For Lutherans...

[adstrinity]

Isfatherwrong?:

Hello. I am a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Lutheran who was studying to be a pastor for a couple years (no longer)

The main thing that keeps me Lutheran is the teaching of justification by faith, which I believe is very, very different from what Rome believes. Just so you are aware, Pope Pius XVI several years ago made it very clear that in spite of the Joint Declaration on Justification (made with compromised Lutherans), all of Trent stood firm – Pope John Paul II said the same.

The last Pope Pius was Pius XII and his pontificate ended in 1958. There has not been a Pope Pius XVI. Who are you talking about here?

 

[Assurance]

adstrinity,

Terribly sorry about that! I was talking about Pope Benedict XVI, the current Pope. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he made it clear a few years ago that in the Joint Declaration of Justification, Trent stood completely firm (I can get the reference for you if you’d like). This was a surprise to most of the Lutherans (more liberal Lutherans) who took part in this process however, as most were under the impression that Rome had come their way a little.

In short, the main problem with the Joint Declaration is that the key terms – in particular “grace” – were not defined. Therefore, each group who signed the “agreement” can define grace and other terms differently and therefore read the document the way they want to read it.

Now, I don’t think the Joint Declaration is a total negative thing. I am only saying that it would have been good if all participants would have admitted, up front, that they were not both using the same definitions of key terms - if they had done that, I at least, would have thought some kind of progress had been made. However, since they were in fact not agreeing, I find the whole thing rather disengenuous and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth - its like they think its a responsible thing to pull the wool over people’s eyes and claim that there is more agreement than there really is.

Again, sorry about the typo. Hope this clears things up.

 

[Vanny]

My dh and I are both Lutherans who are beginning more and more to lean toward the Catholic Church.
We are working through each objection one by one and have found so far the Catholic Church to be right and biblical.
My dh and I have been married over 12 years and have two wonderful sons-We are committed Christians sending our sons to Chrisitian School.
however dh was married before(to another protestant) I never have been.
So to join the Church we would have to go through the annulment process…It’s scary- what if we are refused?
Also, both ds’s have stated they don’t want to become Catholic(we have discussed it with them) so we are in need of much prayer.

 

[bapcathluth]

Although I can’t answer as theologically as Againor, who actually studied to be a minister, I would say the main reasons my Lutheran mother fought to have us raised Lutheran rather than Catholic was the Church’s view on birth control which she found to be frightening, outdated and not Biblically based, the idea of purgatory and having to confess your sins to a priest. She believed that God needed no intermediaries.

 

[Angainor]

bapcathluth:

Although I can’t answer as theologically as Againor, who actually studied to be a minister,

I just wanted to say that you probably have me mixed up with [post=851826]isfatherwrong[/post]. I have not studied to be a minister. Any arguments I make are based on my own understanding of the limited research I have done into Lutheran Confessional Documents.

bapcathluth:

She believed that God needed no intermediaries.

Indeed he doesn’t.

 

[reen12]

Dear Isfatherwrong?,

I think you’re doing a beautiful job of conveying Lutheran
thought, especially on justification.

Glad you’re on the Catholic Answers forums.

Best,
reen12

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Thank you for the kind words. I hope someone with a really good grasp of Catholic theology here will try to address my concerns - for me, as with Luther, it really does come down to “the monster of uncertainty”. If this were taken care of, I believe concerns about Mary, the Saints, indulgences, the Mass, and purgatory would all fall into place. Again, I don’t deny that we can starve or destroy our faith though sin - we certainly can. I, however, believe that it is only from the assurance of our acceptance in Christ, that we can even began to do good works that glorify our Father in heaven before the world. It is this kind of assurance that Rome has persistently denied, though in reading the Apostolic Fathers, I detect no such denial.

Originally Posted by bapcathluth
She believed that God needed no intermediaries.

Angainor:
Indeed he doesn’t.

I would like to add that most devout Lutherans retain confession and absolution, even as those who do this do not require it. It’s main purpose is to give comfort to the repentant sinner - to give them assurance that Christ forgives them for their sins, accepts them freely, and welcomes them to His wedding banquet (the already and not yet of the Eucharist). Although any Christian can assure a convicted sinner of God’s forgiveness and grace for them in Christ, sometimes for some it is very helpful to hear a pastor, who is God’s called representative and messenger, say “By the authority vested in me, by virture of the shed blood of His Son Jesus Christ, I forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”

Also, there is a lot of confusion about what Lutherans believe about the Lord’s Supper. In short, we believe basically as the Eastern Orthodox do. We DO NOT insist on “consubstantiation” which is the idea that in the Eucharist the body and the bread and the blood and the wine are physically or (chemically) mixed together, separate substances just blended together. We simply assert that the bread is the body and the blood is the wine, while not explaining HOW this occurs and also not denying that the elements no longer are bread and wine. After all, Paul says, “this bread that we break - is it not the body of Christ?” - he clearly does not seem to be holding to a strict transubstantiation view (based on Aristotelian philosophy I add) where the “accident” or outward appearance remains bread where the “substance” is only the body. We simply say it is his body and blood FOR YOU FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS (the key point) - and again, DON’T EXPLAIN HOW.

 

[reen12]

Hello, Isfatherwrong?

quote: Isfatherwrong?

I, however, believe that it is only from the assurance of our acceptance in Christ, that we can even began to do good works that glorify our Father in heaven before the world.

I agree, with one large exception. Didn’t Luther hold that
any works we do, outside of being in Christ, were worthless,
in terms of being “acceptable” to God? Or am I in error
in this regard?

[BTW, I have read a fair amount written by Luther and
about Luther. I used to have half of his collected works.
On occassion, I have leapt to his defense, on these
forums.]

The one “large exception” I have, is:
The RCC holds that a person who has never heard of
Christ may be accepted by the Father, if that person
lives a righteous life, by the lights that h/she has.
[the natural law?]

Am I correct in asuming that Luther would reject this?

quote:Isfatherwrong?

QUOTE] We simply assert that the bread is the body and the blood is the wine, while not explaining HOW this occurs and also not denying that the elements no longer are bread and wine.

How utterly refreshing. I have stated, repeatedly, on these
forums, that the Orthodox have taken the wiser path, in
letting some realities remain in the realm of mystery.
Accept, assert, do not define. [assert = “testify” to the
reality].

My education was in philosophy and Aristotle was my
favorite. I can define “transubstanciation” with the best
of them. [Even if I can’t spell it !] I am at home with
substance, accidents…

But, IMHO, the RCC should have let mystery stand
as mystery, alongside Orthodoxy…and Lutheranism.

In terms of

…it really does come down to “the monster of uncertainty”.

did I understand you correctly, further up the thread,
that Catholics cannot know, with certainty, whether
they are in a “state of grace” and that it is this existential
reality, for Catholics, that constitutes the “monster of uncertainty.” ?

Again, I’m glad you’re on the forums,

Best,
reen12

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Thanks again for the engaging and most cordial post.

Let me try quickly to address your questions / concerns:

I agree, with one large exception. Didn’t Luther hold that
any works we do, outside of being in Christ, were worthless,
in terms of being “acceptable” to God? Or am I in error
in this regard?

Yes, this is true. If INTENDED to help one “get in good with God”, ie be justified, this “good work” is acutally a “sacrificial transaction inititated and controlled by a self-possessed and self-justified self” to quote a friend of mine. In truth, even pagans can do externally good works, works that can really help others in their physical and other needs. They cannot, however, do such an action naturally flowing from a heart that fears and loves the true God. Without the assurance that He has made a way to account for their sin and that he has accepted them wholesale in Christ, they are always thown back into necessary self-justification. Nevertheless, the “good pagans” works, though they be worthless to God (in the sense that He is not pleased with their manipulation which overlooks God’s providential care, denying that no work is one’s own, and further, attempts to influence God THROUGH HIS OWN GIFTS!), might be worth something to the neighbor in a physical sense, though divorced from a witness to Christ (ie performing the work in His Name and to His glory) it is doubtful how valuable this work is to the neighbor spiritually.

The one “large exception” I have, is:
The RCC holds that a person who has never heard of
Christ may be accepted by the Father, if that person
lives a righteous life, by the lights that h/she has.
[the natural law?]

Am I correct in asuming that Luther would reject this?

Most certainly. A person is not saved by any good works they do, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This does not mean that it is absolutely impossible for a person to be saved without hearing about the incarnate God-man specifically, for those in the OT certainly had a true faith in the living God, though they waited for a greater revealing of Him in Jesus Christ - some examples of the faithful who recognized Christ were Simeon, Anna, Cornelius, Lydia, etc. A person simply can not live a righteous life without trust in the true God. Anyone who lives a righteous life - that is, even starts to do good works based on the proper motivation - has come to understand that he DOES NOT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS, ie is a sinner (violates the 10 commandments, the Golden Rule, etc) and flings themselves on God’s mercy and His mercy alone. Therefore they are saved because they BELIEVE in the true God, again, fully revealed in Christ. If a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness or Muslim is saved, they are saved in spite of the official teachings of these religions, not because of them.

did I understand you correctly, further up the thread,
that Catholics cannot know, with certainty, whether
they are in a “state of grace” and that it is this existential
reality, for Catholics, that constitutes the “monster of uncertainty.” ?

Dead on reen12. Having been introduced to Catholic Answers and the Journey Home, I may well have been on my way into the Catholic Church at that point, if it were not for my pastor, who made sure I heard more clearly what exactly it is that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches about certainty. I would also argue that when confronted with the holiness of God in the Law this existential reality applies to everyone - not just Catholics! Tell me, do you ever have some reservations or at least questions about this teaching of the Church? My guess is that if you look at the devotional literature of many Catholic writers, you will find that the TOTAL forgiveness and acceptance of Christ is often the presupposition and is taken for granted! In other words, it contradicts official church teaching! Is it like Francis Schaeffer complained about secularism and easter religions and the like - they just can’t live with their philosophy/theology in practice?

Thank you again for your kind words. I hope to be around these forums for a while. I have much to learn about the RCC still!

 

[reen12]

Hello, Isfatherwrong?,

quote: Isfatherwrong?,
Dead on reen12. Having been introduced to Catholic Answers and the Journey Home, I may well have been on my way into the Catholic Church at that point, if it were not for my pastor, who made sure I heard more clearly what exactly it is that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches about certainty. I would also argue that when confronted with the holiness of God in the Law this existential reality applies to everyone - not just Catholics! Tell me, do you ever have some reservations or at least questions about this teaching of the Church? My guess is that if you look at the devotional literature of many Catholic writers, you will find that the TOTAL forgiveness and acceptance of Christ is often the presupposition and is taken for granted! In other words, it contradicts official church teaching! Is it like Francis Schaeffer complained about secularism and easter religions and the like - they just can’t live with their philosophy/theology in practice?

…if it were not for my pastor, who made sure I heard more clearly what exactly it is that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches about certainty.

Please tell me, again, will you, what you understand
to be the teaching of the RCC with regard to certainty?
Then, any response I could make would be more
sure-footed.

Tell me, do you ever have some reservations or at least questions about this teaching of the Church?

Do you wish me to list my reservations numerically or
alphabetically?

---

As for my own belief *
[when I can manage to believe at all ] I say:

I am devoid of any righteousness that would stand before
the Father. I cling to Christ and His righteousness, which
is my righteousness.

Best regards,
reen12*

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

The following quotes are from the Catholic Answers tract “Assurance of Salvation”: catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

I have put together what I consider to be the three main “money quotes” that I think are particularly key. Wanting to give a fair representation of what is said, some are somewhat long:

Quote:

1. “Places where Scripture speaks of our ability to know that we are abiding in grace are important and must be taken seriously. But they do not promise that we will be protected from self-deception on this matter…(Matt 7:21)”

1. “True, salvation can be lost through mortal sin, but such sins are by nature grave ones, and not the kind that a person living the Christian life is going to slip into committing on the spur of the moment, without deliberate thought and consent. Neither does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot have an assurance of salvation. This is true both of present and future salvation.

One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin…”

1. “There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven.

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Tim. 4:7-. But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Cor. 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly (their italics, not mine) sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

For example, Philippians 2:12 says, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out…”

Alright, a lot to wrestle with here. Interesting things I note: knowledge, confidence (a?) assurance (an?), and hope (which we can have both now and for the future) seem to be distinguished from “infallible assurance / certainty / certitude / surety” (which we can’t have either now or in the future). What is the real difference? Why the distinction? Practically speaking? Also, what about this sentence from above: “And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin.” Thoughts and comments?

 

[reen12]

Dear Isfatherwrong?,

Alright, a lot to wrestle with here. Interesting things I note: knowledge, confidence (a?) assurance (an?), and hope (which we can have both now and for the future) seem to be distinguished from “infallible assurance / certainty / certitude / surety” (which we can’t have either now or in the future). What is the real difference? Why the distinction? Practically speaking? Also, what about this sentence from above: “And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin.” Thoughts and comments?

First, thank you for taking the time to post the material from
the Catholic Answers tract.

My own interpretation of the material is this:
Roman Catholicism adopted the Roman legal
mindset, early in the life of the Church.

I mean, substitute the terms “husband” and “wife”
for “God” and a given “Christian”, and what you would
be looking at is a legal brief -not a relational reality,
based on love and trust.

When I read your previous post, I thought of Paul
saying “…work out your salvation in fear and trembling.”

As a Lutheran, how do you hold with what Paul is
saying, here, with a claim of assurance, without
averting to the “fear and trembling” verse?

I’ve decided to short-circuit the whole justification/salvation
debate, by clinging to Christ and His righteousness,* for *my salvation, while doing the best I can, with God’s grace, to fulfill
“love thy neighbor as thyself.”

As to the RC position, as stated in the tract, I will not
defend it, because I* can’t* defend it.

Perhaps another poster will be able to provide a
defense/explanation of same.

Best regards,
reen12

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong,

I am sorry. I just don’t follow your line of reasoning that Catholics are somehow not able to know with certainty that they are in a state of grace. You use the relationship between you and your 3 year old as an analogy, and a good one I might add, but Catholics do not believe that God ever rejects them or stops loving them. I am certain of this. What exactly do you think Catholics are uncertain of?

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Thank you for your honesty about not being able to defend the information from the Catholic Answers tract. This is how I look at the fear and trembling passage:

“Working out one’s salvation in fear and trembling?” I think it means this: Put into action (desires, thoughts, words, prayers, deeds) that which God has put into you. Don’t disbelieve and hence reject His beautiful promise to do good works in you for the life of the world. Just live the salvation out! How can we not be awed by this - not fear and tremble at what He has done? He has given us full justification, sanctification, etc…now just live it out in the awesome presence of your holy and loving God. This way, you will persevere in trusting Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. This is ultimately the only thing that will save you.

reen12, as I have said before, we can fall from the faith if we become enmeshed in faith destroying sin. My point is that we can, by trusting in the free promise of forgiveness and grace (FOR REAL SINNERS!) won by Christ on the cross, be assured that in some sense we already possess our whole salvation in Christ, who has given us ALL things. Indeed, it sounds like poster WBB wants to believe and thinks we should believe this (or something like it)! Surely in the now and not yet tension of this present fallen world, this needs to “work itself out” and unfold in our lives. Sadly, in some, it does not. For example, as people are not properly fed the Word, this leads to improper or non-existent self-feeding, which leads to greater susceptibility to faith-destroying and doubt-inducing sin, which leads to apostasy.

 

[Assurance]

WBB said:

I am sorry. I just don’t follow your line of reasoning that Catholics are somehow not able to know with certainty that they are in a state of grace. You use the relationship between you and your 3 year old as an analogy, and a good one I might add, but Catholics do not believe that God ever rejects them or stops loving them. I am certain of this. What exactly do you think Catholics are uncertain of?

Thank you for your question WBB. I encourage you to go back and read what has been said already, but let me try again: According to my understanding, official Catholic teaching is that a person can not have an infallible assurance (as it says in the Catholic Answers tract) that they are in a right relationship with God that will result in eternal life (meaning that they can not even have an infallible assurance that they will make it to purgatory). In spite of the fact that there are some people who think and say they know Jesus when they don’t - like those who say “Lord, Lord” or those Paul mentions who have “a different Jesus” - I say that nevertheless, we can have such an infallible assurance - because the sheep know the voice of their shepherd. And I say this not because I am such a good person, but because God is so good in Christ - fully and freely forgiving me all of my sins - those things I have done and left undone - and that I can have absolute confidence that I am in a state of grace AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

Can I be so confident of the future? Insofar as my faith is in Christ alone, yes. Insofar as the old man in me draws me into faith-destroying and doubt-inducing sin, no. Therefore, my prayer is this: “O Christ, let me persevere! Do not let me fail! Let me not be deceived by my sinfulness! You are my righteousness! Make me trust in You alone!”.

Yes, Scripture says that we can fall. As Luther put it in one of his hymns: “Holy Lord God, holy, might God, most merciful Savior. Thou eternal God, suffer us not to fall away from the true consolation of faith. Kyrie eleison!”

Again - it is a moment by moment thing. When we draw our last breath the ONLY thing that matters is this: Will I keep the faith?

Rome does not say that we can have infallible assurance as I am saying we can (must!) - at least in their official teaching. Fortunately however, many do not believe the official teaching, but actually cling to the truths I am trying to present - and therefore they are saved in Christ to the uttermost. Therefore, I insist that Lutherans are the true catholics and insofar as a Roman Catholic is truly one of God’s own - he actually holds to the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions which speak of this unshakeable assurance and not to Roman teaching.

In regards to your saying that Catholics never believe that God stops loving them, I agree - this is also official RC teaching, I believe, and it is a good one. However, if you really think about it it is inconsistent with what they say about not being able to have infallible assurance AT THE PRESENT MOMENT. What kind of father is it whose love is actually dependent on whether their child obeys them? Would you insist that Rome doesn’t teach this? I don’t deny that we can reject faith in Jesus Christ and that God will ultimately give us what we want (hell) - I only deny that Rome can say that we CAN’T have an infallible assurance that God loves me, forgives me, and will surely bring me home (if I were to die right now at this present instant) WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY saying that God never stops loving me. Simply put: How can it be loving to deny someone an infallible assurance that you love them, forgive them, and have made a way for them to spend all of eternity with you?

When my son thinks that my desire to love him, forgive him, and to spend eternity with Him depends on his good or bad behavior, THAT IS A PROBLEM (again, I am NOT saying that his behavior will not influence whether or not HE wants to do the same towards me…)

 

[Tonks40]

I’ve been reading this thread with great interest. Isfatherwrong & reen12, you’ve made some good points. I can see where you have some confusion over the Church’s stance on certainty of salvation, of assurance through faith, and assurance of God’s love.

In the Catholic Church, we focus a lot on offering our sins to God through Jesus Christ. The Fatima Prayer in the Rosary: “O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of our mercy.” We ask God for mercy on our souls for our sins at Mass: “Kyrie eleison (Lord have mercy), Christe eleison (Christ have mercy), Kyrie eleison (Lord have mercy).” We pray the Act of Contrition to help us avoid sin. We do this not because we fear that God will take away the salvation that was promised us through the sacrifice that Christ made for us, but because we as sinners know that we must be on constant vigilance to rectify to ourselves in God’s eyes. True, the Church does teach this to us, but it is with our faith in this truth that we are compelled to act in accordance with the graces given to us through the Sacraments.

As Catholics, we do not fear that God will stop loving us. We know he does. He desires for us to be with him. Sin seperates us from him in the worse way, and once we recognize that, we do things to correct the situation. Just like the analogy of a child to his father; if a child does something wrong, the father will feel disappointed, may even get mad, and punishes or disciplines the child, but this won’t make him stop loving him. The child recognizes that, comes to his father, and says, “I’m sorry, Daddy. I’ll be a good boy next time” and learns his lesson As God’s faithful, we do the same thing. With sincerity of heart, we come to Our Father when we have sinned, examine ourselves, and find ways to avoid the sin again, promising to Him that we’ll do better. It is with contant vigilance that we guard ourselves from falling into sin and seperating ourselves from the promises of Christ.

As far as how this goes along with “Rome” and Church teaching, I look to the Holy Fathers and how they approach their callings: with humbleness of heart, and as servants to Christ.

That, to me, is the Catholic understanding of our assurance of salvation.

 

[reen12]

Dear Tonks40,

quote: Tonks40
… we as sinners know that we must be on constant vigilance to rectify to ourselves in God’s eyes.

OK. Try this analogy:

“I, as a wife, must be “on constant vigilance” to “rectify”
my faults, vis a vis my relationship with my husband.”

That’s a marriage? That is being safe and secure, in
my husband’s love??

“constant vigilance”

This, toward the God Who says:

“Even if your mother and father forget you,
I will never forget you,
See? I have written your name on the palm of My hand.”

No. I cling to Christ and His righteousness, which is
my righteousness and my salvation - trying my best to
“love my neighbor as myself”, and casting my failures on
His mercy, as a function of *trust…*not “constant vigilance.”

Best wishes,
reen12

 

[Assurance]

Tonks40,

Thank you for saying we’ve made some good points!

I

can see where you have some confusion over the Church’s stance on certainty of salvation, of assurance through faith, and assurance of God’s love.

Let me kindly say, I think you are wrong. Again - official Roman Catholic church teaching DOES NOT ALLOW you to have absolute assurance and certainty that God the Father has fully accepted you in Christ - that you are freely and fully forgiven and that you, if you died at this moment, would be on your way to heaven (perhaps after a stint in purgatory). If you insist that you have absolute assurance that God has fully accepted you in this way, you believe Confessional Lutheran doctrine and not Catholic teaching. Period.

Please go and look at the Catholic Answers tract again. That said, I will go back and re-read your post several times when I get a free moment! My initial impression after reading it through twice was that you are talking like a good, pious Lutheran and you don’t know it! (again, all true Christians in their devotionals and devotional literature, unable to live by Roman Catholic Church-style theology/philosophy are actually Lutheran!) Maybe I am the one who needs to be corrected, though I would appreciate being corrected from some concrete, authoritative, magisterial Catholic source!

Again, I am thankful that Roman Catholics today teach that nothing can change God’s love for us. But again, how loving is it for a person to insist they have unconditional love for a person and to simultaneously insist that the one who is loved cannot have absolute assurance of the stability of that relationship - ie, that if physical death occured at this moment that they could not be confident of freedom from the second death (hell) because of the finished work of Christ?

Lift Christ Higher,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Just read your post. Wow. Amen.

Amen and amen and amen!

Lift Christ higher!

 

[reen12]

Good morning, Isfatherwrong?

Actually, I’d probably have to consider myself an Evangelical
of sorts, while retaining belief in the Real Presence.
I posted a reply to Tonks40, above.

It’s taken me close to 50 years to understand what
non-Catholic Christians are saying.

Amen is right, Isfatherwrong?

Best wishes,
reen12