What might the Vatican publish, contradicting Trent, that might bring the Lutheran communion closer?
I am not sure it would have to contradict Trent, per se. If Rome allowed the Lutheran to hold to the view presented in the Augsburg Confession, and remain in union with her, it could be argued that there would be no reason to remain outside the Roman communion. Luther himself said that if the Pope allowed his view on justification, he would kiss his feet.
This is comforting.
Sure. Article IV: Justification: Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.This is comforting.
Perhaps you would be willing to focus out discussion by choosing a portion of the confession?
This is a good choice. Is there something in the documents of Trent, or the other Teaching of the Church that you find contradictory to this statement?
No is arguing that anyone can be saved through their works. It seems a perculiar protestant trait to rationalize that because someone believes faith AND works must be present for salvation then they are discounting what Jesus did. Where does that illogical thinking come from?
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
No one is arguing about whether they must be present or not. The debate is about what is the instrumental cause whereby we are in an innocent standing before God. It is it solely the righteousness of the Savior, or a combination of His and ours.
Truthfully, it came from corrupt Catholic clerics living and working in Europe just prior to the Reformation. As any wolves among the sheep will do, they took advantage of the flock by giving them the impression that they had to work or buy their way out of hell by their own resources or merits. These are among the heinous deeds that precipitated the Reformation in the first place.
Perhaps you would be willing to focus out discussion by choosing a portion of the confession?This is comforting.
One may disagree with his view, but there’s no denying that were the “abuses” mentioned by Sasse no longer an issue, the Reformation would be over. That is why I am ambivalent about the JDDJ… it doesn’t at all address the disputes of the Lutheran side. It merely recapitulates the view Rome has always held… while the Lutheran side (the LWF) is too liberal to care.
Ok, now we are on a roll! Thanks Augsburg.
This is directed toward the “assurance of salvation” idea. We are not, as the Apostle states, justified before God just because we may be confident that we are justified. It is He that judges us, and not we ourselves. We are not saved just because we are confident that we are saved.
I guess I can’t see how Trent forwards the idea that any righteousness of ours has any salvific effects.
Thanks Augie. I will not have a chance to look at this until tonight, but I saved it.
Excluded in the sense that the grace and charity of the HS that is wrought within us as a result of our rebirth is not the basis of our justification before God, but a result of it.
Because of this companion Canon, Canon 24: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a** cause of the increase thereof**; let him be anathema.”
While I reject the assurance of salvation, inasmuch as it is directed along the idea that I may be confident that I will not fall from the faith (OSAS), faith is the trust that our sins are remitted for Christ’s sake. In that, I can be assured that Christ has paid for my sins fully.
I don’t disagree with the view you are presenting here, and as you’ve presented it elsewhere (quite well!). But that view is at odds with Trent!
This is very Catholic.
I see your objection here, but I think you are misunderstanding the statement. We cannot be justified before God by our own righteousness. What this passage is saying is that the works of righteousness produced by the saving grace in us work to increase our justification. The more we do what God has called us to do,the more we are sanctified and made holy in obedience. However, in order for works to perfect a person, such a person must already be in a state of grace (justified) before God.
Yes, this is very Catholic.
If, as you say, our justification does not come from our own righteousness, what does it come from, and how is it increased? If you must be justified in order for works to perfect a person, what is it perfecting; how can you be justified and yet increase your justification?
Yes, and Paul is here scolding the Jews for thinking that since they have the Law, they are right with God, while ignoring the fact that it isn’t having the Law which justifies, but actually obeying it. In that sense, he’s right, of course, that if you keep the Law fully you will be justified. His entire point, though, for scolding them, is that they don’t obey the Law, as he summarizes in the early verses of Ch. 3: No one is a doer of the Law.
His conferring a gift on us is one thing our care for that gift is something else entirely. If someone gives me a ticketto a movie and I rip it up and throw it away am I getting into the movie?
Help me understand how so? I cannot see the contradiction. Perhaps I am inside looking, and don’t have your perspective?
The contradiction is that you stated good works are the result of faith and not meritorious; Trent explicitly denies that good works are the product of justification and that good works, in fact, “increase” our justification.