Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[Christian_Unity]

Guanaphore…you made excellent points…about ‘true Christians’…how can we who are sinners claim to be true Christians vs those who do not appear to be?..we don’t live their lives or see the acts of faith they witness for Christ…doing so without an arena of other Christians watching one’s every move.

Yes, it is very risky to define one set of Christians as ‘true’ and others as less or non…sounds proud.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Nor was I. But you claimed I was wrong. So I proved you were wrong.

Really? Which word did I insert. You provided the verse from the Catechism. I showed you what I said.

You make rabbit trails all over don’t you. And you never admit you’re wrong. You just start new ones. And then claim you didn’t start them.

Do you see my point, Catholics fight with each other all the time regarding what are the official doctrnes of the Catholic Church. The CCC requires interpretation. The Bible requires interpretation. Official sacred oral and written traditions require interprettation. The Pope’s teaching and statement of “Luther was right on faith alone…” requires interpertation, etc.

 

[Christian_Unity]

CU,

I would have been a Mormon if born in a Mormon family. If does not satisfy truth.

LOL… the writings of Augustine fits more with Reformed theology than Catholic theology on the issue of predestintation and free will. I mean no offense, but Catholic theology is semi-pelagius in nature (not apostate but similar to Arminian Protestantism). Augstine is very Calvinistic.

 

[onemangang]

Kathleen, that same Oral Tradition does not provide full communion with the Orthodox either, even though they claim it too. Simply blaming it on personal interpretation, which is not the same as sola scriptura, misses the point.

Luther wrote what Luther wrote. How much less would he have written had their not existed the vile corruption in Rome at his time, issues of doctrine aside? True communion is in the faith, not merely in the seat of one apostle.

Jon

First off, I always appreciate your post Jon, I have learned much about Lutheranism from you, I was always under the assumption that Lutherans were to adhear Luther, rather than a governing body!

You often point to the differences between Catholics, and Orthodox Churches in regards to the doctrines derived from Sacred Tradition, when the two Churches disagree on things like Papal primacy over juristiction, original sin, and the most recent proclamaition on Mary! Would you say that one must be right and the other wrong or is that too simplistic? If so, how is this determined? When you talk of Sacred Tradition not producing full communion between the Churches, do you see Sacred Tradion as divine guidence under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Sacred Scripture is?

Also, when you speak of true communion is in “the faith” and not merely in the seat of one apostle, how do you address what is “in the faith”?

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[JonNC]

=onemangang;10046131]First off, I always appreciate your post Jon, I have learned much about Lutheranism from you, I was always under the assumption that Lutherans were to adhear Luther, rather than a governing body!

Thank you.

You often point to the differences between Catholics, and Orthodox Churches in regards to the doctrines derived from Sacred Tradition, when the two Churches disagree on things like Papal primacy over juristiction, original sin, and the most recent proclamaition on Mary! Would you say that one must be right and the other wrong or is that too simplistic? If so, how is this determined?

Probably too simplistic, in my own view. I’ve always taken the view, even in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue, that there is often much common ground, divided by point of view. I think, as a layman, that there is cultural influences on language that muddies the waters. I don’t think there’s much of a chance of unity from the approach of one side “submitting” to another. I, for one, were the Orthodoxy and Rome reconcile, would accept what that unity would present. My main point is not that one is right and the other is wrong, but simply that they disagree, which leaves me in a position of asking who actually has the authority. So, I can’t determine which is “the true Church”. A unified East and West answers that question.

When you talk of Sacred Tradition not producing full communion between the Churches, do you see Sacred Tradion as divine guidence under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Sacred Scripture is?

I can see Tradition as under the guidance of the HS. For example, I am convinced that the three creeds are guided by the Spirit. I can accept the early councils as guided, as well, though I would stop short of implying that they are divinely inspired as scripture is. In these two instances, the creeds and early councils, I do see them as authoritative, in that they are statements of the undivided Church.

Also, when you speak of true communion is in “the faith” and not merely in the seat of one apostle, how do you address what is “in the faith”?

Commonality of faith and beliefs, coming from the Church. Even we in the LCMS speak this way, and as a result practice close communion. When I receive at the altar, it is with people who believe in the same way I do. I actually respect the Catholic prohibition on my receiving the Eucharist at a Catholic Church, because I respect that unity of faith that Catholics have.
Pope Benedict spoke about this when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome a couple of years back. He spoke of the great progress we have made of the last few decades, but also spoke of the fact that, sadly, we cannot yet share the Supper together. So, thrue commnion is in the faith.
Now, that’s not to say I don’t believe that there is a level of communion between us, even thought we are divided. We are all members of the Communion of Saints.

Peace and Love in Christ!

And also with you.

Jon

 

[onemangang]

If you guys were honest, you would admit that the Catholic Church is no different than Protestant churches in which church leaders, theologians, priests, bishops, laity, etc disagree with each other all the time. There is an in-house struggle and in-house protestors, and in-house reformation taking place behind the doors of the Catholic Church. You guys have various divisions, sects, and factions fighting each other… liberal branches, American branches, staunch conservative orthodox branches clashing with each other. One obvious example is the internal struggle of artificial birth control for American Catholics. Statistically through Catholic sources, 98% of American Catholics have used artificial birth control. I believe official Catholic doctrine defines artificial birth control as a form of abortion.

I am honest, what you point to is disagreement between people within the Church, but the Church is not just a structure, but SHE is much more than a structural order, She is the pillar and bulwark of the truth whom the manifold wisdom of God, Jesus Christ was revealed to mankind!

When the college of Bishops, in union with the Pope declare a dogma, it is not mere wisdom of men, but the power of God.

I don’t think you understand the Catholic view of WHO the Church is, SHE is both human and divine, as she partakes in the divine nature of Christ, operating through Him, with Him and in Him, in Unity with the Holy Spirit giving all Honor and Glory to the Father forever and ever!

So, to campare THE CHURCH to your particular structured Christian community, would be outside the deposit of faith given to the Church (big C)

As far as birth control pill being equated with abortion, it is in some cases, look up abortifacients

 

[SteveVH]

Scott Hahn is not a good example because he was Catholic before he became Protestant, and returned to his roots.

You’re confusing Scott Hahn with someone else, possibly Jeff Cavins. Scott Hahn was not Catholic first. He was first a Prebyterian and a minister at that. Jeff Cavins was first Catholic, then Protestant, then Catholic once again.

 

[onemangang]

Thank you.

Probably too simplistic, in my own view. I’ve always taken the view, even in Lutheran - Catholic dialogue, that there is often much common ground, divided by point of view. I think, as a layman, that there is cultural influences on language that muddies the waters. I don’t think there’s much of a chance of unity from the approach of one side “submitting” to another. I, for one, were the Orthodoxy and Rome reconcile, would accept what that unity would present. My main point is not that one is right and the other is wrong, but simply that they disagree, which leaves me in a position of asking who actually has the authority. So, I can’t determine which is “the true Church”. A unified East and West answers that question.

I understand your dillema, as it was my own of sorts! I agree on some of the separation is due to language and culture, like the filoque, but I think some differences are a matter of divine guidence in truth, for instance either the Catholic Church left the One True Church, when they pronounced doctrines that were not from a deposit of faith, but the wisdom of men, ie: satisfaction atonement, papal infallibility, juristictional authority…etc on the other hand the Orthodox could have left the One True Church and failed to discern the unction of the Holy Spirits divine guidence! Or one might believe that both Churches left the One True Faith, and now we must look back to past guidence in councils, creeds, history, language, culture, and try to reconstruct classical Christianity!

What separates you from entering full communion with the Catholic Church, or The Orthodox Churches? I think you mentioned at one point in some thread you would enter into full communion if the Orthodox and Catholic faith were to unify, would that be out of desire for unity, or would you be convinced of their claims?

I can see Tradition as under the guidance of the HS. For example, I am convinced that the three creeds are guided by the Spirit. I can accept the early councils as guided, as well, though I would stop short of implying that they are divinely inspired as scripture is. In these two instances, the creeds and early councils, I do see them as authoritative, in that they are statements of the undivided Church.

So if the Catholic and EO churches were to reuinite, would you accept future councils as authoritive and enter into full communion, or remain Lutheran?

Commonality of faith and beliefs, coming from the Church. Even we in the LCMS speak this way, and as a result practice close communion. When I receive at the altar, it is with people who believe in the same way I do. I actually respect the Catholic prohibition on my receiving the Eucharist at a Catholic Church, because I respect that unity of faith that Catholics have.
Pope Benedict spoke about this when he visited the Lutheran Church in Rome a couple of years back. He spoke of the great progress we have made of the last few decades, but also spoke of the fact that, sadly, we cannot yet share the Supper together. So, thrue commnion is in the faith.
Now, that’s not to say I don’t believe that there is a level of communion between us, even thought we are divided. We are all members of the Communion of Saints.

And also with you.

Jon

Well I guess we can both pray for unity in the communion of the Saints then

 

[JonNC]

=onemangang;10047118]I understand your dillema, as it was my own of sorts! I agree on some of the separation is due to language and culture, like the filoque, but I think some differences are a matter of divine guidence in truth, for instance either the Catholic Church left the One True Church, **when they pronounced doctrines that were not from a deposit of faith, but the wisdom of men, ie: satisfaction atonement, papal infallibility, juristictional authority…etc **on the other hand the Orthodox could have left the One True Church and failed to discern the unction of the Holy Spirits divine guidence! Or one might believe that both Churches left the One True Faith, and now we must look back to past guidence in councils, creeds, history, language, culture, and try to reconstruct classical Christianity!

Thanks for your understanding. My leaning is the bolded, but I am, afterall, a western christian, and Lutheranism considers itself a continuation of the western Church.

What separates you from entering full communion with the Catholic Church, or The Orthodox Churches? I think you mentioned at one point in some thread you would enter into full communion if the Orthodox and Catholic faith were to unify, would that be out of desire for unity, or would you be convinced of their claims?

I would view it as an undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Church, and therefore, irresistable as a matter of faith.

So if the Catholic and EO churches were to reuinite, would you accept future councils as authoritive and enter into full communion, or remain Lutheran?

Future councils, and any past councils they deemed so, and I would enter RCIA.

Well I guess we can both pray for unity in the communion of the Saints then

Everyday.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

I am honest, what you point to is disagreement between people within the Church, but the Church is not just a structure, but SHE is much more than a structural order, She is the pillar and bulwark of the truth whom the manifold wisdom of God, Jesus Christ was revealed to mankind!

When the college of Bishops, in union with the Pope declare a dogma, it is not mere wisdom of men, but the power of God.

I don’t think you understand the Catholic view of WHO the Church is, SHE is both human and divine, as she partakes in the divine nature of Christ, operating through Him, with Him and in Him, in Unity with the Holy Spirit giving all Honor and Glory to the Father forever and ever!

So, to campare THE CHURCH to your particular structured Christian community, would be outside the deposit of faith given to the Church (big C)

As far as birth control pill being equated with abortion, it is in some cases, look up abortifacients

Yep, our view of the Church is completely different. When you are speaking about the Church, are those comments exclusive to the Catholic Church, or does it include other churches such as the Orthodox churches too? I’m not sure how Protestant churches fit in with your view of the Church which is both human and divine. I believe in the priesthood of believers in which makeup The Church consisting of redeemed sinners who are united to Christ by faith. The Church is the body of Christ which members come from all different denominations and branches of Christianity.

 

[Reuben_J]

I believe in the priesthood of believers in which makeup The Church consisting of redeemed sinners who are united to Christ by faith.

Hi. Do you believe that the Church consists of those believers who have fallen asleep too?

The Church is the body of Christ which members come from all different denominations and branches of Christianity.

As much as we desire unity, the reality is you are a separated brethren. We are not in communion with each other due to our differences in belief. We all strive toward that unity.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Hi. Do you believe that the Church consists of those believers who have fallen asleep too?

As much as we desire unity, the reality is you are a separated brethren. We are not in communion with each other due to our differences in belief. We all strive toward that unity.

You can see this apparent similar division between Arminian Protestants and Calvinist Protestants all the time. I am in fellowship with many Catholic siblings in real life. You might have disunity between Catholics and Protestants in your mind, but there is only one body of Christ. In reality, the body of Christ is not divided because humanity is divided in two ways: those in union with Adam, and those in union with Christ. All other divisions are man-made including denominational and branches of Christianity.

If you consider Scripture alone to determine truth, you will not be able to make others division besides the division of old creation and new creation; or children of darkness and children of the light. Even the idea of separated brethren is a man-made belief because God determines whom He adopts into His family. If God has adopted you into His family, then you are joined to all redeemed adopted children of God, regardless of our theological beliefs. I believe OT Saints and NT Saints makeup one body and one people of God. Do you believe OT saints were saved by the person and work of Christ? Scripture reveals that the gospel was preached in advance to Abraham, and Job said that his redeemer lives. So, who was Job’s redeemer?

 

[Reuben_J]

Do you believe OT saints were saved by the person and work of Christ? Scripture reveals that the gospel was preached in advance to Abraham, and Job said that his redeemer lives. So, who was Job’s redeemer?

Can you please answer my original question with a yes or a no?

 

[Christian_Unity]

Can you please answer my original question with a yes or a no?

The NT Church together with those fallen asleep (OT Church) makeup one people of God. When Job said my redeemer lives, who do you believe Job was speaking of? Do you believe OT saints were saved by the person and work of Jesus Christ?

 

[guanophore]

where is an apostolic faith in which Christians need to adhere to.

I think this is a truth in which we can all agree. Though we have differing ideas of what constitutes that One Faith, we all long to be in unity within it, as your username indicates.

 Many modern day Christians have way too low of a view of church history; therefore, there is a tendency to change the apostolic faith to one of their own personal flavor and desire.  I do believe Catholics have too high of a view of church history.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this? I thought you were saying that some Protestants do not study the history of their faith as they ought, or appreciate the value of the lessons in our history. What are the consequences of having “too high” a view of history?

2 Thess 2:14-15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

As a Protestant, I have no problem with this verse and understand the importance of sacred tradition.  I guess the debate and divide between Protestants and Catholics is identifying what are sacred traditions and what are the traditions of men.  We both agree that Scripture is sacred tradition that we are to stand firm and hold fast to.

Yes. For Catholics the Sacred Writings cannot be separated from the faith that produced them, so we cannot read them, or “hold fast to” them without that particular understanding. It seems to me that the further modern Bible Christians drift from the Sacred Tradition, the further away from that One Faith their ideas and doctrines become.

 I don't think Catholic apologetics can use this traditions verse as a proof text to validate all of Catholic dogma and official doctrine.

Why not?

When I read Catholic apologetics referring to the church, we understand and define the world church in mutually exclusive ways.  I don't limit the church to be simply the Catholic Church; rather I understand the church to be all that are united to Christ by faith which includes Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and others who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.  For example, when I listen to Catholic radio, I hear hymns and songs written by Protestants playing on Catholic radio. American Catholics read our Bible translations and books written by Protestant writers all the time. Our mutual exclusive presuppositions require us to understand each other's position for better discussion and dialog.

I cannot understand how anything you have written here is mutually exclusive. Did you think that the Catholic understanding is different?

It is fuller, so in addition to encompassing al that you have included here, we also acknowledge those who have gone on us before us in the faith, those who are being made ready to enter into their heavenly reward, and Jesus as the Head, and the HS as the Soul of the Church.

Protestants see the Bible as being catholic but not Catholic.

Only because they don’t realize that the authors were Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

If you guys were honest, you would admit that the Catholic Church is no different than Protestant churches in which church leaders, theologians, priests, bishops, laity, etc disagree with each other all the time. There is an in-house struggle and in-house protestors, and in-house reformation taking place behind the doors of the Catholic Church. You guys have various divisions, sects, and factions fighting each other… liberal branches, American branches, staunch conservative orthodox branches clashing with each other.

Oh there is no doubt of that!

The difference, though, is that the Teaching is One. There may be all these dissentions, but they do not define the faith, which is handed down to us as a seamless garment. Those who refuse to embrace it are apostate, or heretics, or Protestants (Catholics who have disavowed the faith but still mistakely believe they are Catholic. All these people have lost their Catholicity. Their factions, disagreements, or outright disobedience does not change the One Faith, which is kept undefiled by the divine and infallible elements of the Church.

 One obvious example is the internal struggle of artificial birth control for American Catholics.  Statistically through Catholic sources, 98% of American Catholics have used artificial birth control. I believe official Catholic doctrine defines artificial birth control as a form of abortion.

Yes it is a sad fact that the majority of American Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin concerning this issue.

 

[guanophore]

LOL… the writings of Augustine fits more with Reformed theology than Catholic theology on the issue of predestintation and free will. I mean no offense, but Catholic theology is semi-pelagius in nature (not apostate but similar to Arminian Protestantism). Augstine is very Calvinistic.

Augustine is a doctor of the Church, which means that his theological works are a major influence and foundation of how to understand and interpret all those sources you noted above. He was thoroughly Catholic, sacramental, and obedient to the successor of Peter. Those ideas he writes about how we are saved by grace, through faith are CATHOLIC views.

Have you ever considered that your concept of Catholicism might be wrong?

 

[De_Maria]

What I said was that there are things Luther believed that is not accepted by Lutherans. Even Luther was subject to the belief that all teachers and teachings are subject to accountability to scripture. OTOH, if one reads Luther’s Small Catechism, for example, it is safe to say that Lutherans do affirm what he says there.

Then, you did not deny that Lutherans follow Luther, is that correct?

No, final is final. That is, we accept Tradition, insofar as it does not contradict scripture.

Then why doesn’t it say, “final” in the title? It just says “sola”. And “sola” means “alone”. And, alone is alone.

That’s why we have the Church.

Then the Church is the final authority. Because it is the Church deciding whether something is right or wrong.

For Lutherans,the confessions.

Is that your answer? The confessions render the final decision? That leads to further questions:

1. Then the confessions are the final authority. Not Scripture.
2. In what sense are the “confessions” final? How can the confessions render a decision?

Agreed. The Church uses scripture as the final norm to set doctrine.

That sentence right there depicts the Church as the final authority. Since it is the Church applying the “final norm”.

I thought you said, “authority” before. “Norm” is a different word with a very different meaning. What do you actually mean?

And that is the Catholic model, and the Orthodox model. Which is correct, since they don’t always agree?

The Catholic Church.

Let’s see if this helps. Mind you, I’m not trying to convince you that the Lutheran hermeunetic model and practice are correct. That’s not my interest and intent.
From the Formula of Concord:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

1. In the Old Testament, the Word was preached as well as read. So that doesn’t apply to Scripture alone.

In the New, St. Paul also preached. As did the other Apostles. In fact, they delivered the word of God by word or epistle. That is clear from Scripture.

1. In addition, Scripture is not called the “sole rule and standard” in the Bible. Not in the Old or the New Testament.
2. So, I would say that verse of the Augsburg confession is misapplying the Scripture.
3. And it would also seem that the writers of the Augsburg confession set themselves as the final rule. Since their rule is not found in Scripture. They made it up. It is a tradition of men.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

The Apostles seem to hold the Traditions of equal importance to the Scriptures when St.Paul says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Then, their own confession should be rejected. Since it is not in accord with Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

continued…

 

[Christian_Unity]

Augustine is a doctor of the Church, which means that his theological works are a major influence and foundation of how to understand and interpret all those sources you noted above. He was thoroughly Catholic, sacramental, and obedient to the successor of Peter. Those ideas he writes about how we are saved by grace, through faith are CATHOLIC views.

Have you ever considered that your concept of Catholicism might be wrong?

There is so much of the Catholic Faith in which I share. That is why we are siblings in Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

By in large, I agree, but not totally, particularly where there is disagreement with the Orthodox. Here we find the question, whose interpretation of Tradition is correct?

1. The Catholic Church is correct.
2. I’m normally very comfortable speaking about many things at one time. But lately, several people on this forum, change the subject and then accuse me of making bunny trails.
3. Suffice to say, that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Wherever the Orthodox differ with the Catholic Church, they differ also with Scripture.

Obviously, I would disagree. But I would be willing to reconsider on those areas mentioned just before if Rome and the other patriachs came to reconciliation and agreement.

Jesus Christ established one Church. Whether anyone else agrees with the Truth taught by the Catholic Church, is besides the point. Truth is not a popularity contest. Truth it true whether anyone believes it or not.

See above.

Ok.

But they do agree rightly reflect scripture, which is exactly my point about why Lutherans accept them.

1. The confessions, which I suppose is short for the Augsburg confession, does not reflect Scripture. If it does, please point to the term, “sole rule” in the Scriptures.
2. Since the confessions obviously have interpreted things in a manner inconsistent with Scripture, then the authors of the confession have set themselves up as the final authority over the Scriptures.

T

rue, and no conflict that.

Ok.

True.

Ok.

Seems like a circular argument.

How? We are discussing what Scripture teaches. Scripture depicts the Church as the final authority. Where is the circular part?

i haven’t argued that.

Because it goes against your argument. In Scripture, the Church is depicted as final authority.

Clearly not a first. SS is clearly a post-apostolic practice.

1. Then you are admitting it is not in Scripture.
2. You are also admitting that who ever made up the doctrine has set themselves up as final authority. Since they have imposed something upon the Church which is not in Scripture.

Practices, after all, are not always in scripture, anyway.

Practices which are important for our salvation are always in Scripture. Since Sola Scriptura is one of the Protestant pillars, it must be in Scripture or it is null and void.

Besides, the rule says that everything must be compared to Scripture. Let us compare the rule itself to Scripture. Scripture teaches something different. Therefore the rule called “sola Scriptura” is null and void.

The linked artcle, by an Anglican, but appears on the Lutheran Theology website, speaks to the issue. My only disagreement with it is the use of the term doctrine when speaking of sola scriptura. Otherwise…
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

See the reference to the Formula of Concord above.

Please pull out the pertinent text. I don’t like to search through websites.

By Catholic Church, I assume you mean solely and exclusively those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Then again, the Orthodox claim to be fully Catholic. So do Lutherans, apostolic succession notwithstanding.

It does take discernment to come to the truth. But it is obvious that Christ started one Church. Not many. And the Catholic Church is the one from which all the others sprang. Therefore, She is the one Christ established.

An opinion, but one that I respect.

Ok.

Well, the keys apply to the whole whole Church, not just to St. Peter exclusively. Then agai, we claim Peter, too.

Show me where in Scripture, Christ gave the keys to anyone else.

Of this I have no doubt, and honor you steadfastness.

Thank you. The respect is mutual.

Jon

De Maria