For Lutherans...

[Assurance]

WBB, again - I am wondering why I cannot have the certainty that you seem to think you can have (remeber, I still disagree with you on this! - I think you 1) misunderstand Rome 2) have not thought deeply enough about what it means that the Apostle Paul could not be really, really, really sure and that a person [even you!] can be deceived…) - can I explore it further with you?

Perhaps it is all because you have “Church-sanctioned” (RCC) private confession with the “correct priests” thereby making it effective and valid, while I regularly just have public confession (and that with, probably in your view, elicit ministers)? In short, I cannot have certainty because I am not in communion with the true Church and its teachings? If, hypothetically, that were the case, I think we have something akin to the Sola Scriptura situation. Rome will ultimately say they decided or determined which books should be in the Bible and the Protestants would say that the Church ultimately realized or simply recognized them as being authentic (and the official sanction being nothing more than a ratification of this truth that they did not determine). In this case, though you might recognize me as a brother in Christ (certain but imperfect communion), I still cannot have the certainty you say that you can have because I do not recognize your “determinative” authority - namely I am not convinced you should be able to speak to my soul’s condition according to the fact that I don’t recognize that the Roman Catholic Church should be able to tell me that my soul is in danger for having such confidence in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ outside of the official structure of RCC (interesting to note that in one sense Rome acknowledges that a Christian can be recognized as “in”, but than they also, and primarily, put the emphasis on “determining” and “deciding” that people are “in”, on the basis of their authority). If this is the case, I wonder when, according to your RCC’s standards, I will start being accountable for this and actually face the possibility of committing mortal sin by not recoznizing your determinative authority? You see, if I was really convinced the Catholic Church was in the right, I’d join, but I think they consistently take away the comfort of the Gospel in a way they should not and that they actually endanger souls. Again - I think all of this should be based on my confession of Christ, namely do you think on the basis of my confession that God has made me a part of His true Chuch (there is only one Church in His eyes, and I don’t deny that this should primarily be understood as a visible reality for us on earth even as I would argue about what constitutes that visible reality) - and not on my willingness to completely recognize the RCC’s alledged “determinative authority”?

Again – let me make abundantly clear that I don’t think this is all there is to it. I still think that Rome does not teach that a person can have the kind of solid certainty that you seem to think that you can have, EVEN WHEN participating in the RCC and its official structures

At least historically it didn’t teach this. But I suspect that the light of the Gospel that God set loose through Luther has changed the minds of more and more Roman Catholics every day. Maybe you don’t even realize how Lutheran you are/want to be!

WBB:
the only thing I can do to gain forgiveness of my sin is to truly repent.

WBB, I like what you said for the most part in your last post, I’d just say this. As one of the Father’s children and Jesus’ brother, I can’t do anything to “gain” forgiveness of my sin. Being in Him, I am already perfectly accepted – I have been made clean (John 15:3). Already fully confident of my status as His child, I also continually receive forgiveness from Him as I partake in the Lord’s Supper, and this gives me even greater assurance and boldness – for it is His body and blood shed for the forgiveness of sins – and it is given for us… for me! That said, I want to also make clear that repentance is not a “cause” of my forgiveness. Repentance is something that must be present for forgiveness to take root and be effective and repentance is something wrought in me by the preaching of Gods’ Law – when I see how I am not what I should be. The Law creates in me a hunger for the forgiveness and righteous of Christ, my beloved Savior who died for me while I was yet a sinner.

Love in Christ WBB. I am looking forward to hearing more about what you have to say. If time does not permit you, I fully understand. I know I need to cool it again for a few days at least.

 

[reen12]

Whoa!

The quote:

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.

was *me *writing! not WBB.

It would not at all be unusual, for me to sound like
Luther, but I would be bowled *over, *if WBB started
sounding like the good Doctor from Wittenberg.

Following the discussion with great interest,

Best to all,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, Isfatherwrong?,

quote: Isfatherwrong?

I think much more needs to be discussed – in a spirit of love, of course. False doctrine kills people (second death, that is).

As to:

False doctrine kills people (second death, that is).

you and I are of similar mind, I think. The above quote
is what I held, too, until after a 47 year struggle, I hold
the following: “first” Church, in time = RCC]

from another thread:

quote: reen12

My non-denom song: [to the tune of “You take the high road…”]

You take the first Church
And you take reformed Church
And I’ll watch the parade pass be-forrrre me
I’ll pray with the one group,
And then with the other,
And slip into heaven betweeeeen ya

Despite the light tone, I’m perfectly serious.

[Believe me, you wouldn’t *want to know the full
conclusion I’ve come to…, but it’s essentials are:
stick with the Synoptic Gospels. Hold that
anything, outside these, is commentary [including
Paul of Tarsus.]

Acknowledge that the RCC, the flagship of Christianity,
has it exactly right, on the sacrificial nature of the Mass-
and that the Reformers got it right, in terms of
justification, salvation, righteouness and casting our
sins on the mercy of Christ. i.e., no sacramental system -
a theological construct from the “commentators.”]

Accept that there needs be a “practical authority”
*
so that those, who preside at the Mass, adhere to
the regulations set forth by the hierarchy, to preserve
the dignity and beauty of the sacrifice.

The above describes a both/and rather than either/or
reality.

It will satisfy neither Catholicism nor the Reformers.

And the Keys? Peter was head of the original Church.
All that followed was commentary.

The “gates of hell” will* not* prevail…against the sacrificial
nature of the Mass and the* clear* words of Christ, in the
Synoptic Gospels. No commentators sought.

Best,
reen*

 

[reen12]

I note that in 2 Peter, Peter urges the faithful to

heed Paul, including his letters. [Got to think about

*this one.]

reen12

 

[abraham]

I grew up in the LCMS myself, so I recognize the thought process that leads to statements like this.
Isfatherwrong?:

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)

“Secure confidence and trust” is of course a fancy way of saying “strong faith”. The assumption behind everything I said as a Lutheran was “If I *believe *I’m saved, then I am, because my faith saves me.” So, the statement quoted above is just another way of stating “faith alone”… “If I have secure confidence and trust, then that’s an infallible guarantee.”

This was a hard thing for me to give up. What helped is that I learned as a Lutheran to distinguish between “saving faith” and “dead faith”. The clincher is that “secure confidence and trust that I’m saved” is in fact, the *dead *variety of faith because that belief doesn’t produce fruit. Saving faith has nothing to do with believing you’re saved, and everything to do with an ongoing relationship with Christ.
Isfatherwrong?:

Rome was against Luther’s position. And now you seem to hold it!

This is another tough thing for Lutherans to realize. When we really listen to Catholics, it’s amazing how “Lutheran” they sound. None of these Catholics I talk to hold “Rome’s position”… either they’re all starting to see the light… or maybe Rome doesn’t believe what I thought it did!

 

[WBB]

Isfatherwrong?,

No. I don’t think you are self-deceived. But I think you are misunderstanding Trent. I still believe that Trent was responding to the rejection of the Sacraments as taught by the Catholic Church, and what the documents were promulgating was the view that we are bound to Sacramental Confession for assurance that our sins are forgiven.

*Ex cathedra *statements by the Pope do not mean that the Pope cannot be self-deceived. Infallibility of those statements only means that the Pope is protected from teaching error to the faithful. It is a function of the guarantee that Christ will never abandon His Church, and that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church from error. You are not wrong in saying that you have 100% totally secure confidence and trust that your earthly father loves you. The question is not whether you can be infallibly certain that God loves you. You can be infallibly certain of the love of God. What you cannot be infallibly certain of is if you are in a state of Grace at any given moment, and this is a function of whether you are cooperating with God’s grace, not whether God loves you.

Trent doesn’t say your are in peril for having certainty (vain confidence). Trent says you are wrong for repudiating the Sacrament of Penance in exchange for self-confidence. You are wrong (according to Trent, not me ) for not relying on the means of grace that Jesus left the church in the Sacraments including the Sacrament of Penance. Can I have certainty that if I die at this present moment that I will make it to heaven? I suppose the answer to that is that I have great Hope that this will be the case. And yes, I look to Christ and throw myself on His mercy, but part of the way that I do that is through the Sacraments of the Church. I think the point you are missing here is the whole idea that we as Catholics are bound to those Sacraments as visible manifestations of God’s grace. However, God is not bound by those sacraments because, well, He is God, and He gives His grace in any manner He chooses, which for us is normally through the Sacraments. I don’t understand why people would want to reject them? They are powerful witnesses to the mercy and love of God! So ultimately, we all must throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ. I don’t think the Catholic Church disagrees with this. They do disagree with you that making a general confession to God is sufficient to assure yourself of God’s forgiveness to the point of not being self-deceived.

And this gets me to something that I am going to do my best to explain, but I may not do such a great job of it. Catholics are sacramental people. In other words, we believe that God manifests himself and communicates His reality to us through our physical senses using physical matter. Therefore, all that we know of God is wrapped in the Incarnation of His Son. Because of this, God has made it well known that we are flesh and blood creatures, and this is good. So, when we do good, it is in our flesh and blood, and when we sin it is in our flesh and blood. When we seek forgiveness for our flesh and blood sins, it must be in a flesh and blood way. It must be “incarnated” for us to be assured of that forgiveness, for our sins are not abstract concepts. No, they are real and dirty and offensive. Our seeking forgiveness cannot be an abstract concept either. We can’t just say, “Lord I have sinned against you. Please forgive me” and be assured of forgiveness because we have kept the sin in the abstract. We must go to a real flesh and blood person, and with our real flesh and blood lips confess our real flesh and blood dirty grimy sins so that a real flesh and blood person can say with his lips, “I absolve you of all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Why? Because it is the best way for us! The Sacrament of Penance was not set up as a way of making us feel guilt. It was set up so that we may receive mercy and healing! When we confess in the Sacrament of Penance, we experience fully God’s mercy and forgiveness in an real and incarnational way, not in an abstract way. I hope this hasn’t made the matter more confused. I think this is what Trent is trying to uphold.
Isfatherwrong?:

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

See reen’s post. This comment is in response to her posts, not mine.

 

[WBB]

Oh, and what abraham said in post #83.

abraham, that was good stuff!

 

[Assurance]

Abraham:
I grew up in the LCMS myself, so I recognize the thought process that leads to statements like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isfatherwrong?
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)

“Secure confidence and trust” is of course a fancy way of saying “strong faith”. The assumption behind everything I said as a Lutheran was “If I believe I’m saved, then I am, because my faith saves me.” So, the statement quoted above is just another way of stating “faith alone”… “If I have secure confidence and trust, then that’s an infallible guarantee.”

This was a hard thing for me to give up. What helped is that I learned as a Lutheran to distinguish between “saving faith” and “dead faith”. The clincher is that “secure confidence and trust that I’m saved” is in fact, the dead variety of faith because that belief doesn’t produce fruit. Saving faith has nothing to do with believing you’re saved, and everything to do with an ongoing relationship with Christ.

and…

This is another tough thing for Lutherans to realize. When we really listen to Catholics, it’s amazing how “Lutheran” they sound. None of these Catholics I talk to hold “Rome’s position”… either they’re all starting to see the light… or maybe Rome doesn’t believe what I thought it did!

Abraham, your second quote here is golden. I think Rome does believe what you thought it did. They can’t have a solid confidence and trust.

And with all due respect Abraham, the first quote I have above demonstrates that you seem to have never understood the Lutheran doctrine. When a Luthean talks about “secure confidence and trust” (100% sure) they are not talking (or should not be talking) about the nature of one’s particular faith, eg, how tenaciously one may hold on to the Promises of Christ. All who have faith in Christ are equally saved and can have equal secure confidence and trust. So “strong faith” has absolutely nothing to do with it. What matters is the strength of the object of one’s faith. A 300 pound man can have all the faith in the world that the ice is going to be able to hold him up, but what matters is the strength of the ice not the strength of the faith. When I talk about being 100% sure I am expressing the fact of the object of faith in question - namely the strong Word and Promises of the only One strong enough to save who has risen from the grave.

Its all about His strength. Faith doesn’t talk about itself. Faith doesn’t look inside. It looks outside - to Jesus. How tenacious one’s faith is does not matter - what makes the person secure is the object of faith. So, to state this in the kind of language you used: “If He is secure and trustworthy, then that’s an infallible guarantee”.

Are you saying that this faith of which I speak is “dead faith”? I disagree, for this is the only kind of faith that there is! The faith that is lost in the strength of the Lord Jesus Christ our God. When we are weak, then He is strong in us. Where there is fire (faith) there is smoke (works). They go hand in hand.

Abraham, the only good works you ever do are the ones you do because you believe you are saved completely by Jesus the Christ.

And Abraham, of course it has everything to do with an ongoing relationship with Christ - if all that I have written so far does not give this impression, I should have to mourn deeply!

So WBB - I’m just getting to your long message now…but I’ll tell you this - what Abraham said was indeed not “good stuff”! - if we are talking good Lutheran doctrine!

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

reen12 and WBB,

Before I go any further, I wanted to apologize to you guys for posting reen12’s post under WBB’s name.

 

[Assurance]

WBB said: “I still believe that Trent was responding to the rejection of the Sacraments as taught by the Catholic Church, and what the documents were promulgating was the view that we are bound to Sacramental Confession for assurance that our sins are forgiven.”

WBB, well, I still think you are wrong! Show me something solid that you can have solid assurance of your salvation. If you say you can be assured, I submit that Trent warns you too. Then you may go back to confession for sure, but you STILL can/should? be filled with doubt that you are not self decieved (I submit, that if you think your “doing the work” of going to RCC confession is what gets you forgiven - you SHOULD be filled with doubt that you are self-deceived!) No, to say that one can have assurance and then to say that a person cannot have “infallible assurance” does no good but only gets people doubting that Jesus has really put away their sins and made a way for them to go to heaven. You simply can’t get away from it. Maybe take a minute to read the Catholic Answers tract that warns not just Protestants who don’t attend RCC Confession, but ALL BELIEVERS: catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

Ex cathedra statements by the Pope do not mean that the Pope cannot be self-deceived. Infallibility of those statements only means that the Pope is protected from teaching error to the faithful.

Thanks for explaining that. Of course, Rome says the only time Popes make infallible statements is when the Pope and Magisterium make it abundantly clear that the Pope is speaking from the chair of Peter (after all, many Popes of the past have made claims that they believed at the time ought to be taken as if God himself spoke them, even if they didn’t asset ex cathedra status), so it would seem strange that the Pope should make an infallible statement while being self-deceived, while confidently asserting that he is making an infallible statement. Anyway…

What you cannot be infallibly certain of is if you are in a state of Grace at any given moment,

Can I have certainty that if I die at this present moment that I will make it to heaven? I suppose the answer to that is that I have great Hope that this will be the case.

Bingo! Let the true RCC teaching ring from the rooftops! And the same goes for you too, correct, WBB?

and this is a function of whether you are cooperating with God’s grace, not whether God loves you.

And WBB, when I called you a promise-breaker a few posts back, of course the same goes for me. Praise God I do not have to depend on my works, for though Jesus does good in me, I only contribute sin to the process! If you are saying that I must cooperate with God’s grace by trusting that there is nothing that I can do to secure my salvation but that I must rely on my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to rest securely that if I died this moment I would be with my Father in heaven, I agree with you, but if you are saying that I must be turned inward into all kinds of terrible doubt - wondering if I have confessed all known sin, etc, wondering if my stubborness in accepting Rome’s assertion of authority excludes me from heaven, etc - I lovingly and vehemently disagree! Lift Christ higher!

 

[Assurance]

My friend WBB…

And I continue…

However, God is not bound by those sacraments because, well, He is God, and He gives His grace in any manner He chooses, which for us is normally through the Sacraments. I don’t understand why people would want to reject them?

Reject them? What madness have you been taught? On the contrary, every visible element combined with the Promise of the Forgiveness of sins is what Luther was all about! As a matter a fact, Lutherans are so bound to the Sacraments that we INSIST that God, though not bound as you say, has chosen to bind Himself and His Promise of grace and forgiveness in Christ to these Sacraments. We would say that a person CANNOT receive the grace of God though something other than the Sacraments (baptism, communion, [and perhaps even absolution]) which is a visible element combined with the Word or the Word of God itself. These things together - the Word and Sacraments - we call the Means of Grace. When I say that I lean completely on Jesus and He is the reason for security, it is because He meets me in the Means of Grace. Though these channels, I am fully united and sustained in Him. Lutherans would never say they could be done without!

They do disagree with you that making a general confession to God is sufficient to assure yourself of God’s forgiveness to the point of not being self-deceived.

But the only reason I can make such a confession is because the Word and Sacraments have delivered faith to me. The promises contained therein are what gives me assurance that Christ is strong enough to save me from all things, including self-deception, and that His Word is good and true! Of course this had to be delivered through another real flesh and blood person to me, but it did not HAVE to be a RCC priest (in fact, it could very well be delivered to me by a real flesh-and-blood person who wrote a devotional booklet 500 years ago)! Why would Rome deny someone who believes this assurance - for my assurance derives from these very things that He has promised and delivered to me through His Church! Why would you have me doubt my Lord?

And this gets me to something that I am going to do my best to explain, but I may not do such a great job of it. Catholics are sacramental people. In other words, we believe that God manifests himself and communicates His reality to us through our physical senses using physical matter. Therefore, all that we know of God is wrapped in the Incarnation of His Son. Because of this, God has made it well known that we are flesh and blood creatures, and this is good. So, when we do good, it is in our flesh and blood, and when we sin it is in our flesh and blood. When we seek forgiveness for our flesh and blood sins, it must be in a flesh and blood way. It must be “incarnated” for us to be assured of that forgiveness, for our sins are not abstract concepts. No, they are real and dirty and offensive. Our seeking forgiveness cannot be an abstract concept either. We can’t just say, “Lord I have sinned against you. Please forgive me” and be assured of forgiveness because we have kept the sin in the abstract. We must go to a real flesh and blood person, and with our real flesh and blood lips confess our real flesh and blood dirty grimy sins so that a real flesh and blood person can say with his lips, “I absolve you of all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Why? Because it is the best way for us! The Sacrament of Penance was not set up as a way of making us feel guilt. It was set up so that we may receive mercy and healing! When we confess in the Sacrament of Penance, we experience fully God’s mercy and forgiveness in an real and incarnational way, not in an abstract way. I hope this hasn’t made the matter more confused.

AMEN! AMEN to every word! Lutheran! Every word of it! We have always believed all of this! Have you not been listening?

I think this is what Trent is trying to uphold.

No.

Dear Lord Jesus Christ - I praise you that you have so loved those in the Roman Catholic Church that you have began to turn their hearts and minds to the true doctrine without their even being aware of it. Amen.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

To all Lutherans on this forum,

Do you believe and follow all the teachings of Luther in relation to what he believed the Church should or should not be and I mean every one of them.

In Christ

 

[Assurance]

Quote:
Can I have certainty that if I die at this present moment that I will make it to heaven? I suppose the answer to that is that I have great Hope that this will be the case.

Bingo! Let the true RCC teaching ring from the rooftops! And the same goes for you too, correct, WBB?

In my haste I forgot to remove the sentence “and the same…” (as I was writing, I saw that the second quote was dealing with the same topic and added it, forgetting to revise my original comment). Apologies for hastiness are indeed in order!

 

[Assurance]

Tim,

No, we do not. In order to know exactly what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess please see the Book of Concord, composed of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology (defense) of the Augsburg Confession (which includes the work on the “Power and Primacy of the Pope”, or “Tractate”) written by Philip Melanchton in 1530, the Large and Small Catehisms from Martin Luther (excellent resource for lay people) from that same year, the Smalcald Articles written by Martin Luther in 1537. Finally, the “Formula of Concord” is contained within as well. It was written by three theologicans, with Martin Chemnitz, “the second Luther” (and author of “the Examination of the Council of Trent”) overseeing the process. Most Lutheran Churches signed on to the whole Book of Concord, completed in 1580, while some simply stuck with the Augsburg Confession (the Augustana). To this day, serious Lutherans insist the Augustana (its not too long - take a look at it!) is THE document that they would focus on for Ecumenical Discussions (a copy in Greek was actually sent to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch at the time and a correspondence between the Patriarch and several Lutheran theologians is extant to this day). The rest of the Book of C. is all commentary!

Love in Christ,
Nathan

 

[reen12]

Hello, all participants on this thread,

quote: abraham

The clincher is that “secure confidence and trust that I’m saved” is in fact, the *dead *variety of faith because that belief doesn’t produce fruit.

Good grief! I grew up an Irish Catholic, and even I understand that
the above statement does not reflect what Lutherans hold.

Maybe it’s easier to see what Lutherans hold, from the
outside:

i.e., I understand “faith” to be a “lively faith” = trusting
Christ for my salvation, and obeying the commands that
He set forth in the Synoptic Gospels -

Which means, producing “fruits” :

---

Isfatherwrong?, in one week, I twice mis-applied a
poster’s name to a quote. Helps keep me humble.

---

Hi, WBB. You’re absolutely correct in holding that
Trent was defending the Sacrament of Penance…
Catholics are a “sacramental people”, as you well noted.

---

So, if I understand the entire debate, the question is
not whether God forgives sin, through Jesus, but the
mode in which this forgiveness is offered…private repentence
or sacramental confession.

These two positions, then, reflect the over-riding
dispute: Is the RCC reflecting theological* reality*,
with the whole of the sacramental system
or
did the RCC distort the mandate, in terms of “passing on”
what was actually “passed on” by the Apostles -
i.e., has it created “man-made” laws that actually
mis-represent and mis-interpret the clear teachings of Christ

Had the RCC become, by the 16th century, a mirror
image of rabbinic Pharisaism, at the time of Jesus?

“You have burdened My people with laws [and “interpretations”?]
of your own making.” [That is, you have taken the Mosaic
Law, which *was entrusted to Moses, and layered on
burdensome commands of your own making {Oral Law} ]

I thought, last night:
Jesus came and set the Pharisees straight on what
they had done to His Father’s people.

The only way the “laws of your own making” can be
undone, in terms of the RCC, is the actual second
coming of Christ…the parousia.

Forget what He may, or may not say, to the Lutherans.

Will He say to the Church:

“You have taken what *was *entrusted to you, and
burdened My people with laws of your *own *making.”

---

In the meantime, those who are repelled, by what
they see as the distortion of the original mandate,
given to the Church, find refuge from these burdens -
in Christ, through faith, sola fides],searching the Scriptures
for what their Lord actually said, sola scriptura] and trusting
in Him for their justification and salvation sola gratia] -
while producing fruits through His loving power.

---

And, if some of those, in non-Catholic Christian demonimations,
are deprived of the realization of what the Mass is -a sacrifice-
who will Christ hold responsible for this existential reality?

Those who were entrusted with that knowledge, and who,
by imposing the “traditions of men”, injured the consciences
and hearts of those who broke away.

Those who were unable to endure the unendurable…the
distortion of the “good news”, and the obfuscation of same,
by those who were entrusted with the gospel - and who
proceeded, through the centuries, to generate man-made
laws, [doctrines, dogmas], all the while claiming that they
were defended, in this enterprise, by the protection and
guidance of the Holy Spirit.

My, I got carried away! :yup:

Best to all,

reen

 

[Assurance]

reen12,

Thanks for your insights. I think you are right on in that last post.

Now, I want to make very clear that at this time I am going to stay away from talking about this a lot, because I think I know where the focus needs to be.

And yet, I just want to know when you have time if you could expand on this:

And, if some of those, in non-Catholic Christian demonimations,
are deprived of the realization of what the Mass is -a sacrifice-
who will Christ hold responsible for this existential reality?

In particular, what do you mean about the Mass being a sacrifice - how do you define sacrifice, why is the sacrifice done, and what does it accomplish in the life of the Eucharist-focused Christian?

Again, I desire an answer on this although I don’t want to give the impression that I am eager to comment on it

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[reen12]

Hi, isfatherwrong?

First, I want to acknowledge that I am aware of where the
focus needs to be.

I ask you to understand, that my post, above, is the
fruit of 47 years of thought and struggle.

How to reconcile, in my mind, heart and soul, the fact that
I accept, wholeheartedly, the RCC’s understanding of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, while totally disowning the path
that the Church has taken, over the last 2 millenia.

The outcome of this struggle?

Maranatha…Come, Lord Jesus, and rescue Your Church.

As Christ came and rebuked rabbinc Pharisaism,
so may He come and rescue His Church.

The sacrifice of Christ is offered to the Father - as the
imperfect sacrifices were offered in the Temple.

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood in
reality, and this reality…Jesus…is offered to the Father,
again and again, through time itself, until He returns
in glory.

He died, once, for all…so that sin may be forgiven,.and
the *reality *of that “once, for all” is our continual sin-offering, through every generation, to the Father. It is Christ’s gift to
us and our sacrificial offering, through Him, to the Father.

And if only a handful of people recognize this reality…
a “priestly people”…it is enough.

It is the glory of Catholicism, to recognize and carry
forward, the Reality of all realities on earth.

God be with you, isfatherwrong?

Maureen

 

[abraham]

Isfatherwrong?:

When a Lutheran talks about “secure confidence and trust” (100% sure) they are not talking (or should not be talking) about the nature of one’s particular faith, eg, how tenaciously one may hold on to the Promises of Christ… What matters is the strength of the object of one’s faith.

Faith doesn’t talk about itself. Faith doesn’t look inside. It looks outside - to Jesus. How tenacious one’s faith is does not matter - what makes the person secure is the object of faith.

That’s a great point. When we discuss this topic, we should be talking about the strength of Christ. However, looking back on this thread I think it’s pretty clear that people on both sides were actually debating about the strength of our own confidence (you said once, “I am infallibly certain–meaning I have the highest level of human confidence possible”). If the word “infallible” had been used only to describe the object of our faith, not our own confidence, then the disagreement never would’ve started.

So the real distinction we should be discussing is not about our level of confidence, but between “saving faith” and “dead faith”, which are terms I’ve heard Lutherans use to interpret those troublesome verses in James.
Isfatherwrong?:

Are you saying that this faith of which I speak is “dead faith”?

Of course I can’t judge the faith you have. But this is a forum not real life, so the only thing we are able to share with each other is words. No matter how much we type about believing and being certain, those words in and of themselves are dead and cannot save unless they are connected to Christ on the one hand and bear fruit on the other hand.
Isfatherwrong?:

I disagree, for this is the only kind of faith that there is! The faith that is lost in the strength of the Lord Jesus Christ our God. When we are weak, then He is strong in us. Where there is fire (faith) there is smoke (works). They go hand in hand.

There are actually different kinds of faith, and I found some good definitions on the LCMS website.

Fides formata; fides informis.: Roman Catholics distinguish between fides informis (mere faith; dead faith; unformed faith; lacking life because it lacks works, especially love) and fides caritate formata (faith permeated by formative love; faith with works).

Fides generalis; fides specialis.: Lutheran distinction between general faith (acceptance, e.g., of God and sin) and the special, saving faith of an individual who believes his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.

This says that the difference between Lutherans and Catholics is how they distinguish between living faith and dead faith. For Catholics, it’s whether or not the faith is working through love, and for Lutherans it’s the difference between mere intellectual assent and really trusting that Christ saved me. So I maintain that based on that definition, it is very hard for a Lutheran to say their trust is anything less than infallible, because if they did they would fear that maybe their faith is not saving faith. Catholics are free to admit we have some doubts sometimes, because that does not thereby damn us as long as we’re still connected to Christ in real life.

“Lord, I do believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24)

 

[abraham]

reen12:

Good grief! I grew up an Irish Catholic, and even I understand that the above statement does not reflect what Lutherans hold.

That’s true, when I said, “secure confidence and trust is in fact the dead variety of faith”, that was my own statement (which I just finished explaining more thoroughly). However, I said this truth was easier to accept because I remembered from growing up that even Lutherans distinguish between two types of faith. James 2:17 says “faith without works is dead”, and I honestly thought Lutherans defined dead faith as “faith without works”, as James does. However, my quote from the LCMS web site does make that somewhat questionable.

 

[Assurance]

Abraham quoting me:

(you said once, “I am infallibly certain–meaning I have the highest level of human confidence possible”). If the word “infallible” had been used only to describe the object of our faith, not our own confidence, then the disagreement never would’ve started.

Good point Abraham. I believe that any Christian - no matter how weak their faith - can have infallible confidence, because of the object of their trust, Christ.

Abraham:

those words in and of themselves are dead and cannot save unless they are connected to Christ on the one hand and bear fruit on the other hand.

I understand your point, but let’s also acknowledge I have been speaking of Christ as the source from the beginning. Let’s also acknowledge that in some sene, words or “confession” are fruit (see Matthew 13) by which we may make reasonable judgments.

Abraham:

So I maintain that based on that definition, it is very hard for a Lutheran to say their trust is anything less than infallible, because if they did they would fear that maybe their faith is not saving faith. Catholics are free to admit we have some doubts sometimes, because that does not thereby damn us as long as we’re still connected to Christ in real life.

You are right and wrong here Abraham. For if you think your faith is not strong enough or what not, you are putting your faith in your faith and not the object! And indeed - it is a serious thing to doubt the rock solid promises of Christ and His forgiveness. And yet – this does not mean that we will never have doubts - for Satan constantly tempts us to doubt the character and the promises of Christ, etc. though things like…well, frankly…Roman Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, to doubt does not mean to be certainly lost and damned as you seem to think - for we “are connected to Christ in real life” through our baptism and “He is faithful when we are faithless”!