Catholic vs Protestant view on personal merit

[JoeT777]

…talking about justification, Lutherans see this as monergistic…we passively receive justification by grace alone through faith in Christ. Jon

How should Paul’s words be taken, “According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon.” (1 Cor 3). If we accept a wholly monergistic theology that justification can regenerate the will of man without his cooperation then were does Paul’s logic fall that “builds on a foundation”? There is nothing I can do to ‘make’ or ‘create for myself’ Salvation. So I need to do nothing? In fact if I do a work to merit salvation, do I inhibit Salvation? In other words, "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!” (Luther). The Corinthian view of “πάντα μοι έξεστιν” (I can do what I like) was similar (Cf. 1 Cor 6:12). The prevailing thought in Corinth seems to have been man was free to do as he liked. Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that “Christian freedom is not libertinism; the liberation of which St Paul spoke is not liberation from good works.” Am I a wise architect? I should know works are built on a foundation; a foundation that can’t fail. It’s the works that raze us upon the foundation. BENEDICT XVI, A general audience at St. Peter’s Square, November 2008

However, “If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21). Consequently, “it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: “If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose.” Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, “I have come not to abolish them the law and prophets but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come “to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).” Council of Orange (529 AD).

All of God’s graces are supernatural gifts, out of His love for the purpose of our salvation requiring the cooperation of the recipient. The simplest illustration is the transfer of property from one person to another. Somebody wishes to ‘grace’ another person with land – ‘no charge’, he says – a gift (i.e. grace). In order to profit from this grace the recipient must do one thing; take possession, the new owner must sign the deed. This ownership entails responsibilities and work in order for the new land to profit. The new owner must take responsibility to the adjoining property owners for the land if it has hazardous pollutants or for its maintenance.

Two types of grace can be distinguished. The first is ‘actual grace’, a benevolent gift of an unwarranted gratuitous gift. Actual graces include those things we receive such as patients, intelligence, wisdom, etc. The second type is the supernatural sanctifying graces which are given to obtain holiness. Sanctifying grace prepares for redemption predisposing one to holiness.

Llike our example, there is an effort to reach out to the benefactor taking possession, an act of cooperation in the receipt of the gift, i.e. synergism. It takes two distinct and free wills; one giving the other receiving. A synergism exists between God and man when these graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together producing a spiritual regeneration. (Cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV). The Lutheran view opposes this rejecting any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, the certitude of justification, i.e. monergism. Man is deemed depraved and damned; saving graces must be forced. Luther rejects “free will” while Calvin’s view of a faith as fiduciary denies holiness; faith alone produces salvific grace forcing a covering over sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works which actually removes sin (a grace where man’s will takes possession). Consequently the Catholic’s “faith” is much different from the ‘struck by lightning’ knowledge or the workless lump-on-the-log type of faith that waits for a predestined covering. As part of the continuing participation in faith, Catholics operate within the sanctifying graces added in the sacraments; a “work” by most Protestant definitions. To achieve a supernatural end the “works” of the sacraments are the means necessary for holiness. Sacramental graces are effectual, unlike Zwiglian grace that memorializes a man hanging on a tree, or Luther’s sacraments that are merely fiduciary.

Any slight deviation, such as those held by some Protestants, miss the essence of the two natures of Christ, God and man; faith and works. Christ may have died for our sins, (an act of God’s merciful grace), but he lived along with his mother and disciples, He taught and spoke the word of God, He suffered and died- unquestionably a “work”. His works were personified faith, “do it”, he said (cf Luke 8:21)

The apostolic teachings show Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally. He didn’t simply “believe” in God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. It’s no wonder that James gives us the same advice, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” (James 1:21-24.) Furthermore, Paul teaches us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). In short live your faith; believing is simply not enough.

Hence the Catholic might say that we are redeemed by both faith and works.

JoeT

 

[JonNC]

=JoeT777;6715784]How should Paul’s words be taken, “According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon.” (1 Cor 3). If we accept a wholly monergistic theology that justification can regenerate the will of man without his cooperation then were does Paul’s logic fall that “builds on a foundation”? There is nothing I can do to ‘make’ or ‘create for myself’ Salvation. So I need to do nothing? In fact if I do a work to merit salvation, do I inhibit Salvation? In other words, "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!” (Luther). The Corinthian view of “πάντα μοι έξεστιν” (I can do what I like) was similar (Cf. 1 Cor 6:12). The prevailing thought in Corinth seems to have been man was free to do as he liked. Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that “Christian freedom is not libertinism; the liberation of which St Paul spoke is not liberation from good works.” Am I a wise architect? I should know works are built on a foundation; a foundation that can’t fail. It’s the works that raze us upon the foundation. BENEDICT XVI, A general audience at St. Peter’s Square, November 2008

Hi Joe,
If you have read through the thread, you will have noticed that Lutheran theology does not teach, “we need to do nothing”, or worse, “we can do whatever we wish”. The confessions are clear about this: we reject the idea that good works inhibit salvation.

We reject and condemn as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline the bare expression, when it is said: Good works are injurious to salvation.

All of God’s graces are supernatural gifts, out of His love for the purpose of our salvation requiring the cooperation of the recipient. The simplest illustration is the transfer of property from one person to another. Somebody wishes to ‘grace’ another person with land – ‘no charge’, he says – a gift (i.e. grace). In order to profit from this grace the recipient must do one thing; take possession, the new owner must sign the deed. This ownership entails responsibilities and work in order for the new land to profit. The new owner must take responsibility to the adjoining property owners for the land if it has hazardous pollutants or for its maintenance.

There are actually 2 acts involved, the first being the act of the first person giving the gift. We would say this is justification (grace through faith in Christ). The giving of that gift in monergistic. The second person did nothing to earn or warrant the gift. Once made aware of the gift, the second person simply receives the gift, or by free will, can reject.

The 2nd act is that once received, the second person responds to the gift by caring for it, etc. How he cares for it has no bearing on the initial giving of the gift. The gift remains “grace.” Should the receiver continue to care for the gift (grow in grace or sanctification), its value grows in that the receiver becomes better at caring for it. He will even get calls of encouragement occasionally to support his efforts (sacraments and the word). Or, he may choose at some point to neglect and even reject the gift, maybe as a burden too costly to his lifestyle.

Two types of grace can be distinguished. The first is ‘actual grace’, a benevolent gift of an unwarranted gratuitous gift. Actual graces include those things we receive such as patients, intelligence, wisdom, etc. The second type is the supernatural sanctifying graces which are given to obtain holiness. Sanctifying grace prepares for redemption predisposing one to holiness.

No agrument here.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Llike our example, there is an effort to reach out to the benefactor taking possession, an act of cooperation in the receipt of the gift, i.e. synergism. It takes two distinct and free wills; one giving the other receiving. A synergism exists between God and man when these graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together producing a spiritual regeneration. (Cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV). The Lutheran view opposes this rejecting any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, the certitude of justification, i.e. monergism. Man is deemed depraved and damned; saving graces must be forced. Luther rejects “free will” while Calvin’s view of a faith as fiduciary denies holiness; faith alone produces salvific grace forcing a covering over sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works which actually removes sin (a grace where man’s will takes possession). Consequently the Catholic’s “faith” is much different from the ‘struck by lightning’ knowledge or the workless lump-on-the-log type of faith that waits for a predestined covering. As part of the continuing participation in faith, Catholics operate within the sanctifying graces added in the sacraments; a “work” by most Protestant definitions. To achieve a supernatural end the “works” of the sacraments are the means necessary for holiness. Sacramental graces are effectual, unlike Zwiglian grace that memorializes a man hanging on a tree, or Luther’s sacraments that are merely fiduciary.

I would dispute the idea that Lutherans reject free will.

But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.

18] 9. Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.

19] Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it.

bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#II

EDIT: Forgot to add this:

1. We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.

The apostolic teachings show Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally. He didn’t simply “believe” in God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. It’s no wonder that James gives us the same advice, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” (James 1:21-24.) Furthermore, Paul teaches us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). In short live your faith; believing is simply not enough.

No dispute. We cannot simply be hearers. We cannot simply express faith. We must live it, and show through our good works.

Hence the Catholic might say that we are redeemed by both faith and works.

And the Lutheran might say we are redeemed by grace through faith, and respond in obedience with works.

Jon

 

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe, If you have read through the thread, you will have noticed that Lutheran theology does not teach, “we need to do nothing”, or worse, “we can do whatever we wish”. The confessions are clear about this: we reject the idea that good works inhibit salvation.

We reject and condemn as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline the bare expression, when it is said: Good works are injurious to salvation.

To say the least, Luther had a low regard for ‘free will’.
“This man may do what he pleases, it is God’s will that he should be overcome by sin.” It is true that God does not desire the sin, although He wills that it shall take place (non sequitur quod Deus peccatum velit, licet ipsum velit fieri ) ; for He only wills that it shall happen, in order to manifest in man the greatness of His anger and His severity by punishing in him the sin which He hates.” ”It is therefore on account of the punishment that God wills that the sin shall be committed. . . . God alone may will such a thing” (“Hoc autem soli Deo licitum est velle “), (c. Grissar, Hatmann, SJ.,“Luther”, 1913, p. 188; op. cit. “Schol. Rom., p. 22) and he repeats fearlessly: “in order that all misery and shame may be heaped upon the man, God wills he should commit this sin.” (Ibid) He fancies he is communicating to his pupils” the highest secrets of theology,” meant only for the perfect, when he assures them that both statements are right- : God wills to oblige me and all men [to do what is good] and yet He does not give His grace to all, but only to whom He will, reserving to Himself the choice. Some it does not please Him to justify because He manifests so much the more through them His honor in the elect ; in the same way He also wills sin, though only indirectly, viz. “ that He may be glorified in the elect.” Hence we must not make it a mere matter of permission, for “how would God permit it unless it were His will? “ “Senseless chatter,” thus he describes the unanimous contrary teaching of theologians, “such is the objection they raise that man would thus be damned without any fault on his part, because he could not fulfill the law and was expected to do what was impossible.” We can only ask how his own method is to be described when he contents himself with this solution: “If that objection had any weight it would follow that it was not necessary to preach, to pray, to exhort, and Christ s death would also not be necessary. Yet by means of all this God has chosen to save His elect.“ (Ibid, op. cit. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 24.)

There are actually 2 acts involved, the first being the act of the first person giving the gift. We would say this is justification (grace through faith in Christ). The giving of that gift in monergistic. The second person did nothing to earn or warrant the gift. Once made aware of the gift, the second person simply receives the gift, or by free will, can reject.

The 2nd act is that once received, the second person responds to the gift by caring for it, etc. How he cares for it has no bearing on the initial giving of the gift. The gift remains “grace.” Should the receiver continue to care for the gift (grow in grace or sanctification), its value grows in that the receiver becomes better at caring for it. He will even get calls of encouragement occasionally to support his efforts (sacraments and the word). Or, he may choose at some point to neglect and even reject the gift, maybe as a burden too costly to his lifestyle.

You might believe this but based on the above and other works of Luther, it appears that Luther didn’t.

JoeT

 

[JonNC]

To say the least, Luther had a low regard for ‘free will’.
“This man may do what he pleases, it is God’s will that he should be overcome by sin.” It is true that God does not desire the sin, although He wills that it shall take place (non sequitur quod Deus peccatum velit, licet ipsum velit fieri ) ; for He only wills that it shall happen, in order to manifest in man the greatness of His anger and His severity by punishing in him the sin which He hates.” ”It is therefore on account of the punishment that God wills that the sin shall be committed. . . . God alone may will such a thing” (“Hoc autem soli Deo licitum est velle “), (c. Grissar, Hatmann, SJ.,“Luther”, 1913, p. 188; op. cit. “Schol. Rom., p. 22) and he repeats fearlessly: “in order that all misery and shame may be heaped upon the man, God wills he should commit this sin.” (Ibid) He fancies he is communicating to his pupils” the highest secrets of theology,” meant only for the perfect, when he assures them that both statements are right- : God wills to oblige me and all men [to do what is good] and yet He does not give His grace to all, but only to whom He will, reserving to Himself the choice. Some it does not please Him to justify because He manifests so much the more through them His honor in the elect ; in the same way He also wills sin, though only indirectly, viz. “ that He may be glorified in the elect.” Hence we must not make it a mere matter of permission, for “how would God permit it unless it were His will? “ “Senseless chatter,” thus he describes the unanimous contrary teaching of theologians, “such is the objection they raise that man would thus be damned without any fault on his part, because he could not fulfill the law and was expected to do what was impossible.” We can only ask how his own method is to be described when he contents himself with this solution: “If that objection had any weight it would follow that it was not necessary to preach, to pray, to exhort, and Christ s death would also not be necessary. Yet by means of all this God has chosen to save His elect.“ (Ibid, op. cit. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 24.)

You might believe this but based on the above and other works of Luther, it appears that Luther didn’t.

JoeT

Hi Joe,
Lutherans are held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, not to Luther, who was simply a man. Our view of free will is expressed in the confessions, as I’ve indicated in previous posts. There are many things Luther expressed that fall into the category of personal opinion, or adiaphora. There are some things he said that we disagree with, others that we reject completely. There are even things we find offensive.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Hi Joe,
Lutherans are held to scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, not to Luther, who was simply a man. Our view of free will is expressed in the confessions, as I’ve indicated in previous posts. There are many things Luther expressed that fall into the category of personal opinion, or adiaphora. There are some things he said that we disagree with, others that we reject completely. There are even things we find offensive.

Jon

I always find it curious that Lutheran’s disavow their namesake. Wasn’t he the key author of the Lutheran confessions? Why do you consider some of his ideas on the level of scripture and others offensive? And how do you differentiate?

You see, this point goes to the very heart of Protestantism. Every denomination had a man that founded it who convinced others that he knew more than the Catholics (or the denomination he started from) about how to gain salvation. By the very nature of it, these people need to claim special insight given only to them. Because they never have a way to prove it, other than their words, their direct followers are ones who agree with what they say, judging in their own hearts what is right and wrong. (Its different, of course, for legacy followers, who simply follow what they were taught by their parents). The irony of course, is that their followers are the type of people who also think they know best and the most aggressive or arrogant of these will break from their original denomination to found yet a new church based on their own ideas. This explains the 30,000 denominations today and the fact that we now have Lutheran’s who disavow their founder’s teachings.

Of all the Christian Churches, only the Catholics and Orthodox can realistically claim they teach the Apostolic truths. All others, are teaching new " truths" created by their founders and potentially modified by later church leaders. The reality of course is that there are no new truths. Truth is eternal. These leaders tried to bend the truth to their wishes rather than bend their wishes to the truth. This is of course a fool’s errand.

 

[JonNC]

I always find it curious that Lutheran’s disavow their namesake. Wasn’t he the key author of the Lutheran confessions? Why do you consider some of his ideas on the level of scripture and others offensive? And how do you differentiate?

You see, this point goes to the very heart of Protestantism. Every denomination had a man that founded it who convinced others that he knew more than the Catholics (or the denomination he started from) about how to gain salvation. By the very nature of it, these people need to claim special insight given only to them. Because they never have a way to prove it, other than their words, their direct followers are ones who agree with what they say, judging in their own hearts what is right and wrong. (Its different, of course, for legacy followers, who simply follow what they were taught by their parents). The irony of course, is that their followers are the type of people who also think they know best and the most aggressive or arrogant of these will break from their original denomination to found yet a new church based on their own ideas. This explains the 30,000 denominations today and the fact that we now have Lutheran’s who disavow their founder’s teachings.

Of all the Christian Churches, only the Catholics and Orthodox can realistically claim they teach the Apostolic truths. All others, are teaching new " truths" created by their founders and potentially modified by later church leaders. The reality of course is that there are no new truths. Truth is eternal. These leaders tried to bend the truth to their wishes rather than bend their wishes to the truth. This is of course a fool’s errand.

Hi paul,
We seem to have wandered off the track of the thread, and off into some of the standard polemics that sadly divide us, so just some final thoughts. I do not disavow Martin Luther, anymore than you might disavow Luther’s contemporary antagonist, Johan Eck, though you would agree with me that there are some things he said that you would find offensive. What I do disavow is anything that Luther said that is inconsistent with scripture or the Confessions.
Luther’s contribution to the Confessions are the Small and Large Catechism, and Smalkald. The Confessions are not the “Confessions of Martin Luther”. There were many participants in the development of the Confessions, some of which completed after his death.

Finally, I would invite you to read my signature. I have had a number of Catholics say that, those words are the opinion of the Cardinal, and not the Catholic Church. So be it. Luther’s opinions are that of Luther, and not necessarily that of Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans).

I have enjoyed our discussion, paul, and everyone.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Hi paul,
We seem to have wandered off the track of the thread, and off into some of the standard polemics that sadly divide us, so just some final thoughts. I do not disavow Martin Luther, anymore than you might disavow Luther’s contemporary antagonist, Johan Eck, though you would agree with me that there are some things he said that you would find offensive. What I do disavow is anything that Luther said that is inconsistent with scripture or the Confessions.
Luther’s contribution to the Confessions are the Small and Large Catechism, and Smalkald. The Confessions are not the “Confessions of Martin Luther”. There were many participants in the development of the Confessions, some of which completed after his death.

Finally, I would invite you to read my signature. I have had a number of Catholics say that, those words are the opinion of the Cardinal, and not the Catholic Church. So be it. Luther’s opinions are that of Luther, and not necessarily that of Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans).

I have enjoyed our discussion, paul, and everyone.

Jon

I’m sorry if you think I took us off track. I realize that others contributed to the confessions beyond Martin Luther, but the question still remains: how do you delineate what of Martin Luther’s teachings are to be believed and what are not to believed. For a Catholic, this is easy We agree with Luther when he agreed with Catholic Teaching. Those agreements are not inconsiderable. But without the authority of the church, how do you know what to believe.

If we don’t talk about the things that divide us, how can we reconcile them. And part of that is coming to grips with how we were divided and why…

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry if you think I took us off track. I realize that others contributed to the confessions beyond Martin Luther, but the question still remains: how do you delineate what of Martin Luther’s teachings are to be believed and what are not to believed. For a Catholic, this is easy We agree with Luther when he agreed with Catholic Teaching. Those agreements are not inconsiderable. But without the authority of the church, how do you know what to believe.

If we don’t talk about the things that divide us, how can we reconcile them. And part of that is coming to grips with how we were divided and why…

It isn’t a problem, paul, except the 30,000 bit is just a distraction from what really divides us. Lutherans are not responsible for other communions. Virtually no other Protestant group is a spinter from Lutheranism. Most are from reformed or anabaptist roots, and Anglicans are their own group as well. And Lutherans, to a greater degree than many others, are dedicated to reconciliation. I hope that comes through in my dialogue with you. I spend my time and words talking about the Lutheran POV, and try very hard to not attack Catholic teaching, but instead look for areas of agreement.

I strongly agree with you that our agreements are not inconsiderable. In fact, I find my personal leanings to be much more “catholic” than “Protestant”, even in the range of Lutheranism. I actuallly think many American Lutherans would be surprised at how “catholic” Luther and the Lutheran reformers were, and remained long after 1517.

As for what Luther the man believed and wrote, we delineate what of Luther’s is to be believed based on a few things: 1) what does not contradict scripture. 2) What does not contradict the Book of Concord 3) What is or is not an article of faith.
Examples;

I share Luther’s marian devotion, but other Lutherans do not, as marian beliefs are considered adiaphora by Lutherans.​

Joe sited a writing that seems to indicate less of a dedication to the free will of the beleiver than the Confessions. To the extent that perception may be true, I side with the confessions, as all Lutherans should.​

So, for Lutherans, in many ways, it is the same for us. You say that a Catholic agrees with Luther when he agrees with Catholic teaching. When Luther agrees with Lutheran teaching, we agree with Luther.

Jon

 

[Lettyd]

I’d just like to say thank you so much to the participants in this debate. In particular JonNC, who posted on a predominantly Catholic site with honesty and integrity, while remaining true, but displaying the ‘peace maker’ ( how precious and few and far between are they? )…it takes a strong person of faith to rise above and explore in ‘honesty’…So cheers!

This debate which I have read all day long from beginning to end ( I have to go back to some of the ‘links’ ) has really married some of my thoughts on our differences and more importantly what’s common…so thankyou so much.

It’s a ‘bookmark’ for sure…one used in the same ‘spirit’ of the debate which must surely have been present…

Thanks guys!

Now, if you ever get the ‘leanings’, perhaps I could ask some of you to venture over to help support and bring peace to my counterparts in Eire…lol…the forum full of chatter on the other side of the Atlantic is; boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333 ,where the biggest areas of Christianity today are discussed…and never more so in Europe than on this very board I would imagine…

We seem to reference ‘CAF’ ‘a lot’ over here, perhaps it’s the dynamic of the internet era… but I would say we are not so ‘up’ on our historical roots…or expression of the foundings of our faith, even though we ‘keep’ it, where the guys in Europe who ‘know’ are is lost on me, cause they are very quiet online…so obviously this is where it’s happening at the moment for us on CAF, and where we seem to be ‘educating’ ourselves all over the world…

Thanks so much for this site too…it’s been such an education in so many ways…I’m so grateful to the posters who sit back and give thoughtful expression to our common faith, -and even lack of, that challenges us…and, most importantly to the sites roots…( One of a kind )! A sincere, Thank you!

 

[paul_c]

It isn’t a problem, paul, except the 30,000 bit is just a distraction from what really divides us. Lutherans are not responsible for other communions. Virtually no other Protestant group is a spinter from Lutheranism. Most are from reformed or anabaptist roots, and Anglicans are their own group as well. And Lutherans, to a greater degree than many others, are dedicated to reconciliation. I hope that comes through in my dialogue with you. I spend my time and words talking about the Lutheran POV, and try very hard to not attack Catholic teaching, but instead look for areas of agreement.

Fair enough. You are right - Lutheran’s haven’t splintered nearly as much as the reformed groups. And I agree with you that Lutherans are more dedicated to reconciliation. And it certainly comes through that you personally are dedicated to reconciliation.

I strongly agree with you that our agreements are not inconsiderable. In fact, I find my personal leanings to be much more “catholic” than “Protestant”, even in the range of Lutheranism. I actuallly think many American Lutherans would be surprised at how “catholic” Luther and the Lutheran reformers were, and remained long after 1517.

this comes through loud and clear, by the way. It makes me wonder why you don’t become Catholic now. Afterall, it is clear that the Catholic church can not and will not compromise its doctrines so reconciliation actually means returning to Catholicism.
This is easier done personally than as an entity. about 10 years ago, the pastor of the local lutheran church converted to catholicism and actually became an associate pastor at our church. He was welcomed with open arms, wife children and all.

As for what Luther the man believed and wrote, we delineate what of Luther’s is to be believed based on a few things: 1) what does not contradict scripture. 2) What does not contradict the Book of Concord 3) What is or is not an article of faith.
Examples;

I share Luther’s marian devotion, but other Lutherans do not, as marian beliefs are considered adiaphora by Lutherans.​

Joe sited a writing that seems to indicate less of a dedication to the free will of the beleiver than the Confessions. To the extent that perception may be true, I side with the confessions, as all Lutherans should.​

So, for Lutherans, in many ways, it is the same for us. You say that a Catholic agrees with Luther when he agrees with Catholic teaching. When Luther agrees with Lutheran teaching, we agree with Luther.

Jon

okay. In the spirit of unity, I won’t press this any further than to point out the irony of the last sentence.

 

[JonNC]

=Lettyd;6719150]I’d just like to say thank you so much to the participants in this debate. In particular JonNC, who posted on a predominantly Catholic site with honesty and integrity, while remaining true, but displaying the ‘peace maker’ ( how precious and few and far between are they? )…it takes a strong person of faith to rise above and explore in ‘honesty’…So cheers!

This debate which I have read all day long from beginning to end ( I have to go back to some of the ‘links’ ) has really married some of my thoughts on our differences and more importantly what’s common…so thankyou so much.

It’s a ‘bookmark’ for sure…one used in the same ‘spirit’ of the debate which must surely have been present…

Thanks guys!

Hi Lettyd,
You mentioned me by name, and I want to thank you for the kind words. It is quite an easier task to be positive when those around you are, and those who have participated from the Catholic view have treated me with respect and charity, while remaining strong in their faith.

Now, if you ever get the ‘leanings’, perhaps I could ask some of you to venture over to help support and bring peace to my counterparts in Eire…lol…the forum full of chatter on the other side of the Atlantic is; boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333 ,where the biggest areas of Christianity today are discussed…and never more so in Europe than on this very board I would imagine…

We seem to reference ‘CAF’ ‘a lot’ over here, perhaps it’s the dynamic of the internet era… but I would say we are not so ‘up’ on our historical roots…or expression of the foundings of our faith, even though we ‘keep’ it, where the guys in Europe who ‘know’ are is lost on me, cause they are very quiet online…so obviously this is where it’s happening at the moment for us on CAF, and where we seem to be ‘educating’ ourselves all over the world…

Thanks so much for this site too…it’s been such an education in so many ways…I’m so grateful to the posters who sit back and give thoughtful expression to our common faith, -and even lack of, that challenges us…and, most importantly to the sites roots…( One of a kind )! A sincere, Thank you

I’ll take a look.

Jon

 

[JoeT777]

Thus says the Lord: Let your voice cease from weeping, and your eyes tears: for there is a reward for your work (Jeremiah 31:16); to follow the Protestant model would be to worship a fickle-minded God.

Regarding merit:

A child may merit reward from his parents for good works. Without the merit the child is done an injustice. “[R]elatively, in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord. It’s to be remembered this justice can only be xxxx between equals. God provides the necessary means to do good either natural works or supernatural works, consequently the merit is in the act of free-will. Of course man cannot rise to the level of meriting justification, however he can merit as a gift, like the father gives to the father, the wherewithal to succeed. Therefore, one can rightly deserve merit when, as Paul said to Timothy, “I have finished my course: I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly” (2 Tim 4:7-8). Consequently, “Our Lord said (John 14:21): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father; and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him.” Now everlasting life consists in the manifest knowledge of God, according to John 17:3: “This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true” and living “God.” Hence the merit of eternal life rests chiefly with charity.” (Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, I Q114, 1, 2, and 4)

And then how can we forget the gratuitous merit in God’s promise, “Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for, when he has been proved, he shall receive the crown of life which God has promised to them that love him” (James 1:12).

I would suggest that our works deserve the rewards promised, no less than the boy should the promised rewards from his father; to suggest otherwise is to suggest that God is capricious and unjust.

JoeT