Thoughts on "faith alone" - I welcome your responses

[gtrenewed]

The confessions call it the congregation of believers. That said, Lutherans rely on the Lutheran Confessions in particular, also the early councils, for doctrine.

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

The Lutheran confessions recognize the Bishop of Rome’s “suburban” jurisdiction.

The confessions tell us that traditions in worship and liturgy need not be the same throughout. I find the greatest kind of love I know when I receive the Eucharist. I know, however, that that doesn’t answer your concern.

I am LCMS. Here is a link to what the LCMS as published about speaking in tongues. Frankly, it isn’t an issue I come accross very often as a Lutheran, though I know there is a charismatic movement in many synods of Lutheranism. I just relayed what I was taught as a child, that speaking in tongues is of no value unless someone can translate/intepret/ understand the tongues being spoken.
74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=charismatic+lutheran&fr=slv8-&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=charismatic+lutheran&d=4657265103406576&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=9669aa4a,7eacd29d&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=KUg31_JE10v5Sbm10ktbag–

Jon

Thanks, all of what you said seems reasonable to me and seems in harmony with scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Scripture is what separates them.

No GT. Scripture never separates the ergos hagios from the saving grace that produces them. If they are separated, it is only in you mind. You have been trained to stop reading at Eph. 2:8-9 and apparently forget that v. 10 comes next.

The epistles are written to the saved to largely correct errors in behavior and to encourage good works amongst the brethren. Why would they need to be corrected? Because they initially were taught freedom in the spirit by justification by faith alone. With this new freedom and being immature these new christians needed guidance and reminder that there is salvation and there is the salvation walk unto the end.

Yes. The Apostles taught that salvation includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. This is why they did not consider that they had “already obtained” in this life.

It is not only appropriate it is imperitive that faith and works be separated. This makes it clear that we are using only our wills to submit to the grace and subsequent faith in Jesus’ works. We are now empowered to do good works but the good works did not get us to that point otherwise we could boast.

No GT. One cannot separate the vine from the fruit it produces. Jesus said if we are “in Him” we will cling to the branch, and find life from Him. In that clinging, His grace produces fruit of the spirit in us. These are inseparably connected.

It is also not possible for us to submit our will to His grace, apart from His grace working in us. We only can work out our salvation because God is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. The grace that saves us cannot be separated from the good works produced by that saving grace.

 

[guanophore]

More the pity:( they were not taught properly, nor those that were did not stand up to, as you have put it, 'a greedy wolf', and his henchmen, oh, wait, that's right, one did!

Yes it is as much a pity as you not being taught properly. however, it does not appear that Luther was trained properly either. If he had been, he would have realized that what needed reform was the people, not the doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles.

Sounds like you are distancing yourself from the RCC?

Recognizing when people are in sin does not distance anyone from the Holy Bride of Christ, the Church. The CC is not “Roman”.

 

[gtrenewed]

The Catholic Church is not “Roman” GT. The Byzantine is one of 22 Rites in the Catholic Church that are all in unity with the successor of Peter.

What does unity mean if there are differences? How can you question and disagree with the Novus Ordo that was approved by the pope?

guanophore:

Indeed, our flesh is wounded, and has a tendency toward sin. Latin Catholcis call this “concupiscence”. Our separated brethren call it “sin nature”. But there is nothing inherintly about the flesh that displeases God. If this were the case, when He enfleshed our souls, He would not have proclaimed the creation of us “good”.

I will say it again - good at creation - evil after the fall. By one mans disobedience - sin and death reigned.

guanophore:

God created us with flesh and blood, and He took His own flesh and blood into heaven (in glorified form). However, if we say that it is not truly human flesh and human blood that He took to heaven, then we are denying that He came in the flesh, and that He bodily resurrected. You see where this goes. If one villifies human flesh, one’s Christology starts to suffer.

I will say it again - Jesus came in the flesh - offered His flesh on the cross and condemned sin in His flesh by becoming a curse for us on the cross - offered His blood as the perfect sacrifice in the heavenly temple - but while He was risen for forty days He had a glorified body, devoid of blood as testified in scripture for He said touch me for I am flesh and bone, no mention of blood. Paul taught that our bodies must die but we will rise with a new body just like Jesus.

How is that denying He came in human form. He came as all human and all divine. At some point following depositing His blood in the heavenly holy of holies and appearing in the upper room, His body became glorified and no longer was like it was before. To me it is easier to understand this as following the resurrection. On friday He suffered and died; on saturday He freed the prisoners and went to the heavenly temple; on sunday He rose from the dead and received His glorified body.

It is quite difficult to dialogue with you because you read what you want to read instead of what is really being written. You misquote and then keep misquoting. I would ask that you pay better attention, Thanks.

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitcharan, I was beginning to understand you and thought you and your conclusions were rational, even if some premises seemed flawed to me. That was until I read this post Can you cite any sources?

How does this square with Luther’s 95 Theses? Jon

I am sorry about it brothers. That was an unwarranted irresponsible post of mine. I neither believe nor disbelieve historical claims of sale of indulgences by former Popes. Even if I gave you the source of what I heard recently about protestantized history, it will not benefit us but only hamper christian unity. Please accept my regrets and forget the whole thing which I now disown entirely with humble apologies. Let the dead past bury itself

 

[Pitcharan]

Yes, you are adding your concept of “injection”. This is not a Scriptural concept. There is no scriptural concept that sin is “injected” into us.

Let me first quote scripture verbatim: ***
The Fall of Man***
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ " “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (Gen 3:1-6a)

This is how Satan injected pride in Eve: by lying that she would become like God, knowing Good and Evil. You can notice, only after this, pride entered Eve’s heart and blinded her former belief in God’s warning and she then trusted Satan. If only Eve had, had gratitude for all God’s bounties, this would have provided saving Grace and she would not have become blinded or believed Satan or disobeyed God.

My above explanation of the cause for original sin as well as my expression “Satan injected pride in Eve” was vetted by two renowned theologians (one Jesuit and one Redemptorist), plus two experienced and renowned priests and was granted NIHIL OBSTAT by my Bishop

On the contrary, scripture indicates that sin is waiting at the door, and if we do not overcome it, then we will fall prey to it.

NO, you are distorting (unintentionally of course). According to scripture, sin, after already having entered the world through Adam and Eve,** was waiting at the door of Cain**:

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” (Gen 4:6-7)

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry about it brothers. That was an unwarranted irresponsible post of mine. I neither believe nor disbelieve historical claims of sale of indulgences by former Popes. Even if I gave you the source of what I heard recently about protestantized history, it will not benefit us but only hamper christian unity. Please accept my regrets and forget the whole thing which I now disown entirely with humble apologies. Let the dead past bury itself

No problem. “Let the dead past bury itself.” What a great line!! And something we all should bind ourselves to in looking dorward to the day of unity of His Church Militant.

On the issue of humility, it was interesting that today’s Gospel Lesson in our lectionary was Luke 18:9-17, the parable of the phaisee and the tax collector, where Christ says regarding the taxcollector: *I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather that the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. *

In a response to this, our bulletin says: “The line between pride and humility is indeed thin. Humility cannot be trumpeted, assumed, or pretended. It becomes a reality, as a gift from God, when we are ready to measure ourselves with God instead of others, when we understnad how low God stooped to pay for the forgiveness of our sins - His Son’s death on the cross. Then we can go home justified.”

I just thought it pertinent to our recent discussion.

Peace,
Jon

 

[gtrenewed]

I am sorry about it brothers. That was an unwarranted irresponsible post of mine. I neither believe nor disbelieve historical claims of sale of indulgences by former Popes. Even if I gave you the source of what I heard recently about protestantized history, it will not benefit us but only hamper christian unity. Please accept my regrets and forget the whole thing which I now disown entirely with humble apologies. Let the dead past bury itself

Accepted and Amen - you are the first I have encountered, including myself, to write such a post - well done!

 

[Pitcharan]

No problem. “Let the dead past bury itself.” What a great line!! And something we all should bind ourselves to in looking dorward to the day of unity of His Church Militant.

Accepted and Amen - you are the first I have encountered, including myself, to write such a post - well done!

If this small momentary gesture of unity can bring such JOY, imagine the kind of joy we will experience when all christians unite in the Lord

 

[Pitcharan]

…On the issue of humility, it was interesting that today’s Gospel Lesson in our lectionary was Luke 18:9-17, the parable of the phaisee and the tax collector, where Christ says regarding the taxcollector: *I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather that the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. *

In a response to this, our bulletin says: “The line between pride and humility is indeed thin. Humility cannot be trumpeted, assumed, or pretended. It becomes a reality, as a gift from God, when we are ready to measure ourselves with God instead of others, when we understnad how low God stooped to pay for the forgiveness of our sins - His Son’s death on the cross. Then we can go home justified.”

I just thought it pertinent to our recent discussion.

Peace,
Jon

True. The mere description of humility itself makes it clear that it comes to us from God. What you rightly pointed out “when we are ready to …” is what I am describing as “earn”. You may call it by any word, but the bottom line is that definite criteria have to be met by every human to receive God’s own divine nature as a gift so that one may emulate God’s example. Salvation is divinisation of humans

(I noticed that our Lectionaries are probably identical; ie same readings selected)

 

[guanophore]

Let me first quote scripture verbatim: ***
The Fall of Man***
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ " “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (Gen 3:1-6a)

This is how Satan injected pride in Eve: by lying that she would become like God, knowing Good and Evil.

Satan lied. Eve fell for the lie. Satan did not “inject” Eve with pride, or evil. Pride is a natural function of the human person.

Gen 4:6-7
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Sin is lurking at the door - not “injected”.

James 1:13-16
13 No one, when tempted, should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. 14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; 15 then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved.

The Apostle teaches that we are all tempted by our own desire, not some “injection”. We are lured and enticed by our own desires, and when the desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin. These desires are part of our human makeup, not “injected” into us by Satan.

You can notice, only after this, pride entered Eve’s heart and blinded her former belief in God’s warning and she then trusted Satan. If only Eve had, had gratitude for all God’s bounties, this would have provided saving Grace and she would not have become blinded or believed Satan or disobeyed God.

I agree, but that does not say that anything was “injected” into her. She fell to the tempation of her own desires, failed to master it, so sin was conceived, and brought death.

My above explanation of the cause for original sin as well as my expression “Satan injected pride in Eve” was vetted by two renowned theologians (one Jesuit and one Redemptorist), plus two experienced and renowned priests and was granted NIHIL OBSTAT by my Bishop

Ok. Your theory has been supported. I hope you make lots of royalties on your book.

 

[Pitcharan]

Satan lied. Eve fell for the lie. Satan did not “inject” Eve with pride, or evil. Pride is a natural function of the human person.

You are completely ignoring the supreme state of our first parents prior to the fall. In that supreme state, to have been deceived by Satan, there has to be a definite cause. My explanation was very much appreciated by theologians here. Talk to any theologian and find out.

Ok. Your theory has been supported. I hope you make lots of royalties on your book.

No one publishes his / her spiritual inspirations for making money through royalty. I don’t appreciate your sarcasm. You are free to discuss with theologians in your area and continue a healthy debate if you wish.

 

[guanophore]

You are completely ignoring the supreme state of our first parents prior to the fall. In that supreme state, to have been deceived by Satan, there has to be a definite cause. My explanation was very much appreciated by theologians here. Talk to any theologian and find out.

OK, Pitch. I surrender you to your vettors and theologians who appreciate your theological speculations.

The fact is that you have no idea what I think about the first parents before the fall. And it is quite outside the scope of this thread to go there. I never suggested there was not a definite cause, I just did not agree with your formulation around it, but so be it. I am not in a powerful “vetting” or theological position, so I will let it be.

Lucifer was also created in a supreme state. Maybe he "injected himself?

No one publishes his / her spiritual inspirations for making money through royalty. I don’t appreciate your sarcasm.

Really? I just saw an ad on TV at the end of the Joyce Meyer show. She is “giving” books and CD’s of her theological inspirations for a mere $ 35 each! Perhaps no one in your esteemed circle of appreciative theologians does that?
Pitcharan;7198036:

You are free to discuss with theologians in your area and continue a healthy debate if you wish.

In my “area”? That must be down there somewhere with the unwashed.

Steerage!

 

[Pitcharan]

Lucifer was also created in a supreme state. Maybe he "injected himself?

Really? I just saw an ad on TV at the end of the Joyce Meyer show. She is “giving” books and CD’s of her theological inspirations for a mere $ 35 each! Perhaps no one in your esteemed circle of appreciative theologians does that?

In my “area”? That must be down there somewhere with the unwashed.

Steerage!

I did not think that you could be so rude and sound nasty.

Whatever I posted or wrote about the fall of our first parents, is based on Genesis account. In the absence of any concrete material about Lucifer and his fall, I can say only this little: Lucifer is a spirit and entirely different from a “creature with spirit and flesh”. A spirit cannot be tempted, unlike a human who is spirit and flesh, open to temptation and deception. A spirit may embrace evil by free choice and that is done with complete knowledge and there is NO deception whatsoever. A human victim of deception is eligible to seek pardon but not a spirit that sins without any force of temptation.