How did people get to Heaven before Luther?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m curious since Catholics and Eastern Orthodox aren’t Christians in the eyes of some protestants how did anyone get into Heaven before luther? So is everyone before Luther burning in hell?

Very fascinating question. Obviously for those Protestants who believe that Catholics are Christian (which I think will be the majority of Protestants here) their answer wouldn’t change but for those Protestants who do not believe that Catholics are Christian it appears they are put between a rock and a hard place. Either they would have to admit that no one went to heaven prior to the Reformation, or some did (which means people they see as non-Christians (Catholics), people who they feel were not in Christ, were getting into heaven) or they would have to describe some conspiracy theory where the true Christians were underground for 1500 years and we don’t hear anything about them from history because the Catholic Church covered it all up… or the free masons did it.

Great question. God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Christians have always gotten to heaven the same way- God gets them there. But there were some important and far-reaching implications of the Reformation that made the odds better for everyone. So people were always saved the same way, but the Reformation allowed for that to happen on more of a regular basis for everyone concerned.

Yep, you’re welcome.

Hmmm there was something “lacking” in Christ’s sacrifice that needed the Reformation (a work) to highten the odds of salvation

Could you imagine if a Catholic wrote that?

God bless

 

[cooterhein]

Well, the Christians who don’t “mis-interpret” Matt. 16:18-20 have a name: “Catholic”:

According to your idea of “correct interpretation” and “mis-interpretation,” about three-quarters of the ECF’s must not have been Catholic.

The interpretation that you favor was one of the minority opinions in the early centuries of Christianity, and not even the largest minority opinion, at that. But I suppose there has been Roman consensus for as long as Christianity was the religion of the empire, so there’s that.

“And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

This is not an accurate translation. This is not a true representation of words attributed to Jesus.

At risk of stating the perfectly obvious, that is relevant.

 

[cooterhein]

Hmmm there was something “lacking” in Christ’s sacrifice that needed the Reformation (a work) to highten the odds of salvation

You read my post and got that out of it? No wonder we come to such different conclusions when we read the same passages from the Bible.

Assuming you do sometimes read the Bible? I mean, I know you’re Catholic, I assume you’re laity rather than clergy…you have a reputation to uphold, is what I’m implying.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You read my post and got that out of it? No wonder we come to such different conclusions when we read the same passages from the Bible.

Why are you so surprised?

Christians have always gotten to heaven the same way- God gets them there. But there were some important and far-reaching implications of the Reformation that made the odds better for everyone. So people were always saved the same way, **but the Reformation allowed **for that to happen on more of a regular basis for everyone concerned.

I thought my summation of what you wrote was pretty accurate. If it was not I apologize but perhaps the problem was not with my interpretation but with what you wrote

Assuming you do sometimes read the Bible? I mean, I know you’re Catholic, I assume you’re laity rather than clergy…you have a reputation to uphold, is what I’m implying.

That was very Christian of you. Not sure to what reputation you are implying, but yes to your assumption.

God bless

 

[cooterhein]

I thought my summation of what you wrote was pretty accurate. If it was not I apologize but perhaps the problem was not with my interpretation but with what you wrote

It was not accurate. The phrase “lacking in Christ’s sacrifice” materialized from out of nowhere and you made a clumsy attempt at associating my comment with works-based salvation. You could say there was something wrong with what you did, and you’d be right.

I wasn’t exactly complete in my explanation, however, so I will attempt to rectify that. I should note that I don’t have a problem with the phrase “filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,” provided that it’s not horribly misused. I just have problems when it is neither stated nor implied in something I say and then you tell me it is.

So here’s a slightly more complete explanation. I’ll go ahead and do something with the concept of “filling up what is lacking,” since you brought it up. There is nothing lacking in the afflictions of Christ as far as the propitiation of sin. If anything is lacking, it has to do with propogation, not with propitiation.

In words that are only slightly different, nothing is lacking in Christ’s propitiation. But there is something lacking in Christ’s propogation. To that end, there is such a thing as redemptive suffering, although it is not propitiative in character. To the extent that the suffering of a Christian serves to spread the Gospel, however, this sort of propogation is rightly called “redemptive suffering” and succeeds in “filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.”

To clarify: There is a way in which this passage can be misused, such that the suffering of some person besides Jesus can be propitiative in nature with regard to the sins of another. That is the horrible misuse I was referring to. I’m not entirely sure if you truly intend to comprehend the words I’m writing to you, but please, understand if you are able.

With that out of the way…when I mentioned that the Reformation somehow made it easier for people to get into heaven, I was referring to the propogation of the Gospel. In my view, getting the laity more involved in church business and educated in their theology works wonders toward this specific end and it’s far more a product of the Reformation than it is of Catholicism. In my view, evangelism on the individual level is indispensable to the propogation of the Gospel and the knowledge and consent of each person is not and cannot be replaced by an imperialistic mindset wherein every member of a kingdom, country, or empire is required by law to participate in various sacraments regardless of their individual level of doctrinal understanding. (That level has generally been quite low, btw).

If I may give you a more specific example of this, let’s take a look at the Holy Roman Empire prior to the Reformation and compare it to how things progressed afterward. Prior to the Reformation, everyone was, by law, Catholic. Everyone went and did the basic sacraments. Everyone recited the Lord’s Prayer and some kind of creed. Nevertheless, the overall level of theological understanding was abysmal. Take a look at any of the general studies on religious knowledge among the laity during that time. Less than a quarter of them were able to accurately respond to extremely simple questions like “How many gods are there?” (The most popular answer was 2, followed by 3, and finally, one). Other questions were literally taken word for word from the Apostle’s Creed, but most of the respondents made it abundantly clear that they recited the Creed mechanically and with absolutely no comprehension of what they were saying. In these kinds of circumstances, over half of them would blank out on these kinds of questions, be prompted to recite the portion of the Creed containing the answer, do so from memory, and still continue to blank out on the answer.

What I’m saying to you is this: Even if there is an impressive amount of scholarship among a select group of leaders that speak Latin, they can’t really hold a set of beliefs on behalf of anyone else. If a German farmer believes in the existence of three different deities, has zero understanding of Christology, doesn’t have the faintest clue about what is even supposed to happen when he participates in the sacraments, and does all this while making a habit of praying to traditional weather-spirits in the process of forming some kind of syncretism between Catholicism and ancient Germanic religious practices, what good does it do him if his bishop has kept the faith? The farmer has not, and that’s what matters. For him and his family, at least.

That’s the sort of thing that slowly- not all at once, but very gradually- changed with the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, the farmer you just met was a completely average farmer in the HRE. He wasn’t out at the edges of the HRE bell-curve regarding its laity- he was right in the middle with a bunch of his neighbors and buddies. Post-Reformation, though, the attitude of “let the laity do what they will; the leaders will keep the faith” was replaced with “We’re looking at a totally clueless group of laypeople, and we really have to do something about this.” It didn’t happen all at once, but it did happen over time, and the Reformation was the beginning of that process. And the end- happily for you- is one where your personal level of understanding and comprehension of all things Christian makes you far more similar to me than to the stereotypical German farmer mentioned earlier.

For that, you should be thankful. I don’t know if you are, though.

That was very Christian of you.

 

[Sufjon]

I’m curious since Catholics and Eastern Orthodox aren’t Christians in the eyes of some protestants how did anyone get into Heaven before luther? So is everyone before Luther burning in hell?

No, they got out on appeal. The same way people do every time the the church changes a mortal sin to a venial sin. All the people who went to hell while it was a mortal sin have to file a petition within 90 days with the 11th celestial Circuit Court.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It was not accurate. The phrase “lacking in Christ’s sacrifice” materialized from out of nowhere and you made a clumsy attempt at associating my comment with works-based salvation. You could say there was something wrong with what you did, and you’d be right.

Ahhh I see it was you who misunderstood me… Or maybe not Notice I quoted the word lacking? I was making a reference to what Paul wrote in Colossians:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church… Col 1:24

It obviously wasn’t lost on you as you even quoted it later in this post:

I should note that I don’t have a problem with the phrase “filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,”

I even ended it with, “could you imagine if a Catholic wrote that?” I was hoping the irony would hit home as a Catholic did write it, Paul. He just wasn’t talking about the Reformation though. But it doesn’t matter I don’t really care to continue this discussion with you. It’s a shame because you brought up some interesting points for discussion in your post.

BTW thank you for your further explanation of what you were trying to say originally. Before your jump on others perhaps you should take the time to make sure what your wrote is what you wanted to convey? I still think my original observation was valid but perhaps instead of the response you came back with you followed with, “this is what I meant…”

God bless

 

[JaMc]

According to your idea of “correct interpretation” and “mis-interpretation,” about three-quarters of the ECF’s must not have been Catholic.

The interpretation that you favor was one of the minority opinions in the early centuries of Christianity, and not even the largest minority opinion, at that. But I suppose there has been Roman consensus for as long as Christianity was the religion of the empire, so there’s that.

This is not an accurate translation. This is not a true representation of words attributed to Jesus.

At risk of stating the perfectly obvious, that is relevant.

Granted, I did quote the Douay-Rheims translation of Matt. 16:19. However, the King James translation (favored by most Protestants, fundamentalist/evangelicals in particular) is nearly identical: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..” Do you favor a third translation, or are you seeing a big difference between the two that I’m missing?

 

[cooterhein]

Calling whom rebels? What are you talking about?

“Luther and the other rebels” seems to be what you were referring to. I shared the opinion that making a regular practice of calling them “rebels” instead of “reformers” might not be seen as generally accurate or acceptable among most Christians.

Some Protestants ignore Scripture when it suits them. Or they mis-interpret. This is a fact. Not all. Some.

Ahhh. In your original comment, you seemed to be focused more on a select group of reformers. Although you referred to them as “rebels.” Quick historical footnote, if I may- those reformers were, among other things, responsible for developing a method of biblical interpretation that is actually quite good. So good, in fact, that it is now the method predominantly (though not exclusively) used in Catholic scholarship right now. That development is more of a post-Trent phenomenon, but Protestants had been using that method ever since the Reformation.

Some Protestants do ignore Scripture when it suits them, and some fail to use or correctly apply the interpretive method that was developed by the reformers. You know, the “rebels” for whom you appear to have no respect. But it was these Protestant reformers who developed this method, and Protestants are obviously more likely to put it to good use. Catholics largely avoided it for several centuries, but most of you are finally using it now, too. I’m happy to see that happening and I hope to see more of your laity follow the example of your scholars, but given the history of interpretive methods among various Christians over the last 500 years, it seems rather odd for someone in your position to talk about the interpretive habits of Protestants in the way that you are.

And Luther was in rebellion against his Catholic church. He later recanted.

Oh boy. By calling it a “rebellion,” you reveal an ahistorical bias and demand that you drive a particular narrative with little to no regard for things like “truth” and “accuracy.” Right now, my impression of you is that you’re the sort of person who might start talking about “The error of Sola Fide” and then act very confused when your words are assessed as “biased opinion” rather than “historical fact.”

You do realize you’re in the non-Catholic sub-forum, correct? You’re in the company of some people who aren’t Catholic. Yet in spite of the fact that I’m not Catholic, you still have to pay attention to some of the cues I’m giving you. Please don’t act confused about this. You know the meaning of “reformer”- it’s someone who advocates change or improvement by correction of error or removal of defects. A “rebel” is someone who refuses allegiance to an established authority and rises up against it, esp. by force of arms. I know why you favor “rebels” rather than “reformers”- you’re primarily interested in presenting Luther and other reformers as people with illegitimate gripes against a perfectly good authority that has never been guilty of error and has always been free from defects. This POV is historically inaccurate to the point of hilarity. Furthermore, it implies a fairly strong link between Luther and some sort of armed resistance- perhaps you even place most of the blame for the 30 Year’s War on him. As I’m sure you’re well aware, however, Luther did not support any sort of armed uprising. For all his other faults, that was something he opposed rather than supported, and by calling him a “rebel,” you make a stronger link between reform and violence than is necessary or appropriate.

As for the last part of your quote- what was it that Luther recanted, exactly?

 

[cooterhein]

Granted, I did quote the Douay-Rheims translation of Matt. 16:19.

It’s not necessarily wrong just because it comes from a certain translation. Linguistic accuracy is always based on just that- linguistic accuracy. Look at what it says in Greek, know the meaning of the various Greek words, and assess the relative accuracy of the English words in any given translation. That’s how it works.

However, the King James translation (favored by most Protestants, fundamentalist/evangelicals in particular) is nearly identical: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..”

Yep, that’s pretty much the same. No significant differences. So it should come as no surprise when I say that one isn’t accurate either.

Do you favor a third translation, or are you seeing a big difference between the two that I’m missing?

No, no, you got it right, there’s no big difference between those translations for this particular passage. There is, however, a pretty important difference between the Greek text and each of these translations.

This is what it says in Greek.

δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὁ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὁ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

The first word- “I give.” The second word- “you” in the dative form, so it means “to you.” Then there’s three pairs of definite articles and nouns where the matching cases of the articles and nouns (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative) indicate their relationship to each other. What’s being given is “the keys” (accusative, plural) “of the kingdom” (genitive, singular) “of heaven/the heavens” (genitive, plural). No problems so far, it seems.

The word following the comma is a conjunction- “and.” Following that are the words ὁ ἐὰν- they mean “whatever” and act as a relative pronoun. δήσῃς is a verb, and it’s subjunctive, which is known as “the mood of possibility.” The verb is “bind,” but since it’s subjunctive, the overall meaning is “and whatever you may bind.” Following that is the preposition ἐπὶ- “on” or “upon.” Upon where? Upon τῆς γῆς- “the earth,” which is genitive/singular. Following this is ἔσται, from ἔσομαι, which means “be,” but when it’s in the future middle indicative, it means “it will be.”

The next word is of particular interest, and so is a word shortly following it- δεδεμένον and λελυμένον. They come from the verbs for “bind” and “loose,” but the form in which they appear is pretty unique and quite rare in all of ancient Greek. The only time you’ll ever see this form in the Bible (periphrastic, perfect, passive participles) is in the passages where Jesus uses them in exactly this way. Most translations get it wrong, in that the English words have something to do with binding and loosing, but you won’t see any sort of attempt at creating a perfect passive participle.

Some translations will express these verbs in this way- “will be bound in heaven” and “will be loosed in heaven.” The Greek shows us perfect passive participles, but these aren’t perfect passive participles. What you’re looking at in English is the future passive. Future passive is not the same as perfect passive. What you see in most English translations is not the right thing. Simple enough.

Oh, side note- the rest of the translation. After each of those words you’ll see the phrase ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ἐν means “in” and τοῖς οὐρανοῖς should look familiar from earlier in the verse- it’s “the heavens” again, but this time it’s dative rather than genitive. Still plural, though. Thus, instead of “of heaven/the heavens,” you have “in heaven/the heavens.” You also have a repetition of the καὶ ὁ ἐὰν (“and whatever”) phrase…following that, the verb for “loose” and another prep. phrase meaning “on/upon the earth.” That’s pretty much it.

Getting back to the tricky translation of perfect passive participles, though. An overly-literal super-wooden translation would look like this:

“and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.” (YLT).

This phrasing is awkward and not exactly literate, however. What we’re talking about is a future of continuous binding and loosing in the heavens which- as indicated by the grammar of the text- was initially bound and loosed (in heaven) at some point in the past. This is an important point as it relates to causality- Jesus is not giving His disciples the ability to cause things to be bound and loosed in heaven; rather, he is talking about things that have already been bound and loosed in heaven. (There’s no way you can see this when you’re looking at future passive participles; this is actually the primary difference between the perfect passive and the future passive). Thus, I tend to favor translations that introduce an element of necessity to the translation:

“and whatever you bind on earth must be what has already been bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth must be what has already been loosed in heaven.”

If you know your way around grammar at all, it should be clear to you that this ^^^ expresses a perfect passive participle where most other translations fail to do so. And as I’ve stated a number of times, the Greek words in the Bible indicate perfect passive participles in these places. So it’s important that a good English translation does so as well.