What's the use of faith alone?

Valletta said:

Language continually changes. What should be done may be different depending on the case of an individual and how formal warnings should be is up to the Church.

Click to expand...

The Church run by who? If Paul declares another gospel as anathema, how much "apostolic succession" is required to overrule that?

XrxrX said:

The Church run by who? If Paul declares another gospel as anathema, how much "apostolic succession" is required to overrule that?

Click to expand...

Protestants have used anathemas as well, but most everyone are striving to be ecumencal these days, at least more tactful, diplomatic, in a desire to find our common ground.

ViaCrucis said:

As someone who has a habit of thinking in analogies (sometimes not a bad thing, sometimes not helpful, e.g. the Trinity), one of the analogies that I find helpful in thinking of the Sacraments is that they are like a power cord or electrical cable, through which we are plugged into grace and grace is "carried" to us. Word and Sacrament is an essential dimension of Jesus being the Vine and we the branches--it is our union to Christ, and the way we are "plugged" into God's grace. So that Word and Sacrament is where and how God condescends to meet us and mend us. The longer I leave my phone off the charger, the juice in the battery starts to run dry--it's that recharge, as we encounter God in His Word and Sacraments, that vitalizes us.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Well, not to be a party-pooper, but I disagree. The things we were told to do involved incidental elements that enabled us to express our faith, which alone saves us. It is our connection with God by believing He is the source of our life that saves us--not the elements through which we are called to express this.

I may fervently tell someone in a church service, you must come forward, come down to the altar, kneel at the altar, confess your sins, and be saved. That in no way is meant to imply that going to the altar is necessary for Salvation.

Neither is water baptism, or even water itself. We don't need liturgies for Salvation either, though these things have worked well all through history, with great explanation about it, to bring people into a continuous communion with God. Hallelujah!

But it isn't the liturgy that does this, because it only upholds our faith which is expressed through it. The same thing could be expressed by the thief on the cross....sorry!

These things aren't symbolic, I agree. They are actual ceremonies, and they aren't subtle either, are they? They are a real means of entering into communion and salvation with the Lord. But it is faith that sparks the electricity in the cord....in my opinion.

No sense arguing about it, because we won't solve centuries of debate in a moment in time. Best to agree on what we can agree on, which is that Jesus is our Savior, and that we need to accept him, eat him, swallow him, talk about him, be washed by him etc. etc. Bless the Lord oh my soul!

XrxrX said:

The Church run by who? If Paul declares another gospel as anathema, how much "apostolic succession" is required to overrule that?

Click to expand...

XrxrX said:

Yet Paul set forth a mandate of anathema.. why would they not be used today?

Click to expand...

Language changes with time. In general, the word translated into the English "anathema" as used by Paul and the Church over almost 2000 years has generally meant an exclusion from the Church, and the Church consists of Jesus and one's fellow Christians. The words "excommunication" and "anathema" used to be pretty much interchangeable but eventually took on different meanings. The changes in language over the centuries were not meant to "overrule" Paul or anyone else.

Valletta said:

Language changes with time. In general, the word translated into the English "anathema" as used by Paul and the Church over almost 2000 years has generally meant an exclusion from the Church, and the Church consists of Jesus and one's fellow Christians. The words "excommunication" and "anathema" used to be pretty much interchangeable but eventually took on different meanings. The changes in language over the centuries were not meant to "overrule" Paul or anyone else.

Click to expand...

Right, but Paul includes angels.. who are not part of the Church, so it stands the only punishment he would be citing, that both men and angels can share is damnation.