Why I could never follow Luther.

[Oldtimer_7]

Rinnie, Dogknox, and my other Catholic brothers and sisters,

I got my information from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is the quote from the beginning of the article on the phrase Roman Catholic:

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled “Roman Catholics” as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species.

I know a lot of Catholics who wear the name Roman Catholic quite proudly. After all, the term Christian was first a term of derision, too. That it is a term that so many can take pride in now is evidence of the Holy Spirit living and dwelling among you.

God bless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Old Timer, yes I refer to myself as Roman Catholic…and take the bad along with the good.

David Noonan, do you ever read anything positive of the good the Catholic Church has done or do you read materials that feed bias?

 

[rinnie]

Hi oldtimer a thank you for kind words. I wish we could all have the wisdom you have shown.

I was taught that the Church is identified Roman because of its historical roots with the Church of Rome and its direct link to the Pope.

But what we have to remember is because other Catholic Churchs are not called Roman they are still in full communion with us. I knows its confusing.

Personally every time I think I figured it out someone shoots me down. But between us I think its just that they don’t believe that he is the Chief!!

You know the saying too many Chiefs not enough Indians teepee not get put up!!

But bottom line in the RCC he is the Chief, then we have the Bishops and Priests. And I guess we are the Indians

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes I am beginning to see this. But my question to you is (no disrespect) then what is the purpose of studing his writings or some that I may show you? What would make his writing’s anymore worthy then what I decide to write, or you write or Jon decides to write.

Because beings that we all agree ( I hope) that by our Baptism we all receive the gift of the Holy Spirit right? Without authority from God on this earth, then where are we?

Because see I believe that when the POPE explains something his authority comes straight from God, or I would not be Catholic for one second. See what I mean?

I think a Lutheran (and other Protestants, perhaps) would study Luther’s writings because history has shown that he was a very influential and insightful theologian—similar to the ways that Catholics (and Protestants) might read and study Augustine or Francis or Aquinas. I think Lutherans would probably say that some (certainly not all by ANY stretch) of his critiques of the Catholic Church remain valid. On the flipside, I think almost all Lutherans would out-and-out reject Luther’s views on the Jews, for example. So, for Lutherans, there’s really no idea that one person can speak for God in an infallible way in any sense that the Pope speaks/teaches in the Catholic church.

In the absence of that “one voice” Lutherans would look to Scripture and Tradition as authoritative–having a great deal in common with the Catholic view on this.

 

[JonNC]

Hi rinnie,
Let’s see if I can go through this briefly.

=rinnie;7206521]Hi Jon, Well lets see sola fide I believe is not found in the early teachings. First of all because it is not scripture based or Tradition based.

I would disagree that it is not scripture or Tradition based. IF, one understands what sola fide truly is.

To make sola fide simple is to say here is a million dollars and your job is to make it into 2 million, but you can;t use the it. What good is the first million then?

So now we have faith, now I want you to do good works, but you can’t use your faith to do good works, what good is the faith then?

So to make things simple if you have a million and can’t use it what good is that million doing you. The same with faith, if you have faith but do not use it what good is that faith.

Here is what Luther says in his preface to Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

I would suggest that, based on your post, you may have never heard sola fide phrased in this way.

So to say that you can have faith and still not use that faith to do good works here on earth, you can still obtain salvation, I don’t see it. Simply because Jesus told us, many will call out my name and I will say I do not know you.

Neither do see it.

So you can never separate faith from works ever. But with faith alone you can, And with faith alone my justification is simple. I LOVE God and have complete faith in him. But can I love and trust him completely and still sin. You bet I can. Because if not then there is no true believers in Christ because we all sin.

But now we come to faith and works. Can my faith save me by the works that I do in this world? Or we could go to the other argument if I had true faith I would only have good works. Okay, can you show me that person?
When the confessions say we, the regenerate are bound to do good works, it means more than just certain, it means required!

So now according to Catholic teaching you can have faith and not do good works. Because Faith comes from God. So it is a free gift that we can all have. But do we accept the free gift and use it, or do we not open the gift. So what good is the faith? How is that faith put to work, and how can it be used for our salvation if we never even opened it?

I hope I’ve responded to this.

Now lets hit SS. Okay lets say Luther is right and the CC is wrong. Okay then why if the Holy Spirit leads us all in our heart to define scripture are we not ONE. Because there is only ONE truth. So now according to Luther ALL belivers can define scripture.

Let’s see what the reformers taught about sola scriptura.
Martin Chemnitz, the second generation reformer says:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages

When it comes to doctrine, I am no more free as a Lutheran to “individually interpret”, than you are as a Catholic. I am bound to the Lutheran Confessions.

Okay now you come back later and give me a scripture. Any scripture. Now you define it one way, and I define it my way, Who is correct. You? Me? Are we not both belivers? So then what do we have a draw? Can we both be right? You say it says this, so you live it your way, and I say it means that so I live it my way. And thats okay right? But then how can the Holy Spirit say that he will guide us into ONE truth then? Because these are clearly to us 2 different truths. Do you not agree?

Yep, I agree. There can only be one truth (that does not exclude the possibility that the same truth can be explained using different words.)

So now back to SS how can it possibly work. To me its simple we do not have the gift of the HS to define scripture as scripture itself tells us. And the Scripture and the HS is correct. or Luther is. What is your take.

If the HS is correct, then scripture is always correct. Yes? If that is the case, then it seems prudent to use scripture as the final norm, not to exclude Tradition, but to hold it accountable.

By the way Jon, I think you are awesome and love to debate with you, because you do not take everything I say persomal and I also do the same with you. We can talk to eachother and realize we are only asking things. I pray we can all be like this on the site someday.

You are very kind, rinnie. Thanks.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie,
Let’s see if I can go through this briefly.

I would disagree that it is not scripture or Tradition based. IF, one understands what sola fide truly is.

Here is what Luther says in his preface to Galatians 5:6

I would suggest that, based on your post, you may have never heard sola fide phrased in this way.

Neither do see it.

So you can never separate faith from works ever. But with faith alone you can, And with faith alone my justification is simple. I LOVE God and have complete faith in him. But can I love and trust him completely and still sin. You bet I can. Because if not then there is no true believers in Christ because we all sin.

to do good works, it means more than just certain, it means required!

I hope I’ve responded to this.

Let’s see what the reformers taught about sola scriptura.
Martin Chemnitz, the second generation reformer says:

When it comes to doctrine, I am no more free as a Lutheran to “individually interpret”, than you are as a Catholic. I am bound to the Lutheran Confessions.

Yep, I agree. There can only be one truth (that does not exclude the possibility that the same truth can be explained using different words.)

If the HS is correct, then scripture is always correct. Yes? If that is the case, then it seems prudent to use scripture as the final norm, not to exclude Tradition, but to hold it accountable.

You are very kind, rinnie. Thanks.

Jon

Hi Jon, and thanks for your response, Sorry but I am trying to figure out what your faith really teaches. I do know that it is very close to the Catholic faith in many ways. That is really all I ever knew. so thanks for explaining things better.

Now lets go to interpreting scripture. Now you said that you guys are on the same page as us, you also are not free to interpret it you must go by the teachings of your faith. Okay I understand that and can accept that.

But here is where I do have a problem, If infallbility is not proclaimed how can you be bound to it, and believe it is the true meaning of the word of God?

Anotherwards what makes a writing of Luther any different from a writing of Joseph Smith?
Now the Pope does claim infallibility.

Now you are saying you cannot have faith without love, and works without faith and love. I agree with that. But I was told that SF was Salvation by faith only. So then that is not what Luther taught?

Now what about Predestination, I was told Luther taught that only some are chosen for heaven, Is this what is taught?

 

[rinnie]

Also Jon this is what I read on Sola Fide:

Faith alone, the doctrine asserts to Gods pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith conceived and EXCLUDING ALL WORKS alone.

Now how could that be works hand in hand with faith and love if works are excluded. Or is this not correct information I got?

 

[dogknox]

Also Jon this is what I read on Sola Fide:
Faith alone, the doctrine asserts to Gods pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith conceived and EXCLUDING ALL WORKS alone.
Now how could that be works hand in hand with faith and love if works are excluded. Or is this not correct information I got?

rinnie it is good to meet you… You ask:

“Or is this not correct information I got?”

I reply: There is a difference…note… The “THEREFORE” the therefore puts it into context!
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus* to do good works***, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)—

I reply Do you see it? “Therefore, don’t brag about your CIRCUMCISION, because Circumcision** is a work of the HANDS of men** NOT the HEART!”

Two, two, two kinds of WORKS…Not one!

1. Works of the HEART… Commonly called “Good Works”! created in Christ Jesus* to do good works***
2. "Works of the LAW… Called “The Mosaic Law” or “Works of the Law”! (circumcision, washing to the elbows, don’t walk on a grave, working on the sabbath, women are unclean after childbearing. etc> over 4000 laws)

rinnie we are to do Good works… circumcision will not save you. Paul makes this clear in “Romans”.
Romans 4:9
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10 Under what circumstances was it credited?**** Was it after he was circumcised, or before****? It was not after, but before!

rinnie Do you see it? Verse # 10…Abraham was called RIGHTEOUS before he was Circumcised!

We MUST have LOVE!
Love… Commonly called “Works of the heart”! Not the hands of men!
The Sheep in the “Sheep and the Goats Parable” (Matthew 25) go to heaven because they have Faith PLUS Love!
The Goats go to the Lake Of Fire because; They have “Faith ALONE”!

Dogknox

 

[dogknox]

Rinnie, Dogknox, and my other Catholic brothers and sisters,

I got my information from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is the quote from the beginning of the article on the phrase Roman Catholic:

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled “Roman Catholics” as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species.
I know a lot of Catholics who wear the name Roman Catholic quite proudly. After all, the term Christian was first a term of derision, too. That it is a term that so many can take pride in now is evidence of the Holy Spirit living and dwelling among you.
God bless.

Oldtimer_7 What you forget is…The early Church was the “Catholic Church” the early Church recognized the authority of the Pope; AND the Early Church had Bishops.
There was NOT a Lutheran Church until the sixteenth century, 1600 years after Jesus!

Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated** by the bishop** or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Oldtimer_7 Do you see it? just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church

Oldtimer_7 The BISHOP Ordains Martin Luther And… ALSO it is the BISHOP that defrocks Martin Luther! Martin Luther is NOT Catholic…His roots were cut off from the Body of God! read on…

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher,** bishop of the Catholic Church** in Smyrna. For every word that came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

The Muratorian Canon
Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others that cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

Cyprian
They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. . . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that **the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. **They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

Oldtimer_7 Martin Luther was NOT with the Bishop… He rejected the Bishops authority… thus he rejected Jesus!

and** if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. **<<<

Dogknox*

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I highly doubt scum like Alexander VI was God-sent.

The priesthood is a vocation. One is made a Bishop by the Pope. One is made Pope by an election. The priesthood is the only vocation that one achieves due to God alone. The others you mentioned are positions God allows people to have due to the authority He has granted His Church, but these positions aren’t directly appointed by God. Even then, some of the people chosen by the Pope/elected by Cardinals to be shepherds causes God to shake His head (not literally of course) because of how bad these people are, but He still allows it and He allows us to suffer the consequences for such poor decisions.

Yes, Alexander VI was not a nice fellow!

He was an able administrator and quickly got rid of the pestilence of assassins in Rome by simply ordering that they be executed on the spot they were captured . . .

It was the holy Dominican Jerome Savonarola (whose canonization process has been reawakened today and who was venerated widely by the Dominicans and people of Florence, including St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Genoa) who opposed Pope Alexander and actually called on Christendom to work to depose him . . .

The aura of untouchability surrounding the papacy prevented any action to be taken on such an immoral incumbent of the See of Peter. If anything, Savonarola himself became controversial, although later Popes admired him, including Pope Julius II and Pope St Pius X.

Pope Julius II himself believed the burning of Savonarola was a sin. When told of the problems Savonarola’s canonization would cause (including alienating the aristocracy of Florence), Julius said, “The confession of sin (on the part of the churchmen who burned Savonarola) is not evil - the sin itself is what is evil.”

I am myself a supporter of the Cause of Savonarola (which is being opposed by the Jesuits).

Alex

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I highly doubt scum like Alexander VI was God-sent.

The priesthood is a vocation. One is made a Bishop by the Pope. One is made Pope by an election. The priesthood is the only vocation that one achieves due to God alone. The others you mentioned are positions God allows people to have due to the authority He has granted His Church, but these positions aren’t directly appointed by God. Even then, some of the people chosen by the Pope/elected by Cardinals to be shepherds causes God to shake His head (not literally of course) because of how bad these people are, but He still allows it and He allows us to suffer the consequences for such poor decisions.

[BIBLEDRB]John 19:11[/BIBLEDRB]

To say that the bishopric is not a vocation is a bit… off point. Priest is the primary, all other “jobs” are subsets of the priesthood. But just as not all men are called to the priesthood, not all priests are called to be a bishop. To say that God did not intend for a particular priest to become the head of His Church is silly. That would say that we have diverted the will of God and potentially that the father of lies has corrupted God’s Church…

 

[rinnie]

rinnie it is good to meet you… You ask:
I reply: There is a difference…note… The “THEREFORE” the therefore puts it into context!
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus* to do good works***, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)—

I reply Do you see it? “Therefore, don’t brag about your CIRCUMCISION, because Circumcision** is a work of the HANDS of men** NOT the HEART!”

Two, two, two kinds of WORKS…Not one!

1. Works of the HEART… Commonly called “Good Works”! created in Christ Jesus* to do good works***
2. "Works of the LAW… Called “The Mosaic Law” or “Works of the Law”! (circumcision, washing to the elbows, don’t walk on a grave, working on the sabbath, women are unclean after childbearing. etc> over 4000 laws)

rinnie we are to do Good works… circumcision will not save you. Paul makes this clear in “Romans”.
Romans 4:9
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10 Under what circumstances was it credited?**** Was it after he was circumcised, or before****? It was not after, but before!

rinnie Do you see it? Verse # 10…Abraham was called RIGHTEOUS before he was Circumcised!

We MUST have LOVE!
Love… Commonly called “Works of the heart”! Not the hands of men!
The Sheep in the “Sheep and the Goats Parable” (Matthew 25) go to heaven because they have Faith PLUS Love!
The Goats go to the Lake Of Fire because; They have “Faith ALONE”!

Dogknox

Oh yes I do see it, And I believe we are on the same page. Without Grace there is No faith so to begin with faith alone isn’t even possible. We could stop with faith alone right there.

But now if Luther said that it is Faith given to us from the Grace given to us by God to do his work and by our free will when we do his work through the Love that we have for eachother from the Grace we can be saved, I could buy it.

But Jesus never said we were saved by works alone, anymore then he said faith alone.

My take on what Luther said is Faith alone is how we are saved. Not works. But as we are told in scripture faith without good works is fruitless.

 

[rinnie]

Also dogknox you have also hit on a another good point. I have a real hard time here with a Man named Richard.

He cannot understand that the Old Law was replaced by the New Law. That now Baptism is the New Law. By his death Jesus took away death and gave us new life from Baptism.

How the Old Law could not save you from sin, the New Law of Baptism can wipe away sin by only the merit of Christ. But the problem is we don’t usually die after baptism so then we commit actual sin. And the death of Jesus does not wipe away actual sin without repenting, confessing etc. I have a heck of a time trying to show him this.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Also dogknox you have also hit on a another good point. I have a real hard time here with a Man named Richard.

He cannot understand that the Old Law was replaced by the New Law. That now Baptism is the New Law. By his death Jesus took away death and gave us new life from Baptism.

How the Old Law could not save you from sin, the New Law of Baptism can wipe away sin by only the merit of Christ. But the problem is we don’t usually die after baptism so then we commit actual sin. And the death of Jesus does not wipe away actual sin without repenting, confessing etc. I have a heck of a time trying to show him this.

The “Old Law” Vs. “New Law” is a thing I have struggled with as well. Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the old law but to fulfill it, so that seems to say that it is still in effect.

The best explanation of this that I have heard came from Fr. Larry Richards. He said that if a man and woman get married, does that man need a law that says “You must not kill your wife”? No. His love makes that law irrelevant. Since we are called to love one another as Jesus loved us, then the law should be the absolute minimum required for all of us. Our love should make the old covenant seem like it is too little to do for Christ. We should all strive to surpass the old law in our words and deeds just like a husband should strive to do more than be faithful to his wife. His love should make him treat her as the highest woman on earth so should we treat each other since we are all made in the image of God. This is the meaning of the “spirit of the law” surpassing the letter of the law.

So in a sense the old law is still there, but we should strive to surpass it in all things out of love for Christ.

Anyway, back on topic we go…

 

[Magdalena09]

Hi rinnie,
Let’s see if I can go through this briefly.

Here is what Luther says in his preface to Galatians 5:6

I would suggest that, based on your post, you may have never heard sola fide phrased in this way.

Jon

Jon, while I understand your point, I do have to disagree on at least one level. In practice, now and for many years previously, whether Luther intended it or not, the majority of protestants do believe that sola fide = faith alone = works have nothing to do with anything. This includes some but not all Lutherans I have met. Now, at times, I think that it gets down to merely arguing semantics… for instance, I would say that faith is an act of the will (unless you are a strict Calvinist or don’t believe in true free will). It is a mental act whereby I say that yes, I do understand, believe, and trust in Christ as the savior of man… and this is a result of the Holy Spirit. But works go hand in hand and are also a choice. The only difference is that they are performed by my body, but again, I choose to do them. I could choose not to do them and still believe “mentally” that Jesus is the savior of man. To me, sola fide is the unnecessary severing of the body from the brain. Faith + works is, essentially, grace+grace.

I know people who cringe if you even so much as suggest that good works ought to be a part of the Christian life. And these same people think so highly of Luther that you would think they would have read his writings…

Now… there is, of course, “Lorship salvation” which says that good works necessarily follow “being saved”, but again, that interferes with free will, and so I think that’s bogus. In each and every moment, I have a choice to be obedient or not, to love God through the way I live, or not.

 

[JonNC]

=Magdalena09;7211167]Jon, while I understand your point, I do have to disagree on at least one level. In practice, now and for many years previously, whether Luther intended it or not, the majority of protestants do believe that sola fide = faith alone = works have nothing to do with anything. This includes some but not all Lutherans I have met.

Why would you expect Protestants to agree with Luther? Their “founders” didn’t agree with the Augsburg Confession, either. Calvinists, anabaptists, etc. were never Lutheran. For the Lutherans who don’t agree with this particular work of Luther, they then also don’t agree with the Confessions, which leaves me to doubt if they were truly Lutheran. Here is what the confessions say about the rejection of good works:

1. We reject and condemn as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline the bare expression, when it is said: Good works are injurious to salvation.

Now, at times, I think that it gets down to merely arguing semantics… for instance, I would say that faith is an act of the will (unless you are a strict Calvinist or don’t believe in true free will). It is a mental act whereby I say that yes, I do understand, believe, and trust in Christ as the savior of man… and this is a result of the Holy Spirit. But works go hand in hand and are also a choice. The only difference is that they are performed by my body, but again, I choose to do them.

Agreed here.

I could choose not to do them and still believe “mentally” that Jesus is the savior of man.

Choosing not to do them is a rejection of Christ. It is sin, as Christ clearly commands us to help the least of His children. One may make a mental assent to believe that Christ is the Savior, but true, saving faith is a faith that works.

To me, sola fide is the unnecessary severing of the body from the brain. Faith + works is, essentially, grace+grace

I would dispute your characterization that it severs body from brain, but that said, that It may seem that we to you now, but at the time, with the abuses of indulgences, and the activities of men such as Tetzel, it didn’t seem so unnecessary to those in 1500’s Germany.

I know people who cringe if you even so much as suggest that good works ought to be a part of the Christian life. And these same people think so highly of Luther that you would think they would have read his writings…

based on what I’ve qotes, do you think they actually have???

Now… there is, of course, “Lorship salvation” which says that good works necessarily follow “being saved”, but again, that interferes with free will, and so I think that’s bogus. In each and every moment, I have a choice to be obedient or not, to love God through the way I live, or not.

And I can quote more from the confessions that support human free will, but I think you already know that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, and thanks for your response, Sorry but I am trying to figure out what your faith really teaches. I do know that it is very close to the Catholic faith in many ways. That is really all I ever knew. so thanks for explaining things better.

 

[campeador]

Please, let us be charitable to our Lutheran brethren. This is just my personal opinion, but the Lutherans and Anglicans who frequent here are to me such a breath of fresh air compared to those Christians who’s doctrine and beliefs have strayed so far from Catholicism as to be almost unrecognizable.

Let us all pray daily and fervently for the re-unification of all Christians.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;7210930]Oh yes I do see it, And I believe we are on the same page. Without Grace there is No faith so to begin with faith alone isn’t even possible. We could stop with faith alone right there.

Our Christian sibling dogknox is difficult for me to dialogue with because he/she portrays what I respectfully consider a distorted view of sola fide. On a number of occasions I have offered him what I offer you here, but he/she persists in the distortion. I cannot argue against something that isn’t my belief.

But now if Luther said that it is Faith given to us from the Grace given to us by God to do his work and by our free will when we do his work through the Love that we have for eachother from the Grace we can be saved, I could buy it.

Well, not quite. The good works we are required (note I said required) by Christ’s call to do
do not merit us in any way salvation. It is Christ’s merit alone that saves (Grace). But if we have a living, active, saving faith, and not a dead faith, we respond with love and charity toward our neighbors. This is the love that must come with faith. Those in need are the recipients of that love, love which is is evidence of the grace we have received through faith.
Now, what if someone chooses not to act out his faith in love? By not doing Christ’s commands, it is sin, and repeated and unrepented sin leads to a loss of faith and grace.

But Jesus never said we were saved by works alone, anymore then he said faith alone.

Well, he said in John 3:16 …*For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. *

My take on what Luther said is Faith alone is how we are saved. Not works. But as we are told in scripture faith without good works is fruitless.

YES!! But more than that, faith without works (love) is dead. A dead faith cannot save.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Our Christian sibling dogknox is difficult for me to dialogue with because he/she portrays what I respectfully consider a distorted view of sola fide. On a number of occasions I have offered him what I offer you here, but he/she persists in the distortion. I cannot argue against something that isn’t my belief.

Well, not quite. The good works we are required (note I said required) by Christ’s call to do
do not merit us in any way salvation. It is Christ’s merit alone that saves (Grace). But if we have a living, active, saving faith, and not a dead faith, we respond with love and charity toward our neighbors. This is the love that must come with faith. Those in need are the recipients of that love, love which is is evidence of the grace we have received through faith.
Now, what if someone chooses not to act out his faith in love? By not doing Christ’s commands, it is sin, and repeated and unrepented sin leads to a loss of faith and grace.

Well, he said in John 3:16 …*For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. *

YES!! But more than that, faith without works (love) is dead. A dead faith cannot save.

Jon

Oh I agree with what you are saying Jon, and I agree with your words, actually this is Catholic teaching, but I don’t agree witht he words of Luther. As the Church also did not agree with Luther.

Now I also agree with the scripture of John, but it says nothing about all you have to do is believe in him, it is only one of the things that are necessary. St John in no way says God said all that is necessary for eternal life is belief. Just like one of the most important commands is to Love one another. We still have more to do then that.

But on the lighter side I guess thats why Jesus said its one of the most important because I guess he knew it was the hardest