Usually polemics does tend to start a polemical discussion. You’re correct that we teach justification by faith alone. We do not, however, teach justification through an inwardly divined, nebulous concept of election apart from God’s word and sacraments, however.Per Crucem - I was not intending to start a polemical discussion. You claim to be Lutheran, and Martin Luther taught justification by faith alone.
Neither do we. The means of grace are the means by which God inworks faith. And those means alone.Usually polemics does tend to start a polemical discussion. You’re correct that we teach justification by faith alone. We do not, however, teach justification through an inwardly divined, nebulous concept of election apart from God’s word and sacraments, however.
Then you should acknowledge that the sacraments are more than mere signs and seals (which Scripture never calls them), but are God’s power unto salvation (as Scripture does call them).Neither do we. The means of grace are the means by which God inworks faith. And those means alone.
Scripture never calls the Godhead “the Holy Trinity”. Is that illegitimate terminology? Are you seriously mounting that argument? And I never said “mere” signs and seals - the sacraments sign and seal what God gives by grace alone through faith alone. See the account of Abraham for instance: justified by faith, signed and sealed by circumcision.Then you should acknowledge that the sacraments are more than mere signs and seals (which Scripture never calls them), but are God’s power unto salvation (as Scripture does call them).
Nope. However, you know that Scripture refers to three persons, so therefore calling them Trinity - which just means three - is there. I don’t see sign and seal language. I do salvation language.Scripture never calls the Godhead “the Holy Trinity”. Is that illegitimate terminology? Are you seriously mounting that argument?
Can you describe where an apostle or OT prophet said “Circumcision now saves you.”And I never said “mere” signs and seals - the sacraments sign and seal what God gives by grace alone through faith alone. See the account of Abraham for instance: justified by faith, signed and sealed by circumcision.
I’m not going to engage with you until you learn to substitute this immature belligerence for a mature hermeneutical discussion of the matter. For one thing, learn to articulate your own position. For another, learn the Reformed position. I’m not going to have a sub-Jehovah’s Witnesses style proof-texting session on an internet forum with someone who clearly isn’t able to debate in a mature fashion.Can you describe where an apostle or OT prophet said “Circumcision now saves you.”
Thank you Indifferently for taking the time to present your answer.7 Sorrows:
This is a brief introduction to the soteric differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic views. As you can see these are radically different religions.
- Roman Catholicism teaches that baptism is the instrument of justification. Reformed confessions teach that faith alone is the instrument of justification, and baptism is the sign and seal.
- Roman Catholicism teaches that God’s grace can be effectively resisted by someone who wills not to be saved. Protestantism teaches that all men will not to be saved, until they are effectually called by God, in which case their disposition towards God changes. This is sometimes called “irresistible grace” or more accurately “effectual calling”.
- Roman Catholicism generally teaches that God elects and reprobates according to what he knows in advance people will choose. So he “elects” you because he knows you will co-operate with his grace. He “reprobates” you based on his knowledge of you rejecting co-operation with his grace. Protestantism teaches that God elects some to salvation despite their sins, and because of the work of Jesus Christ, and reprobates others in just punishment for their rebellion and sin. i.e. RCism - God chose us because we choose him. Protestantism - we choose God because he chose us.
- RCism teaches that justification is a process, begun in baptism and increased (a transformation of the individual soul) by an infusion of grace throughout the life of the believer. This is accomplished by participation in the sacraments, and if we “make shipwreck” of our faith by “mortal (serious) sin” we can regain it by the sacrament of penance. If this process of subjective transformation of the sinner is not complete by death, such that perfect righteousness “inheres” in the believer, then the believer will spend time in Purgatory to make up the difference. Protestants including Anglicans teach that justification is the reckoning or imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the account of the believer - Christ’s righteousness reckoned to us (God counts us righteous, although we are not) and our sins reckoned to him (God counted Jesus a sinner at the cross, and punished him, in our place). This is called “the great exchange”.
And we know what you want the term to mean.Ugh. One of the reasons I’m not all that keen on the term “Anglican”. Reformed Protestant according to the Reformed Protestant Church of England’s Reformed and Protestant formularies. Divorce yourself from that, and the term “Anglican” means whatever you want it to mean.
I prefer to root the term in history.
i.e., “I can’t answer a very straight forward question, so I will resort to ad hominem in order to avoid answering it.”I’m not going to engage with you until you learn to substitute this immature belligerence for a mature hermeneutical discussion of the matter. For one thing, learn to articulate your own position. For another, learn the Reformed position. I’m not going to have a sub-Jehovah’s Witnesses style proof-texting session on an internet forum with someone who clearly isn’t able to debate in a mature fashion.
The word translated into English as “subsists” was chosen specifically to avoid using the word “is”.The way the Church uses “subsists,” it means that the one true religion is singularly and permanently found in the Catholic Church.
I thought, at one time, that CofE was a blend of Protestant and Catholic but no longer. CofE since splitting from Rome, has been a power struggle between high-Church Lutheranism and Calvinism. Degrees are all that vary between worship styles, clergy, parishes, and individuals.I am no longer an Anglican, but I refuse to let this slide past as the truth. The C of E and the Anglican communion are NOT five point TULIP Calvinists.
Even though indifferently believes that they are.
There was a brief time, very brief when Calvinism held sway in England, and it was gone nearly as quickly as it started.
The C of E blends Protestant with Catholic and always has, often depending on who was on the throne. Edward Tudor was more on the Protestant side. (at least his regents were) and Charles Stuart was much more Catholic.
Why don’t the “Anglican” Calvinists go back to their spiritual home … Geneva, or Glasgow?
Really? High church Lutheranism? Hmmmm…not sure I agree with that.I thought, at one time, that CofE was a blend of Protestant and Catholic but no longer. CofE since splitting from Rome, has been a power struggle between high-Church Lutheranism and Calvinism. Degrees are all that vary between worship styles, clergy, parishes, and individuals.
I wouldn’t, either. Aside from disagreements over the papacy, I’ve never thought of high church Anglicans as particularly “Lutheran” in anything they believe. I could be wrong.Really? High church Lutheranism? Hmmmm…not sure I agree with that.
To me anglicanism is very unique. I agree. I don’t see anglicans as being high church lutheran.I wouldn’t, either. Aside from disagreements over the papacy, I’ve never thought of high church Anglicans as particularly “Lutheran” in anything they believe. I could be wrong.
Im always hesitant to assert that anything was something an Anglican couldn’t be, esp. in the past 50 years or so.Really? High church Lutheranism? Hmmmm…not sure I agree with that.
Well, it is increasingly hard for them to be orthodox. So there’s that category, at least.I[m always hesitant to assert that anything was something an Anglican couldn’t be, esp. in the past 50 years or so.
GKC
Not in my immediate environs, for obvious reasons.Well, it is increasingly hard for them to be orthodox. So there’s that category, at least.