Benedict XVI Clarifies Luther's teachings on Justification

[Chancellare]

Pope Benedict scores big with this explanation on the meaning of Justification based in St Paul’s teachings.

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”
For full text:
earlychristians.org/cateche_pauls_year/st%20paul_justification.html

 

[JonNC]

Pope Benedict scores big with this explanation on the meaning of Justification based in St Paul’s teachings.

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”
For full text:
earlychristians.org/cateche_pauls_year/st%20paul_justification.html

A Blessed Christmas to you, Chancellare.

On the surface, this to me is one more indication of a growing convergence in our understanding of justification. Pray that it continues.

I would like you, and others, to compare and contrast these 2 quotes, 1st from the article, 2nd from the Lutheran Confessions.

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

---

Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

I’ll be interested in your responses.

JOn

 

[Chancellare]

On the surface, this to me is one more indication of a growing convergence in our understanding of justification. Pray that it continues.

I’ll be interested in your responses.

JOn

The convergence points back to this teaching which was there all along before Luther’s Sola Fide started the Schism.

 

[JonNC]

The convergence points back to this teaching which was there all along before Luther’s Sola Fide started the Schism.

And all along before the selling of indulgences precipitated the schism.
I pray we overcome the differences of the past.

Jon

 

[Chancellare]

And all along before the selling of indulgences precipitated the schism.
I pray we overcome the differences of the past.

Jon

If selling of indulgences justified the schism then the subsequent thousands of other schisms precipitated by each sect seeking its own interpretation… That needs more prayer, though…

 

[graceandglory]

Pope Benedict scores big with this explanation on the meaning of Justification based in St Paul’s teachings.
earlychristians.org/cateche_pauls_year/st%20paul_justification.html

His 2nd encyclical Spe Salvi, (In Hope are we saved) is a great explanation of the Catholic view of salvation; any orthodox Christian should read it.

He is a great Papa for these times. I see him as reaching out to the rest of the Christian world with the truth of our Catholic faith. Very evangelical.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

 

[brkn1]

His 2nd encyclical Spe Salvi, (In Hope are we saved) is a great explanation of the Catholic view of salvation; any orthodox Christian should read it.

He is a great Papa for these times. I see him as reaching out to the rest of the Christian world with the truth of our Catholic faith. Very evangelical.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

I noticed the claim that: “Faith is Hope.” in the encyclical.

There is much in common and related about the two terms, but it seems to be an error to make both Faith and Hope interchangeable.
Faith must come first before Hope. That order of trusting God is one of the important distinctions between the two terms.
Without the understanding of such a distinction being noted, it would be hard for me to accept any conclusions that come out of the assumption that “Faith is Hope.”

 

[O.S.Luke]

I noticed the claim that: “Faith is Hope.” in the encyclical.

There is much in common and related about the two terms, but it seems to be an error to make both Faith and Hope interchangeable.
Faith must come first before Hope. That order of trusting God is one of the important distinctions between the two terms.
Without the understanding of such a distinction being noted, it would be hard for me to accept any conclusions that come out of the assumption that “Faith is Hope.”

Is it possible that you are splitting hairs - and possibly taking His Holiness’ statement a bit out of context?

Just a thought. This is a wonderful statement by the Pope.

 

[Shellina1]

Pope Benedict scores big with this explanation on the meaning of Justification based in St Paul’s teachings.

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”
For full text:
earlychristians.org/cateche_pauls_year/st%20paul_justification.html

What a beautiful explaination!
Praise be to God for the power of the Holy Spirit present in the life of this Pope.

If Pope Benedict keeps talking like this, he’s going to have a new problem…where to put all the new converts to Catholisim!

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And all along before the selling of indulgences precipitated the schism.
I pray we overcome the differences of the past.

Jon

And so should we all.

As I know you have read in the catechism, the Church recognizes that sin on the part of Catholics was a contributing factor to the reformation.

Imagine a Christian world that was united in faith and morals.

 

[SIA]

Pope Benedict scores big with this explanation on the meaning of Justification based in St Paul’s teachings.

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”
For full text:
earlychristians.org/cateche_pauls_year/st%20paul_justification.html

Looks to me like they are both right. I don’t think Luther had the idea that Paul’s statement on faith alone in Christ was simple. I believe he knew that faith in Christ meant a lifelong marathon so to speak.

 

[MarcoPolo]

A Blessed Christmas to you, Chancellare.

On the surface, this to me is one more indication of a growing convergence in our understanding of justification. Pray that it continues.

I would like you, and others, to compare and contrast these 2 quotes, 1st from the article, 2nd from the Lutheran Confessions.

I’ll be interested in your responses.

JOn

If I am not mistaken, these quotes by Luther do not reverse his position that our works don’t have salvific value. I think that’s one of the ways he parts with the Church, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[ralphinal]

What a beautiful explaination!
Praise be to God for the power of the Holy Spirit present in the life of this Pope.

If Pope Benedict keeps talking like this, he’s going to have a new problem…where to put all the new converts to Catholisim!

In the pews where the poor Catholics had been before they felt betrayed by a Magestarium that compelled teaching and believing the faith.

 

[graceandglory]

I noticed the claim that: “Faith is Hope.” in the encyclical.

There is much in common and related about the two terms, but it seems to be an error to make both Faith and Hope interchangeable.
That order of trusting God is one of the important distinctions between the two terms.
Without the understanding of such a distinction being noted, it would be hard for me to accept any conclusions that come out of the assumption that “Faith is Hope.”

Pope Benedict goes into the root words and the definitions. His explanation is the best I’ve ever read. He does nothing more than the scriptures and the words themselves say.
There are many scriptures that attest to what is necessary for salvation. We can’t pick and choose the ones we want to believe. We have to believe all of them.

Romans 8:23-25
23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
24
For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees?
25
But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.

In hope we were saved. The “assurance” we have for our salvation is a blessed hope. Verse 24 says what we don’t yet see, we hope for. That is how we are assured of our salvation. We don’t yet see it, but we hope for it, and wait for it with endurance.

 

[graceandglory]

I noticed the claim that: “Faith is Hope.” in the encyclical.

There is much in common and related about the two terms, but it seems to be an error to make both Faith and Hope interchangeable.
Faith must come first before Hope. That order of trusting God is one of the important distinctions between the two terms.
Without the understanding of such a distinction being noted, it would be hard for me to accept any conclusions that come out of the assumption that “Faith is Hope.”

What specifically do you have a problem with.

Pope Benedict says that by looking at the Scriptures, faith and hope seem interchangeable, and then he gives examples.
**
What specifically do you disagree with?**

Your argument is semantics but has no depth of understanding.

Here is the text:

Faith is Hope

1. Before turning our attention to these timely questions, **we must listen a little more closely to the Bible’s testimony on hope. **“Hope”, in fact, is a key word in Biblical faith—so much so that in several passages the words “faith” and “hope” seem interchangeable. Thus the Letter to the Hebrews closely links the “fullness of faith” (10:22) to “the confession of our hope without wavering” (10:23). Likewise, when the First Letter of Peter exhorts Christians to be always ready to give an answer concerning the logos—the meaning and the reason—of their hope (cf. 3:15), “hope” is equivalent to “faith”. We see how decisively the self-understanding of the early Christians was shaped by their having received the gift of a trustworthy hope, when we compare the Christian life with life prior to faith, or with the situation of the followers of other religions. Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future. In nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus (How quickly we fall back from nothing to nothing)[1]: so says an epitaph of that period. In this phrase we see in no uncertain terms the point Paul was making. In the same vein he says to the Thessalonians: you must not “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Th 4:13). Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness. Only when the future is certain as a positive reality does it become possible to live the present as well. So now we can say: Christianity was not only “good news”—the communication of a hitherto unknown content. In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only “informative” but “performative”. That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.

One of the major chasms in Catholic Protestant dialogue is that we disagree on semantics, when we agree on what they mean.

I don’t see anything in this text that could be argued with by a protestant.

 

[JonNC]

=CHESTERTONRULES;4591069]
As I know you have read in the catechism, the Church recognizes that sin on the part of Catholics was a contributing factor to the reformation.

And there was also sin on the part of the reformers.

Imagine a Christian world that was united in faith and morals.

Imagine, indeed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If I am not mistaken, these quotes by Luther do not reverse his position that our works don’t have salvific value. I think that’s one of the ways he parts with the Church, if I’m not mistaken.

It depends, I think, on what you mean by salvific. But certainly Catholics and Lutherans agree that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ, that salvation is only possible because of grace. And that we respond to grace by doing the good works he prepares us and calls us to do.

Jon

 

[brkn1]

It depends, I think, on what you mean by salvific. But certainly Catholics and Lutherans agree that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ, that salvation is only possible because of grace. And that we respond to grace by doing the good works he prepares us and calls us to do.

Jon

I see a contradiction in the use of the term “grace alone” and the further requirement of also “doing the good works” in order to be saved. You can not logically use “alone” when a further “doing” is also necessary.

 

[brkn1]

Pope Benedict goes into the root words and the definitions. His explanation is the best I’ve ever read. He does nothing more than the scriptures and the words themselves say.
There are many scriptures that attest to what is necessary for salvation. We can’t pick and choose the ones we want to believe. We have to believe all of them.

In hope we were saved. The “assurance” we have for our salvation is a blessed hope. Verse 24 says what we don’t yet see, we hope for. That is how we are assured of our salvation. We don’t yet see it, but we hope for it, and wait for it with endurance.

Abraham trusted God and was justified by that faith.
When God told Abraham that Sarah would conceive Abraham’s child, he believed God’s promise, as if it were as good as done in the present, even though it was a future event that had to be waited for. Abraham’s hope for that promise to eventually happen was not based on Abraham considering it as a “possibility” of it happening, which would have insulted God.

You say “In hope we were saved.”, but does that mean you believe that your salvation is a “sure” thing? If you allow for the possibility of your salvation not being a sure thing, then you can not use the past tense “In hope we WERE saved.”.

 

[JonNC]

I see a contradiction in the use of the term “grace alone” and the further requirement of also “doing the good works” in order to be saved. You can not logically use “alone” when a further “doing” is also necessary.

I see no contridiction at all. It is only by grace that we have even the possibility of salvation. We can claim no merit in it. However, the fact that we receive our justification by grace alone through faith is the very reason that we respond by doing the good works commanded of us by Christ, not that we merit salvation through them, but that they are the fruits of our salvation that can only come through grace.
An unwillingness on our part to allow the Holy Spirit to do His good works through us is an indication of a dead faith, and a dead faith cannot save since it is a rejection of grace.

Jon