I know who he is....but I've only read a couple of things by him, as opposed to Luther (I've read most of his (non-antisemitic) stuff).
Matt Smith Interview
- Thread starter Verbum Lux
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For not only Catholicism, but much of Protestantism, Martin Luther and John Calvin included, this is a false dichotomy and does not fairly present what we are really saying.
Well I think you are missing my point; Matt never said, "All you Catholics believe such and such a thing and you are wrong." He said, "Such and such a doctrine is false." If you do not think he is accurately representing your beliefs, good for you! That means your doctrines are not the ones he is objecting to.
From Luther's Small Catechism:False.
You are seriously claiming that Luther could ever say that the sacraments are not the very means by which the object of faith is received? And you say you've read Luther? That is a groundless and indefensible statement.What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Nobody suggested otherwise.But, disregarding reformers, you should really take a look at what Jesus, Peter, and Paul have to say.
"...nobody gets to the Father except through Me"
--Jesus.
Fair enough, but I'd challenge somebody to show me what church (medieval or modern) actually believes what he is attacking. It is a common Protestant straw man with little to no historical basis.Well I think you are missing my point; Matt never said, "All you Catholics believe such and such a thing and you are wrong." He said, "Such and such a doctrine is false." If you do not think he is accurately representing your beliefs, good for you! That means your doctrines are not the ones he is objecting to.
This is precisely what I meant when I said that I did not wish to start a theological debate. Whenever anyone says something like this today they are treated like an ignorant, "unsaved," unenlightened medievalist. I am not ignorant. I have pursued theology in my education for a reason: These things matter to me. I became Anglican FROM Southern Baptist after beginning my education for certain reasons. All that I ask is that I'm not treated like an ignoramus.
Well I would assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not think the pope has a right to sell the salvation of God's Messiah. I think it's utter blasphemy to approve of the practice, and it happened because of corruption in the Roman Catholic church. That's just an example; all kinds of different churches are corrupt in different ways. They are not all completely corrupt, but I would doubt if there is any church that doesn't at least have a thing or two wrong. Our allegiance is not to some organization, but to God's kingdom.
Agreed, and like I said I have no real problem with Nailed, my words were more aimed at Absolution Day and Flesh's response to my statements.Well I would assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not think the pope has a right to sell the salvation of God's Messiah. I think it's utter blasphemy to approve of the practice, and it happened because of corruption in the Roman Catholic church. That's just an example; all kinds of different churches are corrupt in different ways. They are not all completely corrupt, but I would doubt if there is any church that doesn't at least have a thing or two wrong. Our allegiance is not to some organization, but to God's kingdom.
Well as to Absolution Day, I think you'll find quite a few people, in and outside of the Roman Catholic/Anglican Chruches, who don't really understand the gospel and believe that going to church will save them. I think that's the main group targeted by Matt's lyrics. You are right, I doubt if many (or even any) Christian Churches would say that their official position was a works salvation; nonetheless, it is a widespread belief among many who call themselves Christians.
I can agree with that. The only thing that I really had a problem with in Absolution Day was the bridge, where it was implied that it was either baptism or Christ, which is where sacramental churches see the false dichotomy: Not "baptism or Christ," but "Christ received through faith by means of baptism." Faith is still necessary but baptism cannot be left cut out of it for us.Well as to Absolution Day, I think you'll find quite a few people, in and outside of the Roman Catholic/Anglican Chruches, who don't really understand the gospel and believe that going to church will save them. I think that's the main group targeted by Matt's lyrics. You are right, I doubt if many (or even any) Christian Churches would say that their official position was a works salvation; nonetheless, it is a widespread belief among many who call themselves Christians.
I really didn't want to derail this thread, my ultimate point was that people wouldn't be led to get angry over it if they didn't identify with the music so strongly. It is a testament to Theocracy's witness to the one true God, in my view.
FleshAndBloodTheocracy
Living Apple
From Luther's Small Catechism:
From the same set of Questions/Answers, from the very same Catechism, on the very same subject:
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism.
He understood that the work itself was useless without Faith first. Not to say that he got everything right, just that he was (for the most part) strictly a "justified by faith" kind of man.
From "On Christian Liberty"
Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works
Everything he teaches and writes says that faith must come before works. He absolutely believes we should still do the works, but only once God is in us can they be good.
I really didn't want to derail this thread
Hey, I think a good theological debate from time to time is a good thing, so long as it is done in a mature way.
FleshAndBloodTheocracy
Living Apple
Hey, I think a good theological debate from time to time is a good thing, so long as it is done in a mature way.
This.
I had a lengthy response for Flesh's last post ready, but right then my internet decided to cut off, and that was already going to be my last post on this matter, so I'll summarize:
First, for Luther baptism is not a work, it is a sacrament. Most anyone who uses the term "sacrament" for baptism or the Eucharist does not see them as works. They are gifts from God, means of grace that we receive, not perform. This difference in understanding is probably the major gulf between sacramental Protestants and non-sacramental Protestants. Non-sacramentalists come from the view that baptism and the Eucharist are by definition acts of obedience (ordinances), thus works. That is not our understanding: We see them as means of grace (sacraments), thus not works.
For Luther, the word of God is what makes water baptism, and faith is necessary in order to receive that promise, but baptism (passing under water infused with God's word) is still the God-given means by which one receives the promise by faith in Luther's theology. He was, in fact, the strongest Reformation proponent of the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration (with some qualifications). Nobody in historical studies does or could argue otherwise. The arguments, rather, are around whether his doctrine of baptismal regeration contradicts his doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Well, that was a bit more than a summary, wasn't it? All that to say that the bridge of Absolution day, where it is either "baptism or Christ," is the common (usually Baptist) criticism of a position that doesn't exist except maybe in the pews, for some particular parishes. For sacramentalists, it is "Christ received in baptism by faith." It is this that might irk some.
Finally, to close, I am very tired of theological debate because of my schooling. Every day I am forced to debate nonbelievers in supposedly Christian classrooms (training for ministry, no less!), and it gets very tiring to quibble with fellow believers over issues like this. Thus, this will be my last post on this topic, because I would much rather enjoy fellowship with you all on the basis of things that we share in common, such as the richness of even the "mere" historical and biblical Christian faith that we find so eloquently expressed by Theocracy.
First, for Luther baptism is not a work, it is a sacrament. Most anyone who uses the term "sacrament" for baptism or the Eucharist does not see them as works. They are gifts from God, means of grace that we receive, not perform. This difference in understanding is probably the major gulf between sacramental Protestants and non-sacramental Protestants. Non-sacramentalists come from the view that baptism and the Eucharist are by definition acts of obedience (ordinances), thus works. That is not our understanding: We see them as means of grace (sacraments), thus not works.
For Luther, the word of God is what makes water baptism, and faith is necessary in order to receive that promise, but baptism (passing under water infused with God's word) is still the God-given means by which one receives the promise by faith in Luther's theology. He was, in fact, the strongest Reformation proponent of the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration (with some qualifications). Nobody in historical studies does or could argue otherwise. The arguments, rather, are around whether his doctrine of baptismal regeration contradicts his doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Well, that was a bit more than a summary, wasn't it? All that to say that the bridge of Absolution day, where it is either "baptism or Christ," is the common (usually Baptist) criticism of a position that doesn't exist except maybe in the pews, for some particular parishes. For sacramentalists, it is "Christ received in baptism by faith." It is this that might irk some.
Finally, to close, I am very tired of theological debate because of my schooling. Every day I am forced to debate nonbelievers in supposedly Christian classrooms (training for ministry, no less!), and it gets very tiring to quibble with fellow believers over issues like this. Thus, this will be my last post on this topic, because I would much rather enjoy fellowship with you all on the basis of things that we share in common, such as the richness of even the "mere" historical and biblical Christian faith that we find so eloquently expressed by Theocracy.
Hmm...well, I don't know why anyone would have himself baptized unless he already had faith...and there's also the classic example of the thief on the cross, who didn't receive faith through baptism, but was saved nonetheless. But maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean by "Christ received in baptism by faith."
Soldier777
Member
Great interview. I have the first Theocracy CD but the news of Matt redoing the album is good news. I read about this a few months ago. I heard a few tunes off of ATWB and it sounds like a great CD. Nailed and I Am are great songs. I seems like Nailed tales the concept of Absolution Day and adds a historical dimension to it with the being saved by grace based on Christ's death and resurrection and not by works. you can have a sermon or a witnessing session on those 2 songs.
Soldier777
Member
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K
A
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 1K
X
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 12K
R