Hey everybody! I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Southflanknorthpawsis (Southflank for short)! She is a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and has agreed to make herself available to provide the Lutheran perspective on things when questions should arise. Let's give her a warm welcome, and try not to bug her too much!

Hey Southflank, welcome aboard. We've been lacking a "mainline" Protestant perspective as I'm sure angelo told you. We'll try to break you in easy.

So does the Missouri synod approve of the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification?

SD

Big bump for Missouri Synod Lutherans. :^)

Just curious: Have you read Turbulent Souls (A Catholic Son's Return to His Jewish Family) by Stephen J. Dubner?

No, but they (we) should. It appears to be the Missouri Synod's position that the Catholic Church must renounce the Council of Trent before we can talk to them. I personally suspect Hell will freeze over first. (of course, that's my personal view and it may not be infallible)

If we go back to Thread 132 we find this presentation of your common argument:

Let me analyze this step by step:

1. Adam & Eve = finite

2. God = infinite

3. Adam & Eve sin

4. The severity of a sin is measured by the act itself, not by against whom the sin is committed. Murdering a prostitute is no less a crime than murdering a minister.

5. A finite being cannot perform an infinite act (this is precisely the logic by which Christians say we cannot atone for our sins on our own.)

6. Adam & Eve's sin was finite

7. Ergo, only a finite remedy is required (repent and sin no more)

I could disagree with a number of these point-by-point, but let me just put out there something I just thought of. You measure the sin as finite because the act itself is finite. I don't think this is true. What we do has an effect on society, family, nation, the future. When we accept sinful behvior we get worse and worse effects in the future.

Accepting birth control used by loving responsible couples leads to kids wearing blue jeans which practically require the shaving of body hair. Society continues its sexualization of pre-teens. The effect of the sin is not limited, not finite. In fact, it quickly rolls out of control.

Man is incapable of infinte goodness. He is incapable of correcting the cumulative effect of sin. Entropy rules. There's no way to separate the cream and your coffee once they've been mixed.

SD

Hi angelo and SD. I may not be as helpful as you hope but I will do my best to contribute. Your question might best be answered by offering the following statement from the office of the president of Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is the oldest and second-largest Lutheran church-body in the United States. We would like to explain why we could not support the declaration.

We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of what we have in common, we are committed to working toward true reconciliation of our important differences. We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others. We believe this teaching obscures the work of Jesus Christ and clouds the central message of the Bible.

Therefore, despite what has been reported in the public media about the Lutheran-Roman Catholic declaration, very significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salvation, a fact that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges.

We pray for genuine reconciliation of differences among Christians. Our church is intent on working for the day when the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed with one voice. We will continue to work toward true reconciliation.

A Statement from The Office of the President The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 1333 South Kirkwood Road St. Louis, Missouri 63122 United States of America

Does this answer your question? Go easy on me guys.............lol

Yo east. where ya been?

What was the 1st of 11 coaching jobs Jim Fassel had? Not that I knew the answer. But I am sitting right in front of my computer.

Welcome to the thread, SFNPS, I hope it is enjoyable for you.

Uh-oh, I blew it in my first post here(#8)............duh ! I left out the first paragraph of the cited statement. It should have begun as follows:

You may have heard that a declaration was signed that claims to resolve a key difference between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church. What you may not have heard is that more than 45 percent of the Lutheran church-bodies in the world did not support the declaration.

Sorry about that.

We could not support the declaration because it does not actually reconcile the difference between us concerning the most important truth of Christianity.

I can agree with this somewhat. The declaration attempted to find a common ground, or a bridge. Or vagueness. It simply agreed that it was because of God's Grace and not anything of our own doing. How God's grace acts in us and whether we can participate with it was left unstated. Because of the real differences that remain.

What is that truth? God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins. God declares us to be totally righteous and completely forgiven because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God gives us eternal life as a free gift through trust in Christ alone.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved. It teaches that we are able to merit, through our works, eternal life for ourselves and others.

This simply isn't true. Our works help us to cooperate with God and to acheive our sanctification. We aren't passive partners. But by no means does the Church teach that we can merit eternal life because of our works.

SD

Here is Becky's solution to the contradiction: Acts says "they" -the rulers in Jerusalem- laid Jesus in His tomb. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin who were the 'rulers of Jerusalem' ipso facto it was 'they' who laid Him in His tomb.

First, this is very deep. I see your points, (1)we all have a responsiblty for Jesus' death (2)Pilate is as much to blame as the Jews. Some times after being shown something like this I wonder just how spiritual I am because I take things so much at face value, and very seldom on my own get past that:)

Any way a few points I want to make now. I am going to read through this several more times, not to just pick it apart:) but because it is very deep. But these are my first thoughts. When you say " here is the solution to the contradiction", it makes it sound as if there is a contradiction to solve. There is NO contradiction. Acts 13:27 does not say "the rulers of Jerusalem" It says "For they that dwell at Jersualem, and thier rulers." In context he was speaking of Jews so it is not even an assumption, that he is still speaking of Jews. It's very clear that is who is referring too.

When you say Joseph was acting on behest of the Jews so taking away the love of his act, that is wrong. When you read all the accounts in the gospels, especially in Luke 23:51, it clearly shows Joseph did it because of his love and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He was probably in a certain amount of danger from the Sanhedrin becasue of it. But because he was a Sanhedrin he could go to Pilate and beg for the body so he used his postion to do that.

The whole focus of Pauls teachings in Acts anyway is on the fulfillment of the resurecction. Not the burial.

On the whole you make some very good points, but I don't think we should label anything in God's Word as a contradiction that needs US to figure out the solution for. That is opening the door for doubt to set in or for people who are not believers to use against someone trying to win them to Christ.

Becky

Simply put, it is my personal belief that the active Christian will strive to do good works and strengthen his/her walk with Christ. There seems to still be a belief on the part of many Lutherans that Catholics teach grace and works. Since the gift of salvation can be taken up until the moment death, it is conceivable, even if not likely, that an individual can still be saved by grace having never done a single good deed in his or her life. Said salvation is no less than that of one who has strived to cooperate with God throughout his or her entire life.

Mary let Her Son die for a bunch of slimeballs. This is precisely why Catholics honor her so.

Mary didn't LET Jesus die. Mary did not have a choice in the matter. That doesn't mean it did not hurt her as much as it would any mother, but the fact is she had no say in Jesus' death.

God did. John 3:16. Jesus had a choice. He said not my will but thine. Mary deserves only our most heartfelt smypathy in the loss of her Son. But not any credit for the "giving" of her son. I know that sounds harsh on my part, I just don't know how else to word it.

Becky

I've been successfully fighting off a Notice of Termination of my lease. All's well that ends well. I'm still an eastsider.

Thought of you a few weeks back -- had first-row seats behind home plate for the Rockies vs. Mets at Shea Stadium. If you watched the game on TV, you were looking right at me. Mets won : )

Can a catholic be justified without baptism? Pleeeeease, yes, or no.

Becky