S
Stephen_C
Guest
I was not trying to gloss over anything…just maybe mistated…sorry to have offended you. Thanks for the correction.
- Status
S
scylla
Guest
You will almost always get good results, regardless of the intention (good or bad) of the schism. God moves through people to bring good out of even horrible situations.
There are many holy people who regardless of the founders intentions truly tried to live holy lives.
This in no way makes the starting of a denomination true or good, as only God should do that. So in starting or allowing differences to separate oneself from the Church this in essence is making a God of oneself and starting a denomination.
Most people do not realize this even when they start a denomination they just feel they are trying to follow God honestly, when they are following them-selves. So to call it appropriate, it is never appropriate, as fidelity to Jesus requires us to maintain unity.
The Protestant Reformation is actually poorly named as a reformation means something done internally, if the reformers has stayed loyal to the Church and actually retained communion that would be reform. There are some in groups such as the Episcopalian community to a degree who can argue that they have maintained communion and therefore are part of a reformed church. This can be considered appropriate, but an outright rejection of unity which is professed by many Protestants, cannot be called reform, unless they are connected to the Catholic Church and it is every bit as valid. Or else it is a restoration of a previously valid church, of which there is no evidence of that.
We can talk about viable, what do you mean by that?
God Bless,
Scylla
J
jemfinch
Guest
R
rr1213
Guest
Shucks. I thought maybe we were coming to a convergence here.
That’s a joke although I do think that the Catholic and Protestant understandings have come closer over the years. I also think that while the theological distinctions in the areas of faith/works are real, that in the real world (or perhaps the perfect world) we would be unable to tell a Catholic from a Protestant by simply looking at his works or fruit. This is because faithful members of both traditions would demonstrate faith and fruit in their life, both as a result of God’s grace.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s basically true, as I understand it. But these are separate things. One can believe in single predestination (as Aquinas did) and still believe in free will. My point was that if you believe God knows and providentially orders everything that happens, you obviously believe in predestination, at least in single predestination (i.e., that people are saved because God wills them to be and directs their lives toward that end). This does not necessarily contradict free will, though how it relates to free will is a matter of huge controversy.
The Lutheran belief that I think you have problems with is the “bondage of the will.” I don’t know if you’ve studied the Formula of Concord on this point, but it’s worth doing. You might find it more believable than you think. On other points conservative Lutheranism sounds like a good “fit” for you (much as I hate using that language).
And why and how do you think Lutherans or Calvinists would disagree with this? I don’t think many Christians, except fundamentalists, would disagree with this.
Couldn’t this be more fairly restated as “I believe that it’s possible for the Church as an institution to teach things that contradict Scripture and so err”? After all, Catholics and Orthodox don’t believe that the Church can contradict Scripture. Rather, they believe that they can trust the Church *not *to contradict Scripture, whereas Protestants believe that the Church’s teachings might contradict Scripture and so must be checked against Scripture. As I see it, this is what sola scriptura most basically entails, so I would question your use of the term to describe some kind of radical fundamentalist view.
I basically agree. I’m less sure than you are that the IC contradicts Scripture, but there are certainly some strong theological arguments to that effect. The Assumption, on the other hand, seems perfectly unobjectionable as a pious opinion–the question is why it had to be defined as dogma. We’re in the same boat on this one. (And I second your appeal to the Catholics please not to start an argument on this here–start another thread if you must!)
Fair enough. I
I quite understand. I’m more liberal than you are (I believe in women’s ordination, for one thing), but I’m somewhat bitter against Episcopalianism myself these days.
I appreciate your problems with conservative Anglicanism–I have the same problems (in particular, I find their continual instability and proneneness to schism very troubling), besides disagreeing with their stance on women’s ordination, as you obviously do not.
It sounds to me as if your best bet is to keep going to the Lutheran church and study Lutheran teaching a bit more. The question of human ability to prepare for grace is indeed a difficult one, and I come from a Wesleyan background, so I’d grant more to free will than the Lutherans do. But even Wesley spoke of this ability to prepare for grace as a result of “prevenient grace” rather than natural ability. I’m not sure the Lutheran position is as extreme or untenable as you think.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You don’t really believe that our works have salvific value except insofar as they are works of God, do you? And insofar as our works are worked in us by the Holy Spirit, of course they have salvific value.
Why do some people resist the idea that our differences may not be as big as they think? Why not look at the evidence fairly before making these sweeping judgments? You might be surprised as to what Protestants believe. Not all Protestants are Calvinists (and even Calvin allowed a kind of merit to the works of the regenerate, and certainly held that they contributed to final salvation in a sense) or fundamentalists, you know. Wesleyans and Anabaptists would basically agree that works have salvific value, in the sense that they contribute to our being the sort of people who will be finally saved.
Edwin
J
jemfinch
Guest
I’m not exactly sure how to answer that; I don’t believe that works apart from faith are salvific, and I do believe that our good works are granted to us by God’s grace; if I’ve not answered that question, please clarify
I’m not saying the difference is big, only that it exists.
Unlikely, since I was one until just over six months ago
I’m not sure “contribute to our being the sort of people who will be finally saved” and “contribute to our final salvation” mean the same thing.
Jeremy
R
rr1213
Guest
Thanks for your insights. You obviously have done more reading on some of these things than I have. I have begun reading Luther’s Bondage of the Will so maybe I will have a better understanding after completion (although Erasmus’ arguments sound pretty appealing at times also).
Leaving the Episcopal Church was very difficult for me and for my family. I also come from a Wesleyan background, having spent the first part of my life in the United Methodist Church and the later half in the Episcopal Church (with an occassional foray here or there when the local congregation was not acceptable for some reason…I’ve moved alot). Leaving the Episcopal Church was quite painful and not something I enjoyed doing. But it was something that I felt I had to do for the best of myself and my family. I looked long and hard at the conservative Anglican options but they also did not work for us for various reasons. Also, many were not available in my area. We are currently attending a very fine Lutheran Church, although as this thread demonstrates I have some difficulties with some of that theology as well.
Thanks again for your suggestions.
C
Contarini
Guest
If you’re considering Lutheranism, put down the Bondage of the Will and pick up the Formula of Concord (available online at bookofconcord.org/fc-sd.html)). The latter is the offical statement of Lutheran doctrine. Luther’s own views are immensely important for Lutherans but not necessarily representative. The official Lutheran position backed away from Luther himself to some extent on the question of the bondage of the will. Melanchthon adopted a much more pro-freewill position, and while his followers didn’t fare too well in the Formula of Concord, his ideas did have some impact.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure I disagree.I’m not exactly sure how to answer that; I don’t believe that works apart from faith are salvific, and I do believe that our good works are granted to us by God’s grace; if I’ve not answered that question, please clarify
You were every conceivable kind of Protestant at once? That’s quite a feat. Being a Protestant doesn’t give you insights into Protestantism as a whole–in fact it may blind you, because you assume that all Protestants thought as you did.Unlikely, since I was one until just over six months ago
You may be correct. How do they differ?
Edwin
J
jmcrae
Guest
#33,001?
Sorry!! I empathize, because I was in your situation, during the summer of 2000 - I realized that I had two choices: I either had to start my own Church, or I had to be willing to change my opinion on certain things. It seems to me that you’re in a similar situation.
I made the decision that I had better start changing my opinions and following someone else, because I was aware on at least some dim level that I am not God, nor even Martin Luther, and starting a new religion is a very complicated endeavor.
By the end of that summer, I realized that if I was going to follow “someone else” the only possible candidate was Jesus - but how to do that? Which one was His church?
It wasn’t until October of the same year that I found out that Christ had actually founded a Church (up until that point, I had been under the impression that Christ had never intended to establish a religion or a Church - that Christianity had churches because of human convenience; not because of Divine mandate. Then, someone pointed out Matthew 16:18 to me, and I said, “Oh - yeah, I guess He did, didn’t He?”
Once I figured out that Christ had established a Church, it was pretty easy to find it; it even says in the Bible who its first leader was (check out John 21:15-19) - it’s also the biggest one, the only one that is actually world wide (see Matthew 28:16-20) and it’s been there for the whole 2,000 years, give or take (see John 17).
The next hurdle was to figure out that I was actually supposed to belong to it; not just believe its teachings - that insight came in late November, and then there were some administrative hurdles to jump - I became Catholic the following April.
R
rr1213
Guest
I left myself open on that one…I was wondering when somebody was going to ring that bell.#33,001?
Thanks for your comments. I’ve obviously been looking at the Catholic Church also, although unfortunately it seems that the more I learn the more I found myself heading elsewhere. There is much I admire about the Church and much that it does that is very right. And, yet, the other issues (which I mentioned in my OP) are very big stumbling blocks for me.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, I understand completely. In my case, I just had to make a giant leap of faith. Jesus founded it, Jesus promised to protect it - and who am I to argue? Even though at the time, there was so much that didn’t make any sense to me, at all.And, yet, the other issues (which I mentioned in my OP) are very big stumbling blocks for me.
But what I found was that once I was willing to let go of my preconceptions of how things “must be” it was a lot easier to find the answers I was looking for.
For example, on the issue of male-only ordination, I went through several phases.
First, I just had to accept it without knowing what it meant. I just said, “It’s nice that they have something for the men to do,” and left it at that.
Second, it occurred to me that the denomination I came out of doesn’t have “women’s ordination” either - nor male ordination, for that matter, since it has no valid Apostolic succession. So, by being Catholic, I was already one step ahead of where I had been, before, anyway.
Third, I noticed that when I took on a ministry, I had a lot more power to get things done than I had ever had when I’d been “equal” to the men, because when everyone is “equal,” nobody has any power to get things done. In the Catholic Church, there is a heirarchy, and yes, I will never be the Pope - on the other hand, when I say (after consulting the documents from the Vatican and discussing the possibilities with my priest), “The RCIA Inquiry group is doing this,” everyone says, “Okay!” Because I’m actually in charge of that. Nobody can come along and overturn my decisions, as long as I’m doing what is in line with what the Vatican expects and what my priest expects.
This is different than when I was an Elder in a Protestant church, where any other Elder could come along and change everything around on me. There was no one “above” to consult with, and no documents, but there was also no idea of “the buck stops here” and that’s that.
In the Catholic Church, the things I decide on my own lowly little level stay decided until either I leave that position, or I change my mind, and that’s actually really nice. I’ve actually got more freedom and more power here at the bottom of the Catholic totem pole, than I ever had, when I was at the top of the Protestant totem pole.
Fourth, I learned that, although the Eucharist isn’t symbolic in the Catholic Church, the priest is - and when something is a symbol, it has to look like the thing it symbolizes. Priests are men because men resemble Adam/Jesus. If one were putting on a play about Jesus, one would hire a male actor to play Jesus. A female actor may well be very talented, and perhaps even more talented than any of the male actors available - but she will never get the Jesus role, because she doesn’t resemble Him. So, that’s the reason we don’t have female priests, and why we never will have female priests - because the priest is a symbol of the Second Adam (Jesus) - and has to represent Him. That’s where I’m at with that one, right now.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
I think you’re contradicting yourself. Catholics believe that you are saved by faith AND good works. You say that good works are the result of faith. There you go. Faith AND good works.
Would I be saved if I only sat in my living room reading the Bible and praying, but never doing anything to practice God’s teachings? I don’t think so.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
Why don’t you just ask Jesus to show you the way? Stop chattering and start praying. Then trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding, as it says in Proverbs. No wonder you don’t know what to think. If you believe in the Real Presence, then go to where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. Things will start to happen, that I can tell you.
And, for those of you that don’t believe, such as All For Him. I dare you to go to an Adoration Chapel and ask Jesus if that is Him.
And, for those of you that don’t believe, such as All For Him. I dare you to go to an Adoration Chapel and ask Jesus if that is Him.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Wow, what a rude and un-helpful way to answer someone’s serious question… Your evangalizing skills are out of the world!
rr1213 ~
My prayers go out to you my friend. It’s hard to find where you belong in sea of ‘We’re right they’re wrong’ mentality. Keep you head up and I am here if you want or need to ask questions! Just IM me!
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
It may be brutally blunt, but it’s too true. That’s what is sad.Wow, what a rude and un-helpful way to answer someone’s serious question… Your evangalizing skills are out of the world!
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
You have used that word ‘blunt’ in another thread. It’s not being blunt honey it’s just plain rude. Just because you say ‘sorry but “I - he - she” am/is just being blunt’ doesn’t excuse you to be rude and un-kind. Someone asked a serious and thought out question and was given a short and judgemental answer.
Just because somone can’t seem to find where they fit in when it comes to God and their belief system doesn’t mean they need to go start their own denomination. It may mean that they need guidence into studying their beliefs fully and KNOWING God to know where they fit. We as christians are charged in helping others grow, not knocking them down the first chance we get.
J
jemfinch
Guest
I don’t think I’ve been making that mistake. My dad (a Protestant preacher) and I do in fact agree on our stance on the involvement of works in salvation. But as a general rule, I think it’s accurate to say that some difference, if not a big one, exists between the Catholic doctrine on faith, works, and salvation, and the stance of Protestant churches on those three.
If pushed, I’d have to say it’s a matter of causality. You statement of a possible Methodist/Wesleyan understanding seems to indicate a non-causal relationship between works and final salvation, but the Catholic doctrine affirms that works are causally connected to our final salvation.
Jeremy
R
rr1213
Guest
Good points. Also, I have to admit that, although I have reservations, there are definitely certain advantages to having the Pope and the Magisterium. As my wife says, “at least there is somebody in charge”. Not to beat too much on my ecclessial background (sorry Contarini
), but I don’t think that that Bishops Spong, Robinson or Schori would have survived, let alone been ordained, in the Catholic Church.- Status