joint Declaration :
“By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today's partner.”
So after 500 years, newer insight has now rendered once damnable heresies null and void. Anybody heard of the Council of Trent???

To be sure, this is not the first document to speak of ecumenical agreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. This has been ongoing for decades. But, call me an old fashioned Bible Christian type...WHY would I even want to find agreement with Rome when I know the truth?
I’ll have more to say on this in another post...God willing.

Amen

Infallible Interpretations

Why do so many people have different interpretations of the Bible? Does this mean that "Sola Scriptura" is a false, and misleading position for Christians to embrace? Do we need to allow an infallible man or an infallible authority to proclaim the final interpretation and official teaching of God's Word?

When Christ preaching the Gospel of the kingdom to Israel, He faced numerous factions within the Judaism of his day. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and others held to different views about different things. No doubt they must have believed that they were interpreting the Word of God soundly, and that others were less reliable. Yet Jesus rejected their teachings as the "traditions of men". It seems there is a difficulty in holding to the highest view of the Word, and yet truly submitting to it's teaching. Human tradition gets in the way.

For those Roman Catholics, and especially for those evangelicals who are considering Catholicism as being biblical, some things need to be remembered. First, the authority is God Himself-period. All authority comes from Him. Second, his Scriptures are God-breathed. The Words of the Bible originate with God with the end result that they are "inspired" Words. Being so, that makes their authority "self-imposing" on the people of God.

The apostles recognized Paul's writings as "wisdom from God" and Scriptures, because they knew that Paul alone could not conceive of the things which he wrote to the churches. The Words of God, not the apostles are inspired. Such spiritual wisdom and power demanded submission and recognition of the inherent authority of God's Word.

This is why no Pope, no Bishop or "Magisterium", no scholar, etc., can be trusted to infallibly interpret the Bible. There is no "infallible" man, but there is an infallible Word of God.

So how then can we know what the Bible says? The one thing to remember is that God is not the author of confusion, and that we must allow the Word to speak for itself. That is, to interpret by context and proper exegesis what God has said. We know what God has said. There are some hard things. However, we should not go beyond Scripture in trying to explain the hard truths.

Nor does Sola Scriptura preclude the use of histories, language references and other sources of knowledge. In the end, we must work by the grace of the Lord, to put to death those sinful human tendencies to insert our pet human traditions into the Word, and to naively assume that we are teaching God's Word.

And to this, I am reminded of those "noble Bereans" who searched their own Scriptures diligently to test what they were being taught. It seems that Paul did not have infallibilty to speak of as an apostle of Christ. Nor did Peter, who we are told was the first Pope. It seems the first "Pope" found some of Paul's writings hard to understand, and that he erred more than once.