For Lutherans...

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?

I think you may be misinterpreting what the Catholic Answers Tract is trying to say. I think what they are trying to say is that while we can be certain in the present moment of our salvation, we cannot predict the future. We cannot be assured of our future salvation because we are not there yet. Evangelical protestants believe that once you make a public confession of faith in Jesus, you are home free FOREVER, and it is impossible to ever fall from that point. I believe Catholic Answers is using this to say that salvation is a life-long journey, not a one time confession. In other words, I believe that the phrases you are discussing are a refuting of the “once saved, always saved” belief of many Evangelical Protestants. The way I look at it is, I have been saved, I am currently saved, and God willing, I will be saved in the future. Put in that perspective, it is not that I have no infallible assurance of that salvation, it is that I have no infallible assurance that I will always have it, AND it is not whether I please God or not, it is whether I accept his gift of salvation or reject it.

 

[Tonks40]

reen12:

“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

Thank you for your reply. I don’t think that what I’m trying to say in regards to “constant vigilance” is being unrealistic. And put in with the analogy of the husband and wife, be honest. The realistic view is that in a loving relationship, the persons involved will experience doubt in how they approach the relationship from time to time, no matter how trusting and how loving they are to each other. The doubt comes up within themselves - they question whether or not they’re doing the right thing for the other person. That’s how we approach our relationship to God our Father…it can be an up and down journey of self-doubt, but our saving factor is that **promise ** (and I emphasize this word) that we can obtain salvation, thus we must continue to live in the glory of that promise of salvation throughout our lives.

The promise of salvation made by the Lord Jesus Christ humbles me to no end, and it’s something that I don’t plan on taking for granted.

God Bless!
Tonks40

 

[Assurance]

WBB,

I think you may be misinterpreting what the Catholic Answers Tract is trying to say.

No, I lovingly and vociferously disagree with you. Go back and read it again. It is in black and white. Words mean something and these words are very clear.

I think what they are trying to say is that while we can be certain in the present moment of our salvation, we cannot predict the future.

No that is not what they are saying, but I understand how you could think that. Having listened to a lot of Catholic Answers shows related to this topic FOR MONTHS I thought they are saying what you are saying now. I repeat - THEY ARE NOT SAYING WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE SAYING. Praise God, you are interpreting what they say through a thoroughly Biblical (hence Lutheran) filter - and thereby you are being preserved in the true faith. You see, fortunately, you are not being consistent in your adherence to Roman Catholic teaching. Why don’t you ask the staff apologists here about the difference between certainty and infallible certainty. What constitutes the difference? I’ll tell you what - to the sinner who fears a holy and righteous God, it makes all the difference in the world. They think: “by saying that I can’t have infallible certainty, they mean that I can’t really be sure…” And they are right for thinking that.

Evangelical protestants believe that once you make a public confession of faith in Jesus, you are home free FOREVER, and it is impossible to ever fall from that point. I believe Catholic Answers is using this to say that salvation is a life-long journey, not a one time confession.

And they are right in saying that. Luther started the Reformation (not purposely) by writing in his first of the 95 theses that when our Lord Jesus said repent, he meant the whole of the Christian life was one of repentace. Yes, the Reformed and the Baptists and everyone else may talk about “once saved, always saved” but Lutherans have never said such a thing.

The way I look at it is, I have been saved, I am currently saved, and God willing, I will be saved in the future. Put in that perspective, it is not that I have no infallible assurance of that salvation, it is that I have no infallible assurance that I will always have it, AND it is not whether I please God or not, it is whether I accept his gift of salvation or reject it

.

Bless your heart WBB. This is my position - and mark my words - you, praise God, are exposing true Christian, biblical, Lutheran (!) doctrine and NOT official RC teaching. Again, read the tract! You CANNOT have infallible assurance of your present salvation. It very clearly says:

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.

Nuff said.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

Tonks 40,

The realistic view is that in a loving relationship, the persons involved will experience doubt in how they approach the relationship from time to time, no matter how trusting and how loving they are to each other. The doubt comes up within themselves - they question whether or not they’re doing the right thing for the other person.

Fair enough for human relationships. But does God ever doubt that He is doing the right thing for us by saving us the uttermost in His Son Jesus Christ that we may be his forever. Further, even in human relationships, though a person may question whether or not they’re doing the right thing for the other person, it is possible for a person NOT TO QUESTION the idea that they should love a person unconditionally, take the pain caused by another’s sin upon one’s self and forgive them, and finally, to do all of this with the end in view of remaining in relationship with them forever (not cutting them off, though they may choose to do it to you)

that promise (and I emphasize this word) that we can obtain salvation, thus we must continue to live in the glory of that promise of salvation throughout our lives.

Tonks40, biblically we HAVE OBTAINED SALVATION in Christ at baptism. He has given us ALL THINGS. And it is precisely because of the certainty of God’s character and His unending love for us that we can BE UTTERLY CONFIDENT that HE forgives us freely and has brought us into a relationship that will last forever through the blood and righteousness of His Son Jesus Christ. Of this, I am infallibly certain. I genuinely want to know, because you seem to be a secure Christian - what KIND of certainty do you have? How would you gauge it? What is it based on?

 

[Assurance]

Maybe Trent can shed some light on what I am saying:

CHAPTER IX

AGAINST THE VAIN CONFIDENCE OF HERETICS

But though it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted nor ever have been remitted except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins,[47] resting on that alone, though among heretics and schismatics this vain and ungodly confidence may be and in our troubled times indeed is found and preached with untiring fury against the Catholic Church. Moreover, it must not be maintained, that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubt whatever, convince themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified except he that believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified,[48] and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone, as if he who does not believe this, doubts the promises of God and the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

 

[WBB]

I still think you are misinterpreting what they are saying. Perhaps you could look at it this way, do we as imperfect creatures have the infallible assurance of *anything? *

 

[Ahimsa]

Isfatherwrong?:

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?

Isfather,

Could you say more about what Schaeffer says regarding secularism and eastern religions not actually living their philosophy/theology in real life?

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?

Perhaps you should ask the apologists. I don’t disagree with them. I think the sticking point is the term infallibly. I can be certain of something without being infallibly certain. In other words, to be infallibly certain of anything would preclude errors in any form. You could never be wrong thus elevating your knowledge of salvation to that of God’s with regard to your salvation.

 

[reen12]

Hello, Isfatherwrong?,

quote:Isfatherwrong?,

…biblically we HAVE OBTAINED SALVATION in Christ at baptism. He has given us ALL THINGS. And it is precisely because of the certainty of God’s character and His unending love for us that we can BE UTTERLY CONFIDENT that HE forgives us freely and has brought us into a relationship that will last forever through the blood and righteousness of His Son Jesus Christ. Of this, I am infallibly certain.

May I offer an observation, from one who spent 58 years
in the RCC?

IMO, and it’s just that, my “opinion”, the RCC’s insistence
on sacramental confession to a priest, complicates matters.
When I was a kid, people used to carry a card in their
wallet, saying: “I am a Catholic. In case of an accident,
please call a priest.” [for possible anointing and confession]

Additionally, I was taught the concept of “perfect
contrition” which was defined as: true sorrow for
having offended God, without the fear of damnation
being the reason for that sorrow. [paraphrase]
That’s why it would be “perfect.”
[In case a priest couldn’t get there in time.]

Now the fact that this is a psychological impossibility
[which I recognized at the age of 12] didn’t seem to
perturb those who were “passing on” this concept.

The thought that one could tell God h/she was very
sorry, because one “…fears the loss of heaven and
the pains of hell…” evidently wasn’t considered
sufficient for God to forgive sin, at the moment of death.

See the Baltimore Catechism, #'s 765 and 767

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

I have no idea what has been taught for the last 40 years,
so perhaps younger posters won’t know what I’m
talking about. [You had to have been raised with the old
Baltimore Catechisms to get my drift.]

IMO, that’s what generates a certain “nervousness”.

I mean, you could get run down by a car, and unless
a priest was at your elbow, or you could pull off a
psychological tour de force: “I repent”* and *“Im not afraid of hell” -you’re toast.

How jolly.

But, you see, the RCC can’t back away from sacramental
confession being a sine qua non, for to do so, would be to
admit error, and consequently to do injury to the claim of
infallibility.

Good luck, Isfatherwrong?, in trying to convey the
critical distinction in faith positions, in terms of the
Lutheran and RCC view of the certainty of salvation.

Best regards,
reen

 

[Vincent1560]

Angainor:

There is only one Church. There is no “second Church”. Do you think Jesus would allow a “second Church”?No, I [thread=66501]do not know[/thread] that.They needed a physical head? I think you are wrong.
But when they said “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. - 1 Samuel 8:6-8

That was a great example I hadn’t thought of. Thanks

 

[Vincent1560]

Angainor:

There is only one Church. There is no “second Church”. Do you think Jesus would allow a “second Church”?No, I [thread=66501]do not know[/thread] that.They needed a physical head? I think you are wrong.
But when they said “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. - 1 Samuel 8:6-8

That was a great example I hadn’t thought of. Thanks

 

[reen12]

Glad to see you aboard the forums, Vincent1560. :tiphat:

Best wishes,
reen12

 

[Jabronie]

As the guy who started this thread, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for being so kind and respectfull to each other in your discussions.

 

[Assurance]

WBB said:

to be infallibly certain of anything would preclude errors in any form. You could never be wrong thus elevating your knowledge of salvation to that of God’s with regard to your salvation

.

I understand what you’re saying WBB. Yes, I desire (so help me God!) that my 3-year-old son can be INFALLIBLY CERTAIN that his father will infallibly love him, forgive him, and desire that he be given the complete assurance that his father desires to spend all of eternity with him. With Jesus, we can take it a step further and say that He not only desires these things for those He brings to the Father, but He makes the way for it to happen.

It is finished - how can I not be infallibly certain of my Savior’s love(yes, so long as I do not fall into faith-destroying and doubt-inducing sin)? Christ is my justification, sanctification, righteousness, and wisdom (I Cor 1:30) - and in union with Him I have the knowledge that He would not have me doubt this mighty salvation for an instance. Sin, death, and the devil have been defeated in Him.

Read the Trent quote above - it seems clear that they weren’t making distinctions about certainty and infallible certainty at that time.

Yes, I would be interested in hearing more about the difference between certainty and infallible certainty. My guess is that proposed distinctions will show themselves to be worthy of nothing else than being shot down for the glory of the Father and His Christ.

Ahimsa:

Could you say more about what Schaeffer says regarding secularism and eastern religions not actually living their philosophy/theology in real life?

Schaeffer was a Reformed Protestant who wrote many books in the late 60s through the early 80s. I don’t agree with all of his thought or theology, but one thing he said was this: “non-Christians cannot live consistently with their philosophies of life”. For example, Peter Singer advocates infanticide for children up to 1 (?) because they aren’t worth much to anyone but than takes care of his elderly invalid (?) mother who’s health is failing. Likewise practitioners of Eastern religion will tell you there is no real good or evil, but if you pour scalding hot water on them purposely for your pleasure, they will rightly object to such an evil action. Roman Catholics who are among God’s people in practice are actually Lutheran in that they trust not in their own righteousness, but rest in Christ’s righteousness. They often hold to this righteousness securely, confident that Jesus will deliver them from hell, contrary to their Church’s official teaching.

 

[Vincent1560]

reen12:

Glad to see you aboard the forums, Vincent1560. :tiphat:

Best wishes,
reen12

Thankyou.

 

[Writer]

Isfatherwrong?:

Fascinating discussion here. Well, I wanted to make good on my intentions from yesterday:

…Because Lutherans, in my view, most closely hold to the Apostolic faith and the faith of the Church Fathers. Keep in mind Luther wanted to reform the Church, not break away or start over. I would argue that all who came after Luther - including Calvin and Reformed - were actually intending to be more REVOLUTIONARY - they tossed out the Real Presence in the Eucharist, cheapened the power of baptism, denied that a person could lose the faith or that grace could be resisted, etc. Luther and the followers of Luther never claimed to have left the Catholic Church - THEY were the ones who were faithfully preaching the Apostolic doctrine and were reforming the Church from within - never intending to leave.

For serious Lutherans, it all hinges on the doctrine of justification. Mary, purgatory, indulgences, saints - all of these issues are related to justification. In principle, I see no problem talking to Mary or the saints or asking them to pray for me - I understand what Catholics say here. However, I don’t even see any descriptive examples of people in the Bible doing this sort of thing, much less prescriptive examples. In practice, I fear (as do some more evangelically-minded Roman Catholics) some really do start trusting the saints more than or instead of Jesus.

Good question. Luther thought that the Pope did have authority - though by human rite and not divine rite. In other words, he believed something like I think the Orthodox believe today. I must admit - I am open to considering that the Pope may be who he is by Divine rite - meaning God really did give something to Peter, his “prime minister”, and meant for him to be the visible head of the Church, and to pass that on - but I don’t see how that would necessarily make him infallibe. When Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth and that hell won’t overcome the Church, I take this to mean the Gospel rises to the top (think of Mel Gibson’s Passion) and transforms the world and will not be conquered - not that the man whom God means to lead the visible Church on earth will never make a mistake when speaking authoritatively from the chair of Peter. Willing to listen though!

I don’t have time to respond to your post the way it deserves; you bring up many interesting points. I did want to ask you about you reference to Real Presence. LCMS doesn’t believe in Real Present as Catholics do, correct? When we attended this denomination before our conversion to Catholicism, I remember the minister describing it as something between the regular protestant understanding and the Catholic understanding–that Christ’s presence was above and below the communion, but not in the same literal way it is accepted by Catholics–or the early church.

Regarding your thoughts on the saints, there are a couple Scripture passages which refer to praying for the deceased, but I don’t have the references handy. I always consider the “cloud of witnesses” to refer to the saints who are with God. Since God is outside of time, I can ask for their intercession. To be honest, though, just because I can explain it and don’t disagree doesn’t mean that I do this personally much…yet. Still, as long as it doesn’t cross that line, I see no problem with communicating to the saints or Mary in the same way we ask a friend to pray for us.

As far as the pope is concerned, first of all “ex cathedra” pronouncements have only been used a handfull of times. I see it less as a trust in the man, than a trust in God to safeguard this man and the Church on earth. That doesn’t mean that there have not been bad popes, but, as I understand from RCIA and other sources, the interesting thing is that the Church almost seems to do best when led the most poorly. The Church will continue on despite the occasional bad pope, because the Church is under the watchful eye and protection of our God. What happens without sound leadership? Well, partial birth abortion providers in Kansas and elsewhere take communion at Lutheran ELCA Churches, the Episcopal Church has endorsed homosexual bishops, and it looks like the United Methodist Church is heading the same direction. In my humble opinion, only the Catholic Church provides a perfect dove-tailing between faith and reason.

 

[WBB]

reen12:

Additionally, I was taught the concept of “perfect
contrition” which was defined as: true sorrow for
having offended God, without the fear of damnation
being the reason for that sorrow. [paraphrase]
That’s why it would be “perfect.”
[In case a priest couldn’t get there in time.]

Now the fact that this is a psychological impossibility
[which I recognized at the age of 12] didn’t seem to
perturb those who were “passing on” this concept.

The thought that one could tell God h/she was very
sorry, because one “…fears the loss of heaven and
the pains of hell…” evidently wasn’t considered
sufficient for God to forgive sin, at the moment of death.

See the Baltimore Catechism, #'s 765 and 767

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

I have no idea what has been taught for the last 40 years,
so perhaps younger posters won’t know what I’m
talking about. [You had to have been raised with the old
Baltimore Catechisms to get my drift.]

IMO, that’s what generates a certain “nervousness”.

I mean, you could get run down by a car, and unless
a priest was at your elbow, or you could pull off a
psychological tour de force: “I repent”* and *“Im not afraid of hell” -you’re toast.

How jolly.

But, you see, the RCC can’t back away from sacramental
confession being a sine qua non, for to do so, would be to
admit error, and consequently to do injury to the claim of
infallibility.

Good luck, Isfatherwrong?, in trying to convey the
critical distinction in faith positions, in terms of the
Lutheran and RCC view of the certainty of salvation.

Best regards,
reen

reen,

I am sure you would never have intended this, but I got a little giggle out of your post…especially the “getting run down by a car.”

I believe sacramental confession is a wonderful thing. It is a healing ministry whereby we are reminded of our need for God and His mercy and are assured that our sins have been put away. The idea of perfect contrition is not that you must repent of your sins for offending God AND to not fear hell, it is that the primary reason for your sorrow and true repentance is because of love of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church delineates the difference between perfect contrition and imperfect contrition:

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

Hope that helps.

Brian

 

[Assurance]

Writer,

I did want to ask you about you reference to Real Presence. LCMS doesn’t believe in Real Present as Catholics do, correct? When we attended this denomination before our conversion to Catholicism, I remember the minister describing it as something between the regular protestant understanding and the Catholic understanding–that Christ’s presence was above and below the communion, but not in the same literal way it is accepted by Catholics–or the early church.

Thanks for the questions. I’ll have to write more on Monday (maybe I’ll have a few moments tomorrow morning) - I can get a little obsessive with this forum stuff. If you read previous posts, you will see just what Lutherans teach about the Real Presence. In short, though, we do say the bread IS the body and the wine IS the blood, though not in the same way the RC Church does.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?:

WBB said:

.

I understand what you’re saying WBB. Yes, I desire (so help me God!) that my 3-year-old son can be INFALLIBLY CERTAIN that his father will infallibly love him, forgive him, and desire that he be given the complete assurance that his father desires to spend all of eternity with him. With Jesus, we can take it a step further and say that He not only desires these things for those He brings to the Father, but He makes the way for it to happen.

It is finished - how can I not be infallibly certain of my Savior’s love(yes, so long as I do not fall into faith-destroying and doubt-inducing sin)? Christ is my justification, sanctification, righteousness, and wisdom (I Cor 1:30) - and in union with Him I have the knowledge that He would not have me doubt this mighty salvation for an instance. Sin, death, and the devil have been defeated in Him.

It appears that what you are asking is something we cannot have. We cannot know the mind of God! We can only trust in His mercy! I am infallibly certain of my Savior’s love. I agree that God desires that I spend eternity with Him. There is no question of that. What you are desiring is to know with the certainty of God Almighty (which is the way I interpret infallible certainty) that you are saved. We cannot know this. Infallible certainty that God loves us and desires us to be with Him is not the same as infallible certainty that we are on the right path.

 

[reen12]

Dear WBB,

quote: WBB

It appears that what you are asking is something we cannot have. We cannot know the mind of God!

True, but this is a matter of trust. I trust God’s integrity.
I cannot know the mind of God, with respect to many
realities, I suppose.

But I can know, with certainty, that God keeps His
promises.

No “mind reading” required.

Best,
reen

PS I’ll weigh in on your other post above, shorly, OK?