The minister through whom the Lord works to grant forgiveness to His errant child. The Rite of Confession and Absolution ( which I, personally, hold to be a Sacrament) is a method through which the Lord works to grant forgiveness of sin, which is also forgiven at the reception of Holy Communion.
We have a collective confession at the beginning of every liturgy, just like you do. Private confession and absolution is not the only way for us.No, while they offer (for the most part) the opportunity for private confession - their view of confession is consistent with the confession we say collectively at Mass. They see the Eucharist as the mechanism for the forgiveness of sin instead of the Priest. At least that’s what I have gathered from the LCMS, WELS and ELCA pastors I have talked to. I am open to correction as always, as any fallible vessel like me should be.
Quite right. The sins are just as forgiven at the beginning of Divine Service as they would be in a private setting, with Pastor and member one on one. Sometimes, certain specific sins can grate on one’s conscience so much, that there is need for a pastor not only to pronounce individual forgiveness, but also to offer pastoral counselling. Generally, though, the corporate Confession and Absolution is more than sufficient.
No, it isn’t, actually. That’s another Catholic argument I’ve come across a lot, and it’s the result of reading Purgatory into the passage. The text is not talking about punishment being inflicted on the person in order to cleanse away impurity but rather a judgment of works. There is a huge difference between the two.That’s one of the principles of purgatory, did you know that?
Well, all I can say is that you need to read through Romans and Galatians very carefully and understand what is going on there. Paul says that we are justified by faith alone when he says that it is not by working but by believing (Rom. 4:5), and when he uses the phrase “works of law” in statements that we are justified by faith apart from works of law–in both Romans and Galatians–he is referring to the entirety of the law. Hence the great difficulty in harmonizing Paul with James.
People don’t hate the Lutheran Church, but a lot of people hate what they wrongly think of as the Lutheran Church.Yup. Interesting how Fulton Sheen’s famous statement about the CC can be used for the Lutheran Church too.
That’s true, Koineman. The best antidote for misinformation, of course, is correct information for those interested. There are still people in our own Church who refer to us as the " frozen chosen" because we seem to be a little too content to just sit back and not get the Word out. I think the LCMS is America’s " best kept secret" because I don’t see us out there declaring our Faith as maybe we should. It would be great if our Evangelism programs were a little more " out there" and a little less understated. President Harrison has been awesome about witnessing for the Gospel, but if we could just get out there with what Lutheranism has to offer, we might find more people interested in what we have to say.Yup. Interesting how Fulton Sheen’s famous statement about the CC can be used for the Lutheran Church too.
Not so.
Confusion results when a gift is mistaken for coercion.
You know, to criticize others for not understanding your theology and then make the same mistake you criticize others to be making is pretty funny
.The references for 607:
I have read said text very carefully and continue to do so. Sadly, apostolic traditions (Both Catholic and Orthodox) do not agree with your view and that of the reformers.
I see. So Catholics and Orthodox Apostolic Traditions got it wrong as well?
IOW, what Kierkegaard refers to as the “absurd”?
Great quote. Did you notice the caveat?
I actually live in the DC metro area and have done quite a bit of street evangelism, so if you’re interested in getting together to talk about possible ways to do outreach, I’d be up for it.
Okay, maybe I misunderstood where you were coming from, but your earlier post really seemed to convey that you thought God would not force faith on anyone against their will. If that was what you meant, it’s problematic because it implies that a person must first desire (will) to have the faith before God grants it, but the very desire itself is given by God.
I’m not misunderstanding anything. I know what the doctrine of Purgatory is about. It teaches that the souls of people are purified after they die by undergoing torments. Thus, the people themselves are being judged in Purgatory, whereas Paul in 1 Cor. 3 taught a judgment of works, not the person. The only way anyone could get the idea of people themselves being punished out of 1 Cor. 3 is to first decide it’s talking about purgatory and read that idea into the text. It’s sheer eisegesis.You know, to criticize others for not understanding your theology and then make the same mistake you criticize others to be making is pretty funny
And accepting what a church teaches no matter what it teaches is also a very dangerous line to walk.
It would seem so. I’m trying to see their view as being only a weakened gospel rather than another gospel.
What I call not elevating reason to such a degree that I won’t believe something unless it conforms perfectly to my reasoning ability. THAT is a dangerous line to walk. It almost inevitably leads to false doctrine. Example: The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.
Not at all. I appealed to a careful reading of Scriptures to determine what Paul was teaching in Romans and Galatians. I was not appealing to a careful reading of Scriptures to make everything in it understandable and to avoid paradox, i…e, to make James and Paul perfectly harmonized. That was the point.
The problem with that assertion, Koineman, is that you bear the burden of proving that both the Western and Eastern churches were this erroneous on justification for centuries prior to the Reformation (over a millennia to be exact).
That sounds great! I’m sure there would be other church members who’d be interested, as well… I’m out in Manassas, by the way.
I did intend to convey that God does not force faith on anyone.
It’s easy to overthink it.
God offers, we respond. We can accept, we can reject.
Yes, it is… actually
I’m not the only one who bears a burden of proof. It is also up to you folks to prove that your churches’ teaching lines up with Scripture, since you affirm its divine inspiration.
It would be truer to my words to say I claimed it was a weakened or other gospel.
The boldfaced part is patently false. There were church fathers who affirmed sola fide, including John Chrysostom on Galatians and others. We can get into that if you’d like.
It’s also very difficult to show that Trent’s teaching on meritorious works is in accord with Scripture. I won’t touch on the EOC since they don’t teach meritorious works, at least not explicitly like Trent did. And it is vital for Catholics to make sure that their church’s teaching matches Scripture, since the CC claims that both tradition and Scripture are twin streams of divine revelation–hence they must agree.
That’s just it: the 1 Cor. 3 text does not support purgatory. It says nothing that even hints at purgatory, for the reasons I’ve already stated. Like I said, if you’d like to start dissecting the passage verse by verse in a separate thread, I’m all for it.Yes, it is… actually
The text in any given Scripture passage does not have to explicitly raise all aspects of a doctrine. Doctrine does not need to rely on explicit Scripture reference, let alone specific verses. But Scripture must support doctrine, and at the least not contradict it.
Not against our will, for he first changes the will so we desire faith, like the Council of Orange said. Do you agree with that?
Since our churches copied, formulated, debated, defended and translated Scripture, as well as, in a historic sense, formed the great orthodox understandings of doctrine based on Scripture, I don’t see how we would need to defend the idea that our doctrine lines up with it. The founders of our churches authored it.
We could. However, that would then result in quotes from them which are anachronistically used to say that it lines up with Protestant teaching. The problem being that all of the additional understandings of sola fide the Reformers put forward in their confessions were completely absent in the understanding of men like John Chrysostom. Imputed righteousness, forensic justification, penal substitution, et al.The boldfaced part is patently false. There were church fathers who affirmed sola fide, including John Chrysostom on Galatians and others. We can get into that if you’d like.
Well, I am not referring specifically to the Council of Trent here. The issue is bigger than what Trent says. I would disagree with much of Trent, too. However, the failings of Trent do not prove the distinctly Protestant understanding of justification. Two wrongs do not make a right. Despite Trent being wrong, the non-Tridentine churches rejected the Lutheran reformation, too, because what they taught about justification is not what the apostles taught.So, my dad can beat up your dad.