Do Lutherans save themselves?

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Yes. I know that it trips up Protestants because they don’t view the Sacraments as vehicles of grace. I think, you also told us so in an earlier discussion.

No… I think God can use anything or anyone He wants to convey His grace… so I won’t limit what God can do. But the CC has 7 sacraments, I’ve read, why only 7? …

Perhaps because of the symbolism of the #7. It stands for completeness.

However, the Catholic Church teaches that there are other “sacraments” besides these. These, however, are the ones that make up the life of the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

It’s not important. I’ve proven my point, yet again. Let’s move on.

 

[JonNC]

Who died and put you in charge?

lol.

Jon, either provide the proof of your claim or accept that you have beleived someone’s nonsense and you want everyone else to follow you in your folly.

Now Whois pretending to be in charge.

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

Great! What is the historic basis of this? This only says what it means now, not its origin.

 

[JonNC]

It’s not important. I’ve proven my point, yet again. Let’s move on.

You’ve proven nothing

 

[De_Maria]

The concept of sacraments is vague and subjective to me.

Yes. But it wasn’t vague and subjective to St. Paul. He explained them admirably.

 

[tgGodsway]

Let me put it like this. Keeping the law does not save anyone. But unless a person keeps the Law, God will not save that person.

Make sense?

ahhh… now your talking plainly … De_Maria, your understanding of N.T. grace is at the level of the Pharisees. You are without understanding here of the gospel. I will pray for you my friend. You are trying to work your way into heaven. But I don’t totally blame you. Your C environment feeds this lack. My wife and I will pray that you have a Saul kind of experience. I could see you as a Paul one day.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes He did,… but did he say it in order to be eternally saved?.. or did he say it BECAUSE you are eternally saved?

In order to be.

The Jews to whom He was speaking were not yet born again.

In Catholicism, there is an obligation to turn to Christ before one is justified. This turning entails the beginning of obedience and keeping the Commandments because of one’s faith in God.

Once one is justified in Baptism, the obligation to keep the Commandments is not removed. But this time, it is to keep one’s inheritance which is awaiting us in heaven.

You could say that the Catholic Church teaches a continual conversion, continual justification, continual sanctification.

 

[De_Maria]

Great! What is the historic basis of this? This only says what it means now, not its origin.

C’mon Jon. Read your Bible. Matt 28:18-20

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Let me put it like this. Keeping the law does not save anyone. But unless a person keeps the Law, God will not save that person.

Make sense?

ahhh… now your talking plainly … De_Maria, your understanding of N.T. grace is at the level of the Pharisees. You are without understanding here of the gospel. I will pray for you my friend. You are trying to work your way into heaven. But I don’t totally blame you. Your C environment feeds this lack. My wife and I will pray that you have a Saul kind of experience. I could see you as a Paul one day.

Thanks for your prayers. My wife and I will pray for you in return.

Well, let’s look at Matt 25:31-46

As I see it, the expression, “Your works don’t save you, but God won’t save you unless you produce good works”, is there illustrated perfectly.

The goats produced good works. But they had to await Christ’s judgment in order to enter heaven. Thus, it was not their works which saved them, but Christ.

And, if they had not done good works, they would not have been saved. Thus, you can see that illustrated by the existence of the goats.

How do you see it?

 

[tgGodsway]

You could say that the Catholic Church teaches a continual conversion, continual justification, continual sanctification.

I agree that the Matt. 25 passage is a judgment of works… all of God’s judgment are, including the cross. which was the greatest work.

The goats were judged according to their works… But their works were not the reason why they were goats. They were goats because they were nations who rejected Christ and His kingdom. So Christ will separate the nations, much like a shepherd separates sheep and goats, and will judge each one according to how each allowed the gospel. Did they allow it to be preached in their streets?.. Not every nation has a Christian heritage as you know. Some have resisted throughout all the Church age. Then Christ will grant inheritances to those nations who’s works were profitable for the kingdom of God… The nations who rejected Christianity and the Kingdom, will also be judged according to their works, which by the way, implies that their evil works will receive an equal recompense in hell.

But the CC confuses the purpose here. This judgment is NOT the judgment seat of Christ and I would argue NOT the great white throne judgment 1000 years later. It is not a judgment over individuals for their personal works, it is exactly what it says it is, a judgment of the nations.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Great! What is the historic basis of this? This only says what it means now, not its origin.

C’mon Jon. Read your Bible. Matt 28:18-20

Go back and reread Steido01’s description and you’ll know what I mean.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay then… justification is not by faith alone … there is a justification by works too… Agreed.

Two kinds.

 

[JonNC]

Okay then… justification is not by faith alone … there is a justification by works too… Agreed.

Two kinds.

That’s not what we agreed on. I thought We agreed that repeated unrepented sin causes or is evidence of a loss of saving faith, a rejection of the grace that saved through faith.
Right?
That’s what James is saying

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?..You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. - James 2:14,24 ESV

 

[tgGodsway]

I argue that the purpose of James was NOT to answer how one is saved eternally. He does not tackle that narrow subject in his letter. But he does tell us what he is tackling: salvation of the soul. "receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to SAVE your soul. = G LIFE.

An un-repented soul (who at one time received forgiveness of sins with a conversion and the revelation that Jesus is the Christ) will then because of his unwillingness to repent, result in a rejection of God’s grace… This person will lose his deliverance=salvation. He will not go on to the saving of his soul, see Heb. 10:39 in conjunction with James 1:21 he will not go on until or unless he repent and ask His savior to receive him. Salvation is understood in more ways than just eternally.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You could say that the Catholic Church teaches a continual conversion, continual justification, continual sanctification.

I agree that the Matt. 25 passage is a judgment of works… all of God’s judgment are, including the cross. which was the greatest work.

The goats were judged according to their works… But their works were not the reason why they were goats. They were goats because they were nations who rejected Christ and His kingdom. So Christ will separate the nations, much like a shepherd separates sheep and goats, and will judge each one according to how each allowed the gospel. Did they allow it to be preached in their streets?.. Not every nation has a Christian heritage as you know. Some have resisted throughout all the Church age. Then Christ will grant inheritances to those nations who’s works were profitable for the kingdom of God… The nations who rejected Christianity and the Kingdom, will also be judged according to their works, which by the way, implies that their evil works will receive an equal recompense in hell.

But the CC confuses the purpose here. This judgment is NOT the judgment seat of Christ

Isn’t Christ the Son of man?

and I would argue NOT the great white throne judgment 1000 years later. It is not a judgment over individuals for their personal works, it is exactly what it says it is, a judgment of the nations.

It says clearly that it is a judgment of each individuals actions. Certainly, all the nations will be judged. But there’s no indication that Jesus is going to say, “OK, all the US stand here.”

This is a judgment of each individual’s actions. The one’s that did good will stand to the right. The one’s that didn’t do good, will stand to the left. Then when all the nations have been judged, the verdicts will be pronounced upon all.

 

[De_Maria]

I argue that the purpose of James was NOT to answer how one is saved eternally. He does not tackle that narrow subject in his letter. But he does tell us what he is tackling: salvation of the soul. "receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to SAVE your soul. = G LIFE.

When we talk of eternal salvation, we mean, the eternal salvation of our soul.

An un-repented soul (who at one time received forgiveness of sins with a conversion and the revelation that Jesus is the Christ) will then because of his unwillingness to repent, result in a rejection of God’s grace…

So, you believe in free will?

This person will lose his deliverance=salvation.

Eternal salvation?

He will not go on to the saving of his soul, see Heb. 10:39 in conjunction with James 1:21 he will not go on until or unless he repent and ask His savior to receive him. Salvation is understood in more ways than just eternally.

How do you see the difference of salvation of the soul and eternal salvation?

I argue that the purpose of James was NOT to answer how one is saved eternally.

He was speaking about how one is saved eternally. Notice that he included how Father Abraham was justified because he offered up Isaac on the altar. This is considered one of the works which God judged faithful and which merited for Father Abraham, a good standing in God’s eyes. See Heb 11.

 

[JonNC]

I argue that the purpose of James was NOT to answer how one is saved eternally. He does not tackle that narrow subject in his letter. But he does tell us what he is tackling: salvation of the soul. "receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to SAVE your soul. = G LIFE.

I think he is arguing what the justified life looks like.
He’s discouraging the idea that one justified is free to forgo doing His commands.

An un-repented soul (who at one time received forgiveness of sins with a conversion and the revelation that Jesus is the Christ) will then because of his unwillingness to repent, result in a rejection of God’s grace… This person will lose his deliverance=salvation. He will not go on to the saving of his soul, see Heb. 10:39 in conjunction with James 1:21 he will not go on until or unless he repent and ask His savior to receive him. Salvation is understood in more ways than just eternally.

An unrepentant soul soon loses the faith that saves.
That doesn’t mean the Spirit gives up on him, but it does mean the the rejection of grace is a choice that leads to eternal condemnation

 

[steido01]

In response to a poster who implied that the “Divine Service” was somehow a diminutive term for some lesser form of the mass, I explained the reverent origin of the term. I was then asked to give the origin of the word ‘Mass.’ I noted the point of origin as the dismissal/sending, which was picked up by the illiterate and Latin-deficient European commonfolk and spoken of by use of the colloquialism ‘Mass.’ They were poor and uneducated. I compared this with how many modern-day Roman Catholics show a similar unknowing lack of respect for the service, thinking it would make the history easier to digest (Linguistics in general, and cultural colloquialisms and idioms in particular, aren’t always the most exciting study). Not sure that root took. Oh, well. The points still remain:

“Divine Service” is the Anglicization of the German Gottesdienst, which quite literally means “God’s Service.” It’s what German Christians have called the “Mass” for as long as they’ve been speaking German. It is a more correct and respectful name for the synonymous event known by the colloquialism “Mass,” which actually has its origins in the Latin dismissal “Ite, missa est.” or “Go, y’all are dismissed.”

To put it simply, the word “Mass” began as the crude commonspeak way of saying “Let’s get out of here and get some breakfast because that priest took forever and I’m not staying for the last hymn.”

I noted that this origin would be corroborated by Roman Catholic sources, too:

You asked where the word “Mass” came from and why. I provided the historical source and the reason behind it. Those aren’t seriously disputed by anyone. Roman Catholic sources will corroborate, if you refuse to trust me.

And it has been, by a Roman Catholic poster, quoting the Roman Catholic Catechism on the Roman Catholic Missa/missio/mass:

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

Hooray, I guess.

 

[AugustTherese]

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives

And, the ‘mystery of salvation is accomplished’ only in a legitimate Mass that includes the Sacrifice of the Mass. If a ‘divine service’ omits this sacrifice, you are left with a prayer group, a Bible study, or a hymnal service at best. Even in the Latin Rite, when you do not have a priest offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is termed as a ‘communion service’.

Hence:

What makes the Holy Mass what it is, Luther rejected, i.e. the Canon of the Mass

And, you still have not answered:

Where do you think the word ‘Mass’ comes from and why?

Again, piggybacking on another poster’s use of a simple definition will not suffice. Any Protestant can take that definition and twist it to what they want it to mean. The Liturgy of the Mass is so comprehensive and evolved that looking up a definition in a catechism or on the internet will not properly answer my question.

 

[JonNC]

And, the ‘mystery of salvation is accomplished’ only in a legitimate Mass that includes the Sacrifice of the Mass. If a ‘divine service’ omits this sacrifice, you are left with a prayer group, a Bible study, or a hymnal service at best. Even in the Latin Rite, when you do not have a priest offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is termed as a ‘communion service’.

Thanks so much for repeating the Catholic view. Again, while you should believe it, I suspect Lutherans are not moved by the opinion.