How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[shaky]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

Hi bonarges

Well you are saved through grace not of works because of Christ and the cross=blood
Paul only baptised 2 people after that he did not bother he said i have not come to baptise
I preach the cross. There are plenty of scriptures to prove this.

Now you have a brand new life like a brand new car you have to maintain that salvation
Through your works and you are rewarded according to you works you can be least in the Kingdom of God or the Greatest or in between. bad works get burnt up you will be saved but only as if past through fire.
You repent get baptised and take holy communion if not there is something wrong with your faith.
You read the bible if you sin ask God to forgive you. say the lords prayer ask God to renew
your mind, your heart and your will. To help you obey his word.

You start of as a baby christian and you Grow until you are sanctified. if you err and fall
God will chastise you he has done that to me a few times with sickness i had cancer 12 years ago and lost allot because of it. you preserve to the End.

There are so many cults out there its a Joke what they believe. Then you have the problem of all these different Denominations and powerful delusions Going On
some say Signs are for today some say they are not. Then you have Calvinist, Oneness Apostolic pentecostal medalist view denying the trinity JW+ mormons denying Jesus is God
control freaks all over the place trying to convince you are lost you been baptised wrong
It should be in Jesus name . Each claiming thy are the only true church
I can’t find the right church because i have come out of a few cults with there problems they give at the moment I am Just a christian on my own.
I am off work at the moment with medical problems from 2 operations i am left with a hernia, adhesions, trapped nerve endings and the past 6 months solid 24/7 am studying to find the right church.
So i have been studying the history of the catholic church.

The Church seems to say they Come come From PETER who is the Rock to build the church on and history does Go back to peter.

Mathew 16: 15-18 Jesus says who am I. peter says the Christ. Jesus says and you are peter. And on this ROCK i will build my church.
When you look at this scripture there is 2 ways to see it which is the right one:shrug:

JESUS CHRIST Evidence
I Corinthians 10:4 The Rock was Christ. matt 7:24. Jesus the rock.
1cor 3:11 No other foundation. 1peter 2;8 the rock of offence Jesus
Duet 32:3. 2 sam 22:2-3 Psalm 18:31 Isiah 44:8 the rock
Romans 9:33. The STONE+ ROCK .

Peter because of his lack of faith.
Matthew 14:29-30 peter was sinking. Luke 22:57-58 peter denied Christ.
Galatians 2:11-16 peter was condemned by Paul.

What is The Evidence that PETER was to be the ONE???
Can any body answer this One??
God bless Ronnie

 

[benedictus2]

And this was precisely the point of my earlier post, dear Christian siblings, Tantum and Nine. Even with Sacred Tradition, human sin divides us.

It is my sincere prayer that Rome and Orthodoxy, and Lutherans and all manner of Christians with strive for the unity Christ calls us to.

Jon

How will Christianity achieve unity when there is such a great divide in doctrines? For example, will Lutheran’s be quite happy to give up the doctrines that separate them from the Church just to be able to unite?

 

[shaky]

Actually this is where the difference arises.

Before the Bible was considered Scripture, there was first the Church and her Traditions. So when the canon was established, the books that made the cut were weighed against tradition. Some would say then that since the canonization of Scripture there is no longer a need for Tradition. But Tradition is always needed because any interpretation of scripture has be based on tradition. Scripture will not contradict tradition but its interpretation could do that so interpretation has to be checked against tradition.

And no we have never ever claimed that the Pope is absolutely infallible.

What traditions of what the early church was doing speaking in tongues. etc
Or traditions what man say the new church is.

 

[benedictus2]

It seems to me that we hold differing definitions, here, so let me qualify.
First, I believe I am, as you are, a member of Christ’s Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I believe that one Church which Christ established is, due to human sin, in division and schism. And I, like the Catholic Church, believe that there was blame (sin) on all sides that led to our division.

But that is not quite true. In the time of the Apostles prior to. say the east-west schism in 1054 (you can even date that earlier if you like), sin abounded and yet there was on ly one Church. So your argument falls straight away.

Even in Acts, sin abounded that is why Paul was always exhorting everyone to lead the Christian life, yet there was only one Church.

When it comes to Church division one cannot just say sin, as if because of sin, all of a sudden division took place. Church divided along doctrinal lines, along what one regards as true or false.

The split with Luther would have been healed were it just because of “sin” had Luther not come up with false doctrines.

I think this “sin is what causing us to be divided” is being used to avoid having to face the fact that one must confront one’s belief system.

And you continue that by defining the Church as somehow this amorphous conglomeration of believers.

Your definition of Church does not hold because Christ founded a church with visible unity, You are Lutheran because you believe Lutheran doctrine to be true. That is what we are trying to work out in this thread.

So, for me, it isn’t a matter of “coming home to Christ’s Church”. And it isn’t completely a matter of converting to avoid being in schism. Even if I were confirmed in a local Catholic Parish next Easter, I would still be in schism and division - from my Lutheran siblings I would leave behind, from Orthodox, etc.

But you will be back with the Church that Christ established on earth. I think you need to really address that. I have always maintained that there will only be Christian unity if everyone became Catholic, if every Church is in communion with Rome.

You have to ask, did the early Church believe what you believe that justification is forensic?

In his conversion story, Francis Beckwith, the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society quoted Alister McGrath regarding this issue: "Although McGrath maintains that the Reformed distinction between justification and regeneration is only notional, it is the understanding of justification as exclusively forensic that requires this notional distinction. Thus even if the distinction is merely notional, the idea that required it, “the Reformed understanding of the nature of justification” (i.e. forensic justification) is a according to McGrath “a genuine theological novum”.

To continue to be Protestant is to go against what the Church has always believed in this matter, hence to be Protestant is to believe in the doctrines of man.

But let’s use your definition of “Christ’s Church” for a moment. since the Church founded at Pentecost is in schism - Orthodox and Rome - how am I to know which is truly the one true Church established by Christ?

Study what caused the schism. The schism did not start along doctrinal lines. That was to come later. It had a lot to do with politics in the beginning.
The immediate cause was Patriarch Michael in wanting to impose the Byzantine rite on the western part of the Roman Empire decreed that the Latin rite was not valid. He opened the tabernacle and threw out on the streets the consecrated Hosts. Pope Humbert then sent His legate to excommunicate Michael for desecrating the Body of Our Lord. But as I said that was the immediate cause.
Here is a more detailed explanation.
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

One of the converts whose testimony is in the first volume of Surprised by Truth wrote that during the early years when the patriarchs succumbed to heresy in one form or another, Rome maintained orthodoxy. I think here we clearly see the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Even now we see that only the Catholic Church has clung to the Christian tradition on the issue of contraception. From the beginning, all of Christianity has held that contraception is morally evil. Then the Anglicans started the trend in 1930 and every Christian denomination followed after that. Only the Catholic Church remained the beacon of truth in this matter.

Doctrine.
Father Neuhaus, from what I understand, felt the division was no longer theologically necessary. While I’m his decision was a blessing to him, I’m not there yet. And I wouldn’t make that change without that certainty.
Jon

I encourage you to keep reading and to maintain an open heart.

 

[benedictus2]

What traditions of what the early church was doing speaking in tongues. etc
Or traditions what man say the new church is.

Sorry I don’t quite understand what your question. Can you re-phrase that?

 

[benedictus2]

There is no guarantee that any particular religious body can provide anyone with the “correct interpretation”.

If I rely on a church heirarchal system…I’m still relying on humans to tell me what they believe the scriptures teach…and should they be wrong what does it really matter?

Only if you believe that the Bible came from a vacuum.

But when you realize that the Bible was first the Tradition of the Catholic Church, then you have the authority. Once you acknowledge the inerrancy of the Bible then you have to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church because the two are implicative.

I would rather study and make my own decision with the help of the Holy Spirit than rely on someone else telling me what they mean because “God told them” or they claim some mystic sense of what the truth is.

But that is exactly the point of this thread. How do you kow that it is the Holy Spirit guiding you. So many people have claimed the same guidance and came up with differing answers.

Any disputed doctrine that really makes a difference will show it’s truth in the lives of those who profess it. If a “doctrine” is correct, then it will inspire and lead it’s adherants to serve others and live in kindness, peace, display mercy and lovingkindness.

That is very subjective. How does one define loving kindness. Is is loving kindness to kill someone who is suffering? Is that following the truth? You see, your criteria are in themselves in need of definition and a searching for truth so it doesn’t work.

If a “doctrine” in no way causes one to love God and love others…including one’s enemies…then it’s “tinkling brass and clanging bells”…“it avails nothing.”

You know what, in all of Jesus’s claims for Himself he never claimed to be good but He claimed to be the Truth. In his promise to His Church He did not promise to lead her into moral goodness, but to truth.

Doctrine is important because practice follows from doctrine. If the practice is wrong, so long as the doctrine is true, then we have a benchmark by which to gauge the practice.

But once the doctrine is false then that lie becomes the benchmark of our practice and that becomes entrenched in our psyche.

You see that now in the arguments for abortion. Because abortion is now deemed as a “moral” option, then it becomes easy for women to kill their own children because it has somehow become permissable.

Truth and Love has to go together.

 

[benedictus2]

One is never 100% certain. This is the nature of human existence and knowledge.

Unless they have the assurance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Change of subject, Jim? That’s fine. I actually prefer a dialogue regarding our agreements and that which still divides us, with charity and good will.

Show me a quote from an ECF that doesn’t. But first, you have to understand the Lutheran teaching of justification. I suggest we start with a common ground. Try this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

That speaks quite well to my belief regarding justification. Do you think any ECF would disagree with it?

Further, I’ll provide you with an interesting essay by Catholic apologist James Akin.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

Jon

Let me ask you this: which one is your take on justification - imputation or infusion?

 

[benedictus2]

I know this is what you believe, and your statements of faith have always impressed me.
But more than just on your belief, or the say-so of the Magisterium, how is one to know that Rome is the one true Church, and Orthodoxy is not? You could say Christ built His Church on St. Peter, but Peter was in Antioch, too.

But he was not the Bishop of Antioch.

Even at a casual glance, which one has the hallmark of universality? One visible shepherd spanning the globe?

 

[JonNC]

How will Christianity achieve unity when there is such a great divide in doctrines? For example, will Lutheran’s be quite happy to give up the doctrines that separate them from the Church just to be able to unite?

It seems that, for those truly interested in unity, that the Holy Spirit can guide our dialogue to language that speaks the truth which we can both abide. An example is the JDDJ I mentioned before, in addition to other documents regarding the Eucharist, etc, that have led to common understanding.

If we are waiting for submission of one side to another, then you are correct, there will be no unity of the Church Militant, as there is in the Church Triumphant.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6754309]But that is not quite true. In the time of the Apostles prior to. say the east-west schism in 1054 (you can even date that earlier if you like), sin abounded and yet there was on ly one Church. So your argument falls straight away.
You make a great point, though I would dispute that it hurts my position. Are East and West one holy catholic and apostolic Church? IF not, which is, and how do we know?
I would contend that where the word is preached and the sacraments adminstered, there are the visable signs of the Church, even though there is schism and division.

When it comes to Church division one cannot just say sin, as if because of sin, all of a sudden division took place. Church divided along doctrinal lines, along what one regards as true or false.

And you don’t think it is sin that causes our divisions on the understanding of truth? If not sin, what then?

The split with Luther would have been healed were it just because of “sin” had Luther not come up with false doctrines.

The CCC states clearly fault on both sides. CCC 817 - "…but in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

I think this “sin is what causing us to be divided” is being used to avoid having to face the fact that one must confront one’s belief system.

I think we all have to face that, together.

Your definition of Church does not hold because Christ founded a church with visible unity, You are Lutheran because you believe Lutheran doctrine to be true. That is what we are trying to work out in this thread.

And that unity is visable broken. You are Catholic, as opposed to Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox, for the exact same reason.

But you will be back with the Church that Christ established on earth. I think you need to really address that. I have always maintained that there will only be Christian unity if everyone became Catholic, if every Church is in communion with Rome

Well, of course. For there to be unity, that unity must include the Bishop of Rome. By the actions of recent popes since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has taken a leading role in ecumenism to bring that about.

You have to ask, did the early Church believe what you believe that justification is forensic?

In his conversion story, Francis Beckwith, the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society quoted Alister McGrath regarding this issue: "Although McGrath maintains that the Reformed distinction between justification and regeneration is only notional, it is the understanding of justification as exclusively forensic that requires this notional distinction. Thus even if the distinction is merely notional, the idea that required it, “the Reformed understanding of the nature of justification” (i.e. forensic justification) is a according to McGrath "**a genuine theological novum[/BTo continue to be Protestant is to go against what the Church has always believed in this matter, hence to be Protestant is to believe in the doctrines of man.

And yet, the JDDJ seems to cross the distinction between our views of justification as forensic, and your as ongoing.

Study what caused the schism. The schism did not start along doctrinal lines. That was to come later. It had a lot to do with politics in the beginning.
The immediate cause was Patriarch Michael in wanting to impose the Byzantine rite on the western part of the Roman Empire decreed that the Latin rite was not valid. He opened the tabernacle and threw out on the streets the consecrated Hosts. Pope Humbert then sent His legate to excommunicate Michael for desecrating the Body of Our Lord. But as I said that was the immediate cause.

Here is a more detailed explanation.
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

**

One of the converts whose testimony is in the first volume of Surprised by Truth wrote that during the early years when the patriarchs succumbed to heresy in one form or another, Rome maintained orthodoxy. I think here we clearly see the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I’ll let our Orthodox siblings argue the point of whether it is Rome or the East which succumbed to heresy and which patriarchs maintianed orthodoxy. The interesting point for me is, you’ve had a thousand years to solve what is described by some as merely a political schism. I can’t say for sure, but it seems in the last 60 years, Lutherans and Catholics have made more headway than Rome and the East. Maybe that’s because we are, by nature, western Christians with much in common.

Even now we see that only the Catholic Church has clung to the Christian tradition on the issue of contraception. From the beginning, all of Christianity has held that contraception is morally evil. Then the Anglicans started the trend in 1930 and every Christian denomination followed after that. Only the Catholic Church remained the beacon of truth in this matter.

Well, not every one. The WELS completely reject contraception, and the LCMS does not overtly accept it.

I encourage you to keep reading and to maintain an open heart.

I will indeed.

Jon
[/quote]

 

[JonNC]

Let me ask you this: which one is your take on justification - imputation or infusion?

Ahh, and here is the crux of our division on Justification, not completely resolved yet in dialogue. As a Lutheran, I see the righteousness within me to be His righteousness, strengthening me by word and sacrament, which alows me to grow in grace to do the good works He has prepared for me to do.

Jon

 

[shaky]

Sorry I don’t quite understand what your question. Can you re-phrase that?

What traditions are you talking about when you say the early church

The One in 1 Corinthians where the Apostles and believers prophesied talked in tongues

Or the traditions of the roman catholic church and there teachings and there interpretation
of the scriptures by priests bishops popes who put the bible together

There was saint peter and he was married but in the 12 century the leaders changed things.

1 timothy 4:1-3 But the spirit expressly said in latter times.
people will fall away from the faith listening to deceitful spirits
doctrines of demons who forbid marraige and advocate.
abstaining from foods.

 

[T_More]

What traditions are you talking about when you say the early church

The One in 1 Corinthians where the Apostles and believers prophesied talked in tongues

Or the traditions of the roman catholic church and there teachings and there interpretation
of the scriptures by priests bishops popes who put the bible together

There was saint peter and he was married but in the 12 century the leaders changed things.

1 timothy 4:1-3 But the spirit expressly said in latter times.
people will fall away from the faith listening to deceitful spirits
doctrines of demons who forbid marraige and advocate.
abstaining from foods.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403chap.asp

 

[benedictus2]

It seems that, for those truly interested in unity, that the Holy Spirit can guide our dialogue to language that speaks the truth which we can both abide. An example is the JDDJ I mentioned before, in addition to other documents regarding the Eucharist, etc, that have led to common understanding.

But that does not bridge the divide. We go so and then stop because at the very heart of it there are fundamental differences Language alone will not bridge that chasm because the chasm is not linguistic in nature.

If we are waiting for submission of one side to another, then you are correct, there will be no unity of the Church Militant, as there is in the Church Triumphant.

Jon

And it has to be. If two sides are in opposition only one can be true.
One must ask oneself: "Why is it that one cannot find this forensic notion of justification in the history of the Church. As McGrath who is himself Protestant concluded, this is theological invention during the Reformation.

Could the Holy Spirit have abandoned the Church on such crucial a point for 1500 years whilst He waited for Luther to arrive on the scene?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6757553]
But that does not bridge the divide. We go so and then stop because at the very heart of it there are fundamental differences Language alone will not bridge that chasm because the chasm is not linguistic in nature.

Certainly not by themselves, as Pope Benedict pointed out in his homily at a Lutheran Church in Rome in March, men cannot by themselves bring unity, but the Holy Spirit can.

And it has to be. If two sides are in opposition only one can be true.
One must ask oneself: "Why is it that one cannot find this forensic notion of justification in the history of the Church. As McGrath who is himself Protestant concluded, this is theological invention during the Reformation.

Again, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification makes significant, though incomplete headway in this area. I guess what I am saying is that current dialogue is showing that we may not be in such finite oppostion that the Holy Spirit cannot overcome.

Could the Holy Spirit have abandoned the Church on such crucial a point for 1500 years whilst He waited for Luther to arrive on the scene?

Lutherans have (should) never looked at things in this way. Of course the Holy Spirit has never abandoned the Church Militant, either in Rome, or in Jerusalem or Antioch, or even in Wittenburg. It must also be pointed out that the Church is not only the here on Earth, but also includes the Church Triumphant. it would be foolish to claim that the Holy Spirit has at anytime abandoned His Church. It might be more correct to say that man, often enough, and in all communions, has at times abandoned the Holy Spirit. It is our fault - all of us - that there is division and schism, not the Holy Spirit’s.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

You make a great point, though I would dispute that it hurts my position. Are East and West one holy catholic and apostolic Church? IF not, which is, and how do we know?

Well that was not the point I was making. You said that the division was caused by sin. I said this is not so, because prior to the East – West Schism, Christians were sinning and yet they remained united.

So saying we are divided because of sin is just not true. That we do not worship together is not just because we are sinners. We do not belong to the same Church because of our beliefs. My fellow Catholics and I squabble and sin but we remain in the same Church.

If one were to extend your line of thinking, we should all be having our own individual churches if that were the case since we all sin.

I would contend that where the word is preached and the sacraments adminstered, there are the visable signs of the Church, even though there is schism and division.

As consoling as that thought may be, it just is not true. Christ intended for there to be one Church and one visible shepherd just as it was prior to schisms.

And you don’t think it is sin that causes our divisions on the understanding of truth? If not sin, what then?

The devil is the father of lies. Don’t you think it is rather interesting that the devil is depicted not as the father of immorality or sin but rather the father of lies?

When Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, He did not promise to lead His Church to sinlessness but rather to truth. Think about that.

The CCC states clearly fault on both sides. CCC 817 - "…but in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Fault is not the issue we are discussing here. Sure there were faults on both sides. The Catholic hierarchy was incredibly corrupt. But according to Luther himself, they themselves became even worse than the people they were hoping to reform. If it had just been a matter of sin, well… there’s the confessional, there’s the sacraments. Now we dont’ even have the same view with regards the sacraments.

Because it was more than just sin. Luther came up with new doctrine. And the worst of it is that he even chopped up the Bible to suit his own ends. There in pops the father of lies.

The Popes and bishops even at their worst did not do that.
As Peter Kreeft said in his conversion story, no matter how terrible the hierarchy of the Church got during the renaissance, they never lowered their teaching to their practice.

I think we all have to face that, together.

Saying that does not address the issue because the reality is, the reformers came up with man made doctrines. The question now is whether one must hang on to these man made doctrines.

And that unity is visable broken. You are Catholic, as opposed to Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox, for the exact same reason.

Well the reformers were the one who started their own churches.

And yet, the JDDJ seems to cross the distinction between our views of justification as forensic, and your as ongoing.

But you did not mention that it did not completely cross all the distinctions. There were indeed points of congruence but the fact remains that the two are still not one and the same.

Beckwith who studied the JDDJ is still able to concur with McGrath that forensic justification is a 16th century invention by the reformers.

All the JDDJ does is state the commonalities but there remains the sticking points that divide.

Lutherans and Catholics have made more headway than Rome and the East. Maybe that’s because we are, by nature, western Christians with much in common.

This comes to mind:

Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in reviewing the book “Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assesment of Contemporary Catholicism” wrote:
Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need, good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being Catholic should, in otherwords, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.”

Well, not every one. The WELS completely reject contraception, and the LCMS does not overtly accept it.

I googled this one and it said that WELS is not taking any position on it. Hardly a clear teaching against it.

 

[benedictus2]

Ahh, and here is the crux of our division on Justification, not completely resolved yet in dialogue. As a Lutheran, I see the righteousness within me to be His righteousness, strengthening me by word and sacrament, which alows me to grow in grace to do the good works He has prepared for me to do.

Jon

That does not answer my question.

Do you believe that justification is imputed or infused?

It is not just a matter of whether it is ongoing or one time.

In Luther’s view, were dungheaps covered with snow.

The Catholics hold we’re made snow.

So, is it imputed or infused?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6757686Well that was not the point I was making. You said that the division was caused by sin. I said this is not so, because prior to the East – West Schism, Christians were sinning and yet they remained united.

So saying we are divided because of sin is just not true. That we do not worship together is not just because we are sinners. We do not belong to the same Church because of our beliefs. My fellow Catholics and I squabble and sin but we remain in the same Church.

If one were to extend your line of thinking, we should all be having our own individual churches if that were the case since we all sinAs consoling as that thought may be, it just is not true. Christ intended for there to be one Church and one visible shepherd just as it was prior to schisms

The devil is the father of lies. Don’t you think it is rather interesting that the devil is depicted not as the father of immorality or sin but rather the father of lies?

OK. I can accept your interpretation on this.

When Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, He did not promise to lead His Church to sinlessness but rather to truth. Think about that.

I can agree with this, also.

Fault is not the issue we are discussing here. Sure there were faults on both sides. The Catholic hierarchy was incredibly corrupt. But according to Luther himself, they themselves became even worse than the people they were hoping to reform. If it had just been a matter of sin, well… there’s the confessional, there’s the sacraments. Now we dont’ even have the same view with regards the sacraments.

Agreed

Because it was more than just sin. Luther came up with new doctrine. And the worst of it is that he even chopped up the Bible to suit his own ends. There in pops the father of lies.

How do you mean, “he chopped up the Bible”. Luther translated and included all the books of the typical western Bible, and included the Prayer of Manasses.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Saying that does not address the issue because the reality is, the reformers came up with man made doctrines. The question now is whether one must hang on to these man made doctrines Well, the reformers were the one who started their own churches.

The question as to who has man-made doctrines can be debated. Many of us would point to Transubstantiation (not the real presence, mind you), and universal jurisdiction as man-made doctrines.

But you did not mention that it did not completely cross all the distinctions. There were indeed points of congruence but the fact remains that the two are still not one and the same.

So, because we have not completed the task means it cannot be done? Pope Benedict disagrees.

Continuing his homily, delivered off-the-cuff in German, the Holy Father noted how “we hear many complaints about the fact that there are no longer any new developments in ecumenism. Yet”, he insisted, “we can say with gratitude that there are many elements that unite us”.

“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar”, he said.

“This”, he went on, “cannot but make us sad because it is a situation of sin; and yet unity cannot be achieved by men. We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. Let us hope that He brings us to that goal”.

catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4152&Itemid=78

Beckwith who studied the JDDJ is still able to concur with McGrath that forensic justification is a 16th century invention by the reformers.

All the JDDJ does is state the commonalities but there remains the sticking points that divide.

Agreed. There have been 500 years of division between us. It cannot be solved over night.
James Akin, in his Essay, Justification: By Faith Alone?, quotes The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?

Today the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas by faith alone, on the one hand, and faith, hope, and love, on the other.

We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: In Luther’s sense the word faith by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther’s concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).

If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word faith what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of faith, hope, and love. But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today that is, canons 9 and 12 of the [Council of Trent’s] Decree on Justification and the corresponding condemnations in the [Lutheran] Formula of Concord SD [Solid Declaration] III, first group of rejections 1-2 (BC [Book of Concord] 547f.); cf. HC [Heidelberg Catechism], esp. 20.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

This comes to mind:
Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in reviewing the book “Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assesment of Contemporary Catholicism” wrote:
Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need, good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being Catholic should, in otherwords, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.

And I look at it from a different perspective. I search everyday for reasons to become Catholic, in the sense of are we now close enough for me not to justify remaining Lutheran.

Jon