In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

[JonNC]

Are you familar with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in which there are Lutherans who belong to it too?

alliancenet.org/CC_Content_Page/0,PTID307086_CHID798774_CIID,00.html

A quick scan of the churches, and I saw none, though there may be. So, perhaps, when you say, “unite as Christians within orthodoxy for the bigger cause of Christ”, you need to define “unite” and “orthodoxy”. There are many ways in which we are all united - baptism is a specific example. We can also be united in helping the least of His children, and defending the unborn, amongst other things. But if you mean unite at the altar, when there is no complete unity, this is problematic for (confessional) Lutherans, both scripturally and doctrinally.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

A quick scan of the churches, and I saw none, though there may be. So, perhaps, when you say, “unite as Christians within orthodoxy for the bigger cause of Christ”, you need to define “unite” and “orthodoxy”. There are many ways in which we are all united - baptism is a specific example. We can also be united in helping the least of His children, and defending the unborn, amongst other things. But if you mean unite at the altar, when there is no complete unity, this is problematic for (confessional) Lutherans, both scripturally and doctrinally.

Jon

Are you familar with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together 1 and Evangelicals and Catholics Together 2 documents signed in 1994 and 1996?

Orthodoxy can be defined by the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed as a start. I’m not talking about unity with Mormons and Muslims regarding defending the unborn kind of unity. I am talking about the great commission unity in which the gospel is proclaimed to all the nations of the world, reconciling sinners to God. I believe the unity called for in John 17 is for the sake of unbelievers, so they too can know God through Christ.

 

[JonNC]

=Christian Unity;10080923]Are you familar with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together 1 and Evangelicals and Catholics Together 2 documents signed in 1994 and 1996?

Then I understand your definition of “unity”. I would not deny the Christianity of other communions, and there is a kind of unity we have with them.

Orthodoxy can be defined by the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed as a start. I’m not talking about unity with Mormons and Muslims regarding defending the unborn kind of unity. I am talking about the great commission unity in which the gospel is proclaimed to all the nations of the world, reconciling sinners to God. I believe the unity called for in John 17 is for the sake of unbelievers, so they too can know God through Christ.

OK. So, not a unity of fellowship, but a unity of effort in this world.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Where we can come together as members in the Mystical Body of Christ comes in our profession of the Our Father, and in particular bible studies that help us grow in our dependency on God and walk in the Spirit.

Last summer my women’s bible study group brought in a bishop approved series that basically just had reference to Scripture, although it began with our understanding of the apostles and their mission to be sent out.

But we also noted the lack of Church, and people wanted to return to materials that also provide greater in depth understanding by use of references from the Catholic Catechism as well as witness of the lives of saints. In other words, we needed Church with Scripture.

I tried to start an ecumenical bible study in my neighborhood…after trying to get a few catholics to come together in prayer and Scripture and my Lutheran neighbor commented that it is not inclined at all. We had a Nazarene family pass out Rick Warren’s ‘A Purpose Driven Life’, and I agreed with all of it, and he is like Billy Graham, who both my strict Irish Catholic grandmother and I really liked. They both stopped at how we worship. We were to go to the places we believed would provide us our sense of worship.

I think Rev. Warren’s understanding of the spiritual life in it was very pastoral as it was contemporary, but parts it reflected in Scripture the spiritual walk. St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, S.John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Therese the Little Flower provide great insight into the walk of perfection. There are various others as well as contemporary ones.

I would add that St. Catherine summed it up, it not about us, but about Christ. The Crucified Lord is our fountain of grace, and He is the Bridge to the Heavenly Father, and in our purgation from sin to walking closer depending on His life and His will, we become more perfect – union with God and His divine Love, when we do not depend on ourselves or inclinations, but on the living life of the Lord, through Word and Sacrament within us…a day by day walk.

 

[Christian_Unity]

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. - John 17

It seems Christian unity is for the sake of unbelievers to believe.

 

[guanophore]

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity - Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius

So who defines “essentials” and “non-essentials”? For Catholics, they are defined in the once for all deposit of faith, and we are not at liberty to change any of what was handed down to us. For everyone in the traditions of the Reformers, some parts of the once for all deposit of faith have been excised.

If you go to a Catholic Forum site, members will have a Catholic slant on things. If you go to a Protestant Forum site, members will have a non-Catholic slant on things. I say live and let live, and unite as Christians within orthodoxy for the bigger cause of Christ.

I agree. Who gets to define “orthodoxy”?

I’m open to discuss all kinds of things. I personally believe in sola scriptura over apostolic succession. I also believe in a forensic justification (justification by faith alone) in comparison to a Catholic understanding of justification. However, our differences should never divide the body of Christ. Christian unity requires some compromise.

This seems to be opposite of what Jesus taught. He taught that unity was an outgrowth of adherance to the Truth. He said that all those who embraced Truth would be one in Him. That does not sound like “compromise”.

Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification. (Vatican, November 2008)

justforcatholics.org/benedict_justification.htm

ligonier.org/learn/articles/essentials-unity-non-essentials-liberty-all-things/

And yet, you still cling to your “faith alone” idea. Wonder why that is, when you don’t agree with what Pope Benedict or Luther had to say on the issue?

 

[guanophore]

The Council of Trent may be good from the Catholic perspective. I know it was a response to the Protestant Reformation. However, the Council of Trent is terrible for Christian Unity between Catholics and Protestants. Founders of Sola Scriptura are** united to Christ just like me and you.** In Christ, there is no male or female distinction, no Jew or Gentile distinction, no Catholic or Protestant distinction.

No, they are not. The manner in which we are united is different, because the Catholic faith teaches that unity with Christ means unity with His One Church. It requires the obedience of faith to those He left in charge. So though we are related, it is an imperfect relatedness, since all the “Founders of Sola Scriptura” and their spiritual descendants have rejected parts of the One Faith that was entrusted to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think Protestants believe good works are unnecessary. I think James chapter 2 is quite clear.

There are only a few who misunderstand even the Reformers, and think they can pray a sinners prayer, and yet still do whatever they want and still go to heaven because they are “saved”.

I think most of our separated brethren believe that a Christian’s faith will be manifested in the fruit of the Spirit.

You do understand that Protetstants would also say that there understanding is from divine guidance too, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit for correct undestanding of the Scriptures.

Yes, and many have come to understanding that is consistent with the Apostolic faith in many areas, and therefore are closer in unity.

However this is where the 30,000 ecclesial communities come into play. The HS always leads to unity, so the fact that so many factions all believe they are led by that same HS and are opposed to one another in many areas is very problematic.

 

[guanophore]

In the 1990’s, I was really interested in the ECT movement and wholeheartily opposed it. I read lot’s of books by Protestants who opposed the ECT movement. In those particular books, the anathemas of the Council of Trent were referenced. I know the CCC will state that the eternal curses of the Council of Trent do not apply to Protestants today.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of “anathema”. This is the term used by the Apostles to refer to excommunication. It is in now way an “eternal curse”, but an act of discipline to get the attention of the offender by making it clear they had left the faith.

You are right, they don’t apply to modern day Protestants, and neither can the terms “heretic” or “apostate” in most cases, because most modern Protestants have never known or embraced the true faith. They have all received a truncated version of the One faith, and many of them live better Christian lives with the fragment they have than Catholics who have the fullness of the faith!

However, the intent of the Council of Trent cannot be disputed.

Obviously it can, since you seem to have misunderstood it. What exactly do you think was the “intent”?

The Church as a responsibility to teach the Truth. When that Truth that was handed down to us from the Apostles is attacked or abandoned, it is the duty of the Church to respond. This is what has been done in ever council that has been convened since the Council of Jerusalem documented in Acts.

I am also aware of the anti-Catholic statements made in historic Protestant confessionals such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I think I have a good handle of our differences, and they are important. However, I don’t think issues like authority and justification will be resolved on this side of glory.

No, certainly not if there is a requirement of “compromise”. Those who have received the Apostolic faith know that we will be “accursed” if we receive another gospel, which is what it will be if we were to compromise.

The Reformers designed “a different gospel”, which we are commanded to reject.

It’s been 500 years… so what’s the next best thing to do for the sake of Christ? It’s unrealistic that Protestants will come home to Rome as a whole because we see things quite differently, yet we both love the Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree. I think the return to the One Faith will occur one at a time, or in small groups at a time. You are right that Satan loves to fan the flame of anti -Catholic sentiment, so that even documents like the ones you have referenced that show where we are in agreement will be rejected.

 

[guanophore]

 I find it ironic that Catholics can unite with Mormons on social issues which they agree on.  Yet, when we are trying to unite on the very nature of the One True God and the One True religion of Christianity, it appears Catholics are opposed to any such unity. :shrug:

We canont compromise the Truth to satisfy a fleeting and wordly appearance of unity. Mormons do not have a concept of the Trinity around which orthodox Christians can unite.

Don't worry, Fundamentialist right wing Christians did the very same thing, uniting with Mormons on social issues.

We can unite over the historic ecumenical creeds such as the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed. The historic Protestant confessionals are orthodox on the very essentials of the faith.

Did some thing give you the impression we are “worried”? Catholics are compelled to work for the common good of society, to be light and salt in the world. We will unite with anti-Christians if we must to effect the lesser of two evils.

Yes, we could unite over the Creeds, but the Reformers redefined what many of the Words in them mean, and since we are not allowed to abandon the definitions handed down to us from the Apostles, it is difficult.

I do agree, though that there are many elements of Truth in the historic Protestant confessionals. This is also emphasized in the Catechism.

 

[SteveVH]

Orthodoxy can be defined by the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed as a start.

Do you believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? There aren’t many from which to choose. If you believe it, you should become a part of it.

I am talking about the great commission unity in which the gospel is proclaimed to all the nations of the world, reconciling sinners to God. I believe the unity called for in John 17 is for the sake of unbelievers, so they too can know God through Christ.

And what do we do with issues such as the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian faith, according to the Catholic Church? Do we set this aside in order to appear unified? The truth is this; the Church will be unified when all come to the Catholic faith, and not before.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Do you believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? There aren’t many from which to choose. If you believe it, you should become a part of it.

And what do we do with issues such as the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian faith, according to the Catholic Church? Do we set this aside in order to appear unified? The truth is this; the Church will be unified when all come to the Catholic faith, and not before.

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals–catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2

 

[SteveVH]

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/evangelicals–catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2

Great. They came up with a lot of things on which they could agree. I’m all for it. I am all for joining forces with any Christian group that intends to do what the Catholic Church intends to do. This does not make us one as Christ intended. It’s good, its great, it furthers the kingdom of God on earth. But we cannot be one body without one faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

One Bread, One Body…concrete Creed, concrete Bible books, concrete episcopacy, concrete sacraments with liturgy…concrete documentation…‘write it down’…2,000 year tradition of faith…doesn’t mean believers can’t sin and fall away, apostasize,…or repent and be One again.

Many charisms, but the fruit comes from the Tree of Life…the fruit is Jesus Christ, Logos, the Word Made Flesh…the Eucharist.

 

[Erich]

Well, he used the term “forensic justificationists”, so that;s why I came to that conclusion. I’m sure Erich will clarify.

I missed that completely. Apologies.

Jon got it (as did you, apparently). It didn’t occur to me that what I wrote could be misinterpreted or misunderstood; it was certainly clear enough to me when I wrote it

So who defines “essentials” and “non-essentials”? For Catholics, they are defined in the once for all deposit of faith, and we are not at liberty to change any of what was handed down to us. For everyone in the traditions of the Reformers, some parts of the once for all deposit of faith have been excised.

All Christians, to a greater or lesser degree, can (or should) agree that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. So, who gets to decide what part of the Inspired Word of God is non-essential?

 

[guanophore]

Now I get it. So forensic justification = justification by faith alone. Sorry for taking so long to figure that out.

Well, I do not believe in it. I do not think that faith alone brings salvation because it would be a dead faith.

It does not ONLY mean “faith alone”, but the term refers to a legal declaration that the soul is saved. The notion is based on the use of language common to Roman courts at the time the NT was written. It is a pronouncement that a case is dismissed against an individual. From the Reformed point of view, it has nothing to do with the offenders actual guilt. The recipient of this declaration is still considered a “guilty sinner”, and is not changed in character at all, but excused from the payment of their crimes (because Christ paid the price for them on the cross).

As has been noted above in the thread, it requires that God actually lie to Himself, so that “when He looks upon us He sees Jesus rather than our guilt”. He “fools” Himself into believing that we are “like Christ”, and does not hold the sinful nature of man against him.

 

[guanophore]

 And?  So the Church needed some internal cleanup.

I suggest that the Church never has, and never will, require “internal cleanup”. I say this because the “internal” church is divine in nature, and therefore impeccable and infallible. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make her pure.

The Church is, like Jesus, incarnational in nature, with both divine and human elements. I think what you are saying is that the human elements of the Church require cleanup, and this is certainly true. Men are always in need of reform. You are responding to a post here that identifies some of the corruptions in people that needed to be addressed at the time of the Reformation. It is important, when dialoguing with Reformed Christians as is the OP, that we make this distinction, because they have received a very deficient concept of the Church. Many modern day evangelicals have been erroneously taught that the the Church is the “body of believers here on earth”. This is a true statement of course, but only part of the Truth.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of her teachings, and did not give protestant reformers free range to start picking and choosing which doctrines they want to follow. All this says is that we have similarities. These similarities do not erase our difference, nor do they mean that we have stop preaching the full Truth of the ONLY Church on Earth that Christ himself deemed fit to start.

Many ecclesial communities of our separated brethren, distressed by the fracturing of the Protestant world, and by the continual drift away from orthodox faith, are returning to the roots of the faith. As this process unfolds, a return to Sacred Tradition is embraced. One example of this is the return of many Anglicans to the One Faith. Let us pray that this unity in essentials does continue.

 

[guanophore]

Orthodoxy can be defined by the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed as a start.

I agree, but we are still left with the problem that the Reformers redefined the words of the Creeds so that they modern evangelical meanings of some of the terms no longer represents what they did for those who composed them creeds.

 I'm not talking about unity with Mormons and Muslims regarding defending the unborn kind of unity.  I am talking about the great commission unity in which the gospel is proclaimed to all the nations of the world, reconciling sinners to God.  I believe the unity called for in John 17 is for the sake of unbelievers, so they too can know God through Christ.

I agree that the unity called for in Jn. 17 does benefit the Gospel (for the sake of unbelievers), but I think this is a consequence of unity. Unity comes from adherance to the Truth. when we are in Truth, we are automatically in union with one another, which then has the effect of manifesting Christ and the Gospel to the world.

We will all agree that He is Truth, but where we differ is in how that Truth is made known to us, and how we are to respond to it. To the extent that various denominations have departed from the Truth, there is disunity.

Then I understand your definition of “unity”. I would not deny the Christianity of other communions, and there is a kind of unity we have with them.

OK. So, not a unity of fellowship, but a unity of effort in this world.

Jon

And where there is unity we must certainly affirm and combine our efforts to bring light and salt to the world.

 

[Erich]

Orthodoxy can be defined by the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed as a start.

Interesting that you would pick these two as definitions of orthodoxy.

Many who believe in sola scriptura would consider that, because these creeds are not explicitly found as such between the front and back covers of their Bibles, they are merely non-inspired, man-made creeds and not on the same “level” as the Bible.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Apostle’s Creed was professed in the ancient Christian liturgy by 100 AD.