Beatus Vir

This is disgraceful Dan. Truly so.

I do not believe you were in any mental or emotional state to make a decision to abandon your confession.

May God have mercy on you and forgive you for this falling away from the pure Gospel and Sacraments. May he preserve you until life everlasting, in spite of the error you have no embraced and are now calling your own.

There is nothing admirable, noble, honorable or otherwise in what you have done. It is shameful.

Hi Paul,

I see, you believe that my conversion is a result of some mental decificiency and/or moral corruption. Perhaps you have to believe that. I am saddened that you deem the Lutheran position as so weak, that you must resort to attacking the character and sanity of those who disagree with you. Sad indeed.

I have always regarded you as a friend and a man of character. I will not mitigate that based on this one comment.

I have admitted to misjudging many things prior to my conversion. I hope other readers, will not, based on your comment, will not estimate your character to be one of those things.

Best regards,
Dan

Dan,

How do you reconcile what you now think is the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification with the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Sacraments work ex opere operato?

men

How very interesting.

Thanks for letting us take a peek into what was, undoubtedly, a decision not easily reached and with no little sacrifice.

DW: The problem with this is that Scripture says that Baptism washes away sin, that it is a rebirth and washing of regeneration, and that those who are baptized walk in newness of life. These statements are quite clear in attributing to Baptism more than a non-imputation of sin. If Lutheran theology were true, then the baptized do not really walk in newness or life, nor are they able to do so.

Kavouras: You ignore all of Romans 7 and the parallel teachings, therefore your reasoning here is less than complete.

You've gained yourself some peace of mind by this move. I know how important peace of mind is. Your very existence depends on it. But I think you can find that real peace as a layman in the LCMS if you can find a decent congregation. You can always move to Cleveland and join Christ Lutheran Church.

They say in sales that people buy on emotion, then justify the purchase with facts. I think that's what you're doing my friend.

if you can find a decent congregation.

On the one hand, the if is too critical upon which to hang one's salvation.

On the other hand, does not the existence of an if suggest something amiss?

About this time, the congregation in Wisconsin arranged a phone-interview with me... I answered honestly and politely, but concealed the fact that I was questioning whether to remain in the LC-MS, and that I found the interview very troubling... But I asked one question, “What kinds of controversies have you had in your congregation?” They answered, “None.” Now call me cynical, in fact, it’s hard not to be cynical after 12 years in the Missouri Synod, but after the interview, I simply did not believe that this congregation was being honest with me.

Cynical? "Ironic", if not "hypocritical," come to mind.

John Fenton writes: if you can find a decent congregation.

On the one hand, the if is too critical upon which to hang one's salvation.

On the other hand, does not the existence of an if suggest something amiss?

Kavouras responds,

Yes there is plenty amiss, but not nearly as much as in R.C.

This next statement is anecdotal in nature. As a former RC whose been to a number of RC weddings, confirmations and funerals I can say that I have never heard the pure Gospel preached in a RC church. I have strong doubt that a RC priest could verbalize the pure Gospel, or properly distinguish between Law and Gospel.

It's also a clear fact that when RC's use the phrase "justification by faith" they mean something considerably different from what Lutherans mean.

To use an illustration:when you squeeze a RC ketchup bottle mustard comes out.

From this inability to distinguish and inability to not confuse the Law and the Gospel...from this inability all the other errors flow: purgatory, penance, prayers for the dead, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers to the saints, misunderstanding of vocation, celibacy, enthusiasm, sanctification played out in social causes rather than via vocation.

RC doctrine doesn't allow the use of the exclusive particles(alone, without etc.) Yes, you use the words, but they aren't allowed to mean what they mean or are all cancelled out by James. Like Billy Graham, what you give with the right hand, you take away with the left. There can never be certainty of forgiveness in the RC system.

You guys who have had the benefit of Lutheranism may be able to do the above, for a while at least (no longer) but you are an exception.

Nothing has changed. Read the Joint Declaration. They can sustain the pure Gospel for maybe 3 sentences and then they slip into works righteousness. Contrast this with AP, IV which goes on for 90 straight pages preaching the pure Gospel.

"Men",

If what you know of Roman Catholic theology comes largely from the Lutheran Confessions, I would suggest you really don't know what Catholics teach at all. The Opus Operatum is a good illustration of this. Ap. 12 says "They (the RCC) pretend that the sacrament grants grace ex opere operato, without a right attitude in the recipient, and they do not mention faith which grasps the absolution and consoles the conscience." However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

And also:

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.

The Opus Operatum, rightly understood, causes no problem for what I believe as a Catholic. How do you as a Lutheran, reconcile the claim that the Lutheran confessions are true, when in fact, they engage in lies and mischaracterizations in describing the Catholic position?

Dan

Dean,

The issue is not one of being able to find a good Lutheran Congregation. I would have been pleased to join Emmaus if I wished to remain in the LCMS (or Lutheranism.) If you can look around at the apostacy of the LCMS, and find a convincing argument for remaining in fellowship with them, all I can say is "more power to ya." It isn't easy, I know. And you can only divert your attention to the "errors" of others, or wait for the next convention in eschatological hope for so long.

In my experience, emotion was on the side of remaining in Missouri and Lutheranism, not against it. My mother said I should have stopped reading theology and thinking so much. You opine that I was more emotional than rational. Whatever.

Instead of analyzing my emotional or mental state from the cheap seats, perhaps you "Confessional Lutherans" in the LCMS should be looking for the moral courage to face their own convictions regarding church fellowship and unionism.

With regard to Baptism and Concupiscence, you have failed to solve the problem by citing Rom. 7. If concupiscence is sin, then baptism is not effective against all sin. The problem is resolved when one recognizes that Romans 7 deals with a defect but not the substance of sin. Cf. Augustine De Natura et Gratia, and look up the references to Romans 7. Then re-read St. Paul and ask what does he mean when he sums it up in chapter 8. "There is NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ." and "He condemned the sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be FULLY met IN US, who do NOT live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Clearly Paul has in mind here something much more than a mere non-imputation of sin.

Dan

Fr. Fenton,

I hardly know what to say to you. But I am glad you dropped by, and I truly wish you all the best.

Look, I am hardly singing the praises of the JDDJ. Nor have I argued that Lutherans and Catholics agree on Justification. Duh.

I can't recommended Robert Koons' essay on justification (linked on my sidebar) for those who actually want to understand what Catholics believe in contrast to Lutheranism.

I am a former WELS Lutheran who entered the Church in 1993. What you wrote about baptism spells out very clearly what I came to see only after a circuitous journey in my understanding and faith. Very refreshing to read it all in one paragraph.

Sorry guys, I can't follow this discussion on blog comments. We have a formal disagreement. I believe the RC teachings are wrong on many points. I spent the first 21 years of my life as an RC, I have 12 years of Catholic education, I think I know pretty well what the RC church teaches. I left it for a reason and that reason is that the RC religion relies on Christ's atonement PLUS my works. I'll discuss this by email at dean.kavouras@gmail.com

I spent the first 21 years of my life as an RC, I have 12 years of Catholic education, I think I know pretty well what the RC church teaches..

I can think of many people who have had 12 years of Lutheran education, and don't know what it means to be Lutheran. I know others who graduated from both Lutheran colleges and seminary, who still don't know, and don't even understand the Lutheran doctrine of justification. Several of them work at 1333 S. Kirkwood and dream up things like Ablaze(tm). You 'spose it's possible that someone raised Catholic and educated in Catholic Schools still may not understand what Catholics teach on Justification?

I ask this because Roman Catholics do not teach that we are saved because of Christ's Atonement PLUS their works. It is simply not true. Roman Catholic Theology is Augustinian. He is our "Doctor of Grace." We reject all forms of semi-pelagianism. I am sorry if you were misled by your upbringing and education. And I am sorry that you left the RCC because you misunderstood, or were misinformed, but what she teaches about Justification. I am not saying that Catholics and Lutherans teach the same thing. But it is too bad that even after a seminary education, the years of your ministry and study of the Lutheran Confessions, you remain misinformed about the Catholic Church.

I am not going to engage you over email. You would be better served by reading the Koons essay, and St. Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings. If you still don't understand Catholicism after that, I'm not sure I can be of service.

Dan

Well, we have a formal disagreement, and it can't be successfully discussed here.

A lot of this becomes a question of how one views the Christian life. Is the Christian life a matter of the Christian triumphing over sin (although sometimes faltering but hopefully being restored via God's Sacraments) or a person being at the same time sinner and saint.

I lean towards the latter - I think it is more faithful to scripture and captures the tension that is present in Scripture - that which I wish to do I do not do et al. I also think to say that Lutheranism somehow lessens the import of Baptism is to radically misinterpret Luther on Baptism (of course, I won't say that many Lutherans today don't do that very thing).

I will say this. I think Rome has improved - I think that the Reformation was good for her - but she is still somewhat off. But - that shouldn't be a surprise either.

Now a question - what are you thoughts on things like "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and "Freedom of a Christian" by Luther? Also, historically - if you want to claim that Luther is guilty of misinterpreting Rome - where is the accusation that Luther present a false straw man? In what I have read I did seen contemporary Roman Catholic apologists accuse Luther of misinterpretation all that often.

Just some thoughts and questions.

Thanks for the explanation, Dan.

A close friend to me as I serve my parish is actually a local Catholic Priest who is a constant demonstration of fidelity to justification as I was taught to believe it in seminary. We certainly have our differences, but I count him as a great ally in the struggle against the world.

I have one question for you about justification, and didn't quite get it clearly from the explanation - Would you say that what you believe about the doctrine of justification has changed, or would you say that you realized that the Lutheran church you belonged to did not actually teach the doctrine of justification as you believed it? Please don't take this a criticism or anything like that - I'm simply curious.

Thanks, Jon

Eric,

Perhaps you have something specific in mind wrt the Babylonian Captivity and Freedom of the Christian. In general, I have this to say: There is no doubt that in these works Luther points out genuine abuses during the middle ages. I don't know of any Catholics who deny this. Popes may not depose kings. And the pursuit of wealth and power, only touches upon the depth of the corruption which then existed. On the other hand, Occamism and the whole via moderna had departed from the deposit of faith. I think Occamism skewed Luther's perspective of Aquinas and the teaching of the Church, and at the same time, influenced his thinking on such things as transubstantiation (Occam believed in impanation), and the authority of Scripture. However, Luther's criticisms are way over the top.

Anyway, Catholics are willing to admit that the reformation was both tragic and necessary. The mass needed to be reformed. The semi-pelagianism of the Occamists had to be squashed. Superstition revolving around the cult of saints needed to be corrected. The emphasis on works and fastings etc, etc, plunged poor souls into despair and obscured the grace of Christ. Trent addressed these things, the reform happened. I think Luther deserves some credit for that.

Regarding the differences between Lutheranism and the RCC on the Christian life, I concluded that Augustine gave the best exposition of the Biblical texts. There are a lot of passages that are difficult for Lutherans, particularly in James, but also in Paul himself. You describe it as a tension. Augustine resolves that tension, and he has the patristic witness on his side. Is the Lutheran position plausible based on Scripture alone? I admit that it is, yet not without difficulties. Augustine is more plausible. But that is not all. There is the questions of authority and interpretation. Both sides are interpreting Scripture according to a tradition. For Lutherans, this means that some passages are read in light of others. So which passages give light, and which need illumination? Your tradition tells you. Your tradition--your confessions, theologians, even professors--show you which texts are central, and which are near the margins, of your theology. Then next question, is whether or not that tradition is trustworthy, and whether or not it is catholic or an innovation of men.

Dan

Would you say that what you believe about the doctrine of justification has changed, or would you say that you realized that the Lutheran church you belonged to did not actually teach the doctrine of justification as you believed it?

Both are true. My view on Justification has changed radically. On the other hand, while the LCMS officially holds the Lutheran doctrine of Justification, in theory, according to its confessional subscription, reality is a different thing altogether. On one side you have a departure by the Church Growthers and crypto-evangelicals, particularly due to blurring the Lutheran distinction between law and gospel. On the other side, you have some "confessionals" flirting with theosis (which I believe is totally inconsistant with the Lutheran position), and a "new creation" language that comes close to crossing the line, and often crosses the line. I think that only scratches the surface, of what is happening in the LCMS. In my view, all the controversies in the LCMS had to do with Justification in one way or another.

I know a lot of people would like to paint me as having been a crypto-papist all along, and that explains why I ended up a papist. There is a certain arrogance that suggests the Lutheran doctrine of Justification is so irrefutable that no one who fully understands it would conceivably ever find fault with it, let alone abandon it. People can, and will, say what they want. Whether it has any resemblance to reality is another thing.

Dan,

Thank you for your response. I think you answered generally the general question I asked - and I think it is good that we can both agree that the Church as constituted in the Middle Ages was in need of reform. The initial reason I asked was because your post seemed to imply that Luther himself misinterpreted Roman practice of the time - and your response clarifies that a bit. How much reform was needed and in what way - I'm sure we could have loads to discuss here.

In terms of a specific question - what are your current thoughts about the following from Freedom of a Christian - Luther's contention that a Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant to all, and yet also as the same time subject to none - or perhaps even the idea of simul justus et peccator? It seems to me that this fits with Paul's "that which I do not wish to do I do" statement.

Of course, I do come from an unabashedly Lutheran tradition - and so of course when I see James I read it with an understanding that works flow from faith, and that if no works from from it is not true faith (for the branch in the vine will bear fruit - if it does not it is not in the vine).

"No, coz, rather I weep."

Eric,

I would be very pleased to continue this discussion. I also read your blog about simul justus et peccator, and I want to comment on that as well. But I'll start a new topic on this, hopefully tomorrow. I also want to re-read the Freedom of the Christian, as I haven't lately, and am curious myself on how I will react to it.

All right, I couldn't resist showing up at this theology match one more time.

Dan, you tell me I don't really know RC theology on justification and other matters, and that the RC church unwaveringly holds to this priceless treasure of the Christian faith, which comforts us in all our sorrows.

They may use the term that a man is "justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28) But they mean something entirely different by them than Lutherans do.

It's like when your aged aunt who hasn't seen you in years says, "you have a nice family," and when a loan shark you owe money to says, "you have a nice family."

Same words, very different meaning!

If the RC church is so stellar in this joyous doctrine, which assures us of God's love, why does not one priest I've ever heard teach it?

In fact why do I hear the very opposite at all RC functions I attend (out of duty only). Why do I listen intently to find the Gospel for the family of the deceased officer (e.g.), and hear "he was a good man and God has a place for him in heaven."

This is the constant message I hear from the RC's at funerals, weddings, confirmations and have always heard from them.

You complain about Lutherans who don't hold to the Confessions or to sound communion practice and find that reason enough to leave.

Do you have the same beef with the RC church, that it (according to you) officially teaches properly, but none of its priests do? And even when they say the words, they mean something entirely different?

And what of communion practice? What can we say of a church body which only gives half the sacrament? I'm sure you have your way of working around that fact. But that's at least as grave (and more grave) an error as improperly disposing of the remaining wine, over which you left Lutheranism.

These things occurred to me.

Dean

What a stark contrast between Lutherans chit-chating in the pews, and Catholics on their knees during distribution.

There are Lutheran churches where the people gladly kneel during distribution rather than chit-chat away. As there are congregations (many many congregations) in the RC where they worship with contemporary music and liturgical dance, have absolutely no knowledge of Scripture, their catechisms, their liturgy, their history, their Synods and their Councils, or the teachings of the popes. And many are much more irreverant regarding their attitudes toward them than many Lutherans are toward the things that they are less knowledgable.

You say that your concerns are doctrinal but every time you write something, you talk about practice and you complain about the people in the churches. The Roman church has had political upheaval since Ancient Times.

You have not even clarified what it is about justification that you no longer believe, and what you do now...and where the Lutheran confessions got it wrong.

The main relief you will find is that you will be a layman, and not a pastor burdened with teaching the poor sheep that you have been entrusted with. That can be quite a burden, because sheep are not smart and they don't have great memories in any church. And shepherds can be good, and shepherds can be bad.

I pray that you will be ministered to with the healing words of the gospel. It is clear that your burden has been too heavy for you and that you are weary. Christ is there to comfort you in your Bible and in the one kind that you will receive.

I am glad that you have resigned. It is clear that you need to be cared for and are not in a place where you can care for those of us who are struggling with our own sins, our ignorance, and our stubbornness. We need someone more patient and loving than you can be right now. I don't mean that in a biting way at all. Take comfort in God's Word and receive his forgiveness and His love. I hope you truly find it there.

I can sympathize with your journey, as I am in the process of making it my self.

I am (was?) a confessional LC-MS Lutheran for 18 years. Unfortunately, confessionalism has been nearly driven out of the LC-MS. All of the major denominations have fallen in to either heterodoxy or outright heresy. The remaining synods are splintering further and further. Confessionalism has catholic marks which are not welcome anymore in most Lutheran circles.

I am finding it difficult to believe that the One, True Church resides in the Lutheran "churches" (quotes because the church described in the Augsberg Confessions is hypothetical, and doesnt exist in real life).

I see more and more confession pastors either leaving West or East.

After actually reading the anti-Nicene church Fathers, I see that the Lutheran "churches" do not have the marks of catholicism that the early catholic chruch did (and still does).

I am sorry for the bitterness being directed towards you by those who cannot respect a heart felt decision.

Ron W. It's utopian to think that you're leaving one denomination and going to another, in order to find the true church. The Church which Jesus founded by His death and resurrection isn't synonymous with a denomination. Yet that church exists here and there. If you have a Lutheran congregation which is faithful in doctrine and practice, stick with it. There are few to be found in Lutheranism, but there are none to be found in Rome.

In Rome you get more church, and less Christ.

I heard a priest of over 40 years give the prayer at a wedding reception yesterday. This is a conscientious RC man. His prayer was that the couple live their lives according to God's design so that they might receive their just reward in heaven. Not a single word in the wedding or reception about the forgiveness of sins wrought for us by Christ and believed by faith. So to purport that the RC church actually has the chief article of the Christian faith in tact is untrue. Or if it does, it had better inform its clergy and people, because they don't know it.

Simply put, welcome to the True Church of Jesus Christ! God Bless You and welcome Home!

Dean,

My kids often tell me that they didn't hear me, when I clearly and distinctly told them to do something or to stop doing something. The fault is not one of articulation, but of comprehension.

You are clearly anti-catholic. That prejudice effects how you listen and what you hear. And it is understandable that you look to further justify yourself in your decision to leave, remain separate, and protest against the Catholic Church. You hear no gospel in the Catholic Church for the same reason that the liberal media sees no progress in Iraq.

I used to be the same way.

Another problem is in the definition of the word Gospel. As a Lutheran, you define it very narrowly to mean only the forgiveness the sins. While the forgiveness of sins is certainly "good news", euangelion, to understand it only as such fails to understand the significance of the word's use in the New Testament, particularly in the context of the Roman empire.

You said the priest prayed that the newly married couple would live according to God's design, in order to receive their just reward in heaven. You don't hear the gospel in that, but it is Gospel.

It is is prayer to God, and thus it recognizes the need for prayer. The couple are not able to live according to God's design without God's help. You don't ask for something you already have, or plead for help when you have no need for help. And more than this, the prayer is offered in the confidence that the Lord will grant this help. For who asks for something he knows he will not receive? And finally, the prayer recognizes that the couple, by the help of this grace, will be justly rewarded in heaven. They will be rewarded for doing something that is not within their power to do. It is as St. Augustine says, "When God rewards our good works, he is rewarding his own gifts."

In this prayer, I hear an acknowledgement of our weakness and need for grace, a confidence that such grace will be given, and will bear fruit in everlasting life.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

It is is prayer to God, and thus it recognizes the need for prayer.

Or to say it another way, it's a prayer, not a sermon. Hence, it must be heard in the context in which it lives.

fwiw

Dan, It's also possible that you are hearing what you've been trained to hear, the Gospel, but where there is none. I think that sometimes when people who have good theology hear something else, they supply what's not said from their own storehouse of faith and knowledge.

That works for a while. But when one is constantly told what he should do etc. sinful flesh eventually eats that up and the assurance of the true Gospel is gone.

There is far too much here to handle in one post --

But it is worth noting that, on this point, Dan is correct. The position being argued against *primarily* in the Lutheran Confessions -- particularly Ap. IV -- is the "via moderna" approach of Occam, Biel, et. al. He is also correct that this position was rejected in favor of the via antiqua of St. Thomas Aquinas at the Council of Trent. Thus, he does offer us a helpful reminder as Lutherans -- if we are judging Roman Catholic theology wholly on the basis of what our confessions speak of it, we are arguing against something that Rome herself has already rejected.

The question, then, is upon what basis the via moderna is rejected in each argument -- and I think you'll find that the foundation critique that Rome has failed to distinguish between righteousness coram mundo and righteosness coram Deo remains a valid critique of the via Antiqua (and the doctrine of justification advocated by Rome today, as well). This argument from the "two kinds of righteousness" is Luther's primary refutation of the Scholastic doctrines of justification -- be they via antiqua OR via moderna. Trent rejects the via moderna because of its particulars. Lutherans reject both because both of them share the same essential error (albeit it is far more objectionable in the via moderna) -- that is that righteousness is defined by Rome, in either instance, as an intra nos reality dependent upon a donum, or gift, of infused grace. In either instance, this righteousness is the same for Rome, be it before the world or before God. For Luther, and the Confessions (and prior to Aquinas) grace is an "extra nos" reality located in the person, work, and merits of Jesus Christ alone. Our righteousness before the world, Lutherans grant, is a matter of doing good works -- but even "aided" by any sort of internal gift of grace, this sort of effort does not establish our righteousness coram Deo where our righteousness is always mediated through the righteousness of Christ alone. Christ is not merely a means toward our own personal righteousness. He *is* our very righteousness before God.

When I was an evangelical I would have been appalled to hear someone becoming Roman Catholic. Now that I'm Eastern Orthodox, I'm not appalled, and think that you've probably expanded your understanding beyond the sectarian interests of one tradition.

Still, I must take issue with this:

"The Catholic Church, has pride of place, because everyone else separated from them."

Of course we would say Rome was the first to separate from everyone else, rather than the one people separated from.

I think you owe it to yourself to take your journey through Eastern Christianity also, because I'm sure you'll appreciate much of what you find there, even if your journey ultimately ends in Rome.

BTW, I commiserate with you about accusations of not understanding Lutheranism. As soon as one moves, they are accused of not understanding properly where they came from. I'll bet you understand plenty, even if you haven't actually solved the whole puzzle.

The point about concupiscence being sin, likewise, is because the Roman declaration that concupiscence is not "sin" falls within their system of merit whereby sin is primarily transgression. Luther understood sin not so much as the violation of commands, but a matter of "relatio" coram Deo. Concupiscence is considered sin, because it runs contrary to how many was created to be *in relationship* to his creator. Anything that contradicts this sort of original righteousness is original sin.

Hey Dan,
Thanks for sharing your journey. Your sister, Diana, and I look forward to seeing you, Jinger, and the rest of your family at the family reunion this weekend. Your journey will be from Michigan and ours from Minnesota. We will meet and celebrate what has made us a family and it will give us great joy to share those moments with you. A reunion brings the family together even if time and miles have separated them significantly. You know, there are three documents in the Lutheran Confessions that have always taught me to love and respect my family throughout Christendom. I often find little of such respect coming from those who claim to adhere to the rest of the documents published in the book. This is illustrated by the way they engage in theological dialog from their perspective of those Confessions. I am not saying they are or should be inconsequential to theological discussion. But in my years of ministry I have learned that those who most especially label themselves as "Confessional" or "Conservative" are really neither. They just love a good fight for some reason, (...maybe it's their concupiscence getting the best of them again, and again, and again.) I'm not dismissing the need to have dialog, but I appreciate the spirit of doing so as brothers of the same family whether they are from Minneosta, Michigan, or Rome. See you in a couple of days...
Mark

Bless you, Dan, and thank you for being able to explain many things that I have been discovering and struggling with the last few years.

Chaplain, I wish you could have been at Mass with us yesterday. The priests where I've been attending have no problem at all with the saving power of Jesus. In fact I hear more about it in a week or two than I did in two years at the local Wesleyan church.

Pastor Woodring:

As a Missouri Synod pastor who loves the work of Higher Things I have followed your blog. Though I am late to the conversation, please permit me a few comments.

You emphasized the way that Scripture speaks of Baptism in terms of new birth, renewal, etc. I think, though, that we need to remember that according to the Creed, Holy Baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins." Just as Justification is "the" criterion (not "a" criterion--as JDDJ puts it), so also the confession of Baptism "for the forgiveness of sins" is the controlling criterion of our Scriptural understanding of the various phrases we come across in regard to this Sacrament.

Secondly, I think that the language of new birth, renewal, etc. says something first and foremost about God, namely that He is GRACIOUS. As Saint Peter has written, "HE has given us new birth into a living hope, etc." I think this understanding of the language is faithful to the Creed, in particular the first article, wherein we see the congruence between the Lutheran understanding of GRACE and the confession of creatio ex nihilo. Anyone that balks at the full implications of monergism, can't really confess the first article too well, let alone the second and the third.

you said: As I continued my research, I began to realize that what I had thought Catholic Church taught on Justification, was not what they really taught. I came to understand that the Scholastic Occamist view of justification, which was semi-pelagian, the view criticized most extensively in the Confessions was not what the Catholic Church teaches, now or then.

Me: You got it. I wonder if this is done deliberately or they just don't know any better. It seems McCain, et al, decided to gang up on you. Typical! I too left the LCMS for Rome and several other brothers went over to the Orthodox church.