Is the Reformation dead?

[Carl Emerson]

I can very nearly endorse that without qualification. But there is a qualification, and it's not a small one, but this big:

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

In view of the proceeding verses, (21-23), there can be no doubt that believers can make the huge error of choosing not to do as He says, and then suffering this terrible outcome, as verse 23 makes so very, very stark. It seems to be saying they can be in faith for a while, and then fail out of faith (house collapses), for lack of following the Spirit, lack of doing the works God has prepared for us to do.

His words are just...absolute, for us, as believers. He is the Truth. The way, the truth, and the life. So, what He says in Matthew 25 about the separation of those that welcomed the stranger, feed the hungry...among their brothers and sisters -- gulp -- that's for real.

Jesus was addressing the folk that were general populace and by extension humanity as a whole. Some responded to His Words with faith in Him and some did not. There is no indication that believers with faith in Him had a demolition job to deal with...

 

[Halbhh]

Jesus was addressing the folk that were general populace and by extension humanity as a whole. Some responded to His Words with faith in Him and some did not. There is no indication that believers with faith in Him had a demolition job to deal with...

Agree -- that demolishing would be done instead by nature as it were -- by ordinary life, over time, storms of life, sooner or later, for houses on sand. We don't have to 'deal with demolishing' in that terrible outcome -- it's done for us. But even then possibly some might turn, ala Luke chapter 15, we might hope. He knows, we don't.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Conversion can be a lifelong journey
or if you prefer another flavor
https://catholicherald.org/herald-o...-e-listecki/conversion-is-a-lifelong-process/
or pick yet another flavor, but "lifelong process of conversion".

Are you intentionally conflating the conversion process with "reforming" the entire faith from the ground up?

I don't think it's fair to say that most Protestants don't know what they're doing just because they decided they didn't need to do things the way they were done back in earlier centuries.

If that's so then there's probably not much point in discussing the matter further.

 

[zippy2006]

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins...

Perhaps it is worth saying that I have never heard the Reformation described in such a way. For example, Aiden Kimel, a former Lutheran pastor, cites various examples of early Lutherans agreeing to the concept of mortal sin. Further, I don't believe Reformation Christians ever denied the possibility of apostasy in a general sense.

So we may have another Reformed/Lutheran difference. Yet if Reformed believe apostasy is possible then the sin of unbelief which occasions or causes apostasy is for all intents and purposes a mortal sin.

 

[Halbhh]

Are you intentionally conflating the conversion process with "reforming" the entire faith from the ground up?

There's not that much difference between so many churches, like Lutheran, and the Catholic. Just not that much. That's what the raised-Catholics tell me, face to face, about 5 now. I believe them. And at least the sermons are very much similar. The 4 Catholic sermons I've heard in person, with the hundreds in a variety of other churches to compare with -- interchangeable. You could pipe in those Catholic sermons from one church to another most any Sunday, and unless you told us, no one would know it wasn't Lutheran, I think.

 

[Tigger45]

IMHO the Lutheran confessions maintain these doctrines to this day.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There's not that much difference between so many churches, like Lutheran, and the Catholic. Just not that much. That's what the raised-Catholics tell me, face to face, about 5 now. I believe them. And at least the sermons are very much similar. The 4 Catholic sermons I've heard in person, with the hundreds in a variety of other churches to compare with -- interchangeable. You could pipe in those Catholic sermons from one church to another most any Sunday, and unless you told us, no one would know it wasn't Lutheran, I think.

That really isn't the point.

The point is that conversion and "reformation" are different things. That's why they are spelled differently.

 

[Halbhh]

That really isn't the point.

The point is that conversion and "reformation" are different things. That's why they are spelled differently.

Ok. I'm good with that.

 

[Albion]

There's not that much difference between so many churches, like Lutheran, and the Catholic. Just not that much. That's what the raised-Catholics tell me, face to face, about 5 now.

This is most likely a case of those people thinking about the surface similarities. The structure and look of the worship service, for instance. The doctrinal differences are significant.

 

[Halbhh]

This is most likely a case of those people thinking about the surface similarities. The structure of the worship service, for instance. The doctrinal differences are significant.

Yeah. So I've heard. Here's interesting reading though:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification

And once I read enough in it, then I realized why this was unsurprising:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

 

[eleos1954]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

It seems to me people of faith are compromising their faith and are deceiving themselves.

Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

1 John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[SkyWriting]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

Don't confuse forum posters as representing anything.
We don't. Only a small sliver speak up at all.
And as near as I can tell, they've each created their own churches.

 

[Sketcher]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

There are a lot of OSAS people left, which you appear to be missing.

Now, the number one thing that might erode faith in eternal security is an ongoing sin problem. These days, there is quite a bit of recognition for addictions - drugs, alcohol, food, sex, inappropriate contentography. inappropriate content especially is more prominent and more available than it ever has been in human history. Compare a lewd Roman painting to HD photos and videos that can be viewed anywhere, in seconds. Lots of people have that problem, which means lots of Christians have that problem, and a lot of Christians don't "feel" saved anymore because they can't keep away, and the single among them hear even at church that they are ineligible for a relationship if they have that problem. Since many people tie God's favor with finding a good spouse on top of this, is it any wonder why many in the church would feel that they have stepped outside of God's favor and can't stay within it.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

Justification by faith was taught by PAUL. Luther found the answer to his agony in Romans. The people you describe HATE the grace of God in Christ. They are the same types who were always hounding Paul and slandering him for preaching Christ and Him crucified and the free gift of God. They want to work for it and don’t want anyone getting something for free.

But praise God for His free gift and the unsearchable riches of Christ!

 

[hedrick]

What I can find of the Lutheran position, is that the term mortal and venal is used, but it refers to the attitude and effect upon the person, and is not technically a distinction in the kind of sin. Why Do We Distinguish Between Sins? by Martin Chemnitz | Steadfast Lutherans

Westminster more explicitly rejects the distinction, and was probably what I was thinking of: "As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation;[8] so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.[9]"

 

[zippy2006]

What I can find of the Lutheran position, is that the term mortal and venal is used, but it refers to the attitude and effect upon the person, and is not technically a distinction in the kind of sin. Why Do We Distinguish Between Sins? by Martin Chemnitz | Steadfast Lutherans

Ignoring for a moment that the classical tradition includes subjective disposition as a necessary part of mortal sin, and that mortal sin is defined precisely in reference to the effect, the topic of this thread is whether mortal sin exists at all in Protestantism. To generalize, the question seems to be whether someone who has been justified by faith alone could be damned. Chemnitz affirms mortal sin, namely certain acts or dispositions that can lead someone who has been justified to damnation. Granted, in the article I referenced above it is also shown that Robert Jenson, a modern Lutheran theologian, more or less denies the concept of mortal sin.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The personal crisis that originally sparked Luther’s change was caused by the Catholic idea that if we have any mortal sins that we haven’t repented, we’re doomed. He was unable ever to believe that he had really done that.

As I understand the conclusion, the Reformation consensus was (1) there are no mortal sins, all sins alike will doom you if you aren’t Christ’s (2) all those who have faith are justified, independent of works.

I’m not finding very many posters that actually hold to what I understand is the Reformation consensus, even Protestants that you’d expect would. It seems that almost everyone has a list of sins that no Christian could possibly commit, and they’re convicted that anyone who hasn’t repented for these sins is doomed. But this is precisely the concept of mortal sin that the Reformation we rejecting.

The original Protestant response would have been that what we’re seeing now is a kind of self-righteousness. I’m OK because I haven’t committed *that* sin. My sins are of the acceptable kind. A few decades ago no Protestant would have tried that. But today it seems like the norm.

Have I missed something?

My theory is that the culture wars have killed justification by faith. Does that bother anyone else?

God started with Adam and Eve. They only had one decision to make, stay in Eden through one obedient task. They chose not to obey. Now we propel to the Reformation, another avenue to shine the light on His truth. God will always give us a shining light to the narrow path that leads to the narrow gate. His Light will always shine then diminish by the flesh. His will is that all be saved.
Blessings

 

[hedrick]

Chemnitz affirms mortal sin, namely certain acts or dispositions that can lead someone who has been justified to damnation.

Sort of. "But Scripture testifies that there are also some other sins in which also the reconciled, when they have fallen, lose faith," I don't believe such a person remains justified, since justification is by faith. As I understand, in Lutheran theology it is possible to lose faith, and this often happens through serious sin. In principle it's not in Reformed theology, although from a practical point of view that's not so clear.

 

[Halbhh]

Don't confuse forum posters as representing anything.
We don't. Only a small sliver speak up at all.
And as near as I can tell, they've each created their own churches.

In a way that's so true -- there are not 2 human beings on Earth I've been able to find that think just the same ways about any doctrines, once you ask them more questions to get more about the doctrine. It's only the broad general statements that many can agree to agree on, but they each understand them individually. It's part of why the Joint Declaration on Justification above in post 30 (the preamble is very interesting, even if you only read that) is fairly long -- because it takes a lot of talking for people to begin to realize their views even overlap (which they do very extensively), and first they have to get past the language/wording differences.

 

[sdowney717]

Our fight for the truth today is the same as theirs, justification by faith in Christ alone and not by works of righteousness which we have done. Luther also knew that election and predestination were true apart from the will of the man, that our salvation is truly of God by making us new creations in Christ.

John 1
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.