TriuneUnity and other Lutherans.... your opinions on this article, please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobHom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought this would be helpful to further the discussion of where we disagree with Rome…and how we feel Rome has endorsed semi-Pelagianism, thereby cutting itself off from an orthodox understanding of justification:

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html

Those are the canons of the Council of Orange. I would strongly suggest all Catholics to read and study these canons. Granted, they are not from an ecumenical council. But neither was Hippo or Carthage on the canon of Scripture.
 
Yes…let me go back to the Trent quote:

The Tridentine councilmen are here refuting the Lutheran doctrine of justification via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner as the grounds of his innocence before the Law of God. Trent is saying that part of the reason we are justified is the infusion of grace into us and we perform meritorious works which increase our justification. It isn’t about whether the Spirit infuses the believer, it’s whether the believer is infused for justification.
Then why mention the Spirit? Isn’t it the Holy Spirit that does the work of bringing all men to God, hence the unforgivable sin of blasphamy against him?
 
Then why mention the Spirit? Isn’t it the Holy Spirit that does the work of bringing all men to God, hence the unforgivable sin of blasphamy against him?
They mention the Holy Spirit; because the Spirit infuses grace into the person. Which I agree with, by the way. So it is a correct definition. It’s correct for sanctification; not justification.
 
They mention the Holy Spirit; because the Spirit infuses grace into the person. Which I agree with, by the way. So it is a correct definition. It’s correct for sanctification; not justification.
Oh poo, we are back at that whole thing again.
 
Oh poo, we are back at that whole thing again.
HAHAHA

No. Only for puposes of showing a contradiction between the author of what Rob posted and the canons of the Council of Trent. Don’t get me wrong, I like what the author posted lol, just not the Tridentine canons LoL
 
Paul denied this. Augustine denied this. The Council of Carthage, and 2nd Orange denied this. Luther denied this. Faith is not an offer that is accepted. It is a gift that is given.
Huh…? I’m confused… :confused:

I have trouble understanding this issue, and I’m trying not to be a heretic, but I thought that’s what you were saying was the orthodox position.

I want to hold the orthodox position, not to be an heretic! :eek:

So, what’s the orthodox position?

Why do you call the Catholic Church’s position Semi-Peligianism? :eek:
 
My friends, in responding to another poster’s comments vis a vis Luther’s writings, I did some digging and found the following article. I found it somewhat interesting and even a little “illuminating”. I just was wondering what your comments on this article might be?

presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXII/32-5.htm

Please folks… let the “Lutherans” answer… It is their opinions I am seeking on this article.

Thanks!!

Peace!!🙂
Perhaps, Rob, we should lock Kieschnick (LCMS prez) and Kasper in a room with these articles and get the issue solved once and for all. I’m all for it (except the kissing the feet part 😃 ).
Thanks for the article.
Jon
 
Huh…? I’m confused… :confused:

I have trouble understanding this issue, and I’m trying not to be a heretic, but I thought that’s what you were saying was the orthodox position.
It’s difficult to work through and there are a lot of issues involved with it. Faith is a gift that is given to us by God. It is not an intellectual decision, nor does it involve our acceptance. It is given to us through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the holy sacraments. We can certainly refuse the gift of faith, but our acceptance of faith is only because God has given it to us. The acceptance doesn’t contribute to the gift being received nor is it dependent on it.

I will post a few of the relevant canons from the Council of Orange:

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism --** if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace**, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock,** but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought**; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).
I want to hold the orthodox position, not to be an heretic! :eek:
Then you’d be Lutheran; HAHA! 😉
 
Perhaps, Rob, we should lock Kieschnick (LCMS prez) and Kasper in a room with these articles and get the issue solved once and for all. I’m all for it (except the kissing the feet part 😃 ).
Thanks for the article.
Jon
Kieschnick is too busy trying to make the Synod as contemporary as possible, turning it into the LCMSBC LoL
 
Why do you call the Catholic Church’s position Semi-Peligianism? :eek:
Semi-Pelagianism: Semi-Pelagianism a Christian theological understanding about salvation; that is, how humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. The Semi-Pelagian teaching is derived from the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation, and teaches that it is necessary for humans to co-operate with the grace of God, usually in the form of using the natural will to make a decision to accept the gospel, and then God will complete salvation.

From the Council of Trent: CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

As you can see…Trent rejected the teaching of the Council of Orange in the area of human cooperation and thus affirmed the Semi-Pelagian position.
 
Perhaps, Rob, we should lock Kieschnick (LCMS prez) and Kasper in a room with these articles and get the issue solved once and for all. I’m all for it (except the kissing the feet part 😃 ).
Thanks for the article.
Jon
Your welcome!! 🙂 Thus far there has been some very interesting reading and answers here…Thank you all!!

Rob…quietly withholding further comment at the moment… 😉
 
Your welcome!! 🙂 Thus far there has been some very interesting reading and answers here…Thank you all!!

Rob…quietly withholding further comment at the moment… 😉
First you’re agreeing with Luther and now you’re withholding comment? I’m starting to believe more and more this end of the world in 2012 theory.
 
Dumb but related question: are post fall humans born inherently evil?
 
Dumb but related question: are post fall humans born inherently evil?
In terms of the Law of God, yes. That is, from God’s perspective. Our perspective is only different than His because we are sinners, too.
 
Exactly. The moment the president of the WELS and the Pope shook hands, the Continental Shelf would collapse.
Insert here, an image of the Genesis Planet self-destructing in “The Search For Spock”.

It could happen! What about the kissing of feet part?
 
First you’re agreeing with Luther and now you’re withholding comment? I’m starting to believe more and more this end of the world in 2012 theory.
LOL!!! I’m not too worried about 2012… But the reason I’m not saying much is because I’m trying to “digest” the technical legal language in some of the posts… Talk about splitting hairs and making things difficult!! Whatever happened to the “KISS Principle”?:confused: :confused: 😃

Surely I’ll have more comments later…:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top