Lutherans - Roman Catholics/Points for Discussion

[bluelake]

So one does not have to have “Faith only” to be saved, one has to be baptized, or hear the gospel, to gain the faith in order to be saved?

Help me out here, your losing me, because now you have just attached “works” baptism, hearing the gospel to your “Faith alone” in order to be saved?

I would like to know when? and how does “Faith alone” save a blind, mute, hearing impaired person? Without attaching any baptism, or Gospel to your “Faith alone” documents?

gab,
The same way a mute person would be saved in a RCC .
God knows our heart.
No one can earn their way into heaven. Good works follow grace.

bluelake

 

[bluelake]

Are you saying that you are not a “Sola Fide” by saying your “not Faith-ians”?

If you say “My faith doesn’t save me”? then what is “Faith only” talking about from your documents?

I have to say TriuneUnity from your “Faith Only” Lutheran position is not what most protestants and non catholics adhere too in the “Faith Only” theology.

I don’t want to beat this Sola Fide thing to the ground, because I would like to move on to Justification and works along with other things yet to come.

Since you are able to discern faith, how are the mentally ill souls and infants saved and including accident victims who are left without speech, hearing, and motor skills? when we know that these cannot be saved on “Faith alone”, how do these recieve their Justification, sanctification, if they do not have faith to discern, nor in anyway able to recieve this grace and accept it as you do? For example as you stated here, “He gives me a gift, and gives me the grace to accept it”

We should not rely on our works to be saved. Good works follow faith.
Jesus Christ is our Savior. He chose us while we were being formed in our mother’s womb.
PS.139:18
We also are not to judge one another. Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Dancelittleewok]

We should not rely on our works to be saved. Good works follow faith.
Jesus Christ is our Savior. He chose us while we were being formed in our mother’s womb.
PS.139:18
We also are not to judge one another. Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake

Since these works flow from the same place as the saving faith, then, to me, it is reasonable to believe that works are necessary and saving. Catholics don’t believe in Pelagianism (where man’s works alone are saving) and has condemn this heresy but rather we must choose to do good works, acting upon God’s actual and sanctifying grace.

 

[bluelake]

]

 

[bluelake]

Since these works flow from the same place as the saving faith, then, to me, it is reasonable to believe that works are necessary and saving. Catholics don’t believe in Pelagianism (where man’s works alone are saving) and has condemn this heresy but rather we must choose to do good works, acting upon God’s actual and sanctifying grace.

Thank you for your response.
I agree as christians we must help each other at all times.
The greatest commandment Jesus Christ gave to us is…found in Mt.22:36-40
39, reads, "

Love your neighbor as yourself."


God bless,
bluelake

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It does help, Matt. Thanks for the effort put into the post. And booing the Dodgers is essential, bud! The bums won tonight rrrrrgh. My Giants are locked in a real battle with the Pirates. I guess Pittsburgh might steal one from 'em.

(continued)

An traditional example of living in sin unrepentantly (2) has been King David, who committed murder and adultery and thus fell away from the faith (Read 2 Samuel 11 and 12; Psalm 51). About this third cause Martin Luther once wrote:

“It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, for St. John says, ‘No one born of God commits sin’ (Smalcald Articles III.3.43-45).”

All Christians sin daily and will do so until death, as John himself says in I John 1:8. The sin that John speaks of in the quotation above (1 John 3:9) is the sin that is continued in without repentance. When such unrepentant sin occurs (whether it be adultery and murder or neglect of the Word and Sacrament, living together outside of marriage, etc.) faith eventually dies and Hebrews 10:26-27 applies.

Though it is true that rejecting the Gospel and living in sin impenitently cause one to fall away, these causes happen more easily within certain contexts. Such as? Such as persecution (Matthew 24:9-10; Luke 8:13), false doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1: “in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demon”), or neglect. (Hebrews 2:3:“how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?”). Christian history is littered with the sorry examples of Christians who fell away from their faith in the face of persecution, who fell tragically through false doctrine, and who fell unknowingly through neglect of the preached Word and Sacrament, worship, and the body of Christ. Persecution, false doctrine, and neglect don’t actually cause apostasy. But they create a climate in which falling away can easily happen.

I hope that helps. If not, there’s always booing the Dodgers LOL

 

[Daedelus76]

Rejecting the Gospel, in New Testament terms, can mean either (1a) putting one’s trust in persons or works of the Law in addition to Jesus Christ or (1b) a total repudiation of Jesus and the Christian faith, and (1c) rejecting an essential doctrine of the Gospel. An example of (1a) was the Galatian congregation already mentioned.

But even accepting sola fide can be a work, though, in what it can do psychologically. I think the real issue is pride, which is a sin. Using this logic (adding to Christ’s works= bad), other Protestants, have rejected spiritual disciplines like fasting and so forth. this doesn’t really apply to Luther, since he saw fasting and confession as strengthening faith, but some Baptists and non-denominationals very much take a very “gnostic” view of things. The difference from Catholicism is that Luther saw the sacraments as “tools”, not chains of a taskmaster- ones salvation isn’t dependent on any of them in an absolute sense.

How do you reconcile these admonitions with the idea that we can persist in sin and yet our sins are “covered” and righteousness of God is imputed to us, giving us salvation? Thanks in advance for your answers…

Luther didn’t seem into “easy-believism”, Catholics who read that into Luther don’t get Luther.

I think any work we do is impossible to justify us before God, as we are all sinners. With that I agree with the Reformers. Self-justification is a big problem with people, when we do works for the purpose of earning our justification, how is that not selfish? The only works we can do that are pure are out of love, these don’t justify us but flow from faith and hope.

The person who stands around boasting about their works and assuming they are “OK” just because they have done what the Roman Catholic Church tells them to do etc., but look down upon the Protestant who knows they are justified only though the merits of Christ despite having done nothing to deserve it, how are they any better than the Pharisee sneering at the Publican?

Protestant “monergism” really comes down to the power of love itself. Protestants have enough faith that love will not go without producing transformation in a persons life without “legalism”.

"Unconditional love, however, is not the same as unconditional affirmation. Love creates a crisis. And the greater the love, the greater the crisis. For love reaches out for union. For implicit within the gift of love is a calling of the other into relationship. To accept the gift of love is admit into our heart a power from outside ourselves that tugs at our very self-centredness, seeking to draw us into relationship by stirring up in us a desire to love in return the one who gave us the gift of love. Yet, the price of this relationship is a dent in our self-sufficient autonomy, where our selfish ways have thrived unquestioned. And the greater the love, the greater the loss of the right to live for oneself alone. And perfect, unconditional love seeks to stir up an equally unreserved giving of all of ourselves to the other. In short, true unconditional love does not simply affirm us in our self-satisfied self-centredness. True unconditional love provokes the ultimate crisis where we are called to die completely to our desire for autonomy and wholly give ourselves to the one who has already done the same for us. "

• Rev. Dr. Ashley Null, Anglican theologian at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary

 

[TriuneUnity]

But even accepting sola fide can be a work, though, in what it can do psychologically. I think the real issue is pride, which is a sin. Using this logic (adding to Christ’s works= bad), other Protestants, have rejected spiritual disciplines like fasting and so forth.

I think that can be very true. Many reject works simply because they see good works as a bad thing. Of course that’s idiotic, but in their over reaction to the Roman Catholic belief on the subject, they throw everything out. Good works are necessary not for me, but for my neighbor. This was Luther’s correction to erroneous notions of self-justification.

What do you mean by what sola fide can do psychologically?

 

[Daedelus76]

Of course that’s idiotic, but in their over reaction to the Roman Catholic belief on the subject, they throw everything out. Good works are necessary not for me, but for my neighbor. This was Luther’s correction to erroneous notions of self-justification. What do you mean by what sola fide can do psychologically?

Some Calvinists seem to focus alot on their belief in sola fide justifying them, when in reality sola fide is a realization of sola gratia.

I am from a Methodist background, I’ve been attending Episcopalian and Anglican churches, but actually interested in Orthodoxy at the moment (I don’t care for Calvinism, BTW,for some reason Calvinism seems to be gainig ground among Evangelicals. I don’t like it, too intellectual and many Calvinists were basicly quasi-gnostic and anti-incarnational). The reason I’m not really interested in Methodism anymore because Methodists Eucharistic practices are anachronistic (circuit riders), resulting in usually a low view of the sacrament among many congregations. Methodists also embrace a vanilla protestant antipathy to all things catholic too, and the churches are frankly usually drab/austere looking.
I'd also be interested in Luhteranism, Anglicanism seems to be a little too "broad", no doubt this is partly responsible for the crisis in the Anglican communion, no two anglicans have the same beliefs about much of anything, and there is no impetus to really tone down some of the rhetoric in the name of unity (some more catholic than the pope, some raving anti-catholic and very "low" in their view of anything except the Bible ... in the same church). I'd like to see more "confessionalism" or definitive beliefs and attitudes, looking for a place that is structured to grow spiritually, not just a "free for all" where everything is left to "private conscience". I consider myself "high church" though and interested in liturgy, patristics and the "Great Tradition". Of all the Reformers, Erasmus, Luther, or Hooker are the most impressive to me, and I've also read some of the Oxford Movement like Pusey and Newman.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Some Calvinists seem to focus alot on their belief in sola fide justifying them, when in reality sola fide is a realization of sola gratia.

I would say, at least from what I’ve experienced with Calvinist friends of mine, it seems more focused on their knowledge of whether they have faith to begin with. Since Calvinism divorces faith from a sacramental context, they must then determine how they know they are justified to begin with. Add to this mix the belief that Christ only suffered and died for the elect, and you have one hellish brew of navel gazing.

Because the content of the promise is conditional, explicitly making everything conditional upon faith, I am in no position to say that the gospel promise is about me until I can say, “I believe.” For most Protestants, this is a really big deal. The hour I first believed or the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the Sacrament of Baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved.

Notice what this requires of us: not just that we believe, but that we know we believe. I call this the requirement of “reflective faith.” Protestant faith has to be reflective in that it is not enough just to believe; you have to believe you believe, maybe even know you believe. That is a pretty hefty requirement for those of us who are weak in faith, or who believe that all sin is rooted in unbelief and we are still sinners at heart.

As for agreeing with sola fide… I would say it’s required in order to have a biblical understanding of the concept… That’s far different from the near doctrinal regeneration position.

I’d also be interested in Luhteranism, Anglicanism seems to be a little too “broad”, no doubt this is partly responsible for the crisis in the Anglican communion, no two anglicans have the same beliefs about much of anything, and there is no impetus to really tone down some of the rhetoric in the name of unity (some more catholic than the pope, some raving anti-catholic and very “low” in their view of anything except the Bible … in the same church). I’d like to see more “confessionalism” or definitive beliefs and attitudes, looking for a place that is structured to grow spiritually, not just a “free for all” where everything is left to “private conscience”. I consider myself “high church” though and interested in liturgy, patristics and the “Great Tradition”. Of all the Reformers, Erasmus, Luther, or Hooker are the most impressive to me, and I’ve also read some of the Oxford Movement like Pusey and Newman.

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html

IMO, this is the one of the best websites for Lutheran theology resources.

 

[Daedelus76]

. Since Calvinism divorces faith from a sacramental context, they must then determine how they know they are justified to begin with.

You can’t really know you are in the elect without presumption, especially since some kinds of Calvinism emphasize the arbitrariness of God’s election (an influence of voluntarism/nominalism), can you really “trust” God in that situation? Plus some calvinists seem to have a wierd thing with loving winning debates and being right. Presuppositional apologetics is good stuff, you never have to lose an argument, and Calvinism is intellectually rigorous and rational. But being right is not the point of the Gospel.

Notice what this requires of us: not just that we believe, but that we know we believe. I call this the requirement of “reflective faith.”… That is a pretty hefty requirement for those of us who are weak in faith, or who believe that all sin is rooted in unbelief and we are still sinners at heart

Yes, it’s extremely “western” to think like that.

As for agreeing with sola fide… I would say it’s required in order to have a biblical understanding of the concept… That’s far different from the near doctrinal regeneration position.

I don’t really disagree with the Roman Catholic position on justification, but it’s a question of emphasis. The Lutheran is more “subjective”, what it looks like to the individual, whereas the Roman Catholic perspective assumes alot in our knowledge of how salvation works.

 

[mikeledes]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=337641

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=339712

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Daedelus76]

Since ProdigalSon1 posted a thread on the topic of unification of churches, I thought that I would begin a series specifically focusing on the disagreements that exist between Roman Catholics and Lutherans. The nature of the disagreements is not the same as exists between Rome and other Protestant communions.

I think I’ll try replying to your original post with some of my own comments.

I think Luther didn’t get monasticism. He was motivated by fear from the beginning, rather than a sincere love of God. Truthfully, Roman Catholicism at the time had developed a system that was very intronspective and painted an exacting, harsh view of God. Luther was reacting to that. Read “Mountain of Silence” by Kyriacos Markides for a good defense of monasticism (alot of the book is a rebuttal to a securalized Greek Orthodox inquirer). Being a monk doesn’t necessarily involve “working your way to heaven” in the way Luther assumed. He was wrong by thinking that monasticism involves being uncharitable to your neighbor, since monks pray and do charitable works. Doubting the power of prayer seems like a serious sin, and Luther may have been guilty of judging people by utility, which opens the door to many un-christian ideas where we measure individual worth by their usefulness to society than by the love that God has for them (indeed, the Protestant work ethic, secularized, became an unhealthy workaholism where we make Productive Labor a god) Thankfully, re-interest in monasticism in Lutheranism occured in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The same goes for devotion to saints and so forth. Luther was reacting to historical circumstances. Look at Orthodoxy if you want to see a faith that is both Christocentric and believes in the veneration of saints. Orthodox never had dogmas about the Virgin Mary (there are a host of theological pious opinios on her sinlessness in Orthodoxy beyond “immaculate conception”) or saints, it was not part of the “kerygma” (the proclamation of the Gospel), merely the Tradition. The veneration of saints, though, is a reminder of the belief in the Communion of Saints and the “life of the world to come”. I think if you start chipping away at some of this stuff, it becomes easier to doubt other, more core beliefs to Christianity.

And lastly, Luther’s views on the Virgin Mary were fairly ambiguous (he seemed to be having some passive-aggressive feelings towards the Mother of God, perhaps, more than a systematic theological understanding), but he did open the door to abandoning a set of traditions that had been meaningful to many people for centuries. He once said the Virgin Mary was a “mere vessel”, something that has been echoed by other Protestants down the centuries. Luther’s nominalism was maybe a bit strong here (though he’s reverent compared to some later Protestants). Unlike Ockham, I don’t think God incarnate in a sinless donkey would work for our salvation. What the Virgin Mary shows is that historical particulars are important, thus, by extension, the particulars of all are lives are important, they matter to God.

 

[SecretBeliever]

I’m actually attending a WELS church right now, and wondered, triuneunity, about your statement: “The hour I first believed or the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the Sacrament of Baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved.” (sorry, don’t know how to use the quote thingy) Are you just saying that that is what most Protestants believe, or that’s what you yourself believe? I mean, if that’s what you’re believing, I’m not sure that WELS teaches that. Please clarify?

Anyway, my two cents, and this may be slightly off topic and probably sophomoric to you folks, but to me it feeds into the whole “faith-alone”-or-not question. I see the Tradition of the Catholic Church as being the whole atmosphere of what the early Christians believed, and since they were there, they took for granted things that haven’t exactly been written in the Bible. Such as, “faith alone” and a few other things. I mean, we as Americans “know how” to be American, apart from what’s written in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We have our American tradition handed down to us from the Founding Fathers and the “atmosphere” of what it was like back then from the people who lived then. Can we say that we can only take the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and “know” how to be a true American? Does that make any sense? Please comment, thanks!

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m actually attending a WELS church right now, and wondered, triuneunity, about your statement: “The hour I first believed or the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the Sacrament of Baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved.” (sorry, don’t know how to use the quote thingy) Are you just saying that that is what most Protestants believe, or that’s what you yourself believe? I mean, if that’s what you’re believing, I’m not sure that WELS teaches that. Please clarify?

Sorry for the confusion, Secret. The above was my description of hoe the typical Calvinist and/or evangelical in America today views conversion and faith.