For Lutherans...

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

Would you please take a moment to look at the
Baltimore Catechism’s declaration of what the relation of
“imperfect contrition” is, in terms of the forgiveness of mortal
sin - outside of sacramental confession?

It’s #766

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

It’s the same as #1453 in the CCC reference you provided.

---

Back to individual, lying prostrate, after being hit by a car.
“Remember, X, tell God you’re sorry for your serious
sins, because they have offended Him. Don’t base your
contrition solely on your fear of hell.”

A psychological impossibility, with the outcome being eternal damnation. Here’s a dying person, frozen with fear,
being asked, at that moment, to be sorry, due primarily
to the fact that h/she has offended God. It is supposed
to be uppermost in h/her mind, [alongside of the terror
of hell?]

Get a priest here, or you’re toast, if you’re in mortal sin.
*
So, sacramental absolution makes up for* imperfect
contrition? 1 + 1 = heaven?

I thought it was nuts when I was 12, and think it a
pernicious concept, in terms of God’s forgiveness,
47 years later.

I cast my sins on Christ’s mercy and expect that,
since God made me with emotions, He will accept
even that puny contrition called imperfect contrition…
in case I’m ever hit by a car.

I rest my case.

Best,
reen

My Gawd, take a look at #768 in the Baltimore Catechism.
[you can use the link provided above.] It acutally uses
the term “highest grade.”
Is that “high-test” or “regular”, ma’am?*

 

[WBB]

reen12:

Dear WBB,

quote: WBB

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?

Ok.

Indeed, I am certain that God keeps His promises! The question is can I be infallibly certain that I have kept mine? In order to do so, I must be infallible, and I am not. So, as I have said before, I bow to the mercy of the Lord.

 

[reen12]

From material posted by Isfatherwrong?:

quoting from the Council of Trent:

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.

I’ve spent 30 minutes, reading and re-reading the full quote from
Trent, provided further up the thread, by Isfatherwrong?

What it boils down to is:

-forgiveness of sins can only be had, with certainty, through the sacrament of Penance - because the Church has assured us that this is the case.

-Anyone, outside the Church, who believes h/her sins are
forgiven, outside this sacrament, cannot be certain of same.

Trent:

…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…

and

Trent:

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

And the finish of this:
AGAINST THE VAIN CONFIDENCE OF HERETICS is:

Trent
since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which
cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace
read: forgiveness] of God.

Removing the descriptive [as well as emotive term]
“heretic”, what Trent is saying, here, is:

You cannot rely on your own faith that you are forgiven;
you cannot be *certain *that this is a reality, with a faith
that “cannot be subject to error.”

No sacrament of penance, no certainty of forgivenss
possible.

Trent:

…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…

“…anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty…”

Boasts? How about substituting “testifies”?

Then, it would read:

…yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who testifies to] his confidence and certainty
of the remission of his sins…

The *actual *testimony of such a person would be:

"I cast my sins on the mercy of Christ, trusting in
His promise to forgive my sins. He is my salvation,
in Him I boast.
Best, :tiphat:
reen12

 

[WBB]

reen12:

Hi, WBB,

Would you please take a moment to look at the
Baltimore Catechism’s declaration of what the relation of
“imperfect contrition” is, in terms of the forgiveness of mortal
sin - outside of sacramental confession?

It’s #766

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

It’s the same as #1453 in the CCC reference you provided.

---

Back to individual, lying prostrate, after being hit by a car.
“Remember, X, tell God you’re sorry for your serious
sins, because they have offended Him. Don’t base your
contrition solely on your fear of hell.”

A psychological impossibility, with the outcome being eternal damnation. Here’s a dying person, frozen with fear,
being asked, at that moment, to be sorry, due primarily
to the fact that h/she has offended God. It is supposed
to be uppermost in h/her mind, [alongside of the terror
of hell?]

Get a priest here, or you’re toast, if you’re in mortal sin.
*
So, sacramental absolution makes up for** imperfect
contrition? 1 + 1 = heaven?

I thought it was nuts when I was 12, and think it a
pernicious concept, in terms of God’s forgiveness,
47 years later.

I cast my sins on Christ’s mercy and expect that,
since God made me with emotions, He will accept
even that puny contrition called imperfect contrition…
in case I’m ever hit by a car.

I rest my case.

Best,
reen

My Gawd, take a look at #768 in the Baltimore Catechism.
[you can use the link provided above.] It acutally uses
the term “highest grade.”
Is that “high-test” or “regular”, ma’am?

It is all so legalistic!!! I know!!! But you and I both know that in the real world, people are flesh and blood and not words on a page. Do you not think that God knows that? Of course, He does! The way that I look at it is, to be sorry for your sins simply because you are afraid of the punishment that will come because of them in and of itself is selfish. This is why it is considered imperfect because you are indeed sorry, but only because you fear for your own hide! Perfect contrition should come through charity and only through charity. You should be sorry simply because God loves you, and you have rejected His love by sinning. In all reality, people probably have a mixture of perfect and imperfect contrition. Who knows? And why is it that even though we are perfectly contrite we still have to go to the confessional? Plain and simple, we as human beings are bound to the sources of grace that God has revealed through the church (the sacraments). However, God is not limited to bestowing grace only through those sacraments. It is all so paradoxical, but that is the nature of the cross!!

My Gawd! That sounds like something people from New Orleans say! (Gawd: the deity worshipped by most New Orleanians). High-test = Ethyl, right? LOL! I am dying here!!

 

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

Indeed, I am certain that God keeps His promises! The question is can I be infallibly certain that I have kept mine? In order to do so, I must be infallible, and I am not. So, as I have said before, I bow to the mercy of the Lord.

That’s apples and oranges, WBB!

It calls for rounds of “was I really sorry, when I confessed”?
"Did I really mean a “firm purpose of amendment?”
“Have I done my level best?” [define: level best]
"Is there anything that I have not done, that I should have
done, that I’m not aware of. [Gawd, I’m not infallible!]

No! A human can cast their sins on the mercy of Christ,
as they are humanly able to know those sins, and trust
Christ to forgive h/her. No “infallibility” called for.
It’s called trust, that I am forgiven for *whatever *needs
forgiving. That’s why God is a Father, and we are children,
in His sight.

It’s relational, not juridical. :yup:

Best wishes, WBB,
reen

 

[WBB]

reen12:

It calls for rounds of “was I really sorry, when I confessed”?
"Did I really mean a “firm purpose of amendment?”
“Have I done my level best?” [define: level best]
"Is there anything that I have not done, that I should have
done, that I’m not aware of. [Gawd, I’m not infallible!]

No! A human can cast their sins on the mercy of Christ,
as they are humanly able to know those sins, and trust
Christ to forgive h/her. No “infallibility” called for.
It’s called trust, that I am forgiven for *whatever *needs
forgiving. That’s why God is a Father, and we are children,
in His sight.

It’s relational, not juridical. :yup:

Best wishes, WBB,
reen

I agree. But I was trying to use the word infallible as much as I possibly could in one paragraph. This is why when I leave the confessional, I leave my sins behind and don’t look back. When I go to the confessional, I cast my sins on the mercy of Christ, and I trust Him to forgive me. Period.

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?:

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.

Ah. Maybe I can shed light on this. Isfatherwrong?, you have to consider that the Council of Trent was convened to answer the Protestant Reformation. (I use that term rather than heresy. ) What was promulgated at Trent was done so to defend the teaching and faith of the Catholic Church. One of the things under attack by the Protestant reformers was the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church. The entire section above (after I read it several times along with help from reen and her wonderful breakdown) only serves to say, “You can’t rely on yourself to be assured that your sins are forgiven. God through Christ has given us a wonderful ministry of reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance whereby you may be certain of the forgiveness of sin through the mercy of Christ. So, let no one tell you that you can be 100% certain that your sins are forgiven by simply thinking that they are. Get thee to the confessional to be 100% assured!”

Brian

 

[reen12]

Hi, WBB,

I logged off earlier, because I wanted to peruse three new
books that came in, today. [Mercifully, all are thin volumes.]
I mean, I may need new sources to draw on, say, in
November, when I’m posting to the forums [please, God.] :yup:

I sped read thru one of them, but will bend my attention to
the remainder of Scott Hahn’s book, over the weekend.

I’m glad you got a laugh over “high-test” or “regular”.
I was trying to read the line to my husband, and I was
laughing so hard, at first he couldn’t understand what I was
saying.

Got to go rest the “little grey cells” as Hercule Poirot
would say.

Best,
reen

 

[Tonks40]

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. 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?

Sorry it took so long to answer your questions, Isfatherwrong? I’ve been kinda out of it today…

…in any case, I am certain that through God, I have obtained the promise of salvation through the graces he has given me in the Sacraments and in faith. But like you stated earlier, I can seperate myself from God any time that I commit sin. I know it’s there…I know I can have it. So, looking at it on my end, I don’t feel I have the certainty *within myself * to live up to the mercy and forgiveness that the Lord so freely gives us. This uncertainty in my own strive for perfection of my soul towards God is based on examples that I see with the saints, and with the ultimate example of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase, I have the certainty of God’s love and mercy, and his promise for salvation. I just don’t have the certainty ***within myself ** * that I can do what is just for God. Thus I continue to strive for that perfection through the graces of the Sacraments.

Hope this helps

God Bless!
Tonks40

 

[Assurance]

Writer said:

but not in the same literal way it is accepted by Catholics–or the early church.

No – Lutherans would insist that we are faithful to the way the Eucharist was accepted in the Early Church. Catholics, with their unnecessary Aristotelian philosophy, have made the matter more difficult.

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 would be interested in knowing about these. Are they in what Protestants call the Apocrypha? Again, for me this is all about justification and the glory of Christ – so I don’t want to get sidetracked on this issue. In short though, you are right – I don’t see any problem with asking a saint to pray for you just like you would a friend. Problem is, as I see it (willing to be corrected) is that there is no descriptive passage of this in Scripture, much less prescriptive, much less any sort of PROMISE AND ASSURANCE that this is God-pleasing. After all, I can see my friend and know he or she hears me. Not so with the saints I think/

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.

Writer, for purposes of argumentation on this thread, I am willing to concede that the Pope is who he is by Divine rite (I am leaning in this direction as it is, having read Stephen Ray and others, but I have yet to throw in the towel – need more study) – nevertheless, I simply don’t see how that necessarily means that I should consider him infallible even when he makes a rare “ex cathedra” announcement. Look at that post you quoted again to see why.

Thanks for your questions!

Love in Christ,
Nathan

---

 

[Assurance]

WBB:
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.

You know, in I John 4 it says that perfect love drives out fear and I assume this includes fear of hell. Now, I think the “perfect love” being talked about is God’s love and NOT MINE. In any case, I really don’t understand how you can say that perfect contrition, which equals perfect love for God (right?) would not also simultaneously include not fearing hell, as reen12 has pointed out.

By the way reen12, I really appreciate your posts. Great insights. Thank you.

WBB also said

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.

I say: Are you a sinner? Do you admit (confess) your sins? Do you have a Savior? What sins did He not die for? MY CERTAINTY DOES NOT LIE INSIDE ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM BUT LIES OUTSIDE OF MYSELF. HIS NAME IS JESUS AND HE IS MIGHTY TO SAVE.

If your trust is in the blood and righteousness of Christ you ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH – in fact, you are IN it. You are “in Christ” and He is in you. You have union with the One who is “THE WAY (YES, WBB, I CAN HAVE INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY THAT I AM ON/IN THE RIGHT PATH! AND PRAISE GOD FOR THIS!), the truth and the life”. His very presence in one’s life through His Word and Sacrament makes it a perfect, unshakeable union. There is nothing more certain. More infallibly certain.

WBB also said:
Indeed, I am certain that God keeps His promises! The question is can I be infallibly certain that I have kept mine? In order to do so, I must be infallible, and I am not. So, as I have said before, I bow to the mercy of the Lord.

Don’t look inside yourself – look to the outside. Of course you haven’t kept your promises – you are a sinner – a promise-breaker, not a promise-keeper. So no, you can’t be infallibly certain about that. Again – regarding your definition of infallible as something only God can know – HOW is this significant or relevant for us? – it seems like a completely meaningless term. After all, Luther (and I imagine none of the even radical reformers) never claimed to know anything that only God could know – he only claimed to know with utter certainty the promises that God had revealed. So I question your distinctions again (also your interpretation of Trent). In any case, gently putting aside your suggested definition of infallibility (which we don’t even know is an official RCC definition anyway) I AM INFALLIBLY CERTAIN – MEANING I HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF HUMAN CONFIDENCE POSSIBLE (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE) – THAT MY EARTHLY FATHER LOVES ME. He is evil and he gives me good gifts. And yet, you are saying that I can’t be infallibly certain that my Heavenly Father, who is actually good, desires even greater things for me?

 

[Assurance]

WBB:
What it boils down to is:

-forgiveness of sins can only be had, with certainty, through the sacrament of Penance - because the Church has assured us that this is the case.

-Anyone, outside the Church, who believes h/her sins are
forgiven, outside this sacrament, cannot be certain of same.

WBB, I don’t cast aside confession, absolution, and satisfaction (penance). All are necessary for the life of the people of God - James says that we are to forgive each other. The point is, is that it is there for a sinner’s comfort and assurance, not because they must go the prescribed amount of times to a priest as dictated by Rome – and especially that they can have assurance only if they go to a Roman Catholic priest (not sure if you are saying this - I think you probably are) Surely, in cases of grave public sin in the Church, it can reasonably be required, but not otherwise.

In any case, I assert that it is very possible for a person to not attend confession and absolution from a priest and to have infallible assurance of salvation. Now, we certainly need others in our lives to keep us honest, but this does not need to be a priest.

Also, what is this I hear about Roman Catholics not really being required to forgive those who have sinned against them because that is the priest’s job? (at least in practice if not in theory) Any truth to that? I believe that we MUST forgive others from our heart, and if we do not, we are in danger of forfeiting our salvation. Talk about mortal sins…Jesus was very hard on this one!

WBB:
Boasts? How about substituting “testifies”?

Then, it would read:

…yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who [testifies to] his confidence and certainty
of the remission of his sins…

The actual testimony of such a person would be:

"I cast my sins on the mercy of Christ, trusting in
His promise to forgive my sins. He is my salvation,
in Him I boast.

Luther did just this. And he was condemned as a heretic for it. He testified, and yes, like the Apostle Paul, he boasted. In fact, the cross was, like Paul, Luther’s only boast.

WBB:
One of the things under attack by the Protestant reformers was the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church.“You can’t rely on yourself to be assured that your sins are forgiven. God through Christ has given us a wonderful ministry of reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance whereby you may be certain of the forgiveness of sin through the mercy of Christ. So, let no one tell you that you can be 100% certain that your sins are forgiven by simply thinking that they are. Get thee to the confessional to be 100% assured!”

Well, you’re right – Luther attacked the 7 sacraments and ultimately focused on only two (in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, I believe he treats penance as a sacrament), the ones where a visible element was clearly attached to the Word bringing forgiveness of sins – Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The more “radical reformers” went much further. In any case, I am telling you that I am 100% certain that my sins are forgiven not by simply thinking that they are, but by relying on the perfect promises of my Savior who says that they are – He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world – that’s me. Sure, I can trust Him through His appointed messenger, who has been sent to announce this message, and to even announce the RETENTION OF SINS where no repentance is present to the people of God (as we are then sent to do the same in the world), but I can also trust Him through the Words of Scripture. I am 100% assured. In any case, our Church body does corporate confession and absolution and my pastor specifically does private confession and absolution as well - others retain it in doctrine, but sadly, not always in practice. Again, I believe it is for the comfort and assurance of sinners and nothing more. Its different to hear the words “I love you and forgive you” from someone who is flesh-and-blood present and close by as opposed to reading it in a book or devotion. Nevertheless, the Word is the Word and it cuts to the marrow, revealing sin, just as it lifts up to heaven, through the rock solid promise of forgiveness in Christ.

I guess I’m a heretic full of vain confidence. Only in Christ my Lord though. So really – why should I not boast?

Lift Him Higher.

PS - Sigh, WBB - I am afraid that we are not going to see eye to eye here.

 

[Assurance]

Tonks40:

…in any case, I am certain that through God, I have obtained the promise of salvation through the graces he has given me in the Sacraments and in faith. But like you stated earlier, I can seperate myself from God any time that I commit sin. I know it’s there…I know I can have it. So, looking at it on my end, I don’t feel I have the certainty within myself to live up to the mercy and forgiveness that the Lord so freely gives us. This uncertainty in my own strive for perfection of my soul towards God is based on examples that I see with the saints, and with the ultimate example of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase, I have the certainty of God’s love and mercy, and his promise for salvation. I just don’t have the certainty within myself that I can do what is just for God. Thus I continue to strive for that perfection through the graces of the Sacraments.

Nice confession Tonks40. Practically Lutheran to the core! (with all that “outside of myself” talk)
I would just remind you that, as one Lutheran has put it:

A. Koberle: “Though the power of the divine promises and not because of the strength of his own exalted ethical idealism, is it possible for him in the midst of great struggles and conflicts, because of a faith that sees with the eyes of God, to be certain of the final victory. Though still engaged in the struggle he know that he has attained the end. While yet wrestling hourly for the decision of obedience he already possesses the end he is striving for (244, the Quest for Holiness).”

Remember its already yours in Christ, Tonks40 - for He is your righteousness! Strive ahead in Him my friend, for your life is now in His perfect life. Only in Him is there life and not sin, death, and the devil…

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

Just so everyone knows I need to take a break from all of this.

I’ll probably be back Monday again though - although there are other things I need to do…

Always a stuggle to know what priorities should be!

Everyone have a great weekend,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

One more really key thing I realized I forgot.

I said: I AM INFALLIBLY CERTAIN – MEANING I HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF HUMAN CONFIDENCE POSSIBLE (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE) – THAT MY EARTHLY FATHER LOVES ME. He is evil and he gives me good gifts. And yet, you are saying that I can’t be infallibly certain that my Heavenly Father, who is actually good, desires even greater things for me?

The point I had wanted to make was this:

AM INFALLIBLY CERTAIN – MEANING I HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF HUMAN CONFIDENCE POSSIBLE (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE) – THAT MY EARTHLY FATHER LOVES ME [AND THAT HE WANTS ME TO HAVE INFALLIBLE ASSURANCE THAT HE ACCEPTS ME, FORGIVES ME, AND THAT HE WANTS ME TO BE UTTERLY CONFIDENT THAT I WILL BE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM FOREVER[/COLOR]]. He is evil and he gives me good gifts. And yet, you are saying that I can’t be infallibly certain that my Heavenly Father, who is actually good, desires even greater things for me [namely that he wants me to trust - to be utterly confident (infallibly certain) that because of His promises, I can be assured that He through His power and not my own preserves me in the faith AT THIS VERY MOMENT and will bring me to into His presence if I should die right now]

Yes, I could still fall from faith in the future if I don’t continue to rely on Him as my righteousness which avails before God - but WBB, you are really saying that I can’t have 100% assurance - because Jesus has done His part and now its my turn? If you were to spend a few weeks with me and could determine that I was “for real” and had not fallen into some mortal sin would that make a difference?

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[WBB]

Why were you yelling at me in the above posts?
Isfatherwrong?:

And yet, you are saying that I can’t be infallibly certain that my Heavenly Father, who is actually good, desires even greater things for me?

My intent has never been to say that you cannot be infallibly certain that your Heavenly Father desires even greater things for you. My intent is to say that you can’t infallibly know the mind of God. It is indeed possible for a human being to be self-deceived.
Isfatherwrong?:

PS - Sigh, WBB - I am afraid that we are not going to see eye to eye here.

Please don’t sigh! It is ok for us not to see eye to eye! I would actually expect us to not see eye to eye, for you are a Lutheran, and I am a Catholic.

I will say one thing, though…to me, the highest amount of human certainty available is not infallible.

The only question I have is, why is it that my interpretation of the documents of Trent are wrong? I am seeing them from the Catholic perspective which they were written (as a promulgation against the actions of the Protestant reformers). You are reading them through the eyes of the reformers. Of course we are going to come to different conclusions about it.

 

[Assurance]

WBB,

I can’t talk long, but I can’t let this go either - I was not “yelling” at you. I assure you that the capitol letters are always used on my part to emphasize what I believe needs to be emphasized. Now that I have learned how to change the color of fonts (and I just noticed, if you can believe this, the italics button above) that should not happen anymore.

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[reen12]

Good morning, fellow posters to this thread,

Fortified with breakfast, and a nice cup of coffee, I’ve just
read the last several posts.

What I take away from these, is that people on this thread
love God dearly, and are in earnest to convey that God
forgives sin, through the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ.

On that we can “see eye to eye”, thank God.

The views clash over:

• the mode through which God forgives
  sin,
  -the certainty with which we can know that
  our sins are forgiven.

If we think of ecumenism as speaking to one another
with mercy and respect, the goal would be to understand,
with clarity, what a fellow Christian holds to be true…
and *why *that belief is held.

That is a different goal, entirely, than evangelizing [aka: prosyletizing].

It’s of moment, to me, that under the Mosaic Law,
both positions [Lutheran and Catholic] seem to be
realized:

-a sin offering was brought to the Temple [outward “sign”]
The very act of bringing the offering, was a public
acknowledgement of sin, and an act of reconciliation
with God and the community

-God was petitioned, privately, by the individual, to forgive
h/her sins. teshuvah…the “turning” back to the God of Israel]

Here, the human need for an outward sign of repentence,
was met, through the Mosaic Law, as the Levite priest
presented the sin offering to God, on behalf of the one who sinned.

Private and public were conjoined, and heart, mind and soul
were eased, and at peace.

---

Christ is our “sin offering” “He was made sin…” [2 Corinthians 5:21]

usccb.org/nab/bible/2corinthians/2corinthians5.htm

Let’s be at peace, knowing that Christ was made sin,
and the Father forgives.

Kindest regards,

reen12

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?:

WBB,

I can’t talk long, but I can’t let this go either - I was not “yelling” at you. I assure you that the capitol letters are always used on my part to emphasize what I believe needs to be emphasized. Now that I have learned how to change the color of fonts (and I just noticed, if you can believe this, the italics button above) that should not happen anymore.

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up!

Unfortunately, I have a gift of understanding the Catholic faith and accepting it, but communicating my understanding is a work in progress. I assure you, I do not put my trust in anything but the mercy of Christ, for I can do nothing to earn my salvation, and the only thing I can do to gain forgiveness of my sin is to truly repent. Also, about perfect contrition…I suppose the way I look at it is, true repentence is solely due to the grace of God. This grace does not make me fear God, but keeps me on my toes, not because I fear damnation, but because I love God and do not want to offend him. If you look at your relationship with your spouse, I suppose it would be analogous to common courtesy. I don’t want to offend my wife not because I am afraid of recourse from her. I don’t want to offend her because I love her.

I suppose the legalistic view of the Catholic faith makes people have fits! But, at the end of the legalistic view there is always one important thing: Mercy. That is what I trust in.

 

[Assurance]

Reen12 – I thank you for your comments. I agree WBB and I have so much in common and yet, I think much more needs to be discussed – in a spirit of love, of course. False doctrine kills people (second death, that is).

WBB:
My intent has never been to say that you cannot be infallibly certain that your Heavenly Father desires even greater things for you. My intent is to say that you can’t infallibly know the mind of God. It is indeed possible for a human being to be self-deceived.

Yes, I agree it is possible for a person to be self-deceived, as I have admitted. However, based on my confession, do you think I am self-deceived? I thought that everything from “the mind of God” that we need for our salvation has been revealed in the Promise of Christ. Further, I know from Scripture that someone is saved by belief in their heart in Christ and confession with their lips (Romans 10) – I believe the Church is something that God creates and is present wherever the Word and Sacraments are properly taught and administered (meaning God’s Law and Gospel are taught, with the Gospel – the message of Christ crucified for sinners for the forgiveness of sins – being the main thing). Where one finds that, one finds the Church, however “in line” or “out of line” it may be in regards to God’s “structural” intentions

WBB:
will say one thing, though…to me, the highest amount of human certainty available is not infallible.

Well, of course, if you are saying I am not God I agree.  But one man at least is infallible and is able, on occasion, to “know the mind of God” (beyond simple Scriptural truths), correct? After all, the Pope is not God when he makes an infallible pronouncement! Am I wrong in saying that I have 100% totally secure confidence and trust (why we could not call this infallible I think you still have to convincingly explain to me) that my earthly father loves me (personal knowledge)? Is this not infallible only because I am neither the Pope speaking ex cathedra nor am God?

WBB:
The only question I have is, why is it that my interpretation of the documents of Trent are wrong? I am seeing them from the Catholic perspective which they were written (as a promulgation against the actions of the Protestant reformers). You are reading them through the eyes of the reformers. Of course we are going to come to different conclusions about it.

I think your interpretation is wrong because Trent says I, as a Protestant (of sorts, I prefer “catholic”), am in great spiritual danger for having certainty (which is vain confidence) while you are saying that you, as a Catholic (who frequents private Confession), can have certainty. Again, I don’t think you can. Consider: 1) God expects perfect righteousness 2) As the Catholic Answers Tract makes clear the Apostle Paul could not even have 100% confidence (infallible certainty) – whatever infallible means, I think you have to admit that it means he can’t be really, really, really sure. 3) As the Catholic Answers Tract and you have pointed out, you could be self-deceived (Matt 7:21) – so forget being really, really, really sure – how can you be sure at all? 4) To my knowledge, The Catholic Answers Tract does not say anything at all about how someone in the RC Church can have certainty (as you seem to be saying you can) where someone not in that “official structure” can not. Therefore, I ask you again – how can you have certainty that if you die at this present moment, you will make it to heaven (maybe after some time in purgatory)? What gives you your confidence? If you say because you “look outside yourself” and throw yourself on the mercy of Christ (nothing in you), I applaud you. Of course, that is my confession and what I do as well.

In fact, that was Luther’s simple confession as well:

Quote:
WBB:
Boasts? How about substituting “testifies”?

Then, it would read:

…yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who [testifies to] his confidence and certainty
of the remission of his sins…

The actual testimony of such a person would be:

"I cast my sins on the mercy of Christ, trusting in
His promise to forgive my sins. He is my salvation,
in Him I boast.

Then I said: Luther did just this. And he was condemned as a heretic for it. He testified, and yes, like the Apostle Paul, he boasted. In fact, the cross was, like Paul, Luther’s only boast

.

WBB, I think you are missing something here. Rome was against Luther’s position. And now you seem to hold it!