Do you agree with the traditional doctrine of original sin?

[fhansen]

Didn't he? On numerous occasions, he seems to suggest that humanity is not good or righteous (Matt 19:17, 19:26) and is indebted to God (Luke 17:10).

I think Jesus was far more interested in teaching his disciples about the value of compassion than being focused on moral perfectionism.

He asked why the young man called Him good in Matt 19 for that matter. Anyway, compassion and mercy, etc are aspects of love, and that is moral perfection. He's movng us away from 'not good or righteous'. Again, God created nothing intrinsically bad or evil to begin with. Would people who possess the virtues described in the beatitutes, Matt 5:3-10, be bad? Was the good Samaritan bad? Did Jesus contrast inner moral integrity in Matt 5 and Matt 23 with external hypocritcal moral "integrity" for no reason, since the former would be impossible in your view anyway? Was John the Baptist a great man? Who are the good people Jesus speaks of in Matt 10:40:42? Jesus knows the human heart better than any, and mistrusts it as it's prone to deceitfulness and selfishness and sin: righteousness is a relative quality in human beings- especially when compared to God who's infinitely good. Some will demonstrate more of that quality, better reflecting the image of God they were made in, while others will fail miserably to do so- but it's a real quality and one that Jesus praises nonetheless when He sees it.

My sense is that the Lutheran understanding of the motivations for prosocial acts and good works are a sense of duty, solidarity, compassion, and vocation.

Those are qualities which mean that in some sense the sinner has been translated into something less sinful-otherwise he'd have no reason for a change in behavior.

 

[fhansen]

It's an aspirational ideal, not a legalistic requirement.

It's both an ideal and a requirement. And why would a sinner even aspire to this higher ideal unless he was changed by grace? And why does Scripture tell us that sinners, describing the more egregious sins/deeds of the flesh, fail to enter heaven?

Legalism won't get us anywhere but the obligation for man to be righteous exists with or without the law, and can only be authentically met by virtue of being under grace, in fact, now joined with God, IOW. Our problem is in wanting to be right, and thinking we are right, apart from God. Self-righteousness is an ugly and harmful human trait.

 

[Teofrastus]

Wait a minute here! You say that we're not meant to strive towards holiness but we are "to be faithful citizens in daily life.", "to live as decent, helpful citizens". Well... why should we do even that? How and why would a sinner "improve" in behavior or anything else unless something changed, something more than trusting in Christ's work having occurred? Isn't even your position too legalistic, too demanding, already? Isn't faith, alone, enough?

I said that Christians are "called to be faithful citizens," i.e., they are called to faith. The path to salvation isn't about meticulously avoiding every misdeed, but about recognizing the underlying sin that gives rise to them. My article details how awareness of this inherent sin is crucial for true change. Augustine teaches that true change must begin within the human heart, not through external actions alone. Laws and social structures can only offer limited, superficial improvement.

As Jesus said, "First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean" (Matthew 23:26). This means that instead of focusing solely on outward behaviour, we must cultivate awareness of sin, a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11 NIV). This doesn't refer solely to my individual sinfulness, but to the collective sinfulness of humanity. If we remain unaware of this shared culpability, we are destined to perpetuate it. We are very prone to imitate the sinfulness of others.

Christianity posits that human fallibility is inevitable, a concept supported by cognitive science and brain research. Our brains, complex as they are, are prone to errors. While we may perceive ourselves as possessing free will, our actions are predetermined at a subconscious level before reaching conscious awareness. We can, however, train our brains to make better choices through positive influences like upbringing, literature, and role models. Even with these efforts, occasional missteps are unavoidable. This inherent fallibility is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.

The psychologist Steven Pinker notes that modern cognitive science's view of human nature shares key insights with Judaeo-Christian thought. According to evolutionary psychology, our destructive tendencies persist because they once offered survival advantages. This aligns with Augustine's view that we are born with inherent tendencies towards evil. These tendencies cannot be eliminated through a single ritual like baptism. Rather, baptism marks the beginning of a lifelong process of spiritual transformation.

 

[fhansen]

From antiquity to the High Middle Ages, Catholic theology was deeply influenced by Platonism, emphasizing the soul's participation in divine, heavenly realities. During the late Middle Ages, Christianity largely abandoned its Platonic heritage. This shift, which Hans Boersma analyzes in "Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry" (2011), profoundly affected both Catholic and Protestant thought. As a result, many contemporary Christians find it difficult to understand how believers participate in Christ's victory.

Its not just the west-it was all of Christianity east and west that, from the beginning, including the ECFS, understood that participation in Christ's victory meant participation in victory over sin.

 

[fhansen]

I said that Christians are "called to be faithful citizens," i.e., they are called to faith. The path to salvation isn't about meticulously avoiding every misdeed, but about recognizing the underlying sin that gives rise to them. My article details how awareness of this inherent sin is crucial for true change. Augustine teaches that true change must begin within the human heart, not through external actions alone. Laws and social structures can only offer limited, superficial improvement.

Catholicism would maintain that the path to salvation is love-and the path to love begins with faith as faith ends in God who is love and the source of human love. Scrupulosity is not the means to anything good. And none of this is new teaching. Augustine, as a sidenote;
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Awareness of sin is certainly part of the equation; it points to our failure to love.

Christianity posits that human fallibility is inevitable, a concept supported by cognitive science and brain research. Our brains, complex as they are, are prone to errors. While we may perceive ourselves as possessing free will, our actions are predetermined at a subconscious level before reaching conscious awareness. We can, however, train our brains to make better choices through positive influences like upbringing, literature, and role models. Even with these efforts, occasional missteps are unavoidable. This inherent fallibility is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.

Alright, and yet none of that means we aren't culpbable for what we know and what we do with that knowledge, of course. Man is, simply speaking, a morally accountable being, limited, imperfect but accountable to the extent possible.

The psychologist Steven Pinker notes that modern cognitive science's view of human nature shares key insights with Judaeo-Christian thought. According to evolutionary psychology, our destructive tendencies persist because they once offered survival advantages. This aligns with Augustine's view that we are born with inherent tendencies towards evil. These tendencies cannot be eliminated through a single ritual like baptism. Rather, baptism marks the beginning of a lifelong process of spiritual transformation.

Yes, of course Augustine wouldn't have thought the tendencies had anything to do first off with evolution or even survival needs-but with a fall from a higher level of being. Baptism means nothing in and of itself. It's called the "sacrament of faith" and is the first, formal act of faith, modeled and prescribed by Jesus for the purpose of entering into God's family. Both the model of grace lived out by Him in word and deed and the grace we now receive allow us to begin to live likewise ourselves, as we acknowledge and are then grafted into the Vine

 

[Teofrastus]

Catholicism would maintain that the path to salvation is love-and the path to love begins with faith as faith ends in God who is love and the source of human love. Scrupulosity is not the means to anything good. And none of this is new teaching. Augustine, as a sidenote;
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Awareness of sin is certainly part of the equation; it points to our failure to love.

Alright, and yet none of that means we aren't culpbable for what we know and what we do with that knowledge, of course. Man is, simply speaking, a morally accountable being, limited, imperfect but accountable to the extent possible.

Yes, of course Augustine wouldn't have thought the tendencies had anything to do first off with evolution or even survival needs-but with a fall from a higher level of being. Baptism means nothing in and of itself. It's called the "sacrament of faith" and is the first, formal act of faith, modeled and prescribed by Jesus for the purpose of entering into God's family. Both the model of grace lived out by Him in word and deed and the grace we now receive allow us to begin to live likewise ourselves, as we acknowledge and are then grafted into the Vine

It is simple: if we do not know that we live in sin in a sinful world, we cannot seek forgiveness, and forgiveness is salvation. Our lack of awareness of sin not only fails to excuse us but actually makes us culpable. However, when we develop a consciousness of sin, we gain two benefits: we can seek God's forgiveness, and we can recognize and avoid spiritual dangers before they overwhelm us.

For the early Christians, love encompassed charity, brotherly affection, friendship, and family bonds. This love manifested in community unity, mutual support, and social responsibility. Augustine's statement that "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing" challenges the notion of solitary spiritual perfection—even the strongest faith practiced in isolation on a mountaintop remains insufficient. This understanding of love is straightforward: it directly counters the Pelagian belief in self-salvation. Sister Maria Faustina H. Kowalska's diary entry of May 12, 1935, describes a vision that reinforces this theme:

In the evening, I just about got into bed, and I fell asleep immediately. Though I fell asleep quickly, I was awakened even more quickly. A little child came and woke me up. The child seemed about a year old, and I was surprised it could speak so well, as children of that age either do not speak or speak very indistinctly. The child was beautiful beyond words and resembled the Child Jesus, and he said to me, "Look at the sky." And when I looked at the sky I saw the stars and the moon shining. Then the child asked me, "Do you see this moon and these stars?" When I said yes, he spoke these words to me: "These stars are the souls of faithful Christians, and the moon is the souls of religious. Do you see how great the difference is between the light of the moon and the light of the stars? Such is the difference in heaven between the soul of a religious and the soul of a faithful Christian." And he went on to say that "True greatness is in loving God and in humility." (Diary 424)​

Individual faithful Christians appear as scattered, dim lights in heaven, while those united in religious community shine more brightly together. This imagery of collective radiance connects to the moon, a traditional symbol of divine love. The word 'religion' stems from 'religare,' meaning 'to bind again,' suggesting the unity of believers. In Sister Faustina's vision, the Christ Child reveals a crucial truth: salvation concerns not merely individual souls, but the whole human community, which finds its perfect image in Christ. The religious community reflects Augustine's vision of the City of God, a concept distinct from (but related to) the institutional Church.

Yes, we fell from "a higher level of being"—a metaphysical truth reflected in biological reality through the principle of participation. Earthly reality remains perpetually connected to divine reality through this participatory relationship.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1263) states that baptism "erases" original sin. This means that sin is truly removed, not just covered up or forgiven while remaining present. The person is restored to original holiness, i.e., the soul is completely cleansed, returning to a state similar to Adam and Eve's before the Fall.

I'm quite surprised I missed that fact. Sinless infants. Who would have thought? And then we transition to all the notions of transitioning to the infamous (and free floating) age of accountability.

However, the effects or consequences of original sin (death, suffering, inclination to sin) remain and the person still needs to struggle against these weaknesses. To logical reasoning, this appears self-contradictory.

Quite self contradictory. I'm actually shocked that Catholics believe their system of infant baptism produces sinless humans. Seriously shocked. Yet none of their subsequent rituals are able to reproduce that state. Pity. Of course good old fashioned common sense would tell any person walking away from the altar after having received communion and is then instantaneously met with internal temptation thoughts that any such systems are utter nonsense.

The missing factor in all of these various discussions remains to be our infamous "tempter." When there is another party inserted into these conversations the outcomes are quite entirely, dramatically and rightfully different.

Jesus did bring us a very solid position of "disassociation" with our adversary, showing the entire matters of sin are not just and only about "me or you" as individuals. We do engage another alien entity altogether that is for some odd reason always missing from the conversations.

Paul tossed us a great conundrum when saying sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19, yet he simultaneously claimed to be the present tense chief of sinners, after salvation no less in 1 Tim. 1:15. And this conundrum position not only based on his previous sinful acts against the churches, but primarily his current state of his own flesh, isolated and detailed in the great chapter 7 of Romans and reiterated in 1 Cor. 15:42-56, applied universally to mankind.

We are all bound in this life, in this flesh, to disobedience, period, no matter our age. This comes with the standard package. Planted in weakness, corruption and dishonor in a natural body that is on its way to unavoidable termination.

Fortunately the exercise in these matters is to know the prevailing Divine Mercy of God in Christ.

And on we go...

 

[fhansen]

I'm quite surprised I missed that fact. Sinless infants. Who would have thought? And then we transition to all the notions of transitioning to the infamous (and free floating) age of accountability.

Quite self contradictory. I'm actually shocked that Catholics believe their system of infant baptism produces sinless humans. Seriously shocked. Yet none of their subsequent rituals are able to reproduce that state. Pity. Of course good old fashioned common sense would tell any person walking away from the altar after having received communion and is then instantaneously met with internal temptation thoughts that any such systems are utter nonsense.

The missing factor in all of these various discussions remains to be our infamous "tempter." When there is another party inserted into these conversations the outcomes are quite entirely, dramatically and rightfully different.

Jesus did bring us a very solid position of "disassociation" with our adversary, showing the entire matters of sin are not just and only about "me or you" as individuals. We do engage another alien entity altogether that is for some odd reason always missing from the conversations.

Paul tossed us a great conundrum when saying sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19, yet he simultaneously claimed to be the present tense chief of sinners, after salvation no less in 1 Tim. 1:15. And this conundrum position not only based on his previous sinful acts against the churches, but primarily his current state of his own flesh, isolated and detailed in the great chapter 7 of Romans and reiterated in 1 Cor. 15:42-56, applied universally to mankind.

We are all bound in this life, in this flesh, to disobedience, period, no matter our age. This comes with the standard package. Planted in weakness, corruption and dishonor in a natural body that is on its way to unavoidable termination.

Fortunately the exercise in these matters is to know the prevailing Divine Mercy of God in Christ.

And on we go...

That’s only a snippet of Catholic teaching. Rebirth means something, a change in us: new hearts and new spirits, whether we believe that occurs at baptism, the “sacrament of faith”, or by faith apart from baptism. But that isn’t the end in any case, but the beginning of a new life. Faith and baptismal vows must be lived out. So the teaching continues:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

This all culminates in the following teaching:
“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.”

God didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Duh, I guess these people aren’t ever going to become who I created them to be, so I’ll give up on that one now. I’ll just forgive them and let satan win the day with sin, or maybe I’ll change them into puppets who can’t sin anymore.

Instead, He said, “These people are finally ready to begin to respond to and accept the light that I’ll show them now and, as they do, as they turn back to Me and become my children, I’ll help them live as children of light, as children of mine, should. I’ll put my law in their minds and write in on their hearts. But by My wisdom I still won’t force that righteousness, my love, upon them. Love, as a gift, is also necessarily a choice.”

The gospel is not about giving up and resigning ourselves to sinfulness, as if Jesus died so we could remain in that sin, as we were, as long as we believe, but it’s about man finally coming back to the God he rejected in Eden and entering into a relationship or union with Him initiated by faith- reversing Adam’s choice which amounted to faithlessness -and bound by love. That is the essence of man’s justice/righteousness, a “partnership” that he was created for and is lost, dead, without. With God now, man overcomes the sin that otherwise earns him death; he can begin to love with the love that, alone, produces the obedience that overcomes sin. And, as John tells us in his letters, we’ll know them by that love-and, in his gospel, we'll know them by the good fruit that results as we truly remain in Him, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’.

 

[fhansen]

It is simple: if we do not know that we live in sin in a sinful world, we cannot seek forgiveness, and forgiveness is salvation. Our lack of awareness of sin not only fails to excuse us but actually makes us culpable. However, when we develop a consciousness of sin, we gain two benefits: we can seek God's forgiveness, and we can recognize and avoid spiritual dangers before they overwhelm us.

For the early Christians, love encompassed charity, brotherly affection, friendship, and family bonds. This love manifested in community unity, mutual support, and social responsibility. Augustine's statement that "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing" challenges the notion of solitary spiritual perfection—even the strongest faith practiced in isolation on a mountaintop remains insufficient. This understanding of love is straightforward: it directly counters the Pelagian belief in self-salvation. Sister Maria Faustina H. Kowalska's diary entry of May 12, 1935, describes a vision that reinforces this theme:

In the evening, I just about got into bed, and I fell asleep immediately. Though I fell asleep quickly, I was awakened even more quickly. A little child came and woke me up. The child seemed about a year old, and I was surprised it could speak so well, as children of that age either do not speak or speak very indistinctly. The child was beautiful beyond words and resembled the Child Jesus, and he said to me, "Look at the sky." And when I looked at the sky I saw the stars and the moon shining. Then the child asked me, "Do you see this moon and these stars?" When I said yes, he spoke these words to me: "These stars are the souls of faithful Christians, and the moon is the souls of religious. Do you see how great the difference is between the light of the moon and the light of the stars? Such is the difference in heaven between the soul of a religious and the soul of a faithful Christian." And he went on to say that "True greatness is in loving God and in humility." (Diary 424)​

Individual faithful Christians appear as scattered, dim lights in heaven, while those united in religious community shine more brightly together. This imagery of collective radiance connects to the moon, a traditional symbol of divine love. The word 'religion' stems from 'religare,' meaning 'to bind again,' suggesting the unity of believers. In Sister Faustina's vision, the Christ Child reveals a crucial truth: salvation concerns not merely individual souls, but the whole human community, which finds its perfect image in Christ. The religious community reflects Augustine's vision of the City of God, a concept distinct from (but related to) the institutional Church.

Yes, we fell from "a higher level of being"—a metaphysical truth reflected in biological reality through the principle of participation. Earthly reality remains perpetually connected to divine reality through this participatory relationship.

Hey! How are we going to maintain a reasonably oppositional conversation if you come up with stuff like this? "True greatness is in loving God and in humility." A man after my own heart!

 

[Teofrastus]

I'm quite surprised I missed that fact. Sinless infants. Who would have thought? And then we transition to all the notions of transitioning to the infamous (and free floating) age of accountability.

Quite self contradictory. I'm actually shocked that Catholics believe their system of infant baptism produces sinless humans. Seriously shocked. Yet none of their subsequent rituals are able to reproduce that state. Pity. Of course good old fashioned common sense would tell any person walking away from the altar after having received communion and is then instantaneously met with internal temptation thoughts that any such systems are utter nonsense.

The missing factor in all of these various discussions remains to be our infamous "tempter." When there is another party inserted into these conversations the outcomes are quite entirely, dramatically and rightfully different.

Jesus did bring us a very solid position of "disassociation" with our adversary, showing the entire matters of sin are not just and only about "me or you" as individuals. We do engage another alien entity altogether that is for some odd reason always missing from the conversations.

Paul tossed us a great conundrum when saying sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19, yet he simultaneously claimed to be the present tense chief of sinners, after salvation no less in 1 Tim. 1:15. And this conundrum position not only based on his previous sinful acts against the churches, but primarily his current state of his own flesh, isolated and detailed in the great chapter 7 of Romans and reiterated in 1 Cor. 15:42-56, applied universally to mankind.

We are all bound in this life, in this flesh, to disobedience, period, no matter our age. This comes with the standard package. Planted in weakness, corruption and dishonor in a natural body that is on its way to unavoidable termination.

Fortunately the exercise in these matters is to know the prevailing Divine Mercy of God in Christ.

And on we go...

Catholic theology regarding the Eucharist presents many more theological challenges. As Catholic theologian Lawrence Feingold notes in "The Eucharist" (2018), Christ cannot be bodily present in all Eucharistic celebrations simultaneously, since He "would have to pass through all the intervening places to get there, which would require some time" (p. 312). Feingold actually frames Christ's Eucharistic presence using conventional spatial and temporal concepts, despite this being a supernatural theological claim.

This necessitated the doctrine of transubstantiation, where bread is transformed into his flesh and blood—specifically the flesh and blood of his crucified body, not his resurrected one. While the bread's 'accidents' (its observable properties like taste and appearance) remain unchanged, its "neutral substance" supposedly transforms. However, this concept relies on pseudo-Aristotelian science, as modern understanding shows bread maintains its molecular identity throughout.

The consecrated host is stored in the tabernacle, which Catholics believe contains Christ's real presence. Catholics direct their prayers towards the tabernacle, a practice that resembles idol worship. The Catholic understanding of each Mass as making Christ's sacrifice present appears to contrast with the notion of a singular, definitive sacrifice on Calvary.

The materialistic emphasis in Catholic Eucharistic theology differs markedly from the more symbolic or spiritual approaches found in other religious traditions, bearing some similarities to ancient pagan ritual practices. The Catholic approach to the Eucharist reflects an univocal metaphysics inherited from late medieval nominalism, where divine being is conceived on the same level as created being, rather than maintaining a clear ontological distinction between God and world.

 

[fhansen]

Catholic theology regarding the Eucharist presents many more theological challenges. As Catholic theologian Lawrence Feingold notes in "The Eucharist" (2018), Christ cannot be bodily present in all Eucharistic celebrations simultaneously, since He "would have to pass through all the intervening places to get there, which would require some time" (p. 312). Feingold actually frames Christ's Eucharistic presence using conventional spatial and temporal concepts, despite this being a supernatural theological claim.

This necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation, where bread is transformed into his flesh and blood—specifically the flesh and blood of his crucified body, not his resurrected one. While the bread's 'accidents' (its observable properties like taste and appearance) remain unchanged, its "neutral substance" supposedly transforms. However, this concept relies on pseudo-Aristotelian science, as modern understanding shows bread maintains its molecular identity throughout.

The consecrated host is stored in the tabernacle, which Catholics believe contains Christ's real presence. Catholics direct their prayers towards the tabernacle, a practice that resembles idol worship. The Catholic understanding of each Mass as making Christ's sacrifice present appears to contrast with the notion of a singular, definitive sacrifice on Calvary.

The materialistic emphasis in Catholic Eucharistic theology differs markedly from the more symbolic or spiritual approaches found in other religious traditions, bearing some similarities to ancient pagan ritual practices. The Catholic approach to the Eucharist reflects an univocal metaphysics inherited from late medieval nominalism, where divine being is conceived on the same level as created being, rather than maintaining a clear ontological distinction between God and world.

Transubstantiation is simply an attempt to describe and explain what all the ancient churches believed, that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, 'discerning His body and blood', IOW (1 Cor 11:29). I think Luther effectively believed the same, without all the formal explanation on the matter, or with an alternative one in any case.

 

[Teofrastus]

Transubstantiation is simply an attempt to describe and explain what all the ancient churches believed, that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, 'discerning His body and blood', IOW (1 Cor 11:29). I think Luther effectively believed the same, without all the formal explanation on the matter, or with an alternative one in any case.

But interpreting the Eucharistic presence metaphysically would render it symbolic—a position the Catholic Church explicitly rejects. As Feingold notes, "bread and wine are converted into a substance that already exists: Christ's Body and Blood, which are not generated or changed by this conversion" (p. 313). This formulation insists on a literal rather than symbolic transformation.

The Church Fathers understood the Eucharist through the concept of participation, whereby the bread and wine share in the divine body of Christ. This participatory model differs significantly from both the Protestant and the Catholic view.

 

[fhansen]

But interpreting the Eucharistic presence metaphysically would render it symbolic—a position the Catholic Church explicitly rejects. As Feingold notes, "bread and wine are converted into a substance that already exists: Christ's Body and Blood, which are not generated or changed by this conversion" (p. 313). This formulation insists on a literal rather than symbolic transformation.

The Church Fathers understood the Eucharist through the concept of participation, whereby the bread and wine share in the divine body of Christ. This participatory model differs significantly from both the Protestant and the Catholic view.

But I don't think Luther thought Christ's presence was symbolic-and that's the relevant issue.

 

[Teofrastus]

But I don't think Luther thought Christ's presence was symbolic-and that's the relevant issue.

Luther's formula of "in, with, and under" serves as his alternative to both symbolic interpretations and transubstantiation. But what positive ontological claims does it make? The formula functions more as a theological placeholder than a philosophical solution. Thus, Luther deliberately privileges faith over philosophical explanation, contrasting sharply with Aquinas's conception of faith as an active intellectual virtue.

Despite Luther's undeniable intellectual brilliance, his wholesale dismissal of the via antiqua, Aristotelian philosophy, and Thomistic thought has fundamentally constrained contemporary Lutheran theology, particularly in its engagement with ontological questions.

 

[fhansen]

Luther's formula of "in, with, and under" serves as his alternative to both symbolic interpretations and transubstantiation. But what positive ontological claims does it make? The formula functions more as a theological placeholder than a philosophical solution. Thus, Luther deliberately privileges faith over philosophical explanation, contrasting sharply with Aquinas's conception of faith as an active intellectual virtue.

Despite Luther's undeniable intellectual brilliance, his wholesale dismissal of the via antiqua, Aristotelian philosophy, and Thomistic thought has fundamentally constrained contemporary Lutheran theology, particularly in its engagement with ontological questions.

And possibly made the Real Presence less real, iffier, in the process.

 

[Teofrastus]

And possibly made the Real Presence less real, iffier, in the process.

Yes, at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, Luther famously wrote "Hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body") in chalk on the table and repeatedly pointed to these words during his debate with Zwingli. Lutheranism's doctrine of the real presence rests fundamentally on these biblical words ("This is my body"). The doctrine depends entirely on faith in Christ's direct statement, rather than philosophical explanations. This represents a consequence of Luther's rejection of scholastic philosophy—leaving faith with little rational framework but clinging to the bare words of Scripture. This decision represents one of history's most significant examples of discarding valuable elements while attempting to eliminate perceived problems (also known as throwing the child out with the bath water).

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

God didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Duh, I guess these people aren’t ever going to become who I created them to be, so I’ll give up on that one now. I’ll just forgive them and let satan win the day with sin, or maybe I’ll change them into puppets who can’t sin anymore.

Anyone who convinces themselves they are sinless are merely deceived by the tempter. Plain and simple.

The sinless seat had only a One Person Reservation. None of the balance of us have that very important distinction. Zero, zilch, nada one.

The gospel is not about giving up and resigning ourselves to sinfulness

We are definitely presented with a conundrum in this matter. I think Paul resolved it sufficiently by stating here, that sins are not counted against people. So that really should end the discussion. It's not based on how anyone acts. Sins are simply not counted against people, period:

2 Cor. 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Personally I don't think I could love any person if I had to "count sins" against them. That seems extremely contradictory and hypocritical.

The conundrum is totally resolved when we bring the tempter, our adversary, the devil into the picture. NOW we have another party in view that is not the people.

Are sins counted against the devil and his messengers? Absolutely. And no amounts of rituals, claims, exercises in restraint, nothing will change that determination.

All have sin, Romans 3:9. And sins are "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15 and many others

This settles both sides of the equations. We really can both love and hate the same person, understanding it's not just them standing there.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

I understand why religious people who try to cover the entirety of themselves with false justifications have a hard time understanding this present arrangement, but then again it's not just them involved.

We might keep in mind that Jesus really did say if we did not HATE our own life, we can not be His disciple. Luke 14:26. I don't buy the "God always and only loves me" snake oil. It's actually much more complicated than just that, when we are "internally engaged" in our own respective wrestling matches with an unseen adversary.

Most people are simply clueless

 

[Valletta]

Catholic theology regarding the Eucharist presents many more theological challenges. As Catholic theologian Lawrence Feingold notes in "The Eucharist" (2018), Christ cannot be bodily present in all Eucharistic celebrations simultaneously, since He "would have to pass through all the intervening places to get there, which would require some time" (p. 312). Feingold actually frames Christ's Eucharistic presence using conventional spatial and temporal concepts, despite this being a supernatural theological claim.

This necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation . . .

That quotation by Feingold was referring to a Lutheran understanding which Feingold does not believe. Thus it "necessitates" nothing. In fact the Catholic understanding of the Holy Eucharist was passed down from the Apostles over all of those centuries. During the reformation the three leaders all came up with their own different ideas about the Holy Eucharist, and from there many have gone much further away from the Catholic understanding.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Catholics direct their prayers towards the tabernacle, a practice that resembles idol worship. The Catholic understanding of each Mass as making Christ's sacrifice present appears to contrast with the notion of a singular, definitive sacrifice on Calvary.

The materialistic emphasis in Catholic Eucharistic theology differs markedly from the more symbolic or spiritual approaches found in other religious traditions, bearing some similarities to ancient pagan ritual practices.

Catholics believe in the Real Presence, Protestants do not. Can you restrain yourself and discuss theological differences without the old tactic of name-calling, such as associating Catholics with "idol worship" and "ancient pagan practices?"

 

[Teofrastus]

That quotation by Feingold was referring to a Lutheran understanding which Feingold does not believe. Thus it "necessitates" nothing. In fact the Catholic understanding of the Holy Eucharist was passed down from the Apostles over all of those centuries. During the reformation the three leaders all came up with their own different ideas about the Holy Eucharist, and from there many have gone much further away from the Catholic understanding.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Catholics believe in the Real Presence, Protestants do not. Can you restrain yourself and discuss theological differences without the old tactic of name-calling, such as associating Catholics with "idol worship" and "ancient pagan practices?"

No, this passage explains why Jesus cannot physically "enter" the bread—which the author incorrectly assumes is the Lutheran position. The author attempts to refute the Lutheran view by appealing to spatial and temporal limitations:

It is clear that Christ does not begin to be present in the Eucharist through local motion, and this is for several reasons. First, if that were true, His Body would cease to be present in heaven, which is false. Second, His Body would have to pass through all the intervening places to get there, which would require some time. However, after the consecration of the Eucharist, we do not have to wait for Christ's Body to arrive from heaven. Third, His Body could become present only in one place at a time, and thus He could not be present simultaneously in all the consecrated hosts throughout the world. The reason for this is that it seems contradictory for one and the same body to be in several entirely distinct places at the same time while still remaining one undivided body. (p. 312)​

The Church Fathers held a participatory understanding of the Eucharist—that is, they believed the elements participate in the transcendent reality of Christ's body, and through this participation acquire their sacramental being in the material realm. Christ's body belongs to a higher, more perfect reality that transcends earthly existence, including its manifestation in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, within the material realm, the Eucharistic presence is as real as anything can be.

Modern Catholic Eucharistic theology has significantly departed from traditional teaching. It now treats being univocally—that is, it assumes Christ's heavenly body exists in the same mode as earthly things. This shift is evident in Feingold's reasoning, which relies on purely physical and spatial categories to analyze the Real Presence.

What theological justification distinguishes the adoration of the reserved sacrament from idolatry?

 

[fhansen]

Anyone who convinces themselves they are sinless are merely deceived by the tempter. Plain and simple.

The sinless seat had only a One Person Reservation. None of the balance of us have that very important distinction. Zero, zilch, nada one.

Agreed

We are definitely presented with a conundrum in this matter. I think Paul resolved it sufficiently by stating here, that sins are not counted against people.

Paul resolved it here:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

But there's still a bit of a conundrum. If righteousness is required, and other passages suggest this even more strongly, does that mean that perfect sinlessness is required, at least in this life? And the answer, as we agreed, is no, even as it should also be understood that man was never created to sin to begin with, as a sidenote. But we're here to learn for ourselves, to directly experience, something of the nature of good and evil- and this world is a perfect teacher for this as it contains gobs of both-and to decide between the two. We need to begin to learn that our Creator was right after all, IOW. And the answer isn't to remain in our sins, or to bask in forgiveness only, thinking that perfection is impossible, but to hop on board of a journey towards perfection with God as our captain now and begin to grow in the righteousness that only comes by virtue of that connection. That's the the true purpose of the gift of faith, to be or to provide that vital link between the branch and the Vine. The gospel is not an excuse to feel alright if we sin, but is the authentic means to overcome that sin, with a righteousness apart from the law (Rom 3:21).

And the church dealt with this matter, from the opposite perspective, centuries ago, some 17-18 centuries ago, in fact. A brief history from another post:

"The early Christians had given up much in order to convert to the faith, including their lives at times. Becoming Christian was to turn from, to deny, the world and its ways and its sin- and turn to God. To return to sin in a major way: murder, theft, adultery, etc was to turn one’s back on and away from God and His church. As they were quite the rigorists in this observance of the faith, it was considered to be impossible for such a person to return to fellowship again. And passages such as the one quoted from Heb 10:26-31 or Heb 6:4-7 or 2 Pet 2:20-22 or 1 John 5:16-17, etc, only supported such notions which was the standard attitude throughout the various churches throughout the whole church world. But in the 2nd century a bishop, amid much heated controversy, determined and taught, based on a deeper understanding of God’s mercy and love, that one could repent for any sin and return to the fold even if much penance and time was required back then. This teaching would eventually become adopted by the whole church."