A constructive dialogue between Protestants and Catholics

[JonNC]

I’m not certain this isn’t derailing this thread but since the issue of purgatory is on the table: my problem with the concept is that purgation is impossible. Once one has sinned, one is evermore a sinner. Sin can be covered over but it cannot be removed, in this life nor in the next. One’s sinfulness can be covered, as by Christ’s righteousness, but one never ceases to be a sinner. Those in Heaven are both Sinners and Saved, sinful and yet sanctified, not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ.

For a Lutheran, that is certainly the view, at least in this world.
Jon

 

[Jon_S]

Hi Jon,
I will have to read some of Scott Hahn. That sounds like a compelling description. I wonder if you could post some of the scripture references he uses for this, or if any of his work in this area is online.

Thanks, Jon. It’s good to hear from you.

It’s good to see you’re still posting here. I hope you’re doing well.

This is the only link I could find on-line of Scott Hahn speaking on purgatory:

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pg.html

If you don’t mind, I’ll add my two cents; I’ve always understood purgatory to be about the final detachment from earthly things that are incompatible with what God has prepared for the faithful in heaven. The Biblical references, often times, speak of there being some level of suffering or pain involved, but this pain is probably not a physical one. It’s probably more like the pain you feel in your heart when something you love passes away, only in this case, we’re talking about an attachment to sin.

To my Catholic friends here, please correct me if I’m wrong on this. I don’t want to contribute to the dissemination of bad information. Lord knows we have enough of that going on already.

Anyway, Jon, I hope you find that link compelling.

 

[Jon_S]

I’m not certain this isn’t derailing this thread but since the issue of purgatory is on the table: my problem with the concept is that purgation is impossible. Once one has sinned, one is evermore a sinner. Sin can be covered over but it cannot be removed, in this life nor in the next. One’s sinfulness can be covered, as by Christ’s righteousness, but one never ceases to be a sinner. Those in Heaven are both Sinners and Saved, sinful and yet sanctified, not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ.

I’m not really sure I understand this POV. Scripture clearly indicates that nothing unclean can enter heaven.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

I’m not certain this isn’t derailing this thread but since the issue of purgatory is on the table: my problem with the concept is that purgation is impossible. Once one has sinned, one is evermore a sinner. Sin can be covered over but it cannot be removed, in this life nor in the next. One’s sinfulness can be covered, as by Christ’s righteousness, but one never ceases to be a sinner. Those in Heaven are both Sinners and Saved, sinful and yet sanctified, not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ.

Hi Flame,

For Catholics sin is more pervasive than just something we “are”. Sin affects our souls. The way I like to explain it is like this, when we sin we place a “cut” in our souls. God’s forgiveness heals this cut, but although healed, there is a “scar” were there was noting before we committed the sin. Purgation is the time/process for these scars to disappear, we are still sinners but our souls are as pure and pristine as the day of our baptisms.
Purgatory does not “takes away” from Jesus sacrifice in the cross, it just prepares us to receive our eternal reward in the best way possible, which is the way God intended us to be in the first place.

In His love

Catholic Deacon

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;3724485:

Baptism is a sacrament of inititation. It is being born from above, being born again. Baptism **imputes **

grace.

QUOTE]

Hi Grandfather,
I was wondering, do Catholics see a difference between imputed and infused? We almost got off on that, and I don’t want it to distract from the thread, but just wondering, since you used imputed, and SK used infusion.

Jon

There is a difference between imputed and infused. I am not sure if I am correct about this though. Righteousness comes from being transformed by grace. Righteousness is not imputed. The grace of God makes a person righteous by transformation. Luther’s idea was that Jesus blood covers our sins and hides our corruption. He used his famous analogy of a lump of dung covered by pure white snow. The snow makes the dung beautiful. Another term that is controversial is merit. Grace is given to us initially without us doing anything meritorious. We can not earn it. But scripture says God will reward those who do good. Is there a contradiction? Jesus says without me you can do nothing. But once grace is present in our lives we can do things to please God, by His grace, and merit condignly and congruently. So it seems that grace can be imputed, but righteousness is not. It has been a long time since I thought about this, or studied, so this could be mistaken.

 

[dcdurel]

SALVATION :
The Catechism never really defines salvation. The glossary in the end is not part of the Catechism, it is not official. But Pope Paul VI does give an official definition of salvation in his encyclical EVANGELII NUNTIANDI. He says salvation is:
“this great gift of God which is liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.”
This definition is repeated in the official Church document, the “General Directory for Catechesis”.
And Pope John Paul II uses a shorter form of that definition, “liberation from the slavery of sin” over and over.

This is the primary meaning of salvation. Most Christians have been taught that salvation means primarily final salvation, or going to heaven. This is incorrect. The primary meaning of salvation is the one given above. This can lead to final salvation if persevere. But the Church teaching of salvation and the teaching of the bible is primarily one of
“liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.”

Notice how scripture is a witness to this definition, where Jesus says:
                              “He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,”** Luke 4:14, 17-21). **

Jesus considers us “slaves to sin.” Thus He came to give us liberty.
Jesus considers us to be captives to sin.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. " Matthew 20: 28

To ransom means to free a slave, prisoner, or a captive for a price. By His suffering and death out of love, Jesus earned the grace that frees us from being a slave to sin, from being a prisoner to sin, from being a captive to sin, from being blinded by sin, from being oppressed by sin.

We first receive this grace at baptism. This grace takes away some of our inclination to sin (concupiscence) thus freeing us to some extent from our slavery to sin. We receive more of this grace through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the greatest source of this grace.
That is why the Church teaches the Mass continues the work of salvation. That is, at the Mass we receive more of the grace that Jesus merited by His death and resurrection, which frees us more from the inclination to sin, from slavery to sin, from being a prisoner to sin.

Private prayer, such as Eucharistic adoration, the Rosary, fasting, etc. makes more of this grace available.
That is why the saints prayed 5 hours a day. They did not have the strength on their own to overcome their inclination to sin. They found it necessary through the sacraments and prayer, fasting etc, to obtain the grace to free them from their sinful ways.

I saw somewhere where the Knights of Columbus commissioned a study. Catholics overall had a divorce rate similar to the rest of the population. But Catholics in which both spouses went to Sunday mass had a divorce rate of 2%.
Those same Catholics who also prayed at home had a divorce rate of .002% . And those who did not practice contraception never divorced.

I saw a similar Protestant study. Overall they had a divorce rate worse than atheists. But, if both couples went to Church at least twice a month, their divorce rate went down to 7%
Since they usually have valid baptisms, they have some of the grace available to free them from the slavery of sin.

Russell Ford, the prisoner reports that of the 100 prisoners he converted to Catholicism and were released, only 1 went back to prison. Usually the recidivism rate is 66% not 1%.

All this is expected. Because the primary reason Jesus became man was to free us from the slavery of sin.

If Catholics knew the purpose of the Mass and the sacraments they would attend more often and their divorce rate would go down, and all their other addictions to sin would be attenuated.

 

[grandfather]

SALVATION :
The Catechism never really defines salvation. The glossary in the end is not part of the Catechism, it is not official. But Pope Paul VI does give an official definition of salvation in his encyclical EVANGELII NUNTIANDI. He says salvation is:
“this great gift of God which is liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.”
This definition is repeated in the official Church document, the “General Directory for Catechesis”.
And Pope John Paul II uses a shorter form of that definition, “liberation from the slavery of sin” over and over.

This is the primary meaning of salvation. Most Christians have been taught that salvation means primarily final salvation, or going to heaven. This is incorrect. The primary meaning of salvation is the one given above. This can lead to final salvation if persevere. But the Church teaching of salvation and the teaching of the bible is primarily one of
“liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by Him, of seeing Him, and of being given over to Him.”…
down, and all their other addictions to sin would be attenuated.

When we try to define a thing by what it is not, it is no defintion.
It does not tell us what it is, but what it is not. So if salvation is liberation from sin, that does not tell me what it is, but what it is not.

We say a person is blind, because he lacks sight. We do not say a person sees, because he lacks blindness.

 

[SilentKnight]

My perception of Catholic teaching, yes he did pay the price for our sins, but those sins still carry a temporal price or punishment, which must be paid either here on earth (penance, good works, Eucharist,etc), or, if not done so here during one’s life, after death in Purgatory. Either way, one must be purified to be in the presence of God Almighty.
How am I doing?
Jon

Very well!

But, as Abraham would say, “Let not my lord grow impatient with me if I press further…”

To play…ehhh… “Protestant Devil’s Advocate” for a moment (pardon the loaded term - lol): I don’t understand. Did Jesus pay the price, or did he not? If he paid the price for our sins, how does Purgatory not, well, deny this fact in making some sort of additional payment necessary?

Hebrews says his sacrifice was “once, for all” and that it does not have to be repeated over and over again like the Jewish sacrifices of old. Catholic theology (as it relates to sin and its punishment) denies this, doesn’t it?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

I’m not certain this isn’t derailing this thread but since the issue of purgatory is on the table: my problem with the concept is that purgation is impossible. Once one has sinned, one is evermore a sinner. Sin can be covered over but it cannot be removed, in this life nor in the next. One’s sinfulness can be covered, as by Christ’s righteousness, but one never ceases to be a sinner. Those in Heaven are both Sinners and Saved, sinful and yet sanctified, not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ.

Flame,

No, I don’t think your post is derailing the thread. In fact, it’s rather timely and helpful in that I was just preparing to suggest to Jon that the current Lutheran view of salvation seems very different than the one Luther espoused.

Enter the sound of a needle dragging across the record.

Question for you both. What scripture verses support the idea that sin cannot be removed from the sinner? And in what sense is a saved sinner “sanctified”?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

If you don’t mind, I’ll add my two cents; I’ve always understood purgatory to be about the final detachment from earthly things that are incompatible with what God has prepared for the faithful in heaven. The Biblical references, often times, speak of there being some level of suffering or pain involved, but this pain is probably not a physical one. It’s probably more like the pain you feel in your heart when something you love passes away, only in this case, we’re talking about an attachment to sin.

To my Catholic friends here, please correct me if I’m wrong on this. I don’t want to contribute to the dissemination of bad information. Lord knows we have enough of that going on already.

Jon,

Well done! Very well said, though, I would only add that the pain of Purgatory probably is “physical” as well as “emotional” simply in that one is pure spirit there and one would likely feel the pain of purgatory throughout their being, not just in their “heart”.

My perspective anyway…

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

JonNC;3725146:

There is a difference between imputed and infused. I am not sure if I am correct about this though. Righteousness comes from being transformed by grace. Righteousness is not imputed. The grace of God makes a person righteous by transformation. Luther’s idea was that Jesus blood covers our sins and hides our corruption. He used his famous analogy of a lump of dung covered by pure white snow. The snow makes the dung beautiful. Another term that is controversial is merit. Grace is given to us initially without us doing anything meritorious. We can not earn it. But scripture says God will reward those who do good. Is there a contradiction? Jesus says without me you can do nothing. But once grace is present in our lives we can do things to please God, by His grace, and merit condignly and congruently. So it seems that grace can be imputed, but righteousness is not. It has been a long time since I thought about this, or studied, so this could be mistaken.

Drawing from Webster, there is a definite difference between imputed and infused. While “infused” means actually “placed into”, imputed on the other hand, means “externally” credited to. “Legally true”, if not ontologically true. Thus, in Catholic theology, both grace and holiness are infused, while in Lutheran theology, apparently, they cannot be and can only be imputed.

…Which makes me wonder. What is it then about faith, in the Lutheran view, that effects salvation? That is to say that if Jesus paid the price for our sins and righteousness is imputed, not infused…What prevents righteousness from being imputed to everyone?

SK

 

[JonNC]

Very well!

But, as Abraham would say, “Let not my lord grow impatient with me if I press further…”

To play…ehhh… “Protestant Devil’s Advocate” for a moment (pardon the loaded term - lol): I don’t understand. Did Jesus pay the price, or did he not? If he paid the price for our sins, how does Purgatory not, well, deny this fact in making some sort of additional payment necessary?

Hebrews says his sacrifice was “once, for all” and that it does not have to be repeated over and over again like the Jewish sacrifices of old. Catholic theology (as it relates to sin and its punishment) denies this, doesn’t it?

SK

Hi SK,
A blessed Memorial Day to all. Americans today give thanks to God for the great men and women who, over the history of our history, paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

This may be simplistic, SK, but Luther, in his Large Catechism states in regards to the words. “He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.”

In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted, that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. 25] *But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever. *

So, for me, salvation, is won by the efforts of Christ.

From the Formula of Concord:

However, now that man has not kept the Law of God, but transgressed it, his corrupt nature, thoughts, words, and works fighting against it, for which reason he is under God’s wrath, death, all temporal calamities, and the punishment of hell-fire, the Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely,** that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved. **

For me, the concept of purgatory does to an extent, at least call into question whether or not Christ’s atonement is sufficient.
Now, SK, this is NOT an condemnation of what Catholics believe regarding purgatory, but rather a request that you answer your question for me:

If he paid the price for our sins, how does Purgatory not, well, deny this fact in making some sort of additional payment necessary?

because for us to move closer, we have to understand how each of us answers this question: What does Christ’s sacrafice actually do for us regarding salvation, and what response is required of us beyond believing and being baptized?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The other day, I filled up my car with gas. As a result, the station offered me a discount on an automatic car wash, so I bought it thinking that my wife’s car was dirty. I paid the price for the cleansing of her dirty car.

Of course, she still had to take her car to the station and run it through the car wash.

The price was paid, but the wash still had to be applied to my wife’s vehicle.

Yep…that’s what happened, alright.

 

[JonNC]

grandfather;3726422:

Drawing from Webster, there is a definite difference between imputed and infused. While “infused” means actually “placed into”, imputed on the other hand, means “externally” credited to. “Legally true”, if not ontologically true. Thus, in Catholic theology, both grace and holiness are infused, while in Lutheran theology, apparently, they cannot be and can only be imputed.

…Which makes me wonder. What is it then about faith, in the Lutheran view, that effects salvation? That is to say that if Jesus paid the price for our sins and righteousness is imputed, not infused…What prevents righteousness from being imputed to everyone?

SK

SK,
We are told often in scripture by Christ himself and by St. Paul that it is faith in Christ that saves us, by His own merit through His suffering, death, and resurrection (Romans 1 and 3, and John 3, etc.) Righteousness is not imputed (and I assume not infused in the Catholic view) to those who do not have faith (and are not baptized).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The other day, I filled up my car with gas. As a result, the station offered me a discount on an automatic car wash, so I bought it thinking that my wife’s car was dirty. I paid the price for the cleansing of her dirty car.

Of course, she still had to take her car to the station and run it through the car wash.

The price was paid, but the wash still had to be applied to my wife’s vehicle.

Yep…that’s what happened, alright.

That is an interesting parallel, Randy. Christ pays the price. Catholics might say we must respond to this gift. Lutheran view is more passive; we must be willing to receive this gift. Either way, faith is a gift, how we respond or if we are open to receive this gift is quite important. Either way, the Man at the car wash washed your car.

Jon

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;3726422:

Drawing from Webster, there is a definite difference between imputed and infused. While “infused” means actually “placed into”, imputed on the other hand, means “externally” credited to. “Legally true”, if not ontologically true. Thus, in Catholic theology, both grace and holiness are infused, while in Lutheran theology, apparently, they cannot be and can only be imputed.

…Which makes me wonder. What is it then about faith, in the Lutheran view, that effects salvation? That is to say that if Jesus paid the price for our sins and righteousness is imputed, not infused…What prevents righteousness from being imputed to everyone?

SK

I am not sure that it has to be either or. I need to drink water to keep my internal organs hyrdated. I also need water to wash and keep infection from attacking my skin. Grace can protect me from external harm and be the internal well that springs up and overflows. Catholics use the term garment of grace. Garments are worn externally. We have the Eucharist which is the ultimate source of grace and it goes inside.

An earlier poster, if I am getting it right, said that since we sin and once having sinned that can not change, righteousness must be imputed, or cover the sin. This would conform to the lump of dung covered by snow analogy of Luther. Think about that for a minute. It would be like a bride working all day in the barn, sweating, shovelling, manure, washing the animals, getting covered in filth and putting on her bridal gown and some perfume to go to church and get married. It says we are rotten and corrupted on the inside like an apple full of worms, but shined up to be pretty on the outside. Luther actually said Christ’s blood covers us and God sees the covering and can not see the inner filth. This is crazy. God can not see what is inside us? Crazy! We sneak into heaven wearing a costume? Do you think that Jesus can not fix us on the inside as well as out? Which would you rather be true? Do you want to look pretty and be sick and full of rottennesss inside forever, or do you want to be transformed and rid of corruption? Nothing imperfect can be in heaven. Jesus heals us throughout.

What astounds me is that Christians could argue about this for several hundred years. It is not that difficult.

 

[dcdurel]

When we try to define a thing by what it is not, it is no defintion.
It does not tell us what it is, but what it is not. So if salvation is liberation from sin, that does not tell me what it is, but what it is not.

We say a person is blind, because he lacks sight. We do not say a person sees, because he lacks blindness.

Salvation is not a thing. It is a state of being as the result of action. If someone saves you from drowning, we don’t define this “saving” as a thing, but an action that frees you from the evil of drowning by water.

  Thus, when Jesus saves us by His grace, Jesus does an action.  This action frees us from the slavery of sin. We say we have received salvation, meaning that we have been freed  from the slavery of sin.  
 This is the primary meaning of salvation.  Luther tried to change the meaning in the bible make it always refer to final salvation, to make it fit with his definition of what is necessary to enter heaven.  But, St. Paul usually uses the word "saved" and "salvation" to refer to the action or the state of being freed from the slavery of sin and not to final salvation or to a state in which we are "assured of final salvation".
  The Jews had the law which disclosed sin and made it clear to them what was right and wrong.  But, this law did not confer the grace to follow it. That is why the law couldn't save them.  It could not give the grace to free them from the slavery to sin.  Through faith in Jesus, in which we believe His Gospel, we learn that through His sacraments and prayer, we can receive the grace that frees us from the slavery of sin, that is, from the strong inclination to sin which tends to rule us.  While this grace also atones for our sins, and justifies us, thus giving us the right to heaven, this is NOT the primary meaning of the word salvation.  
                                "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. " **Matthew 20: 28**

To ransom means to free a slave, prisoner, or a captive for a price. By His suffering and death out of love, Jesus earned the grace that frees us from being a slave to sin, from being a prisoner to sin, from being a captive to sin, from being blinded by sin, from being oppressed by sin.

It does NOT mean that Jesus came to free us from hell. People on earth are not in hell. And even Moses and Elijah did not go to hell, even though they had not been saved.

Jesus came to free us from the slavery of sin so that NOW and in THIS life we can live in union with Him and share in His life NOW on earth. Jesus said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the fullest”. He means now. But, if we are slaves to sin, we can’t live in union with Him and share in His life. Thus He came to free us from the slavery to sin, or save us.
“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”
**John 8:36

St. Paul writes
"**For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2.8)

Thus by “saved” St. Paul does NOT mean “assured of final salvation” but he means “freed from the slavery of sin”.

“Our old self was crucified with him so that…we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (Romans 6:6)

                             “and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,”**Revelation 1:5**

But of course, since we still have a free will, we can always turn back to sin and if we die unrepentant, end up in hell.

Now what St. Paul was criticizing the Jews for was their idea that they had to keep following the law of Moses, with circumcision and all the other ceremonial laws.
St. Paul pointed out that since the law couldn’t save them (that is free them from the slavery of sin), there was no point in going back to it. And Jesus died for nothing if the law could “save” them, that is free them from the slavery of sin.
But, that does not mean the Jews were no longer free from any law. They were now under the law of Christ, which requires obedience to the commandments in order to attain final salvation. If obedience to God was not necessary, then Jesus died to save us (free us from the slavery of sin) for no reason what ever. In other words, if it makes no difference that we are living in sin, if it makes no difference that we are still slaves of sin, then Jesus died uselessly. If sin cannot keep us separated from God, then Jesus died for no reason.
But sin does separate us from God. That is why Jesus came to free us from our inclination to sin. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”
John 8:36

  So the fact that Jesus suffered so much to free us from our slavery to sin, makes it so much more important that we seek this grace through the sacraments and prayer so that we can be freed from our inclination to sin.   
 If Jesus came to give His life as a ransom, then how much more important is it that we make use of His grace that ransomed us, and thus live a holy life, freed from the shackles of sin.

“But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 16-23

 

[Teflon93]

The other day, I filled up my car with gas. As a result, the station offered me a discount on an automatic car wash, so I bought it thinking that my wife’s car was dirty. I paid the price for the cleansing of her dirty car.

Of course, she still had to take her car to the station and run it through the car wash.

The price was paid, but the wash still had to be applied to my wife’s vehicle.

Yep…that’s what happened, alright.

I drive a '97 Saturn.

I am a staunch believer in “Once Washed, Always Washed”.

Unfortunately, even covering my car with a car cover isn’t sufficient to make it pleasing in the sight of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Before she will deign to interact with my car, it must be purged of uncleanliness.

 

[JonNC]

SilentKnight;3727005:

I am not sure that it has to be either or. I need to drink water to keep my internal organs hyrdated. I also need water to wash and keep infection from attacking my skin. Grace can protect me from external harm and be the internal well that springs up and overflows. Catholics use the term garment of grace. Garments are worn externally. We have the Eucharist which is the ultimate source of grace and it goes inside.

An earlier poster, if I am getting it right, said that since we sin and once having sinned that can not change, righteousness must be imputed, or cover the sin. This would conform to the lump of dung covered by snow analogy of Luther. Think about that for a minute. It would be like a bride working all day in the barn, sweating, shovelling, manure, washing the animals, getting covered in filth and putting on her bridal gown and some perfume to go to church and get married. It says we are rotten and corrupted on the inside like an apple full of worms, but shined up to be pretty on the outside. Luther actually said Christ’s blood covers us and God sees the covering and can not see the inner filth. This is crazy. God can not see what is inside us? Crazy! We sneak into heaven wearing a costume? Do you think that Jesus can not fix us on the inside as well as out? Which would you rather be true? Do you want to look pretty and be sick and full of rottennesss inside forever, or do you want to be transformed and rid of corruption? Nothing imperfect can be in heaven. Jesus heals us throughout.

What astounds me is that Christians could argue about this for several hundred years. It is not that difficult.

Hi Grandfather,
The “dung-heap covered with snow” phrase has never been linked to Luther, though similar phrases have been linked to others. Now, Luther did say:

I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so

But here he is merely comparing our righteousness to Christ’s

In terms of justification, by grace through faith Christ covers up our sinful nature with his righteousness. “…baptism removes the guilt of original sin, even though concupiscence remains.” Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Lutheran belief goes beyond justification. Following is sanctification. As we grow in Grace and faith, the Holy Spirit comes into us and cleanses us.

Jon

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I drive a '97 Saturn.

I am a staunch believer in “Once Washed, Always Washed”.

Heretic.

Unfortunately, even covering my car with a car cover isn’t sufficient to make it pleasing in the sight of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Before she will deign to interact with my car, it must be purged of uncleanliness.

I have this problem in that my car ('96 Prizm) is more often clean on the outside while the inside is littered with the garbage that the demons…er…children have left behind.