How Do Protestants Feel While Saying The Apostles Creed?

[MDK]

MDK, why should I be anything but decent about an obvious typo?
Pastor Gary might be able to answer you more clearly, but I’ll try.
What we are saying about works is simply that we gain no merit toward justification or even salvation for the good works we do. That isn’t to say we are not obliged to do good works. We are obliged, as Christ, who receives all merit for our salvation, commands us to do good works. Good works are our response to the justification that Christ through His sacrifice procures for us.

Consider the thief on the cross, who was justified by his faith alone. We are, too. But we have the opportunity, thank God, to respond to His grace. Failure to do so is an indication of a dead faith, or false faith.

Jon

The one thief on the cross was not justified by “faith alone”. He did a public act of witness to Christ, in love. That is faith working in love.

You guys want to stretch faith to mean everything, beyond what it really does mean. This is how you try to make faith alone fit… it really must mean faith with something… works… So, you’re trying to stretch false teaching as written to become more like the Catholic teaching of “faith working in love”, by redefining the word “faith.”

I’m happy that you want to be more like the Catholics. However, there is a better way to do this than hiding behind some other name.

Can you go to Heaven without being forgiven? Yet, saying the Our Father, you know that we must forgive others, in order for ourselves to be forgiven.

The truth is that we are justified by God’s Grace. If you were to say Grace Alone, we would have agreement.

 

[JonNC]

The one thief on the cross was not justified by “faith alone”. He did a public act of witness to Christ, in love. That is faith working in love.

You guys want to stretch faith to mean everything, beyond what it really does mean. This is how you try to make faith alone fit… it really must mean faith with something… works… So, you’re trying to stretch false teaching as written to become more like the Catholic teaching of “faith working in love”, by redefining the word “faith.”

I’m happy that you want to be more like the Catholics. However, there is a better way to do this than hiding behind some other name.

Can you go to Heaven without being forgiven? Yet, saying the Our Father, you know that we must forgive others, in order for ourselves to be forgiven.

The truth is that we are justified by God’s Grace. If you were to say Grace Alone, we would have agreement.

Perfect. Can we agree on this?

By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works

Jon

 

[MDK]

Perfect. Can we agree on this?

Jon

We do agree on this. The statement is the common ground to allow Lutherans to come more fully toward the fullness of revealed truth. Augustine and subsequently Augustinians have always been about God’s Grace, and this is where Luther learned this Catholic insight, and modified it to teach differently. So, this doesn’t mean that additional understanding could not be added to make this encompass more fullness of revealed truth. For instance, this faith takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. I am happy with the common ground, but we must not stop there if we are to do what Christ asked and seek to be perfect, even as our Father is perfect.

We must take into consideration the proper meaning of Romans 3:28 “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Properly understood this means when we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, this is referring to natural law and the Mosaic laws including dietary laws, circumcision, etc. “Works of the law” was a stock phrase for the Mosaic laws.

Per the DRB, ““By faith”… The faith, to which the apostle here attributes man’s justification, is not a presumptuous assurance of our being justified; but a firm and lively belief of all that God has revealed or promised. Heb. 11. A faith working through charity in Jesus Christ. Gal. 5. 6. In short, a faith which takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. And the works which he here excludes, are only the works of the law: that is, such as are done by the law of nature, or that of Moses, antecedent to the faith of Christ: but by no means, such as follow faith, and proceed from it.”

If you agree with all this, then you should consider coming home to the Church, helping heal the 500 year old split. The Sacraments in the Church are valid and licit. There has never been error taught in faith and morals. The problem that caused this split is essentially “reformers” tried to fix bad behaviors of individuals in the Church by changing the doctrines of Christ. It was a bad approach that has done much harm to the Body of Christ.

 

[MDK]

JohnNC,

Regarding then Cardinal Ratzinger’s phrase you are using in your signature block “Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
-Cardinal Ratzinger”

Do you view this as then Cardinal Ratzinger’s endorsement of Lutheranism, such that it is a valid alternative to Catholicism with equivalent valid teachings and valid Sacraments, such that subscribing to either will provide the equivalent means toward salvation, neither being more secure than the other? If so, why…, and if not, why not?

 

[JonNC]

JohnNC,

Regarding then Cardinal Ratzinger’s phrase you are using in your signature block “Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
-Cardinal Ratzinger”

Do you view this as then Cardinal Ratzinger’s endorsement of Lutheranism, such that it is a valid alternative to Catholicism with equivalent valid teachings and valid Sacraments, such that subscribing to either will provide the equivalent means toward salvation, neither being more secure than the other? If so, why…, and if not, why not?

I see it only as it is stated, and in the light of the reference where I found it.usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

It reflects a growing level of agreement, and understanding, and love, and respect generally between Lutherans and Catholics in the area of ministry and sacrament.
*Do I think that the Cardinal’s comments represent a sea-change of Catholic belief regarding the question of validity of presbyter ordination? No.
*Do I think he carries into his papacy the idea that Lutheran clergy are the equal of that of Rome? No.
*Do I think he was just being nice to a Lutheran Bishop friend, and was really just vaguely restating that Christ is where two or more are gathered in His name? No.

I think he recognizes that there is something more to the Lutheran orders and sacraments than a nothing. I think in Germany there is a mutual respect between Lutherans and Catholics that is sometimes missing here, and I believe that this was a response, in part, to that. I believe what he said is what he meant, that those in apostolic succession “need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.” I believe he doesn’t believe that this is an all or nothing situation. just like the Catholic dialogue members in the above referenced document don’t.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

We do agree on this. The statement is the common ground to allow Lutherans to come more fully toward the fullness of revealed truth. Augustine and subsequently Augustinians have always been about God’s Grace, and this is where Luther learned this Catholic insight, and modified it to teach differently. So, this doesn’t mean that additional understanding could not be added to make this encompass more fullness of revealed truth. For instance, this faith takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. I am happy with the common ground, but we must not stop there if we are to do what Christ asked and seek to be perfect, even as our Father is perfect.

We must take into consideration the proper meaning of Romans 3:28 “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Properly understood this means when we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, this is referring to natural law and the Mosaic laws including dietary laws, circumcision, etc. “Works of the law” was a stock phrase for the Mosaic laws.

Per the DRB, "“By faith”… The faith, to which the apostle here attributes man’s justification, is not a presumptuous assurance of our being justified; but a firm and lively belief of all that God has revealed or promised. Heb. 11. A faith working through charity in Jesus Christ. Gal. 5. 6. In short, a faith which takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. And the works which he here excludes, are only the works of the law: that is, such as are done by the law of nature, or that of Moses, antecedent to the faith of Christ: but by no means, such as follow faith, and proceed from it."

I have no serious quarrel with this, if we agree that the good works that proceed from faith, an active faith, are the good works of the HS through us, works for which we can claim no merit.

If you agree with all this, then you should consider coming home to the Church, helping heal the 500 year old split.

It is a consideration.

Jon

 

[MDK]

I see it only as it is stated, and in the light of the reference where I found it.usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

It reflects a growing level of agreement, and understanding, and love, and respect generally between Lutherans and Catholics in the area of ministry and sacrament.
*Do I think that the Cardinal’s comments represent a sea-change of Catholic belief regarding the question of validity of presbyter ordination? No.
*Do I think he carries into his papacy the idea that Lutheran clergy are the equal of that of Rome? No.
*Do I think he was just being nice to a Lutheran Bishop friend, and was really just vaguely restating that Christ is where two or more are gathered in His name? No.

I think he recognizes that there is something more to the Lutheran orders and sacraments than a nothing. I think in Germany there is a mutual respect between Lutherans and Catholics that is sometimes missing here, and I believe that this was a response, in part, to that. I believe what he said is what he meant, that those in apostolic succession “need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.” I believe he doesn’t believe that this is an all or nothing situation. just like the Catholic dialogue members in the above referenced document don’t.

Jon

It is more than nothing, and likely some Grace from Christ, but I don’t believe he is giving credit to invalid religious orders. I believe it is related to the desire in one’s heart to be with God, and follow Him, those who have otherwise been misled by false teachings, and who despite their real desire, have no valid Sacrament available and they are not aware of this. These people act in good faith truly seeking God, although through no fault of their own have no valid Sacrament as it is with apostolic succession. So, neither would this be the same as worthily (without mortal sin and with full belief) receiving with expectant faith His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the incredible gift of Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church. If these people know that the Catholic Sacrament is valid and theirs is not, and yet still reject the Catholic Church, then that would be a different matter. It doesn’t mean we are all automatically better off either…, if we reject His Real and True Presence, or knowingly receive unworthily, then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Some who commit sacrilege in the Catholic Church may likely be worse off than some who with faith believe in the Lutheran church’s Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, receiving with expectant faith the true Sacrament in the Catholic Church would be better than receiving with expectant faith the invalid Sacrament in the Lutheran church.

 

[MDK]

I have no serious quarrel with this, if we agree that the good works that proceed from faith, an active faith, are the good works of the HS through us, works for which we can claim no merit.

It is a consideration.

Jon

I pray that you do come back to where I believe you belong, that is we all belong. We must be one, as Christ and the Father are one.

 

[JonNC]

I pray that you do come back to where I believe you belong, that is we all belong. We must be one, as Christ and the Father are one.

Thank you for your sincere prayers. And I agree we must be one.

Nevertheless, receiving with expectant faith the true Sacrament in the Catholic Church would be better than receiving with expectant faith the invalid Sacrament in the Lutheran church.

Forever, regardless of my faith communion, I have known that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist I receive at my Lutheran celebration.

Jon

 

[MDK]

Thank you for your sincere prayers. And I agree we must be one.

Forever, regardless of my faith communion, I have known that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist I receive at my Lutheran celebration.

Jon

It’s good that you believe He is. Now, if you direct your belief to the Catholic Eucharist that will solve both issues. You will be receiving Him really and truly in the Eucharist, and we will be more one in doctrine and Sacraments as Christ intended.

 

[thirdn6]

Can you all non-Catholics say something…

WHY you believe in the “holy catholic Church”?
HOW you came to believe in the “holy catholic Church”?
WHAT do you believe in the “holy catholic Church”?
WHERE can I find that “holy catholic Church” that I may also believe…?

… and feel “genuinely catholic” the next time I recite the creed?
(I’m really curious!) Thanks. :hammering:

For so many days only three protestants answered my questions and I find their answers not at all convincing…
Makes me more suspect “what they are really talking about…”