Protestants reforming ?

[cmforte]

As a Catholic I have never viewed justification as a process. I was saved the moment I was baptized. From then on salvation is mine to loose and I must persevere to the end. As you have stated, I am free to reject God’s grace. Baptism does not cause us to loose our free will. There are many ways to reject God’s grace. One of those is ambivalence towards the Grace given. While our works, in and of themselves, can bring us no closer to heaven, our acceptance of our baptismal grace is demonstrated and accomplished in works of mercy, works of charity, and participation in the sacraments. We must not only accept the grace, we must respond to grace by doing the very work that Jesus did, through the Church. If we do not, we have rejected grace and have not allowed it to transform us. When Christ commanded the Apostles to go out and make discliples of all nations he called the Church into action. Thus the wisdom of James in saying that “faith without works is dead”. Faith and works are inseperable. So I certainly don’t think you hold to OSAS and I think we are about as close in belief on this subject as we could be.

This is the exact teaching of the RCC (though it does say that justification is a process.).

-Chris

 

[JPeter]

Salvation is not a one time event. You don’t say a prayer or get baptized and puff!! You’re going to heaven!! Man is fallen and will sin, and when one who accepted Christ through faith mortally sins, that one then rejects that gift of grace and loses salvation, and therefore needs to (sincerely) repent again and try to avoid sin as best as he can, which some may consider “work.” So, since man will mortally sin and needs continual repentance, salvation is a process. That is what is meant. Justification sets us apart as now acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, but once we are set apart or “justified” we have a responsibility to do our part to keep it. You don’t earn it, but you must keep it. The Holy Spirit helps us in this process.

Anglicanism and Rome agree that justification requires the grace of God given in Jesus Christ. They differ in that Anglicanism believes that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our justification, while Rome holds that God infuses righteousness into us so that our righteousness, though enabled by grace, is the righteousness of our good works rather than Christ’s imputed righteousness. Or, to put it another way, for the Anglican Reformers, justification is a once and for all act effected by Jesus Christ and received in faith. For Rome, justification is the process of achieving holiness given in the life long effort to daily conquer sin. Or, for Anglicanism, one can be both justified and a sinner since the righteousness of justification is that of Christ and imputed to us while our unrighteousness is our own. For Rome, however, one cannot be both justified and a sinner since the only righteousness we possess is our own which cannot coexist with our unrighteousness.

 

[cmforte]

Anglicanism and Rome agree that justification requires the grace of God given in Jesus Christ. They differ in that Anglicanism believes that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our justification, while Rome holds that God infuses righteousness into us so that our righteousness, though enabled by grace, is the righteousness of our good works rather than Christ’s imputed righteousness. Or, to put it another way, for the Anglican Reformers, justification is a once and for all act effected by Jesus Christ and received in faith. For Rome**, justification is the process of achieving holiness given in the life long effort to daily conquer sin. **Or, for Anglicanism, one can be both justified and a sinner since the righteousness of justification is that of Christ and imputed to us while our unrighteousness is our own. For Rome, however, one cannot be both justified and a sinner since the only righteousness we possess is our own which cannot coexist with our unrighteousness.

Finally you understand. But I see nothing in the Catholic interpretation that contradicts Scripture and the Church Fathers. It just depends on your interpretation of said Scripture, in which case we’d go back to the debate over who has the legitimate authority to do such.

-Chris

 

[JPeter]

Finally you understand. But I see nothing in the Catholic interpretation that contradicts Scripture and the Church Fathers. It just depends on your interpretation of said Scripture, in which case we’d go back to the debate over who has the legitimate authority to do such.

-Chris

lol…I see nothing in the Anglican view that contradicts the scriptures or the Fathers and I am sure my belief in where the authority is to be found and yours are quite different. So where does that leave us?:crying:

 

[cmforte]

lol…I see nothing in the Anglican view that contradicts the scriptures or the Fathers and** I am sure my belief in where the authority is to be found and yours are quite different. **So where does that leave us?:crying:

At a stalemate as the part you wrote and I put in bold is 100% correct.

-Chris

 

[enickman]

lol…I see nothing in the Anglican view that contradicts the scriptures or the Fathers and I am sure my belief in where the authority is to be found and yours are quite different. So where does that leave us?:crying:

If sola fide doesn’t contradict the Church fathers, please show me where they taught faith alone is all we need. To find authority, one would have to unbiasly look at Church history to see which Churh is that same Church as the early Church. I find is impossible to trace the Anglican church all the way back.

 

[JPeter]

If sola fide doesn’t contradict the Church fathers, please show me where they taught faith alone is all we need. To find authority, one would have to unbiasly look at Church history to see which Churh is that same Church as the early Church. I find is impossible to trace the Anglican church all the way back.

I can show plenty of evidence for sola fide in the early church fathers and you can’t prove me wrong. But when I do this you will just say that they were not talking about works of the Law but circumcision and ****, and I cannot prove you wrong. Anglicans have Apostolic succession and its even somewhat accepted by the Orthodox but too Rome our orders are null and void. I can show you evidence against the Roman Catholic view, but you will just say that the infallible vicar of Christ has declared it, so my evidence is irrelevant. You have to be able to think outside the box or our conversation is meaningless. God loves you anyway!:hug1:

 

[hn160]

From the Lutheran side, I don’t think there’s any compromise as all, just a better mutual understanding.

EDIT: Seeing some of the strong reactions, I’m going to go back and read it again, but my first impression was that the Catholic Church really defined their viewpoint to encompas a more Lutheran view.

Not according to this paper lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

 

[GKC]

Let me repeat a mantra of mine (247th time, I reckon). Anglicans are a motley crew. Generalizations about what Anglicans generally believe or affirm are, generally, wrong.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

Let me repeat a mantra of mine (247th time, I reckon). Anglicans are a motley crew. Generalizations about what Anglicans generally believe or affirm are, generally, wrong.

GKC

Unfortunately I partly agree with you. Many modern Anglicans kind of believe whatever. However the official doctrines of Anglicanism are found in the formularies. This mostly consists of the book of common prayer, which includes the catechism, the 39 articles of religion,the three ancient creeds, the ordinal, and to a lesser degree the book of homilies.

This is what is official for Anglicans. If an Anglican rejects the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist than they are not inline with Anglicanism. If an Anglican says that we are saved by faith+works than they are not inline with Anglicanism. As I said many Churches have the Anglican name on the outside but believe something very different on the inside. We can have different views in Anglicanism. We consider ourselves Reformed Catholics. Some more Catholic and some more Reformed, but untimely we have to show that what we are teaching is within the bounds of the formularies. The 39 articles are not a confession like the book of concord or the catechism of the Catholic Church. They are boundary markers that separate us from both Roman Catholic beliefs (merits of the saints, Papal infallibility etc.) and some of the more extreme views held by the continental reformers (Double predestination, limited atonement etc)

 

[GKC]

Duplicate post. Oops.

 

[pablope]

I can show plenty of evidence for sola fide in the early church fathers and you can’t prove me wrong. But when I do this you will just say that they were not talking about works of the Law but circumcision and ****, and I cannot prove you wrong.

It is referred to as the pick and choose method of agreeing with what you want it to be…discussed here further…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘*Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.*

Anglicans have Apostolic succession

 

[GKC]

Unfortunately I partly agree with you. Many modern Anglicans kind of believe whatever. However the official doctrines of Anglicanism are found in the formularies. This mostly consists of the book of common prayer, which includes the catechism, the 39 articles of religion,the three ancient creeds, the ordinal, and to a lesser degree the book of homilies.

This is what is official for Anglicans. If an Anglican rejects the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist than they are not inline with Anglicanism. If an Anglican says that we are saved by faith+works than they are not inline with Anglicanism. As I said many Churches have the Anglican name on the outside but believe something very different on the inside. We can have different views in Anglicanism. We consider ourselves Reformed Catholics. Some more Catholic and some more Reformed, but untimely we have to show that what we are teaching is within the bounds of the formularies. The 39 articles are not a confession like the book of concord or the catechism of the Catholic Church. They are boundary markers that separate us from both Roman Catholic beliefs (merits of the saints, Papal infallibility etc.) and some of the more extreme views held by the continental reformers (Double predestination, limited atonement etc)

And much of what you say, I understand; I hear it from time to time. But (indeed) neither the Articles, nor the Homilies nor anything else of that nature is confessional or formally normative for Anglicans, generally. The Articles are how Elizabeth chose to order and discipline her fractious Church: statecraft as theology. There is nothing which prevents any particular Anglican jurisdiction from declaring the Articles (say) as normative, and I have seen one or two that did so. But the only Anglicans for whom the Articles are in any sense formally, officially normative are (technically) the ordinands of the Church of England, IOW the Parliamentary 1571 Act of Subscription. Erastian Churches get to do that sort of thing. Other Anglicans are free to accept them in toto, selectively pick and chose, or cut them from the BCP and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Or put them in the historical section of the latest prayer book. All Anglicans, all the same.

Even before the most recent strangeness (say in the last 50 years or so), Anglicans have manifested a range of opinion and beliefs on just such subjects as you mention, from the reformed, evangelical positions, through the Anglo-Catholic. And all fall within the bounds of generic Anglicanism, with none having exclusive claim to the title.

I am not particularly pleased with this. I prefer a consensus. But it is what it is.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

It is referred to as the pick and choose method of agreeing with what you want it to be…discussed here further…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[JPeter]

It is referred to as the pick and choose method of agreeing with what you want it to be…discussed here further…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[Prosmith]

Your priest was correct. Please allow me to explain this in the simplest terms possible:

1. Jesus died for our salvation.
2. No amount of good works are enough to attain the grace we have been given because of Christ’s death.
3. Through our bad works (sin) we can lose that grace for ourselves.
4. We have been instructed to love one another, this is considered a good work, though by itself isn’t enough to earn us salvation.
5. We are supposed to have faith. But only living by believing and ignoring our sins (bad works) we can lose the grace that has been given to us. Just as Adam and Eve lost their grace by disobeying God.
6. We are judged by our faith and our works.

Can you show me where in Scripture that it tells us that we lose our Salvation through bad works? Can you also show me someone (anyone) who could “love one another” through their own power outside of the Holy Spirit? The priest was wrong and could not produce anything outside of Trent to back up what he said.

 

[Prosmith]

If sola fide doesn’t contradict the Church fathers, please show me where they taught faith alone is all we need. To find authority, one would have to unbiasly look at Church history to see which Churh is that same Church as the early Church. I find is impossible to trace the Anglican church all the way back.

Scripture is what tells us that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not by any good work so that no one can boast. That totally is the backbone for the Anglican position that it is by Christ’s Justification work and not anything of ourselves that we are saved. Sanctification is the process by which we are being made holy. It’s pretty simple really.

 

[Prosmith]

This is the exact teaching of the RCC (though it does say that justification is a process.).

-Chris

Justification is NOT a process. If it were, then Christ’s redemptive work on our behalf would be totally in vain.

 

[Prosmith]

Unfortunately I partly agree with you. Many modern Anglicans kind of believe whatever. However the official doctrines of Anglicanism are found in the formularies. This mostly consists of the book of common prayer, which includes the catechism, the 39 articles of religion,the three ancient creeds, the ordinal, and to a lesser degree the book of homilies.

This is what is official for Anglicans. If an Anglican rejects the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist than they are not inline with Anglicanism. If an Anglican says that we are saved by faith+works than they are not inline with Anglicanism. As I said many Churches have the Anglican name on the outside but believe something very different on the inside. We can have different views in Anglicanism. We consider ourselves Reformed Catholics. Some more Catholic and some more Reformed, but untimely we have to show that what we are teaching is within the bounds of the formularies. The 39 articles are not a confession like the book of concord or the catechism of the Catholic Church. They are boundary markers that separate us from both Roman Catholic beliefs (merits of the saints, Papal infallibility etc.) and some of the more extreme views held by the continental reformers (Double predestination, limited atonement etc)

Better said than I could have. Thank you for this post.

 

[Prosmith]

Says who? Who would have that authority (aside from the Anglicans themselves) to declare the Anglicans have apostolic succession?

Who can truly say that we do not have it, especially when the evidence shows contrary to apostolicae curae which was issued centuries after the Reformation?

Why? How was apostolic succession decided and described in the Early church and why should any new definition be entertained?

It was described by the New Testament in all truthfullness.

If what gave rise to anglicanism was the disobedience of Henry VIII, how can you still claim Apostolic Succession? It was the disobedience of Rome that allowed for the arranged marriage of Henry to Catherine to begin with.