<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Merit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/merit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/merit/</link>
	<description>Peering into the mystery of truth</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:41:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/merit/#comment-85</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-85</guid>
		<description>I am no expert on historical theology, but as I understand it, Luther was addressing real errors as he saw them, but as Alister McGrath states in his book on Justification [Iustia Dei], Luther&#039;s idea on justification was &quot;novel.&quot;  The Council of Trent responded to the errors of the Reformers as they saw them as well as clarifying and correcting some of their own &quot;localized&quot; errors [not magesterial errors].  Anyway, I think there were several theories of merit that emerged in the Scholastic period and the language of Trent reflected that in that it chose language that was inclusive of more than one view.  As I said, I am more than open to correction on this, as I am not clear on all of the details.  All in all, I don&#039;t think it is quite as easy a matter as popular protestantism or catholicism pictures it as &quot;faith alone&quot; or &quot;faith and works&quot;.  I would recommend the joint statement by Lutherans and Roman Catholics on Justification, I am sure you can find it somewhere online.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am no expert on historical theology, but as I understand it, Luther was addressing real errors as he saw them, but as Alister McGrath states in his book on Justification [Iustia Dei], Luther&#8217;s idea on justification was &#8220;novel.&#8221;  The Council of Trent responded to the errors of the Reformers as they saw them as well as clarifying and correcting some of their own &#8220;localized&#8221; errors [not magesterial errors].  Anyway, I think there were several theories of merit that emerged in the Scholastic period and the language of Trent reflected that in that it chose language that was inclusive of more than one view.  As I said, I am more than open to correction on this, as I am not clear on all of the details.  All in all, I don&#8217;t think it is quite as easy a matter as popular protestantism or catholicism pictures it as &#8220;faith alone&#8221; or &#8220;faith and works&#8221;.  I would recommend the joint statement by Lutherans and Roman Catholics on Justification, I am sure you can find it somewhere online.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/merit/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-84</guid>
		<description>Excellent. So has the Roman Church changed since Luther&#039;s day ? Or did Luther misunderstand the Roman view of justification?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent. So has the Roman Church changed since Luther&#8217;s day ? Or did Luther misunderstand the Roman view of justification?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
