A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[anthony022071]

[TriuneUnity]

“Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.” CCC 2010 Speaks of initial justification…this is what the JDDJ is affirming. Note how we cannot merit justification at conversion but later, we can.

Yes,because we will be judged by our works,not by faith alone.

The JDDJ did not do away with these statements of the Catechism; otherwise the Roman Catholic participants would’ve been condemned by the Church as schismatic. As long as Rome officially holds these views; in contradiction to the teaching of the Word, and the Lutheran Confessions, we must proclaim the doctrine false, thus, anti-Christ. Granted, we could pick a less inflammatory word, but it’s Biblical. We must fear God rather than men.

It isn’t in contradiction to the Word. Who before Luther said that we are saved by faith alone?

 

[TriuneUnity]

And yet we choose not to.

We can always choose to. But unfortunately, Kieschnick won’t listen to anything I say LoL. Besides, the Synod is just individual congregations that agree on a constitution; the Synod doesn’t even choose to do this kind of stuff (although this is changing somewhat).

I would say that this is not a confusing of justification and sanctification, rather a closer blending, but not unacceptable under the confessions.

It’s unacceptable to the Confessions because the Confessions were written in contradistinction to this very theology. Rome has not changed its doctrine of “justification” at all. Not in Luther’s day, not now.

I believe both Catholics and Lutherans are understandibly caught in our semantic approaches to this issue. I believe that, under the semantics, reasonable unity of doctrine exists. The JDDJ s not perfect, but the HS can lead us to further understanding if, through charity, we are willing to talk and listen.

Certainly, a term like antichrist gets in the way.

Jon

It’s not a matter of semantics, my friend. It’s a matter of two different versions of the gospel message at odds with one another. One places man partly as the reason justification takes place. You point out the parts of the JDDJ that state good works follow justification; what the Roman side left out is the theology of adding TO our justification by those resultant good works.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do you see why the term is so unnecessarily inflamatory? We can, with only great difficulty, discuss with the Catholic Church the doctrine of the papacy, because of this condemnation. We can say,“the papacy is wrong on this or that issue”, and talks with our brothers and sisters continue in Christian love. It is more difficult with the term antichrist in place.
To this extent I agree with Mark; to some degree we cannot distinguish between the man and the office. He is either Christian or not, and therefore so is the office. My disagreements with Benedict XVI notwithstanding, he is a Christian, as is his office.

Jon

Joseph Ratzinger was a Christian prior to his election to Pope. His election doesn’t change the fact of whether he is justified by faith or not. The office itself and the result doctrines therefore precede him, and were not articulated by him.

As for inflammatory comments, I agree they are unnecessary if they are unnecessary. I would contend when it comes to the papacy, they are not. Our message must be truth spoken in love but truth must be stated. The Pope did not worry whether his statement that Protestant churches were, in fact, not churches was inflammatory or not (and rightly so…at least he stands by his convictions on the matter). The Gospel itself is offensive to dead sinners’ ears. That doesnt mean we change it to accomodate people. If the doctrine of the papacy is false, then it is a doctrine of anti-Christ.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And yet we choose not to.

By the way, Jon. I went to worship this morning at a WELS congregation. The oncoming rush of evangelical worship styles and theological mushyism in the LCMS will be here post-haste.

 

[anthony022071]

It’s not a matter of semantics, my friend. It’s a matter of two different versions of the gospel message at odds with one another. One places man partly as the reason justification takes place.

 

[mark_a]

Joseph Ratzinger was a Christian prior to his election to Pope.

Joseph Ratzinger had already given his entire life to the Church and was ready to retire if JPII had allowed him to.

So far so good.

His election doesn’t change the fact of whether he is justified by faith or not. The office itself and the result doctrines therefore precede him, and were not articulated by him.

Instead of retiring, he somewhat reluctantly took the office of the papacy when elected by the college of Cardinals.

So is he damned just for accepting the office of the papacy?

Are the world’s Catholics, some of whom are Christians by your own admission, doomed to the failed leadership of an antichrist? How can we remain Christian?

 

[JonNC]

So is he damned just for accepting the office of the papacy?

Are the world’s Catholics, some of whom are Christians by your own admission, doomed to the failed leadership of an antichrist? How can we remain Christian?

triune can speak for himself. But I clearly could not believe he is damned, since that decision is *well *above my pay grade.

On your second point, noncatholics have been asking that question of Rome for centuries. Lumen Gentium answers that clearly that we can be saved. I have no doubt that Catholics as Christians are also saved. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”. I contend we should not be questioning each other’s salvation, but instead working together to reach true unity. My proposal herein is an attempt to not only rid language that I think is no longer needed, but also bring us closer together in Christian love.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

My proposal herein is an attempt to not only rid language that I think is no longer needed, but also bring us closer together in Christian love.

I like your pastoral approach.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So is he damned just for accepting the office of the papacy?

No. I have no reason to think the man isn’t a Christian. Heterodox, to be sure, but who am I to question his trust in Christ for salvation? I would question more Protestants I have met by far than I would Ratzinger.

Are the world’s Catholics, some of whom are Christians by your own admission, doomed to the failed leadership of an antichrist? How can we remain Christian?

No; our salvation does not depend on 100% correct doctrine. It depends solely on the Christ crucified. There are many doctrines that Rome teaches that I believe can kill a person’s faith, but the Spirit gives life, not the Pope, nor can the Pope take it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

triune can speak for himself. But I clearly could not believe he is damned, since that decision is *well *above my pay grade.

Mine too. I’d have to question not only his faith but also his Baptism; who the heck am I to do that? That would be to question the promises of God.

I contend we should not be questioning each other’s salvation, but instead working together to reach true unity. My proposal herein is an attempt to not only rid language that I think is no longer needed, but also bring us closer together in Christian love.

Jon

We should never question the salvation of Catholics. That is the purview of the dangerous error of fundamentalism. Christian love, however, calls us to state clearly what a false doctrine is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am not against unity at all.
i just have a question on how this is going ot work out.

as you know the CC is different in issues such as, obedience, priesthood, celibacy, Eucharist, etc…

how is all this going to fit with you way of worshipping though?

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[mark_a]

No. I have no reason to think the man isn’t a Christian. Heterodox, to be sure, but who am I to question his trust in Christ for salvation? I would question more Protestants I have met by far than I would Ratzinger.

No; our salvation does not depend on 100% correct doctrine. It depends solely on the Christ crucified. There are many doctrines that Rome teaches that I believe can kill a person’s faith, but the Spirit gives life, not the Pope, nor can the Pope take it.

Sounds like you agree with the op more than you’d admit.

 

[JonNC]

I am not against unity at all.
i just have a question on how this is going ot work out.

as you know the CC is different in issues such as, obedience, priesthood, celibacy, Eucharist, etc…

how is all this going to fit with you way of worshipping though?

Hi Wisdom,
Well, I am not Benedict XVI, or Kieschnick, or Kasper or Hanson, and I am certainly not the Holy Spirit. Those are the people, guided by Him, that need to work these things out. The point of my proposal to my fellow Lutherans is to eliminate what I believe to be an unnecessary obstacle to the efforts of unity. I sincerely believe, however that it can be done.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

Jon,

I appreciate your original post and agree with you. The way to understanding one another and, eventually, to some degree of unity is not found in name-calling (which I consider, at least in this time, the use of the term “antiChrist” in reference to the papacy to be).

One might take a biblical description of the antiChrist from 1 John 2:22 (New International Version).

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

I am not aware of any pope, current or past, who fits that description. To be sure, there were popes who were not the holiest of men, but none denied the Father and the Son.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sounds like you agree with the op more than you’d admit.

I do not disagree with his motives, only that confessionally, we believe the papacy to be anti-Christ, and do not think it to be removed simply to build relationships.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I appreciate your original post and agree with you. The way to understanding one another and, eventually, to some degree of unity is not found in name-calling (which I consider, at least in this time, the use of the term “antiChrist” in reference to the papacy to be).

One might take a biblical description of the antiChrist from 1 John 2:22 (New International Version).

I am not aware of any pope, current or past, who fits that description. To be sure, there were popes who were not the holiest of men, but none denied the Father and the Son.

Dear Pastor Gary,
Thank you for your post, especially since I have not been completely complimentary of the ELCA.
I am most appreciative of your scripture reference.

I also want Triuneunity to know that while we disagree, I appreciate his strong defense of the confession. It would do none of us any good if Lutherans (or Catholics) were to “cave”. Unity must come, not from compromise, but from a commonality of belief, even though at times expressed differently.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi Wisdom,
Well, I am not Benedict XVI, or Kieschnick, or Kasper or Hanson, and I am certainly not the Holy Spirit. Those are the people, guided by Him, that need to work these things out. The point of my proposal to my fellow Lutherans is to eliminate what I believe to be an unnecessary obstacle to the efforts of unity. I sincerely believe, however that it can be done.

Jon

that is very noble of you.
now what do you consider unnecessary obstacle to be elimanated?
i am just trrying to understand all this.
i like lutherans and i believe they are trying for unity. but our differences are not so small as you think they are.

Peace

Peace.

 

[JonNC]

that is very noble of you.
now what do you consider unnecessary obstacle to be elimanated?
i am just trrying to understand all this.
i like lutherans and i believe they are trying for unity. but our differences are not so small as you think they are.
Peace.

And peace to you.

The unnecessary obstacle I am speaking of is the condemnation of the papacy as antichrist in the Lutheran Confessions. It is outdated, inflammatory, and an obstacle to charity, ecumenism, and eventual unity.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

And peace to you.

The unnecessary obstacle I am speaking of is the condemnation of the papacy as antichrist in the Lutheran Confessions. It is outdated, inflammatory, and an obstacle to charity, ecumenism, and eventual unity.

Jon

I see. i agree with you on that.

and i assume they will if they are to join the CC.

once i met a lutheran pastor, he seemed to be a good man. i asked him: so do you also hate the CC like all the others? he told me not at all. he continue to say that the CC had seven Sacrament and his church only had two.
we talked about the rosary and he was agreable in praying the rosay. so maybe there is more like him in the lutheran church.

Peace

 

[JonNC]

I see. i agree with you on that.

and i assume they will if they are to join the CC.

once i met a lutheran pastor, he seemed to be a good man. i asked him: so do you also hate the CC like all the others? he told me not at all. he continue to say that the CC had seven Sacrament and his church only had two.
we talked about the rosary and he was agreable in praying the rosay. so maybe there is more like him in the lutheran church.

Peace

There certainly are.

Jon