G
- Status
I’ve read this before, hn, and am unconvinced. I find no where in the JDDJ anything that could be concluded as unLutheran. That there are still differences between us (Catholics and Lutherans) on this matter is obvious, but the JDDJ closes that gap, apart from those on both sides who seem to wish to maintain a status quo, or look for the other side to admit they are wrong and submit. That approach hasn’t worked for 500 years.
The LCMS leadership could very easily have affirmed the document with qualifications, much they did with “The Hope for Eternal Life”, and the way the Catholic Church did with the JDDJ.
Again, there is nothing in the JDDJ that I cannot confess, and I am unwilling to impose on Catholics my view of what they think, but instead take their word for it in terms of the lifting of condemnations.
Jon
P
Porknpie
Guest
E
enickman
Guest
We can go back to the beginning. Adam and Eve. Their sin, or disobedience to God, is what cut the original grace mankind had with God. Jesus came to give us back that grace, and He did. The rules still apply to us as they did to Adam and Eve. We can lose that grace for ourselves if we disobey God. God doesn’t take the grace away, we cut ourselves off from that grace. We are all sinners and must be forgiven of our sins. So even if we cut ourselves off from it, we can still get it back by asking forgiveness. As far as being able to love someone goes, we all have free will, we can choose to love or not.
J
JPeter
Guest
When Catholics claim they have 2000 year of history on their side and can only pull stuff from St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century to show their view of infused righteousness, it kind of makes you wonder.
Clement of Rome (c. 30–100): And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.:yeah_me:
J
JPeter
Guest
Scripture makes it absolutely clear we cannot contribute the least speck to our salvation. Our baptism clothed us in Christ’s perfect righteousness (Galatians 3:27). By his Son’s life, death, and resurrection God declared us—by nature wicked—to be righteous in his sight (Romans 4:5). Even our faith, which clings to Christ’s salvation, is part of God’s complete gift package (Ephesians 2:8,9) worked by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) through the gospel (Romans 10:17).
You are correct that salvation can be lost. However’ In the final analysis, it’s only unbelief that damns and not “bad behavior” itself. Yet carelessly persisting in sin destroys faith. In Luke 8 Jesus speaks of those who fall in times of testing and others whose faith is choked by life’s worries, riches, and pleasures. 1 Timothy 1 mentions those who shipwrecked their faith by not “holding on to faith and a good conscience.”
We cannot contribute one speck to our salvation, but by our own arrogance or carelessness we can throw it away. Therefore, Scripture urges us repeatedly to fight the good fight of faith (Ephesians 6 and 2 Timothy 4 for example). We can participate in this good fight because the Spirit planted a new self within us when he brought us to faith.
However, this cooperation in sanctification is in no way a meritorious work that partially earns salvation. Our sanctified life does not make us any more children of God than we already are. We are already heirs of heaven in Jesus.
Second, it’s not our good works that preserve faith. Good works aren’t a means of grace. Good works flow from faith worked in us by the means of grace. The most crucial battle of the good fight is living in daily repentance. That’s hardly a meritorious work!
Daily repentance means that the Spirit through his law crushes our natural proud arrogance. Daily we learn to hate what our sinful nature loves. Then daily through the gospel the Spirit cheers our spirit through Christ’s forgiveness that is new every morning. Through daily repentance the same gospel that created our faith preserves and strengthens our faith.
J
JPeter
Guest
You have to read the wording carefully. Many times Christians look at the wording of those in other traditions and assume they are talking about the same thing. My definition of grace may not be the same as your definition of grace even though you thought it was. Imputed righteousness and infused righteousness are two very different things. Both forms of righteousness allow you to say that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, but they mean something very different by it. Imputed righteousness is like someone driving a car to your house, picking you up, and taking you to the fair. Infused righteousness is like someone having a car towed to your house and then telling to fix it so that we can drive to the fair and we will cross our fingers and hope we make it. The car got to your house by grace apart from what you did in both circumstances. I think you can see where I am going with this.?
I understand that you might be fed up with protestant mindedness of American Lutheranism. There is nothing wrong with having a high church emphasis, but when you start to de-emphasize an important doctrine like this to make it appear to be inline with Catholicism, your not doing anyone any favors.:nunchuk:
B
benjohnson
Guest
So after perusing the Joint Deceleration again, I don’t see where Lutherans have given even so much as an inch. If anything, the Joint Deceleration puts into concrete words the Lutheran viewpoint, and would be a good source for teaching. If our Catholic friends are willing to meet us Lutherans 95% of the way while we don’t even have to move, that’s close enough for me to hug them and invite them for coffee and donuts.
I invite correction if I’m incorrect.
J
JPeter
Guest
The Catholic understanding of justification does not meet you 95% of the way. When Catholics say that we are saved by grace through faith they mean tomato and when you say it you mean potato. Its infusion verse imputation. The only thing that the two viewpoints agree upon is that we need the grace of Christs cross for salvation. Everything else has a different meaning between the two Churches. From what I can tell the only Lutherans who agreed with it were the most liberal, and the same goes for the Catholics. I’m not a Lutheran but I just don’t see any real agreement here. Perhaps is good for teaching but it could also be misleading for a Lutheran who does not fully understand the differences or is trying to diminish them.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I wouldn’t call the Catholic Magisterium ‘Liberal’ myself - nor am I ‘Liberal.’ The LCMS church is very protective of it’s teachings and of it’s church members, so their lack of agreement isn’t necessarily a sign that there isn’t more understanding, only that the Catholic view isn’t in 100% agreement with LCMS standards.
With respect, over the last 500 years, I think it is our Catholic friends who have changed (or clarified their teaching) and I’m find it more productive to encourage them. You are, of course, under no obligation to agree with me.
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
I see agreement with the simple statement that we are saved by grace through faith - it seems like the disagreement is in the idea of sanctification vs justification - or a combination of the two.
I have been catechized as well as most any layperson, and yet the arguments of “imputed” vs “infused” righteousness will find me first on one side, then the other depending on who presents the topic. I suppose that makes me a fence-sitter, teetering between the Lutheran and Catholic viewpoints. But in the end, my salvation rests squarely on Christ’s grace and mercy toward my poor sinful self and may He forgive my hesitation and confusion.
I have been catechized as well as most any layperson, and yet the arguments of “imputed” vs “infused” righteousness will find me first on one side, then the other depending on who presents the topic. I suppose that makes me a fence-sitter, teetering between the Lutheran and Catholic viewpoints. But in the end, my salvation rests squarely on Christ’s grace and mercy toward my poor sinful self and may He forgive my hesitation and confusion.
J
JPeter
Guest
I am hesitant to be critical of Rome. After the rampart heresies of the liberal Protestant churches, one cannot help but admire Rome in her steadfast refusal to bow before certain idols of modernity. Further, in the sections on the Church, I found her teaching most irenic, holding to her own supremacy yet not condemning of others. On the other hand, so much is at stake. According to the Anglican Reformers, this Roman teaching does not do justice to Scripture, to the holiness of God, the depth of human sin, the fallibility of our understanding of Christian truth, the power of Christ’s atonement, and the need for peace with God in regard to our salvation. In the end, it leaves us before a holy God dependent on our own righteousness. I would not want to stand there. I cannot be in a church that would have me stand there. No one can stand there. No one, none, except Christ and those clothed in his righteousness received in faith, can stand.
P
Prosmith
Guest
In lieu of what you just said here, can you explain Purgatory and how it fits with grace then?
P
Prosmith
Guest
Amen.
With all respect, I will let the Catholics describe for me their meaning of infused righteousness. The fact, further, is that the JDDJ doesn’t specficially go into the issue, and is clear that it only speaks to those issues discussed and agreed upon. Surely, more work must be done, but in those areas where there is agreement specified, I see nothing against Lutheran teaching in them. We went 450 years throwing condemnations at each other. I still wonder why when agreement comes, even incomplete agreement, we seem unwilling to recognize it, and thanks God for it.=JPeter;9643870]You have to read the wording carefully. Many times Christians look at the wording of those in other traditions and assume they are talking about the same thing. My definition of grace may not be the same as your definition of grace even though you thought it was. Imputed righteousness and infused righteousness are two very different things. Both forms of righteousness allow you to say that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works, but they mean something very different by it. Imputed righteousness is like someone driving a car to your house, picking you up, and taking you to the fair. Infused righteousness is like someone having a car towed to your house and then telling to fix it so that we can drive to the fair and we will cross our fingers and hope we make it. The car got to your house by grace apart from what you did in both circumstances. I think you can see where I am going with this.?
If I am willing to criticize the ELCA and LWF, it won’t be for de-emphasizing this important dctrine of Justification with Catholics. Rather, I will criticize them for de-emphasizing the important doctrines they have completely rejected in an attempt to sound like liberal progressive protestants, or like those who reject the real presence, such as the UCC ith whom they now have altar and pulpit fellowship. I think you can see where I am going with this. In these areas, including women clergy and even actively gay clergy, they are going the wrong way.
Jon
J
JPeter
Guest
I agree that neither women nor homosexuals should be ordained, but is this worse than what Catholics teach on infused righteousness? I don’t think so. The ordination of women as heretical as it is, does not directly deal with salvation. How we are justified before God does! The Catholics have already specified what they believe about infused righteousness. What I have done is show that it is incomparable with Anglican theology and definitely incomparable with Lutheran theology that takes a much more narrow view of sanctification than Anglicans do.
JPeter,
I believe this is the mistake my own LCMS has made; in regards infuded v. imputed righteousness, the topc was not part of the document, and must be resolved at a later date.
As for salvation, I’ve not come to the point of believing that a belief in infused righteousness threatens salvation. That’s God’s determination. But if Catholics and Lutherans together can say:
***.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: 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.[11]
16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life. ***
…that is a bold and I would say Spirit-led statement to build a foundation for growing unity on. Is the breach closed? No.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
No, you haven’t. There is no definitive confessional statement of Anglican doctrine, de fide, with respect to sanctification. Certainly there are Anglicans who hold the position you do, in the Motley Crew.
GKC
B
benjohnson
Guest
Ok… I think I see where you’re coming from. Perhaps I’m letting a bit of pragmatism creep in, but while Catholics are making progress in this regard, I won’t condemn their efforts even if those efforts are not perfect. If they stop making progress in the next 500 years, I’ll start getting angry at them again.
J
JPeter
Guest
I did not imply that there was. Which is why I said that Anglicans have a broad view on sanctification. Classical Anglicanism is minimalistic about all of this. The 39 Articles are fairly clear on several points: that salvation comes through Christ alone, that justification is by faith alone, that works above and beyond our duty to God do not add to our salvation. These points are further elucidated by the Catechism, which moves from law to grace, assuring the cathecumen that he or she cannot fulfill God’s call to live a holy life by will power. In all of this, Anglicanism is consistently Protestant.
And yet, there is little official mention of sanctification. The articles make positive statements about the sacraments as means of grace, that they are “not only badges and tokens” but “effectual signs of grace” through which God “works invisibly within us” (Article XXV). This certainly implies an ongoing need for sanctification, but it doesn’t spell out why or how such a thing should take place, nor does it relate the topic back to justification. The liturgies of the Prayer Book reveal a similar emphasis, highlighting justification, acknowledging sanctification, but without making explicit how exactly we are to think about the whole thing.
The result of this lack of specification has been that Anglicans have often looked elsewhere for their soteriology. John Henry Newman attempted to harmonize justification by faith with the Council of Trent, which remains the approach of some Anglo-Catholics today, though Newman himself eventually found such an approach lacking. John Wesley, of course, took a unique approach which remains alive in Methodism. A large number of modern Anglicans, particularly in Africa, subscribe to a Pentecostal view. The Lutheran view is espoused by contemporary Anglican Evangelicals like Paul Zahl and Alister McGrath. FitzSimons Allison tends more towards the Reformed approach. Even the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation as theosis has had its Anglican proponents through the ages, most notably Charles Chapman Grafton and Michael Ramsey.
Since Anglicanism has never pronounced definitively on this topic, all of these approaches are acceptable. This doesn’t mean that they’re all correct, but merely that one cannot be deemed outside the bounds of the tradition so long as one holds a plausible rendering of justification by faith and an unswerving conviction in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as savior. The rest remains unsettled, not because Anglicanism is wishy-washy on this topic, but rather because one of the hallmarks of the Anglican approach to theology is a strong reluctance to say anything definitively that wasn’t said definitively by the early Church. The Anglican Reformers were willing to commit to justification by faith because it seemed to them to be plain in the reading of scripture and not in contradiction with the Fathers. But they were not agreed upon anything more, and to insist upon something that is so clearly unsettled is to invite schism and heresy.
- Status