An inventary as an introduction

GENERAL OVERVIEW
An inventory as an introduction Home
Purpose of the work
The book ´The Controversy Rome-Reformation as a Historical Misunderstanding´ is the first part of a tripartite larger totality, that I have titled ´The Justification of Man´. It concerns a theology that reeminently is intermediary. The intention of it is:
a. To demonstrate clearly, that the doctrine of John Calvin and the one of the Council of Trent that made a stand against him and Luther - against what it seems - are not contradictory, but only superficialisations are - and that these, true, provoked contrasting accentuations, but not more. To show up the scriptural reliability of both the reformational and the catholic doctrine to one another and anybody interested, an exigence Reformation always made to the Catholica as a condition to reunite. Inversely it is shown how big a measure an original reformational testimony as Calvin´s roots in earlier catholic Tradition.
b. I have involved my investigation in today´s discussions on this subject. This has come to a selection from what since the Second World War has been theologised on grace and nature, on original sin and some main issues of what happened in the sixties and seventies with less or more ecumenical intention. As I have felt urgence from the discussers to enter into the struggle on grace that broke out within the Catholic Church.in the post-tridentine period,. I have deposed this part of my study in the vast annotation-apparatus. So the oldest part of the postwar catholic theology, the discussion on grace of the fifties, still was not in the light of ecumenism. But it became clear to me that it then would have been very useful. It is of ecumenical interest and thus gets a relation with ecumenical theology, when I show, that this theology has some unilateral ´Roman´ features.and confront this with reformational scriptural testimony and the catholic tradition: to demonstrate this is the intention of my whole book.
c. My last but far not least important purpose is not only reconciltiating both confessions, but not without at the same time deepening the treated and presenting to a better insight in christian doctrine and doing this with the outspoken intention to sharpen and enhance the expressiveness of the gospel. To do this especially regarding the doctrine of original sin I have confronted the onesidednesses just called with neoreformational testimony about this matter that at the same time was in force.
The instructiveness of the sources
To be able to prove the reconciliability of both confessions I have scrutinised the structure of ´dialectics of dissolution´ which is the basis of the historical schism. That although departing originally from Barth and Küng I based myself henceforward on the original sources, already soon displayed its advantage. It was already clear from the next:
In Reformation grace is predominant. Therefore Barth reproached to R.C. theology its many distinctions of grace, like there are: sanctifying grace, actual grace, prevening grace, justifying grace, created and uncreated grace etc., because there is, as he witnesses, is solely one grace, God´s in Jesus Christ.
Now lecture of Calvin´s Institution of Christian Religion made clear to me, that the author himself was not loath of making rather many distinctions in grace. But indeed it is true, that the issue being the grace of Christ. everywhere is transparent. But I could prove, that in Trent, the quantity of distinctions in grace being rather small, the same is the case.
But the principal discovery I made, that time after time in items the next was the case: a Roman practice having become ´bad´ (f.i. in the shape of making good works the central issue) and in whose light also doctrine was interpreted, is confronted with a radical reformational protest that seemed to deny a number of traditional truths. By rebounce these denials by Trent are upbraided. An so a stalemate-position has come into existence. But if you pay sharp attention, you see, that in the corners one admits to each other just that much as not to deny really each other´s standpoints.
This even goes so far, that when I was spelling Luther´s 'De Servo Arbitrio', that seemed to subjugate freedom of will to necessity, I dared to predict, that, before I should end with the last page, there would pass an admission by Luther as to avoid a consequence leading to the devil (besides, this an expression of Luther himself) and that appeared to be, that he posited, but only immediately before the finish, the nature of necessity being that for God already is established in the future not can fail to happen and this is nothing else than factually reducing necessity to ´willing happen´, what also is the case, if God merely foresees. It is not so, that Luther teaches this plainly, but that ultimate turn just still prevents the idea of absolute predestination to evil.
The meritoriousness of good works
In order not to loosen the treated in part I from the proper subject, justification (part II), and because it is a beautiful instance of what kind of problem-complexes are at issue, I wish to have a short look to one subject from part II, and that is: the meritoriousness of good works. This ist what the conflict between Reformation and Rome began with. Calvin makes a philippica against the meritoriousness and the cult of works, through which one lays oneself out to get in God´s good graces: he starts saying, that the reward for works the Gospel speaks of, just is an incentive premium, but ultimately Calvin appears positively to teach a real reward, namely that God wholly for nothing for good pleasure lays into the believer matter for finding pleasure in, that as a work God likes to reward. Even in him I have found two passus even not rejecting the term ´to deserve´. Then there is identity with Trent. But Trent in protestant eyes is suspect. Trent´s text concerned: ´God wants what is his gifts to be merits´ in the way that, granted, God favours man, but this coming to: making able to deserve from one own excellency. It can be demonstrated, however, that Trent´s formulation indeed means a durability of being favoured and that never there is a separation between the moment of being given and that of deserving in the sense of pleasing God and because of this being worth reward with Him.
Synergetism, election and predestination
Something similar also is the case - and now furthermore I restrict myself to part one - with the suspicion of synergetism, the doctrine, that the working of grace is dependent on consentment an cooperation of man. I have refuted the suspicion Trent should present grace as merely enabling whether to cooperate or not on the ground of the verbal text, while myself I give a phaenomenology of how a processus of being converted passes and also by proving, that there is not acceptance or denial at will of God´s offer. This I do on the basis of the tridentine doctrine of election and predestination.
a. By indicating that there is no real reason to assume, that both terms and also a digressing piece on the grace of perseverance is to be taken as pseudo-qualifications but as serious.
b. Strengthen this with the help of a historical background-sketch of the context these concepts were worded in in the early Middle Ages. Here I admit Reformation, which teaches a so-called ´double´ predestination (that is to good and to evil), that R.C. ´predestination to good´ indeed is unthinkable without its immediate logical inversion ´predestination to evil´. But I give a technical analysis of how on one side man owes all God-pleasant deeds to His Holy Spirit, namely to how he mercifully disposes, on the other side all evil is done through God´s proposed relative withdrawal of the guarding working of His Spirit, but so this does not immediately revert into working not and then simply dropping the person concerned. The last however, is something God certainly can do with who has drifted to far away and sometimes He really does. By this view I can prove, how both man has freedom of choice, he anyhow can prevent his damnation, and that God remains the dominator of all His veering and pulling. A total covering one another reformational ´double´ predestination and catholic ´single´ predestination (predestination of only good) is achieved through showing, that in predestination to good the following is the case: On one side God calls, actively and as pleases to Him, all good, still without predestining in this moment a ´numerus fixus´. By this, however, on beforehand some are withdrawn from the real possibility of damnation. On the other hand, in the logical inverted side of predestination to good: predestination to evil it is not so much that God should omit doing so, but that He does not go farther than veering and pulling in the way that God only wants that takes place what man opts: Calvin calls this ´not merely permitting, but this also through His might´, and Trent expresses the same with: ´to operate (it) permittingly´, ´permissive operari´. This is, with a permanent sovereign control on what happens making His acting for this case relatively dependent from what man opts. So God yet provides for the the number of the elected and has this wholly under control.
Usual misunderstandings
By this Erasmus gets wrong who teaches freedom of option at one´s own initiative and do all those who only acknowledge the election of a collective, esteeming only this possible and who interpret what Paul says about this in his letter to the Romans in this way.
On the other side for Reformation I prove, that, otherwise then usually is believed, Calvin
a.teaches with as many words, that man who has been reborn through grace has a free will of decision.
b. That man can take freedom to remove himself from God´s grace temporarily and then I can be, that he opts to loose his grace of justification permanently.
c. That sinner man has a refuge he can flee to for sin and can choose to adhere to Christ, anyhow in the measure of given faith, or to neglect and to get lost.
All this is in spite of God electing him and not inversely.
Assuredness
The third part of ´Justification of Man´ again wholly is dedicated to this problem, namely to the point of (whether or not) being assured of the gift of perseverance, this also in connection with Jürgen Moltmann´s book on this subject. What concerning this is very well felt by Moltmann, is proven by me more extensively and thoroughly, viz. that in Calvin the assurance of salvation of the individual comes to perseveringly ´establish one´s election´.
Old and the new man
As little as Paul Calvin is concerned about God´s sovereignty, if not this concern is the merciful God who is carving for acquitting us in Christ and then the issue is our being rescued from sin, that as a curse lies over our planet. The emphasis is on our situation of original sin, that also in my book is the point of departure to treat God seizing us through His grace. And also part I ´Grace´ ends with the doctrine of original sin, with the purpose in the light of its profound reformational understanding against its misunderstanding or failing intelligence often found in the Roman camp: On the one side of those who fancy to having to explain it as ´being situated´ and even mistakenly suppose it due to reading Paul wrongly. On the other side in front of the Holy See to defend, that the deepest reformational understanding of the doctrine of original sin, even though it appears not necessarily to need an original innocence in a historical sense, yet it can clarify the meaning of the original sin and notably the traditional formula, that it is ´transferred from the beginning "by generation, not imitation"´ existentially with full expressiveness.. So this may have the favourable effect, that the Roman camp can counter its tendencies of attributing too much to man himself and his innocence and too little to God´s grace through a better understanding of its own tradition and of the Scriptures.
Nature and grace
As now God´s grace through history works by means of the Covenants with Noah and Abraham and nearer with Israel and whole mankind and all this notably in the Messiah Jesus in fallen and sinful mankind, the question arises how this operates and how nature and grace mutually are proportioned and what this means for ´the human condition´. Continually this problem is entered in and especially about the impartment of grace in various stages of conversion: of unconvertedness until holiness. This demonstation properly covers the whole history of this pair of notions since Paul´ letter to the Romans, from which by itself also the concept ´supernatural´ looms up. It has an ecumenical importance that, even though Reformation has little affinity with the notion ´supernatural´, nonetheless uses it. The more this is a proof, that Calvin´s Institution, more then later protestants and catholics know, is a book that amply rests on common heritage, which also is clear from the remarkable fact that Calvin appears continually appropriating teachings of the augustinian Bernhard of Clairvaux, even inclusively the acceptance of the term ´merit´.
The destination of man
But of still more importance is the theme nature/supernatural/grace in connection with the relationship of man towards God in relation to the reason why he has been created and what is God´s plan with him and that is to impart to him His own life. The core of my argument is, that the true light in which a lot of terminological and also theological confusion, both interconfessional and indoor catholic, can be swept away, is that broken nature of man is made entire to being the image of God. This takes place by the fact that through God´s mercifulness, thank to Christ by God´ Holy Spirit he through communicating gets participating in God´s life. Even if Calvin acknowledges this completely being the case as restricted to the state of beatitude in eternal life, because we are nothing but receiving sinners, who of the believers in it will deny this? Having a supernatural life is nothing else than life from God in Christ. Also Calvin´s intention was teaching during his life more and more the ´unio mystica´ with Christ and by this more and more he became a disciple of his and Trent´s teacher, the apostle Paul.
The all-penetrating significance of the unindebted grace
On this more is to be said: Man, while being reconciled with God, human nature, needs grace for its repair. Calvin is an eminent witness of this. It is his intention to impress on people, that outside God they are not able to anything and with God are able to everything. Because of this he combats, that there should be an apart territory, human nature, where ´in matters divine´ man should have power to something without needing grace. This completely is contrary to his own piety. As it were there would be a domain God Spirit should not penetrate and that withdraws itself from Him. I have ordered this extraordinary complex that is leading soon to contradictions, also after evaluation of proposals of others, now I think of Rahner and Küng, in the scheme on nature and supernature just indicated, I suppose, in the same dynamical sense as Thomas Aquinas means, who parallelly to Augustine got convinced in his later life of the all-penetrating character of grace.
When now catholic theology in seeming contradiction with Calvin, puts man by nature to be able to doing good works, to solve this contradiction in an ecumenical way, the next can be established.:
a. Also Calvin speaks in this matter of a ´natural - in fact also he means: man not granted with grace´, but whom God´s grace has conceded doing these good works. So what He as well would not need to do.
b. Also according to Trent there cannot be any movement of conversion without grace, so that any man, whether believing or not, in fact may be glad, that he, a sinner, is allowed yet to do good things.
c. With Calvin, who gives here the instances of Cornelius and Naäman, the Syrian, Trent teaches, that a man of a high moral standard who does not yet believe in Christ, he be a Jew or a Greek, has this relative integrity of nature not without the grace of Jesus Christ, that already hiddenly plays a role in his nature and even can justify him, as can made clear with the help of Rom 2.
The all-penetrating nature of grace gets also clear from the unindebtedness of all friendship with God as a characterics of the God-man-relationship as such, even though God would prevent all sinning. This just appears just from the fact that God does not safeguard him from sinning, although at itself He could: an the last then even is to say: if man at first wouldn´t have sinned, he would have done later.
God´s friendship with man is unindebted and stays unindebted, also long after we will not sin anymore in the kingdom of heavens.
The unindebtedness of God´s friendship is expressed in the canons of the synod of Orange and the existential sighing of the Flemish priest-poet Guido Gezelle: ´without thy help I must and shall betray Thee´. This standpoint, that is parted by Augustine and Reformation counters Karl Rahner´s explanation, that the good God-marelationship only should be for nothing because it is out of love. For the latter does not exclude wholly an inner judicial claim. But in the testimony of Roman-Catholic tradition, of Gezelle´s piety, and of Reformation the issue is the explicit undeservedness by reason of the fact that we, like all beings created, are dependent upon God´s support: this means, that from ourselves will be sinners.
Theodicy and Gods will of salvation
And this must be the reason that God need not to safeguard free will from choosing against Him. He cannot dissimulate, that truth cannot help being so, without violating it. For it is just the aid to somebody who from himself, as soon as this aid for a moment is lacking, for sure will like to sin, and for somebody who is like this, all aid is for nothing.
This thesis is to be tested, just held against the light of a well-known argument (f.i. of G.W. Leibniz), that, expressed in a deepened way is as follows: God does not safeguard man from the opportunity, because when he goes to use this opportunity, loses his right for protection, why God should retain him then? Considered as such this argument is entirely right. So one would say: the fact that man sins and consequently there is evil, suffering and death in the world, wholly is due to the misuse man makes of his free will. It is nothing but the price man should pay for having got a free will.
Nevertheless, the last is not correct. Also in the case that God guards man, the latter has a free will and even the more God grants him His grace and thus sets him free. God could prevent all bad and Auschwitz, but has not wanted to do so. In a higher sense this is being unable to, in the same sense like we can say, that God is unable to lie. Therefore the theodicetical solution of this problem should be sought and found on a more fundamental level: Even though God would prevent sin, the proportion sketched above is clear. Of his the catholic priest Guido Gezelle is a witness. Therefore God does not dissimulate and suppress it.
This long explanation would nearly fail to memorise the issue is not so much a testimony of man´s weakness, but the fact that God through His grace through faith wishes to enrich us. And this exactly is what Calvin means too.
The sham controversy on justification
Above we mentioned an important subject in part II ´Justification´. As such this chapter directs itself on the free assignment of our faith as justice. Very extensely is explained, that what Trent with regard to this teaches is exactly the same as what Calvin teaches on the acquittal by faith, while the demanded penance (conversion) to be added, ´to which both Christ and John exhort as a condition for receiving the Kingdom´, must be understood as ´that at the same time the arriving Kingdom offers us the power to penance´. And that the impression of Trent one may have: that justification only follows at the end of a process, is only apparent. And that the impression that in Reformation justification should cover what is lacking in our rebirth also only is apparent. Finding fundamental agreement with contrasting accents does not extinguish the latter, but makes clear what christian elements the parties wanted to witness for, but what henceforeward can be done fraternally and thus for all displays a fullness instead of one-sidednesses.
We recommend the lecture of the central chapter II Justification 15 to have a good impression what matters in my work, yes. even to hit the main issue.
Feedback of separated progressions (Part B)
Also now one can continue where both confessions went asunder whether or not to undergo own progressive developments. This now no longer concerns the clarification of a misunderstanding, but the elaboration from this point of the consequences which the blocus prevented to be seen in one another: f.i. in Reformation what I mentioned already: the advanced neoreformational insight in the essence of original sin, but where roman catholic could not go further. In the Catholica the development of mariology. This is dealt with in part B of ´The Justification of Man´. It is executed here fundamentally from the point where the reformational germ of it stopped in history newly and securely from from the notion of ´justification by faith alone´ on the basis of the Scripture alone. For a good understanding of it a preceding study of part A hardly fails to be an exigence, as B is rooted entirely in A and without the latter cannot be grasped well.
What in mariological problems in short is the issue is, that salvation, the incarnation of God, accomplishes itself by way of the justification of Mary through her faith only. Justification is what takes sin away with consequential coordination of justification and rebirth. As human rebirth is incomplete, but justification total, so the latter is in principle (but so it is really - and in this sense totally - the case), because otherwise a sinner, also just as far as he is a sinner, yet at the same time would be a just(ified), against Ex. 34, 7, for guilt is not innocence. So justification, when we shall go to the the Lord, will complete rebirth (with this is connected the tradition of purgatory, i.e. by assuming, that, of course repentful, rebirth, is a process, be it quick or slow), for sin is distance of/from God. Does now the incarnation with Mary, true, take place as she being a justified, but does God neglect, that she is still a sinner or does He expel sin, because of the impossibility of that? We verify, while if it were bringing Rome and Reformation in a dialogue about it, this problems from the basics.
Involvement of Lutheran theology
One part (C) is dedicated tot the Lutheran perspective of original sin in order not to stay one-sidedly with the dialogue Trent(-Rome)-Geneva(-Dordrecht). In the ´Parallel reading´ on the sacraments the emphasis even will lie more on Luther than on Calvin.
Dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy
Finally still this: laterally and in one of the extended annotations is the dogmatic points of controversy between Western and Eastern Orthodoxies are faced with, especially on Trinity, ´filioque´, on God´s inhabitation (also in connection with Calvin), on the nature of the Holy Spirit, the generation of the Son.
Involvement of Islam
The reader will notice, that now and then is referred to Al-Qoran. Also in ´Parallel reading´ ultimately it will be involved.
A purified concept of the Messiah as a condition for reunification with Israel.
Also a study of the Jewish and Christian concept of the Messiah has been finished, that is to say the conditions to be fulfilled for being recognised as the Messiah. Ecumene is approaching. Because of this it is not out of self-interest, when I request the reader to make known the existence of these investigations to whoever may be interested.
Investigations of the evangelical foundations
To establish that the dogmatical investigation is not one of some illusionary abstractions, but just meant to be able to witness for the same thing, I have extensely occupied myself with the historical-critical method of investigation of the New Testament.
Datings
One article has the purpose through thoroughness to display, that late datings that have grown common nowadays repose on notices that take appearances for realities. Especially it deals with Luke, who with his description of the ruin of Jerusalem, apparently induces to this and this has constituted the beginning of also a late dating of the other gospels and Acts, but it also deals with John.
Starting-points are: what did ´Luke´, when he got informed?, and the impossibility of antedatation of the johannean writings one to another, furthermore some time-indications in the text.
Criticism of ´Formgeschichte´ and ´History of the synoptic Tradition´
Two books, one written against Martin Dibelius and one against Rudolf Bultmann as being important representants of an enormous amount of historical agnosticism to the New Testament contain analyses sticking exactly to their texts and showing up how extremely questionably one has proceeded. If it were we do their work (of Bultnann´s a part) anew by the critical-evalutive way. which avoids the fault of one-sided scepticism and of filling in the resulting vacuum with what often appear to be great improbabilities, at first the theory of community-creation (Gemeindebildung), that ever appears to be a presupposition without proof. This criticism of mine is accompanied by a detectivelike weighing of New Testament communications and details, that introduces us further in what must have been the case than the abstract thought of these two German newtestament-scholars.