This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
Examination
We limit ourselves to a brief examination and explanation of what has been said in the Tridentine decrees and Andrada’s elaborations. These can be summarized under four chief points which treat:
- Whether good works are to be done;
- What are the good works in which the regenerate ought to exercise obedience according to God’s will;
- Whether the obedience of the regenerate in this life is the perfect fulfillment of the Law;
- The merit and reward of good works.
10:1: Whether Good Works Are to Be Done
[1] The Tridentine council accuses us in the eleventh chapter of flattering ourselves through the doctrine of “faith alone” into thinking we are free from the observance of God’s commandments. Additionally, in the nineteenth canon they clandestinely ascribe to us the teaching that nothing is commanded other than faith, and that everything else is indifferent. These papal distortions have already been properly reviewed by us and emphatically refuted. They treat this question with so much trouble, however, in order to pretend before the unexperienced that the main question between the papists and us is whether good works are to be done.
[2] Therefore, I shall briefly recount only the chief points of the exhortations to the exercise of good works, which are customarily proclaimed in our churches from Scripture.
First, it is to be impressed that God by no means gives the justified and regenerate free rein that they may dare to freely and carelessly give in to their passions. 1 Thessalonians 4:7: “God has not called us for impurity, but for holiness.”
Second, this is also certain: God does not wish to see the justified and regenerate idle and without good works. Matthew 20:6: “Why do you idly stand here the whole day?”
Third, the Scripture passages which commend the exercise of good works to the justified and righteous are neither doubtful nor obscure. Ephesians 2:10: “We are His work, created in Christ Jesus for good works.”
Fourth, Scripture does not regard this obedience of the justified and regenerate as merely advisable, or a matter of convenience, but rather as necessary according to the will and commandments of God. John 13:34: “This I command you, that You love one another.”
Fifth, Scripture adds to this that there is no true faith which is not active through love. 1 John 2:4: “He who says, ‘I know God,’ and does not keep the commandments, is a liar.”
Sixth, this threat is presented against transgressors: “The Lord is the avenger concerning all of these things” (1 Thessalonians 4:6).
[3] This is the delusion of the papists: If good works are not to be done to achieve reconciliation, adoption, and eternal life, then they should be omitted.
[4] Although we do not attain reconciliation through works, there do arise from free grace many important and pressing reasons for the performance of new obedience. Of these reasons, first, some refer to God, namely: to the Father, “Because you call on Him as Father, you should be holy” (1 Peter 1:16–17); to the Son, “And He purified for Himself a people for possession” (Titus 2:14); to the Spirit, “Since we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25). Second, other pressing reasons refer to the regenerate themselves, “Walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8). Third, some refer to the neighbor, “Let us give no one a cause for offense” (2 Corinthians 6:3), etc.
10:2: What the Good Works Are in Which the Regenerated Should Exercise Obedience according to God’s Will
[4] According to Andrada’s explanation, the five following points are treated from the Roman perspective:
1. The laws which are issued by the Roman pontiff and the church officials, although they are not commanded or attested in God’s Word, are nevertheless to be observed in all their points as though they were divine.
2. An infringement upon such traditions is often a greater crime than the transgression of the divine commandments.
3. The binding power of such traditions is of such a nature and strength that whoever in receiving the Lord’s Supper would follow the testamentary institution of God’s Son rather than the prescription of church officials is held to be a pagan and tax collector.
4. Through the observance of such traditions, men are justified before God unto eternal life. This is not imagined, rather it is stated verbatim from the council and according to Andrada.
5. What more presumptuous brazenness could be conceived than to place the traditions of men on the exact same level as the commandments of God? Indeed, in such a way that the violation of human traditions should be a greater crime than the transgression of God’s commandments, that it should be a damnable crime if, when receiving the Lord’s Supper in both kinds, one does not hold the human commandment higher than the institution of the Son of God!
Pelagius was once condemned because he ascribed justification to the observance of the divine law. But now in the Council of Trent, they do not shy away from explaining that the person justified by unmerited grace is more justified through the observance of God’s commandments and human traditions. Thus, the merit of eternal life is ascribed to the observance of God’s commandments and obedience to statutes of men. What words do you think Paul would have called out had he heard such blasphemy of God? But because in these last times, according to the foretelling of Christ and the apostles, the power of an erring spirit reigns, such is not only written with impunity, rather it is announced in the Tridentine council like an oracle of the Holy Spirit!
[8] God sets forth His Word as the measure of good works so that He may reject the self-chosen service to God and the orders that are taught by men in the understanding that they are thereby doing a service to God. And He ensures that His Word is the perfect standard for He says, “You shall add nothing to it nor take anything away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32); “Turn not away from it to the right or to the left” (Deuteronomy 5:32).
[11] Let us further hear what arguments Andrada sets against these passages of Scripture in order to protect the commands of the church officials in the manner stated above.
1. “Whoever hears you, hears Me; whoever despises you, despises Me” (Luke 10:16). Thus, it is Christ’s command that we should hear the church officials as none other than Christ Himself, that we should obey them in all things, their commandments, as though God had given them, follow them, and regard them as God’s commandments rather than the commandments of men.
To this I answer: This statement of Christ certainly contains an utterly sweet kernel of teaching and comfort, namely, when the servants of the Word demonstrate their teaching from God’s Word, they should be heard as though a divine voice came down to us from heaven.
But Andrada does not want this. Rather, he assumes Christ gave church officials absolute power to announce, determine, and command what they want with or without the basis of Scripture; despite all this, the church is obligated to be obedient. However, Christ did not at all mean this with His words. Rather, He gives the apostles and the seventy disciples specific commands for their ministry, as fixed boundaries and, so to speak, church barriers, with which He encloses and encompasses their office.
2. Andrada further concocts an argument from Acts 15:23–29: Christ did not command that Gentile converts should abstain from blood, from what has been strangled, etc. Nevertheless, the apostles in this passage place a law upon the Gentiles and confidently maintain that it not only pleases them but also pleases the Holy Spirit. Thus, the church has the divine authority to give laws also about that which Christ either did not teach or was even abolished by Him.
The apostles did not adopt that decision without cause and testimony from Scripture. Moreover, they did not thereby make into law that which Christ forbade. Rather, according to the rule which God’s Word offers, they made every decision concerning the use of freedom in indifferent matters. But that they name such elements necessary does not mean that the apostles wanted to make a matter of necessity for the Gentiles out of what Christ allowed, as it had been at the time of the Law. For Paul sharply refutes this (Galatians 2:14–18; Colossians 2:16–23). But at that time, love demanded that the converts from the Gentiles should not use their freedom among the Jews for the edification of their neighbor. With this limitation and understanding, the apostles say that that which in and of itself is free is a matter of necessity, not in itself, nor always, nor everywhere, but because they want what is edifying for those who are weaker to be taken into consideration.
Thus, the Holy Spirt certainly lends His assistance to the office in the church, but He does not allow them to adopt all laws freely and without restraint, rather He guides the church according to Christ’s word: “He will remind you of everything which I said to you” (John 14:26).
3. The words of Christ, “The scribes and Pharisees sit upon the seat of Moses. Everything which they tell you, you observe and do,” Andrada explains thus, that Christ thereby not only made the commandments of Moses obligatory, but also the decrees of his successors, the scribes and Pharisees. He draws his major premise from his minor premise: in the new covenant one must be an obedient servant to the church officials. I do not cite this argument because it requires a tedious explanation, but rather that the reader’s eyes may thereby be opened concerning papal desire for power and their diligent manner of biblical interpretation.
10:3: Whether the Works of the Regenerate in This Life Are So Perfect that They Can Abundantly and Completely Satisfy the Divine Law
[2] This point of dispute is of great importance, for without the proper explanation of this question, there is:
1. No well-ordered understanding of the teaching of Scripture concerning the knowledge and confession of sins which still cling to saints in this life.
2. Without clarity on this point, the article of justification cannot exist in its purity.
For it is necessary to show where the regenerate can seek a complete fulfillment of the Law, in order to set it against the accusation of the Law and the wrath of God before God’s judgment and thus to be declared righteous unto salvation and eternal life. With the incomplete beginning of righteousness, the regenerate cannot stand in God’s judgment. Therefore, they lay hold of their Christ in faith, who is the end of the Law unto righteousness for every believer.
[4] With what deceptive devices the eleventh chapter of the Tridentine council is fashioned ought to be shown to the reader in a few words. The word “perfection” is intentionally avoided. They do not say explicitly what they mean and intend, namely, that the perfect fulfillment of the Law is possible and easy through the works of the regenerate in this life. Rather, they say in general terms that the observance of God’s Law is not impossible with God’s help for those who are justified.
[5] They likewise play a game with the word “impossibility.” For they remind us that the Pelagians once spoke with Augustine in subtle speech, saying that it is not impossible according to the absolute omnipotence of God for one who is regenerate to be without sin in this life through God’s grace. But Augustine answered that it is another question whether one could only be or whether one actually is.[1]
[8] The development of the matter is simplified since Andrada admits and recognizes the four chief and fundamental principles of this question.
First, the renewal or health that has begun in the regenerate through the Holy Spirit in this life is not complete or concluded.
Second, no one in this life can fulfill the commandment, “You shall love God, your Lord with your whole heart, whole soul, and with all your mind and power,” or the commandment, “You shall not covet.”
Third, on account of the flesh, in which nothing good dwells, only what is wicked, and because of the law of sin in the members of the regenerate, which resists the Law in their mind, no one who is regenerate is without sin.
Fourth, Paul explicitly says in Romans 7:18, “I truly desire, but I am not able to bring it to completion”; Philippians 3:12, “Not that I have already obtained it or am already perfect.”
[9] These principles, which are completely clear and apparent, Andrada admits and recognizes. Nevertheless, at the same time he defends the papist principle that the divine Law can be observed and fulfilled entirely and completely by the regenerate in this life. He admits that these principles appear to possibly contradict and oppose one another. Yet he still promises to show that both of these statements are entirely true.
[10] He therefore disputes that people are indeed bound in this life even by that part of Law which cannot be completely fulfilled in our earthly life. God has only prescribed that which we are able to perform with divine help according to the conditions of this life. What remains in the Law is not obligatory for people of this life, but rather belongs to the future immortal existence. Therefore, the children of Israel, together with Moses, were unreasonable to fearfully cry out, “If we continue to hear the Lord’s voice, we will die.” According to Andrada’s view, they were afraid for no reason to be bound through those commandments of the Law which are unable to be fulfilled in this life. But Moses did not preach this judgment of the Law to the glorious saints of the hereafter, but to those of this life: “Cursed is everyone who does not remain in everything which is written in the book of the Law, in order to do it.” Among other things written in the book of the Law, there is this chief commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart,” likewise the commandment, “You shall not covet.”
[12] But Andrada cobbles together several arguments from the decrees of the Council of Trent to support his opinion. He says it is a slander against God, the lawgiver, to claim He has commanded something which no one is able to perfectly fulfill in this life and natural depravity. As though because of the corruption of nature the rule of the Law, which is the consistent and unchanging standard of God’s righteousness, had to be changed and bent! Rather, because not one tittle should fall away from the Law without being fulfilled, therefore God sent His Son, who was under the Law, in order to redeem those who were under the Law. Now John says that the children of God in this life love God: “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” But the question is not whether the regenerate possess love—we admit this—rather, whether the love of the regenerate is pure, perfect, and complete.
[13] More marvelous is the reason which John states: “God’s commandments are not difficult.” Certainly in the renewal begun by the Holy Spirit, there is an ascent of a good conscience in the regenerate. But what is lacking in perfection, that faith asks to be covered for the sake of Christ and not reckoned. In this sense the commandments of God are not difficult, namely: for the children of God. Because they are the children of God, they are driven because they are driven by the Holy Spirit, and that which is not achieved is forgiven for the sake of Christ.
In this way the regenerate are also called perfect:
First, because faith in Christ, due to imputation, possesses the most perfect fulfillment of the Law unto righteousness and salvation.
Second, the Holy Spirit renews the hearts of believers and kindles them with His love, so that they begin to fulfill the Law.
Third, what is incomplete and impure in that righteousness which has begun is, for the sake of Christ, not reckoned to the believer, but rather covered.
[15] But the strongest argument is this: sin is a transgression of the divine Law. Surely no one among the saints of this life is without sin. Thus, no one satisfies the Law perfectly in this life; rather, all are transgressors of the Law, because they are sinners. Andrada, the interpreter of the council, maintains, however: venial sins are so minor and so insignificant, that they could not be a hindrance towards a perfect and complete fulfillment of the Law, since they are worthy that forgiveness, rather than the wrath of God and damnation, should fall to them, even if God desires to enter into judgment with them.
Now, although there are differences and degrees of sins, there is no sin so insignificant and slight that it is not a wrongdoing which is a transgression of the divine Law.
10:4: The Rewards and Merits of Good Works
[1] The forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, adoption, salvation, and eternal life come not from our merit, but rather are gifts of grace which the Son of God has obtained and faith takes hold. But where good works please God through faith and for the sake of the mediator, they subsequently bring along for the reconciled spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life. Indeed, this happens out of pure grace, according to divine promise. For God has promised out of pure fatherly goodness and mercy that He wishes to adorn the sluggish, incomplete, and impure obedience of His children with rewards. These promises ought to arouse zeal in the regenerate to be diligent unto good works. For though the rewards are promised out of grace and mercy, they are nevertheless not given to the idlers, but rather to the workers of the Lord’s vineyard.
In this way, the word “merit” is used in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Württemberg Confession, and in other writings of ours. With this understanding we proclaim in our churches the teachings of Scripture concerning the reward of good works.[2] See 1 Timothy 4:8: “Godliness is valuable in all things and has a promise for this life and the life to come.”
[2] The disputes between the papists and us consist chiefly in two points:
First, they teach that the regenerate with their works actually merit not only other spiritual and bodily rewards, but even eternal life itself.
Second, they hold that the rewards for good works are not given out of grace, but rather out of obligation, because the good works of the regenerate according to the condition of this life completely satisfy God’s Law.
[3] Thus, the Council of Trent simply repeats and confirms the scholastic fabrications concerning the merit from worthiness, according to which eternal life must be awarded to good works due to the obligation of divine righteousness.
[9] This is their first reason for why the merit of eternal life depends upon our works: they claim that the justified completely satisfy the divine Law with their works for this situation of life. It has already been indicated above how false this assumption is (see the Third Question).
[10] Second, they say that the works of the regenerate receive power and efficacy so that they can merit the forgiveness of sins, adoption, blessedness, and eternal life, not from themselves, but from Christ, in whom the regenerate are grafted, and by the Holy Spirit, through whose renewal those works come to be. But Scripture desires the praise and majesty of earning such things to be attributed to Christ the mediator and not to the works of the regenerate. For Christ did not suffer to attribute such power and efficacy to our works, that we should then earn through them the forgiveness of sins, adoption, and even eternal life itself. Rather, the mediator and Son of God acquires those immeasurable treasures for us through His obedience and His suffering, when He was made under the Law, so that all praise for works may be excluded (Romans 3:27).
[11] This also may be considered: During this life the law of sin in the members of the regenerate opposes the Law in their spirit in such a way that they desire to do what is good upon the impulse of the Spirit, but they do not carry it out.
[12] The second point of contention refers to the question of whether the good works of the regenerate are endowed with their rewards due to an obligation of divine justice.
[13] Scripture, however, cites some reasons for why the rewards of good works are not due to an obligation of divine righteousness on account of merit but rather are given on account of the free grace of fatherly goodness.
First, Christ does this in Luke 17:10 with a long parable: “Thus you shall say, when you have done everything that was commanded of you: ‘We are unworthy servants, we have done what we were obligated to do.’”
Second, the imperfection stemming from the law of sin and the wickedness which clings to the works of the regenerate in this life makes it so that the wage is not given out of duty but because of grace.
Third, “the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory which will be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18).
Fourth, “not that we are capable of ourselves” (2 Corinthians 3:5), rather “it is God who works in us both to desire and act according to His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
[14] For this reason, Scripture indeed speaks of wage and repayment but does not use the word “merit.”
[15] This reminder makes it necessary that with the practice of good works a pharisaical pride or arrogance concerning one’s own worthiness does not seize the regenerate and occupy their hearts.
These are the chief points which were handled in the sixth session of the Council of Trent.
With my whole heart I pray that God, the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, may guard the light of His Word in our churches through His Holy Spirit, protect us from the papistic darkness, and preserve us in the true knowledge of Him unto eternal life. Amen.
NOTES:
[1] “‘Well, be it so,’ says he [i.e. Pelagius], ‘I agree; he testifies to the fact that all were sinners. He says, indeed, what they have been, not that they might not have been something else. Wherefore,’ he adds, ‘if all then could be proved to be sinners, it would not by any means prejudice our own definite position, in insisting not so much on what men are, as on what they are able to be.’ He is right for once to allow that no man living is justified in God’s sight. He contends, however, that this is not the question, but that the point lies in the possibility of a man’s not sinning, — on which subject it is unnecessary for us to take ground against him; for, in truth, I do not much care about expressing a definite opinion on the question, whether in the present life there ever have been, or now are, or ever can be, any persons who have had, or are having, or are to have, the love of God so perfectly as to admit of no addition to it (for nothing short of this amounts to a most true, full, and perfect righteousness). For I ought not too sharply to contend as to when, or where, or in whom is done that which I confess and maintain can be done by the will of man, aided by the grace of God. Nor do I indeed contend about the actual possibility, forasmuch as the possibility under dispute advances with the realization in the saints, their human will being healed and helped; while ‘the love of God,’ as fully as our healed and cleansed nature can possibly receive it, ‘is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us’ (Romans 5:5). In a better way, therefore, is God’s cause promoted (and it is to its promotion that our author professes to apply his warm defense of nature) when He is acknowledged as our Saviour no less than as our Creator, than when His succour to us as Saviour is impaired and dwarfed to nothing by the defense of the creature, as if it were sound and its resources entire. What he says, however, is true enough, ‘that God is as good as just, and made man such that he was quite able to live without the evil of sin, if only he had been willing.’ For who does not know that man was made whole and faultless, and endowed with a free will and a free ability to lead a holy life? Our present inquiry, however, is about the man whom ‘the thieves’ left half dead on the road, and who, being disabled and pierced through with heavy wounds, is not so able to mount up to the heights of righteousness as he was able to descend therefrom; who, moreover, if he is now in ‘the inn’ (Luke 10:34), is in process of cure. God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do. Now, we should see whence comes the possibility, and whence the impossibility. This man says: ‘That proceeds not from a man’s will which he can do by nature.’ I say: A man is not righteous by his will if he can be by nature. He will, however, be able to accomplish by remedial aid what he is rendered incapable of doing by his flaw. But why need we tarry longer on general statements? Let us go into the core of the question, which we have to discuss with our opponents solely, or almost entirely, on one particular point. For inasmuch as he says that ‘as far as the present question is concerned, it is not pertinent to inquire whether there have been or now are any men in this life without sin, but whether they had or have the ability to be such persons;’ so, were I even to allow that there have been or are any such, I should not by any means therefore affirm that they had or have the ability, unless justified by the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Nature and Grace, Chapters 49-50 [XLII-XLIII], NPNF1-05, link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm
“All these products of concupiscence, and the old guilt of concupiscence itself, are put away by the washing of baptism. And whatever that concupiscence now brings forth, if they are not those products which are called not only sins, but even crimes, are purified by that method of daily prayer when we say, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we forgive,’ and by the sincerity of alms-giving. For no one is so foolish as to say that that precept of our Lord does not refer to baptized people: ‘Forgive and it shall be forgiven you, give and it shall be given you.’ But none could rightly be ordained a minister in the Church if the apostle had said, ‘If any is without sin,’ where he says, ‘If any is without crime;’ or if he had said, ‘Having no sin,’ where he says, ‘Having no crime.’ Because many baptized believers are without crime, but I should say that no one in this life is without sin,—however much the Pelagians are inflated, and burst asunder in madness against me because I say this: not because there remains anything of sin which is not remitted in baptism; but because by us who remain in the weakness of this life such sins do not cease daily to be committed, as are daily remitted to those who pray in faith and work in mercy. This is the soundness of the catholic faith, which the Holy Spirit everywhere sows,—not the vanity and presumption of spirit of heretical pravity.” – Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapter 28, NPNF1-05, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xviii.iii.xxviii.html
[2] “For good works are to be done on account of God’s command, likewise for the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2:10: We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on account of confession and giving of thanks. For these reasons good works ought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in the flesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of the Holy Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account of Christ, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining to the government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before this world. For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil, and, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to the kingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness, declares His power. The dangers, labors, and sermons of the Apostle Paul, of Athanasius, Augustine, and the like, who taught the churches, are holy works, are true sacrifices acceptable to God, are contests of Christ through which He repressed the devil, and drove him from those who believed. David’s labors, in waging wars and in his home government, are holy works, are true sacrifices, are contests of God, defending the people who had the Word of God against the devil, in order that the knowledge of God might not be entirely extinguished on earth. We think thus also concerning every good work in the humblest callings and in private affairs. Through these works Christ celebrates His victory over the devil, just as the distribution of alms by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 16:1, was a holy work, and a sacrifice and contest of Christ against the devil, who labors that nothing may be done for the praise of God. To disparage such works, the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications of the flesh, would be indeed to disparage the outward government of Christ’s kingdom among men. Here also we add something concerning rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life, because Paul says, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor. There will, therefore be different rewards according to different labors. But the remission of sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and is offered freely to all who believe that for Christ’s sake their sins are remitted. Therefore the remission of sins and justification are received only by faith, and not on account of any works, as is evident in the terrors of conscience, because none of our works can be opposed to God’s wrath, as Paul clearly says, Rom. 5:1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith, etc.” – Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article V, §68-74, link: https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-v/
