Fallacies of sola scriptura

[paul_c]

It does not speak against sola fide. It speaks for our obligation as Christians to be obedient to the commands of Christ, whose suffering death, and ressurection makes our Justification possible.
Why does he feel this way? Not because of James, but because, he says, the Papists embrace it alone, and leave out all the rest. Admittedly, there are some who wish to leave James out, as he admnishes us of the importance of good works, and the law. Lutherans do not.
From the Formula of Concord.

Just a final quote from Luther: “There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.” I contend these are not the words of someone who downplays the importance of personal sin, of repentance and obedience to God’s word.

Thanks, Paul, for your charitable dialogue.
Jon

Jon,
I’m glad we agree that reconciliation is the goal. But it can’t be done by compromising the truth because that just damns everyone. So what must be done is we must all come to understand the actual truth.

It seems that you personally have come into an understanding of at least a couple of Luther’s “solas” in a way that is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

Sola Scriptura.: You see scripture is a solid base that will not be contradicted by true doctrine but you also understand that it is the interpretaton tradition of the Chruch that really defines what is meant by each passage. To this we agree. The question is, can you understand it from the Catholic tradition, that predates the Lutheran one by 1500 years and reconcile the differences. Perhaps you can.

Sola Fide: You understand this as saying Faith proceeds works and are fulfilled by them. without works, Faith is just empty words. To this we would also agree.

On the face of it, I don’t think there are big disagreements on Grace alone if you understand it to me we are saved by God’s grace. To this we would agree. However, if you extend this to mean that we don’t need to cooperate with grace for salvation, then we would disagree.

We could agree on Christ alone as well, if you understand this to mean that belief in Jesus is paramount to salvation. But if you extend this to say that there is no need for the priesthood , then of course we would disagree.

In the end, the Catholic church can not compromise its doctrines because it was commissioned by Christ to teach these unfailingly 2000 years ago. It will compromise Church practice, how it communicates those doctrines to the people. As you probably know, there are 22 Eastern churches in communion with Rome, all with their own uniue rites and practices. And you undoubtedly know, that Pope Benedict has offered to bring in the Anglican communion as well, as long as they agree to follow Catholic Doctrine. It appears that many of them will. This will undoubtedly be the same offer to Lutherans, should they decide they want to do this. In my own parish, the local Lutheran pastor converted to Catholicism and became an associate pastor at our Catholic Church.

The ball’s in your court…

 

[inkaneer]

Jon,

…In the end, the Catholic church can not compromise its doctrines because it was commissioned by Christ to teach these unfailingly 2000 years ago. It will compromise Church practice, how it communicates those doctrines to the people. As you probably know, there are 22 Eastern churches in communion with Rome, all with their own uniue rites and practices. And you undoubtedly know, that Pope Benedict has offered to bring in the Anglican communion as well, as long as they agree to follow Catholic Doctrine. It appears that many of them will. This will undoubtedly be the same offer to Lutherans, should they decide they want to do this. In my own parish, the local Lutheran pastor converted to Catholicism and became an associate pastor at our Catholic Church.

The ball’s in your court…

I allways get the feeling that whenever the idea of reunion is floated that people think in terms of “everything is on the table”. That compromise will rule the day. But the Church will not compromise on doctrine. That includes the issue of authority and papal infallibility which supposedly were the central issues of the rift. None of the defined doctrines of the church whether it be the canon of Scripture or the Immaculate Conception, will be tainted by compromise. The decrees of the Council of Trent will have to be accepted by any group wishing to reunite. That is a tall order to ask of anyone as it basically is an admission that for 500 years they were wrong. I would hope that pride would not stand in the way of truth and the urge to have the truth in its fullest will prevail. I do see that possibly the Catholic doctrines can be accepted if they are given an understanding that does not conflict with the Catholic understanding. Just how this might be done I’ll have to leave for more knowledgeable people to ponder.

 

[paul_c]

I allways get the feeling that whenever the idea of reunion is floated that people think in terms of “everything is on the table”. That compromise will rule the day. But the Church will not compromise on doctrine. That includes the issue of authority and papal infallibility which supposedly were the central issues of the rift. None of the defined doctrines of the church whether it be the canon of Scripture or the Immaculate Conception, will be tainted by compromise. The decrees of the Council of Trent will have to be accepted by any group wishing to reunite. That is a tall order to ask of anyone as it basically is an admission that for 500 years they were wrong. I would hope that pride would not stand in the way of truth and the urge to have the truth in its fullest will prevail. I do see that possibly the Catholic doctrines can be accepted if they are given an understanding that does not conflict with the Catholic understanding. Just how this might be done I’ll have to leave for more knowledgeable people to ponder.

It doesn’t mean that individuals alive today were wrong for 500 years, only that their predecessors were wrong. And many times the rifts were driven by personal or political issues, more than doctrine. Take the Orthodox for example. Their doctrinal differences wiht the Catholic church are truly miniscule with the exception of Papal authority, which was largely due to political issues between east and west that have been somewhat muted over the last 1000 years. I am hopeful that the Orthodox will rejoin us soon through the work of Benedict XVI. Similarly, the Anglicans don’t have a lot of true doctrinal issues with Catholics, their schism was the result of King henry’s divorce attempt and his massive ego more than ny fundamental doctrinal issue. As you can see, many are coming back now that B16 hasn’t opened the doors because King henry’s divorce is no longer an issue for them, nor is the need for a national church…

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;6686336]Jon,
I’m glad we agree that reconciliation is the goal. But it can’t be done by compromising the truth because that just damns everyone. So what must be done is we must all come to understand the actual truth.

Agreed, and in some ways it may just be a matter of the Holy Spirit guiding us to ways of expressing the one truth that we can agree on. That doesn’t compromise truth, but it may require each of us to be less stubborn about own own words.

It seems that you personally have come into an understanding of at least a couple of Luther’s “solas” in a way that is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

Sola Scriptura.: You see scripture is a solid base that will not be contradicted by true doctrine but you also understand that it is the interpretaton tradition of the Chruch that really defines what is meant by each passage. To this we agree. The question is, can you understand it from the Catholic tradition, that predates the Lutheran one by 1500 years and reconcile the differences. Perhaps you can.

More than a solid base, but the final norm. That said, I see hermeneutics as the job of the Church. And you are right, the question is can we reconcile the differences?

Sola Fide: You understand this as saying Faith proceeds works and are fulfilled by them. without works, Faith is just empty words. To this we would also agree.

I might be off base a bit here, but it seems semantically, Lutherans see justification as Catholcis would initial Justification. So, when I speak of the ncessity of works, I am always talking about sanctification.
In many ways, though, Lutherans agree that a saving, living faith is one that works, and that faith without works must be dead.

On the face of it, I don’t think there are big disagreements on Grace alone if you understand it to me we are saved by God’s grace. To this we would agree. However, if you extend this to mean that we don’t need to cooperate with grace for salvation, then we would disagree.

We could agree on Christ alone as well, if you understand this to mean that belief in Jesus is paramount to salvation. But if you extend this to say that there is no need for the priesthood , then of course we would disagree.

The two are connected, because Christ and His actions are Grace. It is only by His actions that we can possibly hope for salvation, since we are incapable of fulfilling the law completely. When a Lutheran says “faith alone”, we know that faith comes from Grace, and it is Grace that saves.

In the end, the Catholic church can not compromise its doctrines because it was commissioned by Christ to teach these unfailingly 2000 years ago. It will compromise Church practice, how it communicates those doctrines to the people.

I expect no compromise, for compromise will lead to a false unity. Pope Benedict says unity cannot come from men, but the Holy Spirit. I believe he is right.

As you probably know, there are 22 Eastern churches in communion with Rome, all with their own uniue rites and practices. And you undoubtedly know, that Pope Benedict has offered to bring in the Anglican communion as well, as long as they agree to follow Catholic Doctrine. It appears that many of them will. This will undoubtedly be the same offer to Lutherans, should they decide they want to do this. In my own parish, the local Lutheran pastor converted to Catholicism and became an associate pastor at our Catholic Church.

I know those Anglicans now reconciling will find His Grace in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and pray for the day when our differences will be reconciled as well.

The ball’s in your court…

Its in the Holy Spirit’s court.

Jon

 

[Philthy]

"Luther:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. ** Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), **but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.

Paul, how is this a citation confirming the accusation that Luther, as you said, "… downplayed personal sin, making it unimportant for salvation, which is governed by Faith alone…?

May I jump in here? Luther’s choice of words (bolded) is incredibly poor - as in borderline incompetent - if his intent was to communicate that we have “an obligation to respond to the commands of Christ”, and that he was not “downplaying” the effect of personal sin. How, exactly, do the words “be a sinner and let your sins be strong (sin boldly)” add anything constructive at all? He didnt merely say that because you are a sinner or that IF you have sinned boldly in the past that you should let your trust in Christ be even stronger. He said “be a sinner” as in, remain one, and not only that, but be a bold sinner. IMHO it is a very bad message - the same message that Paul chastised from Romans: “Shall we sin (boldly) that grace may abound all the more?”
But perhaps I am missing something and you can explain what the bolded terms contribute to the Lutheran concepts of sin, forgiveness, sanctification and salvation that I am missing.

Are you saying that trusting in the mercy of God Almighty downplays personal sin, and the effect it has on salvation?

As I pointed out above, he doesnt merely say to trust in the mercy of God almighty - he actually calls for people to sin and sin boldly as long as they, in their own estimation apparently, trust in Christ stronger. Trusting in the mercy of God Almighty ALONE, and ignoring everything else HE has revealed regarding salvation and our part in it, most definitely downplays personal sin and the effect it has on salvation.

 

[paul_c]

I expect no compromise, for compromise will lead to a false unity. Pope Benedict says unity cannot come from men, but the Holy Spirit. I believe he is right.

I know those Anglicans now reconciling will find His Grace in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and pray for the day when our differences will be reconciled as well.

Its in the Holy Spirit’s court.

Jon

The Holy Spirit has led you to this website so you could learn about the Catholic Faith. but its up to you to cooperate with the spirit. He won’t force you against your will.

 

[JonNC]

May I jump in here? Luther’s choice of words (bolded) is incredibly poor - as in borderline incompetent - if his intent was to communicate that we have “an obligation to respond to the commands of Christ”, and that he was not “downplaying” the effect of personal sin. How, exactly, do the words “be a sinner and let your sins be strong (sin boldly)” add anything constructive at all? He didnt merely say that because you are a sinner or that IF you have sinned boldly in the past that you should let your trust in Christ be even stronger. He said “be a sinner” as in, remain one, and not only that, but be a bold sinner. IMHO it is a very bad message - the same message that Paul chastised from Romans: “Shall we sin (boldly) that grace may abound all the more?”
But perhaps I am missing something and you can explain what the bolded terms contribute to the Lutheran concepts of sin, forgiveness, sanctification and salvation that I am missing.

As I pointed out above, he doesnt merely say to trust in the mercy of God almighty - he actually calls for people to sin and sin boldly as long as they, in their own estimation apparently, trust in Christ stronger. Trusting in the mercy of God Almighty ALONE, and ignoring everything else HE has revealed regarding salvation and our part in it, most definitely downplays personal sin and the effect it has on salvation.

“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. **Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God’s paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son **(John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” and “for the transgression of His people was He stricken” (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure

In his letter (yes, a personal letter, not a doctrinal statement) to Melanchthon, a mild man by any measure and not prone to outrageous sin, Luther is using hyperbole to make his point clear of the mercy and grace of Christ. He is not encouraging Melanchthon (or anyone else) to sin. He was not encouraging muder and fornication a thousand times a day. That’s ridiculous. And it completely misses the entire point of the letter.

He was making the point which I quote above: Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God.

In everything we do, day by day, the possibility, no, probability, of sin is there. He explains quite well in his letter that this is what he is talking about.

But even if we are stretch and twist his words beyond reason, to say that he meant Christians should go out and sin as much as they can, it is not the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and therefore would only be his personal opinion, and quite simply irrelevent.

Jon

 

[Philthy]

In his letter (yes, a personal letter, not a doctrinal statement) to Melanchthon, a mild man by any measure and not prone to outrageous sin, Luther is using hyperbole to make his point clear of the mercy and grace of Christ. He is not encouraging Melanchthon (or anyone else) to sin. He was not encouraging muder and fornication a thousand times a day. That’s ridiculous. And it completely misses the entire point of the letter.

He was making the point which I quote above: Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God.

In everything we do, day by day, the possibility, no, probability, of sin is there. He explains quite well in his letter that this is what he is talking about.

But even if we are stretch and twist his words beyond reason, to say that he meant Christians should go out and sin as much as they can, it is not the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and therefore would only be his personal opinion, and quite simply irrelevent.

Jon

Like I said Jon, his choice of words was borderline incompetent. They add nothing to one’s understanding of what you claim he was actually attempting to say.

 

[Philthy]

Sola Scriptura.: You see scripture is a solid base that will not be contradicted by true doctrine but you also understand that it is the interpretaton tradition of the Chruch that really defines what is meant by each passage.

More than a solid base, but the final norm. That said, I see hermeneutics as the job of the Church. And you are right, the question is can we reconcile the differences?

To claim Scripture as “the final norm” while seeing hermeneutics (ie interpretation) as the job of “the Church” without having a “Sola Ecclesia” or some other such statement, seems a bit odd to me. After all, hermeneutics tells us what the final norm means, and if the Church tells us what the final norm means, then how is the Church not the final norm? It is, of course, and that is precisely why the “final norm” was revealed by the Church, independent of the final norm.

I might be off base a bit here, but it seems semantically, Lutherans see justification as Catholcis would initial Justification. So, when I speak of the ncessity of works, I am always talking about sanctification.

??? Did you mean to say Lutherans see sanctification as Catholics see justification???

In many ways, though, Lutherans agree that a saving, living faith is one that works, and that faith without works must be dead.

To say that only a faith that produces works can be regarded as salvific is Catholic, pure and simple. Faith alone is another poorly coined phrase which, now that all the evidence is in, simply no longer means what was originally intended by it.
What is truly amazing, however, is that many Protestants will go so far as to say that a faith without works should be regarded as dead, non-salvific faith but they cannot bring themselves to say that works are required for salvation. It’s truly double talk as far as I can tell.

Its in the Holy Spirit’s court.

To me these kinds of statements, like sola fide and Luthers comments on sinning boldly, fail to acknowledge the role of human free will empowered by grace. I always get a sense of rationalization when I hear, “Its all in God’s hands - if he wants to do it, it will happen”
It is a mystery for sure, but while God remains sovereign he accomplishes his will through the free will choices of humans. Yaknow, like he did by becoming one, just to drive the point home?
He has provided those paths for us to walk in, but he doesnt force us to walk in them. Our choices matter. God does not force himself upon us.

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6688334]*
To claim Scripture as “the final norm” while seeing hermeneutics (ie interpretation) as the job of “the Church” without having a “Sola Ecclesia” or some other such statement, seems a bit odd to me. After all, hermeneutics tells us what the final norm means, and if the Church tells us what the final norm means, then how is the Church not the final norm? It is, of course, and that is precisely why the “final norm” was revealed by the Church, independent of the final norm.

Except that interpretation, and interpreters are accountable to scripture. It is only different in that the Catholic Church, as I understand it, hold these things to Scripture and Tradition.

??? Did you mean to say Lutherans see sanctification as Catholics see justification???

Probably not exactly. You see justification as ongoing, (not trying to tell you what you believe, only what I understand it to be, please correct me if I’m wrong). Lutherans, OTOH, see justification as forensic, so to speak, followed by sanctification. Justification is monergistic, and sanctification in many ways synergistic, and it is there that good works come into play, as my obedience to Christ’s commands.

To say that only a faith that produces works can be regarded as salvific is Catholic, pure and simple. Faith alone is another poorly coined phrase which, now that all the evidence is in, simply no longer means what was originally intended by it.
What is truly amazing, however, is that many Protestants will go so far as to say that a faith without works should be regarded as dead, non-salvific faith but they cannot bring themselves to say that works are required for salvation. It’s truly double talk as far as I can tell.

Well, sola fide refers only to justification. Lutherans do not believe that failure to do good works is non-salvific, but that repeated, unrepented sin does drive out faith, and the loss of faith costs can cost one salvation. *[10. “We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.”
/I]
Formula of Concord

To me these kinds of statements, like sola fide and Luthers comments on sinning boldly, fail to acknowledge the role of human free will empowered by grace. I always get a sense of rationalization when I hear, “Its all in God’s hands - if he wants to do it, it will happen”
It is a mystery for sure, but while God remains sovereign he accomplishes his will through the free will choices of humans. Yaknow, like he did by becoming one, just to drive the point home?
He has provided those paths for us to walk in, but he doesnt force us to walk in them. Our choices matter. God does not force himself upon us.

Funny, because I was referring, in part, to Pope Benedict’s words about reconciliation, that men cannot do this, but the Spirit can.
In many ways I agree with you; the Spirit will not work to bring us to unity, unless we are all willing to prayerfully dialogue and follow His lead. He will not lead those unwilling to follow.

Jon*

 

[guanophore]

Been reading the Church’s Authorized Version of History, have you?

If you can give me a reference, I will do so. In fact, I was a cradle Catholic who knew very little about the faith, and left in pursuit of “truth”. I began my study of history with Fox’s book of Martyrs, and continued in a very anti-Catholic Baptist environment.Eventually my studies led me to three years in a Protestant Seminary. Among my other studies on history, I began to read the early fathers, and realized that the Church founded by Christ is Catholic.

Was he repudiating the Law, expanding its meaning or starting a new doctrine? Before you answer compare these commandments Ex 21:24 “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” to Mat 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Who commanded the first one? According to the Bible God (the Father) did - Exo 20:1 “And God spake all these words, saying,…”
What’s your take?

One must understand these commandments in the context they were written. At the time that the “eye for an eye” was given, it was customary to take a life for an eye, so the commandment was more just and reflective of tolerance than the custom. In the same way, the law of love given by Christ continues to develop the tolerance and non-retaliatory response the God desires of us.

 

[guanophore]

Only if the three are equal can they be aspects of one god. Yet if God creates Jesus, he clearly has some sort of priority. On the other hand if God does not create Jesus, he can hardly be his Father. This is the problem which concerns Arius, who asks in particular whether there was ever a time when God existed but Jesus, as yet, did not. He concludes that there was such a time (‘there was when he was not’). Jesus is therefore less than fully divine.

This is a good summary of the heresy into which Arias fell. It may be that he did not grasp the mystery of the incarnation.

Very close to this flawed reasoning is that which was addressed regarding the Mother of Jesus, who, though a creature, was the Mother of God. Her humanity does not make Jesus less divine.

The alarming presence of the emperor helps the bishops to reach a conclusion more emphatic than is justified by the range of their opinions.

Perhaps you can support or explain this assertion? It seems to me that, if they were “alarmed” by the presence of the Emperor, they would have more likely succumbed to embrace Arianism, which would have been his preference. Instead, they officially declared the Emperor’s belief as heresy!

The Arian heresy has not been suppressed as conclusively as Constantine may like to think, but his last years are calm enough for him to devote himself to his chosen religion.

What makes you think that Constantine wanted to suppress it?

You assume that he was speaking on individual behaviour as there is nothing in passage that says so, but you have to reconcile the OT with the NT and if it means assuming what somebody that lived 2000 years ago thought or what he meant by what he said that’s called apologetics.

No, avflf. There is no need for us to “reconicle” the OT with the NT. They are already reconciled. What needs to be reconciled is our mentality to the revelation of God. There is a seamless garment of His revelation, though we may have trouble with our fininte minds understanding it.

Apologetics is the defense of the faith we have received from the Apostles, not “assuming what someboty thought or meant”. The faith was once for all deposited to the Church, and we receive that faith. It is based upon the Revelation of God, not our assumptions and speculations.

Let’s make it easier by inserting the word “God” into the text: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by God, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is diametrically opposite. It means that you should take no action even legal action if you are wronged. The adulteress episode falls also in the same category: God in the OT did not say that those who were to stone an adulterer had to be sinless, so he did change the law.

It is not diametrically opposite. It is a continued moving in the direction of tolerance and non-retaliation.

It does NOT mean that you should take no action, evel legal action if you are wronged. God did not change the Law. It is our understanding of His revelation that has changed.

 

[guanophore]

You have never answered my question: [inre "Apostolic succession] Why didn’t the apostles replace James in Acts 12?

All of the Apostles were succeeded by bishops. The line of bishops presiding over the see of James in Jerusalem has remained unbroken from the day of his martyrdom until today.

 

[guanophore]

I fail to see…

This does, indeed, seem to be the case. However, your failure to perceive the facts does not change them.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by avflf
The Arian heresy has not been suppressed as conclusively as Constantine may like to think, but his last years are calm enough for him to devote himself to his chosen religion.

What makes you think that Constantine wanted to suppress it?

I see Constantine as being ambivalent to the whole heresy issue. I mean the guy has his hands full trying to move the capital of the empire along with other matters to include barbarian attacks on the fringes of the empire and now he has this civil unrest caused by Arius and his followers. I think Constantine wants to resolve the heresy so he can get on with other matters and he doesn’t care one way or another about either side winning or losing. From what I have been able to gather about the council Constantine made a grand entrance befitting an emperor to the applause of the bishops [after all he did pay for the whole thing]. Then after officially opening the council he then left to allow the bishops to do their work. Constantine was a master politician, much more so than he was a christian. He was very pragmatic and whatever worked was okay by him. Although members of his immediate family converted to christianity, Constantine never did so until on his deathbed. Then he was baptized supposedly by a heretical Arian bishop which I think, if true, gives credence to his pragmatism and his ambivalence.

 

[guanophore]

If Jesus had realized that baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” washes away sins, including the original one, he would have thought twice about dying and I expect he wouldn’t have gone through with it. But that is presumably what the Apostles taught according to you.

The only reason that baptism can, and does, wash away sin is because through it, we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. the Blood of Christ only can cleanse from sins. Baptism is the manner in which we are washed by Him, and the merits of His sacrifice on the cross applied to our souls.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The only reason that baptism can, and does, wash away sin is because through it, we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. the Blood of Christ only can cleanse from sins. Baptism is the manner in which we are washed by Him, and the merits of His sacrifice on the cross applied to our souls.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus, the Messiah, however, was not concerned with governance, but with personal holiness.

Oh, I disagree! He was first and foremost concerned with governance. I do agree with what you probably are saying (correct me if I a wrong) of earthly rule. He testified that His governance is not of this world, and His Kingdom is in the hearts of those who are one in Him. The reign, or governance of Christ takes place in the soul, not in the temporal realm. It does, however, reflect and affect the temporal realm, as He was clear that we are to be light and salt to the world.

 

[JonNC]

The only reason that baptism can, and does, wash away sin is because through it, we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. the Blood of Christ only can cleanse from sins. Baptism is the manner in which we are washed by Him, and the merits of His sacrifice on the cross applied to our souls.

I agree with marc anthony:

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I agree with marc anthony:

Jon

Thank you Jon, and may I say, I have enjoyed lurking in this discussion, and profiting from your always courteous posts correcting the misperceptions attributed to the Lutheran faith. It is a pleasure to learn from such a tutor.