Faith Alone that is Not Alone?

[stewstew03]

Yes, but hold up, lest this be a discussion of the Reformed doctrine of justification. A weak faith must be built up through God’s word and sacraments because faith can be rejected…the goal is not to remain in a weak faith, but to mature. But we measure justification on Christ’s merits, not the merits of faith.

Affirmed. The justified man must walk with God, which in turn bears fruit. You’re a crypto-Catholic Iggy!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Affirmed. The justified man must walk with God, which in turn bears fruit. You’re a crypto-Catholic Iggy!

No, I’m Lutheran, cause we’re the real catholics! Sorry, had to

 

[JonNC]

Affirmed. The justified man must walk with God, which in turn bears fruit. You’re a crypto-Catholic Iggy!

The thing is, Iggy is just articulating what the Lutheran confessions say. Regarding works, it has nothing to do with justification. But Galatians tells us what faith “looks” like - it works through love. In addition, the Lutheran confessions exclude the choice regarding whether or not we do good works:

Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

The implication is that failure to do good works is an intentional perseverence in sin. It is hard to see how faith can remain under those circumstances. So, works could be said to be necessary for salvation, not in the sense that works achieve merit, but in the sense that without works we are being disobedient to Christ’s call that we love our neighbor.

Jon

 

[Marybeloved]

The thing is, Iggy is just articulating what the Lutheran confessions say. Regarding works, it has nothing to do with justification. But Galatians tells us what faith “looks” like - it works through love. In addition, the Lutheran confessions exclude the choice regarding whether or not we do good works:

The implication is that failure to do good works is an intentional perseverence in sin. It is hard to see how faith can remain under those circumstances. So, works could be said to be necessary for salvation, not in the sense that works achieve merit, but in the sense that without works we are being disobedient to Christ’s call that we love our neighbor.

Jon

Too much confusion, Jon. After reading some works of the mystical Doctors of the CC- The Doctors of Prayer, I’ve come to think that the Reformers were trying to express mystical truths in very bad language that lead to a whole lot of confusion.

I can see a lot of the same Lutheran language in their works- A stage comes when God shows them that they are sinners, totally unworthy of the gifts of God. They come to a point where they see the real weight of the slightest sin and how impossible it is to atone for all this- How good God is and what horror comes from transgressing him. etc etc. But the conclusions they drew from this experiential knowledge that comes from prayer just contradicts revealed truths.

We believe in unmerited justification, sure. That the theological virtues of Faith, hope and Love are planted in us completely “free of charge” if you permit my language. That only these three enable any true communion with God, and that as they grow, the communion grows. But it does not necessarily follow from this that good works carry no merit! In so far as they make more room for these three, they merit the increase of the three that fills that empty room.

 

[JonNC]

=Marybeloved;9201559]Too much confusion, Jon. After reading some works of the mystical Doctors of the CC- The Doctors of Prayer, I’ve come to think that the Reformers were trying to express mystical truths in very bad language that lead to a whole lot of confusion.

I can see a lot of the same Lutheran language in their works- A stage comes when God shows them that they are sinners, totally unworthy of the gifts of God. They come to a point where they see the real weight of the slightest sin and how impossible it is to atone for all this- How good God is and what horror comes from transgressing him. etc etc. But the conclusions they drew from this experiential knowledge that comes from prayer just contradicts revealed truths.

One of the issue between Lutherans and Catholics, I believe, is this issue of language, how we express revealed truths in languages that don’t always translate well back and forth between us. When I hear Catholics say “faith and works” it is confusion for me, particularly in light of Paul. Yes, I know that Catholics do not believe in works righteousness. Yes, I know that when Catholics talk about merit, they understand that merit comes, too, as a gift of grace, or at least that’s my understanding of what Catholics teach.
I would be interested to know, however, what you believe contradicts revealed truth - what you refer to in the bolded.

We believe in unmerited justification, sure. That the theological virtues of Faith, hope and Love are planted in us completely “free of charge” if you permit my language. That only these three enable any true communion with God, and that as they grow, the communion grows. But it does not necessarily follow from this that good works carry no merit! In so far as they make more room for these three, they merit the increase of the three that fills that empty room.

Again, language. Define what you mean by “merit”. When we read, “well done, good and faithful servant”, is that an indication of merit? And how does this apply to justification?
We believe in the necessity of good works by the regenerate, sure. We also recognize that it is a Galatians 5:6 faith that saves: a faith that works through love. And that we must grow in grace.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

When we say Faith Alone, or Works alone do not justify, or Faith without Works is dead. We have to see this in context, to first Luther, and then to today in its promoted form.

The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Point to note.

Is man justified by Faith alone? Is Grace given to those who do not live virtuous lives?

Is it not true faith must bear fruit in good works, though we must also understand again here Good Works alone will not produce Salvation.

And further more is repentance not shown in Good Works? In fact I would suggest it must be.

Obviously this remains a stumbling block in Christianity. And when we add the complexity of Virtue and Sanctifying Grace this takes on a greater significance.

Is Faith without works true faith. Or is it simply a path which lead to the deeper contemplation of Christ when the mind remains open in humility and patience? Can we presume on Grace to be there without any Good Works?

Is it not true that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved? Good works conform with the grace of God, but that grace is reduced by evil acts. Correct?

Then, on the other hand what of fasting, constant prayer recitation, are these not good works. How is this consistant with Faith alone. Does the Bible not state to Pray Constantly? What about those who dedicate their lives to poor, sick, needy and condenmed? Are these not good works which in the proper context of Faith produce Grace through Gods Will?

Or are all the Saints proclaimed such as Bl Mother Theresa, just idle talk? You do realize those Sister’s are allowed in areas of the world where “NO” Christianity is allowed. How should we view their contribution of Good Works and Faith combined in Gods Kingdom then?

How about those Saints who worked with HIV/Aides, Leprosy etc etc …and went where no one would go, by and through Gods calling? Are their Works through Faith insignificant?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

When we say Faith Alone, or Works alone do not justify, or Faith without Works is dead. We have to see this in context, to first Luther, and then to today in its promoted form.

The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Point to note.

These were instructions to His disciples, not unbelievers, however. They already had faith. Jesus here is giving us a snapshot of what the life of a servant in the kingdom of God looks like. It’s not about justification.

Is man justified by Faith alone? Is Grace given to those who do not live virtuous lives?

Yes to both. Grace only comes to those who do not deserve it, otherwise it is not grace (Rom. 11:6). God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).

Is it not true faith must bear fruit in good works, though we must also understand again here Good Works alone will not produce Salvation.

Yes, faith will always produce good works.

And further more is repentance not shown in Good Works? In fact I would suggest it must be.

Repentance and dying to sin is the chief mark of the Christian life. As Luther said, “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”

Is Faith without works true faith. Or is it simply a path which lead to the deeper contemplation of Christ when the mind remains open in humility and patience? Can we presume on Grace to be there without any Good Works?

Yes, because grace always precedes good works, otherwise, there are no good works. God gives us grace to bear fruit, we don’t bear fruit to merit grace (an oxymoron).

Is it not true that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved? Good works conform with the grace of God, but that grace is reduced by evil acts. Correct?

No to the first point, because no man, left to his own nature, will ever freely desire to be saved. They will freely desire to remain in rebellion and sin, unless the Holy Spirit calls them by the Gospel and regenerates them unto faith.

As to the second point, yes. Evil acts… I assume you mean here continued, unrepentant mortal sin, will cause the Holy Spirit to leave the believer, and thus, faith will be lost. Without faith, no justification, no justification, no good works.

Then, on the other hand what of fasting, constant prayer recitation, are these not good works. How is this consistant with Faith alone.

It is the product of faith alone. More specifically, through faith alone we are united to Christ and are indwelt by the very life of the Trinity (the Orthodox are on point with this). Fasting and prayer then, are the very nature of the life of those hidden in Christ.

Does the Bible not state to Pray Constantly? What about those who dedicate their lives to poor, sick, needy and condenmed? Are these not good works which in the proper context of Faith produce Grace through Gods Will?

Or are all the Saints proclaimed such as Bl Mother Theresa, just idle talk? You do realize those Sister’s are allowed in areas of the world where “NO” Christianity is allowed. How should we view their contribution of Good Works and Faith combined in Gods Kingdom then?

We should view their lives primarily as an eschatalogical reality. Through them, as with Christ and His apostles, their good works and actions are the kingdom of God breaking forth into the world of sin, death, and the devil and pushing back against the forces of darkness. All this being a precursor to the Parousia, when sin, death and the devil are finally defeated for eternity.

Their good works were not to the benefit of themselves. The very essence of sanctification is serving our neighbors in love. Because God doesn’t need our good works. He’s perfectly satisfied with the good works of Christ. But our neighbor needs them.

 

[guanophore]

Too much confusion, Jon. After reading some works of the mystical Doctors of the CC- The Doctors of Prayer, I’ve come to think that the Reformers were trying to express mystical truths in very bad language that lead to a whole lot of confusion.

I can see a lot of the same Lutheran language in their works- A stage comes when God shows them that they are sinners, totally unworthy of the gifts of God. They come to a point where they see the real weight of the slightest sin and how impossible it is to atone for all this- How good God is and what horror comes from transgressing him. etc etc. But the conclusions they drew from this experiential knowledge that comes from prayer just contradicts revealed truths.

We believe in unmerited justification, sure. That the theological virtues of Faith, hope and Love are planted in us completely “free of charge” if you permit my language. That only these three enable any true communion with God, and that as they grow, the communion grows. But it does not necessarily follow from this that good works carry no merit! In so far as they make more room for these three, they merit the increase of the three that fills that empty room.

I am very curious about the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10) in this context. At what point was he “justified by faith”?

If he was “born again” when he was filled with the Spirit, then would not his good works prior to that time been without eternal merit?

 

[JonNC]

=GaryTaylor;9202011]When we say Faith Alone, or Works alone do not justify, or Faith without Works is dead. We have to see this in context, to first Luther, and then to today in its promoted form.

The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Point to note.

Two thoughts, Gary, on the above: 1) Within Lutheranism, I don’t see much difference between Luther and today. 2) I assume you are not implying that the Sermon on the Mount indicates that works without faith have any saving value, as you note below.

Is man justified by Faith alone? Is Grace given to those who do not live virtuous lives?
Is it not true faith must bear fruit in good works, though we must also understand again here Good Works alone will not produce Salvation.

All of this is correct! We are indeed justified by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And it is also true that if faith does not bear good fruits, it is not a true faith. Luther is clear about this, and so are the confessions.

We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then.
… It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

and

“Faith is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1). It kills the old Adam and makes altogether different people, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Spirit.

Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. And so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them.

He who does not these works is a faithless man. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are, though he talks and talks, with many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times. This confidence in God’s grace and knowledge of it makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and all His creatures.

And this is the work of the Holy Spirit in faith. Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace.

And thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire. Beware, therefore, of your own false notions and of the idle talkers, who would be wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools.

Therefore, pray to God to work faith in you. Else you will remain forever without faith, whatever you think or do.”

And further more is repentance not shown in Good Works? In fact I would suggest it must be.

Obviously this remains a stumbling block in Christianity. And when we add the complexity of Virtue and Sanctifying Grace this takes on a greater significance.

How is this a stumbing block?

Is Faith without works true faith. Or is it simply a path which lead to the deeper contemplation of Christ when the mind remains open in humility and patience? Can we presume on Grace to be there without any Good Works?

Luthers seems to think that there is no true faith without works.

Is it not true that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved? Good works conform with the grace of God, but that grace is reduced by evil acts. Correct?

Agreed.

Then, on the other hand what of fasting, constant prayer recitation, are these not good works. How is this consistant with Faith alone. Does the Bible not state to Pray Constantly? What about those who dedicate their lives to poor, sick, needy and condenmed? Are these not good works which in the proper context of Faith produce Grace through Gods Will?

Are we now talking about sanctification, growing in grace? Yes. So from the Lutheran perspective, which is justification by grace through faith, we are now talking about the new obedience.

Or are all the Saints proclaimed such as Bl Mother Theresa, just idle talk? You do realize those Sister’s are allowed in areas of the world where “NO” Christianity is allowed. How should we view their contribution of Good Works and Faith combined in Gods Kingdom then?

How about those Saints who worked with HIV/Aides, Leprosy etc etc …and went where no one would go, by and through Gods calling? Are their Works through Faith insignificant?

Of course their works are not insignificant, but we’re not talking about justification. Good works are the command and call of Christ, to all the regenerate, and these works you mention are the fruits of grace to the benefit of our fellowman.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

No, because faith is not the beginning of justification. It doesn’t have a beginning. It either is or isn’t. Through faith, we receive justification in toto.

This does not make sense to me. YOu are describing justification as a state of righteousness before God. You have also said (and I agree) that one does not “become guilty over time” but is either guilty or not guilty. Since justification, as well as guilt, is a state that can be entered and exited, then it must, by nature, have a beginning.

The Aposltes taught that we are justified through baptism, and at that point, were united to Christ by faith.

Your posts agree, as Trent taught, that one enters a state of justification through faith. When this happens, on is transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of light. This event certainly has an identifiable beginning.

 

[Lincoln7]

Guanophore,

Since justification, as well as guilt, is a state that can be entered and exited, then it must, by nature, have a beginning.

Romans 8:30: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Those justified will be finally glorified. Are you saying one can have the former but not the latter?

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

This does not make sense to me. YOu are describing justification as a state of righteousness before God. You have also said (and I agree) that one does not “become guilty over time” but is either guilty or not guilty. Since justification, as well as guilt, is a state that can be entered and exited, then it must, by nature, have a beginning.

The Aposltes taught that we are justified through baptism, and at that point, were united to Christ by faith.

Your posts agree, as Trent taught, that one enters a state of justification through faith. When this happens, on is transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of light. This event certainly has an identifiable beginning.

I see what you’re saying. No, you’re right in, that context. Justification has a beginning if beginning means “happens at a point in time” (Baptism). The denial of beginning was beginning in the sense of it happens and then progresses to being more and more justified as time goes on.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore,

Romans 8:30: “And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Those justified will be finally glorified. Are you saying one can have the former but not the latter?

Kind regards

Lincs.

I think the thread may disintegrate into Calvanist theology if I go there. Suffice to say that the scripture you are quoting is speaking of persons who had completed the course of their life on this earth in a state of grace. It would be inappropriate to take a passage describing events that have occured in the past, and apply it to events that have not yet occurred with us.

Of course, one cannot be glorified if one is not first justified, as nothing unclean can enter heaven.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I am very curious about the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10) in this context. At what point was he “justified by faith”?

If he was “born again” when he was filled with the Spirit, then would not his good works prior to that time been without eternal merit?

Was there a conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10? The text doesn’t say so. There’s every reason to believe that he already was, prior to ever meeting Peter.

 

[guanophore]

I see what you’re saying. No, you’re right in, that context. Justification has a beginning if beginning means “happens at a point in time” (Baptism). The denial of beginning was beginning in the sense of it happens and then progresses to being more and more justified as time goes on.

This corresponds to the Catholic notion of being in a state of grace (as opposed to separation from God through sin).

Catholics believe, however, that we can “grow in grace”, and that our relationship with God can always get better, so that we more closely conform to his image. Hence;

James 2:23-26
“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

One can progress in right relationship with God by performing the works that he has prepared for us. This goes back to the definition of saving faith. Saving faith has a certain quality, it is faith that WORKS.

It may be a semantics issue, as I think Lutherans also believe that walking in good works by obedience to Christ causes the character of Christ to be formed in us, and that our relationship with Him will grow.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I think the thread may disintegrate into Calvanist theology if I go there. Suffice to say that the scripture you are quoting is speaking of persons who had completed the course of their life on this earth in a state of grace. It would be inappropriate to take a passage describing events that have occured in the past, and apply it to events that have not yet occurred with us.

Of course, one cannot be glorified if one is not first justified, as nothing unclean can enter heaven.

All very true. The issue of Calvinist theology in the thread is understood, but, even if a Protestant is not a Calvinist on predestination, Calvin’s thinking here influences all forms of reformed Protestantism, both Calvinist and Arminian. Calvin’s understanding is a stark departure from the Augustinian tradition, for Augustine was quite explicit in teaching that no one knows whether they will receive the gift of perseverance. No one knows their own future that well. For no decision you make now can determine that in five or ten years or even tomorrow, you won’t apostatize, abandon the faith of Christ, and go the way of eternal death.

The only way you could know you will persevere in faith to the end of your life is if you could know you are predestined to be saved. Augustine thought it obvious that no one knows this, but Calvin disagreed. This is what is profound and new about Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, which in other respects (as Calvin rightly argued) differs little from Augustine’s—and therefore from Aquinas’ or Luther’s. Calvin teaches that believers can and should know they are predestined for salvation, which means they can and should know they will persevere in faith to the end, which means they can and should know they are eternally saved, now, already in this life—not just saved in hope, as Augustine describes the effect of baptism: saved in spe but not yet* in re*, in hope but not yet in reality. Augustine says explicitly:we are “not yet saved.” We are still on the road to eternal salvation, and we don’t get there until after this life.

 

[guanophore]

All very true. The issue of Calvinist theology in the thread is understood, but, even if a Protestant is not a Calvinist on predestination, Calvin’s thinking here influences all forms of reformed Protestantism, both Calvinist and Arminian. Calvin’s understanding is a stark departure from the Augustinian tradition, for Augustine was quite explicit in teaching that no one knows whether they will receive the gift of perseverance. No one knows their own future that well. For no decision you make now can determine that in five or ten years or even tomorrow, you won’t apostatize, abandon the faith of Christ, and go the way of eternal death.

The only way you could know you will persevere in faith to the end of your life is if you could know you are predestined to be saved. Augustine thought it obvious that no one knows this, but Calvin disagreed. This is what is profound and new about Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, which in other respects (as Calvin rightly argued) differs little from Augustine’s—and therefore from Aquinas’ or Luther’s. Calvin teaches that believers can and should know they are predestined for salvation, which means they can and should know they will persevere in faith to the end, which means they can and should know they are eternally saved, now, already in this life—not just saved in hope, as Augustine describes the effect of baptism: saved in spe but not yet* in re*, in hope but not yet in reality. Augustine says explicitly:we are “not yet saved.” We are still on the road to eternal salvation, and we don’t get there until after this life.

I think it is difficult for human beings, trapped as we are in the space time continuum, to find the right words to even describe eternal concepts such as this.

The Catholic Church leaves some things in solution, so to speak, since they are mysteries beyond the grasp of human reason. There are some aspects of salvaiton which have been completed, such as baptism, that are completed at one point in time, yet with eternal consequences. There are some aspects that are progressive, such as working out our salvation with fear and trembling, which we do for the course of this life. Then there are those that do not occur until our earthly life is done, and also have eternal consequences, such as glorification.

I have learned on these threads something you mentioned up the thread (about Lutherans being true catholics) that some Lutherans consider themselves Catholics of the Augsburg confession, just as some Angilcans consider themselves Catholic. In truth, our reunification in faith is closer than it has ever been since the sad events of the Reformation. May we all be One, as He is One.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I have learned on these threads something you mentioned up the thread (about Lutherans being true catholics) that some Lutherans consider themselves Catholics of the Augsburg confession, just as some Angilcans consider themselves Catholic. In truth, our reunification in faith is closer than it has ever been since the sad events of the Reformation. May we all be One, as He is One.

If only the comboxes on these threads were long enough to go into detail about that issue! In truth, from a confessional Lutheran standpoint - at least from the standpoint of someone who knows the history of the Reformation time period - the separation between Rome and the Lutheran church is not only troubling, but puzzling. From the perspective of the Reformers (and set aside Luther himself for a moment, because while he was the chief figurehead, there were hundreds behind him), they were not doing or saying anything that was outside of the Catholic tradition.

Melancthon was (genuinely, I think) surprised beyond measure that the first 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession were rejected. Perhaps we lay the blame on that to the scholastics, who got a hold of it and raked it with a fine tooth machete in order to find something about it that was disagreeable. Unfortunately, it then moved on to Trent, which essentially ended any attempt at Roman Catholic-Lutheran reunification and it leaves us in the awkward position of having to more firmly distinguish ourselves from our Roman brothers and sisters, and also puts Catholics in the position of not being able to change or modify the teachings of Trent because of its status as an infallible proclamation. Jaroslav Pelikan said it well when he said:

‘‘Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone…That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers…Rome’s reactions [to the reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith and the merit of works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Lutheran Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.’’

Having said that, of course, we are not innocent in the matter at all. We are just as guilty as Rome and should not pretend that just because we believe we have the gospel right, it means we’re less sinners than any Catholic. Additionally, you had the added difficulty of the “reformation” in the Swiss territories and England, which not only disagreed with the abuses that the Lutherans were objecting to, but wanted to form a whole new church which was not based on the catholic tradition. Trent was also responding to this as well.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

In the end, reunification is a goal. How close it is? I don’t know. For confessional Lutherans, we would have to be allowed to retain our doctrine such as it exists in the Book of Concord, and freely be part of the Roman Communion without threat of excommunication…which is all the reformers sought, after all. Yes, they were seeking to correct certain abuses throughout the church and not just Germany, but ultimately it was for the right to practice what they held to. This is why we object to the dogmatization of the Marian doctrines (as an example). It is not that we do not believe Mary was assumed into heaven, but that we would be required to believe this in order to be part of the church. To crystallize it, that’s where the problem is.

For our part, Lutherans would have to recognize that the bishop of Rome is a validly ordained minister of God and is there for a purpose that stretches back to apostolic times (while we will never believe he is infallible, he’s still in the office of the holy ministry…an aspect of ecclesiology we borrow heavily from the Eastern Orthodox).

 

[guanophore]

In the end, reunification is a goal. How close it is? I don’t know. For confessional Lutherans, we would have to be allowed to retain our doctrine such as it exists in the Book of Concord, and freely be part of the Roman Communion without threat of excommunication…which is all the reformers sought, after all.

This is a practical impossibility, as no one is ever “without the threat of excommunication”. In fact, there are many actions with consequences that are considered self excommunication (the act in itself causes it).

All Catholics are eligible for excommunication, whether self inflicted, or jurisdictionaly influcted. It is a discipline of the Church, intended to call the subject back to the true faith.

 Yes, they were seeking to correct certain abuses throughout the church and not just Germany, but ultimately it was for the right to practice what they held to. This is why we object to the dogmatization of the Marian doctrines (as an example). It is not that we do not believe Mary was assumed into heaven, but that we would be required to believe this in order to be part of the church. To crystallize it, that's where the problem is.

Yes, but I think that gets back to the deeper problem of authority. Does it not boil down to the issue of Sola Scriptura? If the Church does not have the authority to define the faith, then no one need obey her in any matter.

 For our part, Lutherans would have to recognize that the bishop of Rome is a validly ordained minister of God and is there for a purpose that stretches back to apostolic times (while we will never believe he is infallible, he's still in the office of the holy ministry..an aspect of ecclesiology we borrow heavily from the Eastern Orthodox).

It is good that Eastern theology has re-emerged in the West, and can serve to heal our splits. The East has embraced doctrines and practices continually and was not subject to the abuses of the Latin Church or the Reformation. Such an infusion of consistently believed and practiced faith can do much for unity.

What does it mean for the Pope to be infallible?