How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[JonNC]

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?

I think I did. I said I view the righteousness within me to be His righteousness, not my own. I don’t know whether that is infused or (name removed by moderator)uted. I don’t view myself as a dungheap, as I am His creation. I do not view myself as righteous of my own doing, as I am “subject to sin and cannot free myself”.

Jon

 

[larkin31]

Isn’t the only answer to this question, no matter one’s religion, “Because my God tells us so”?

 

[shaky]

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

Thanks for this it gave me information about other churches that forbid marriage.
Manichean’s, Albigensians. They think the act of sex is evil even in marriage.
I did not Know these churches existed and there attitude to food is wrong.
and castration.
So what your saying a priest can marry but he has to give up being a priest.
I thought Once some body made a Vow to God to be a priest he could not Go back on it.
Also i did read in the bible about bishops being married.
Why the church changed things in the 12 century when for 1200 years things where Fine
I don’t fully understand. I Googled and just had a quick look on priest vows.
There was something about bishops being married but not having sex with there wives.
I will have to look into things.
Who is making these rules and changes I thought it said in the bible not to follow
Rules and TRADITIONS of men in the church {Mark 7: 6-8} Isaiah 29:13 matt 15:9:shrug:

I have got nothing against people who want to remain single because at the moment want to remain single. but i might change my mind who knows. at the moment i prefer to be single there are benefits in being single. even people in congregations just want to remain single. but to impose on a bishop not to have sex with his wife seems a bit far.
I know not have sex can bring you closer to God Like fasting the bible tells you to abstain
from sex for a while.
Also i did read some where in the old testament about men being away from there wives for a year to do things for the Lord. But they later went back with there wives.
No where does it say it should be permanent a bishop abstaining from his wife.
Even people in war or other reasons are away from there wives for a while.
Surely if things where changed back. Fed up Christians on the protestant side with there cults also would have no problem with the catholic church. If and when i Join and for some reason i was made POPE i would change things back.

There is a big difference between traditions handed down from the 1st century church Then From the traditions of Man makeing new rules.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

---

Yeah and one can add a JW,Mormon,Methodist,etc X many others to the mix. uch:

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Yes, yes, yes. The Holy Spirit can. Now let’s look at the matter of doctrine. If one claims to be led by the Holy Spirit this way and the other claims to be led that way, then only one could be true.

Therefore, the only way the Holy Spirit could lead all to unity was to make all see that either THIS way is the truth or THAT way is the truth. They can’t exist together.

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.

I completely agree with that but qualifies it with what I wrote above.

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

I agree with this except for this point:
Yes the Church encoompasses the Church militant and the Church triumphant. But the Holy Spirit’s guidance (as we define it) is only for the Church Militant because the Church Triumphant has already been led to the Truth. The Church Triumphant is waiting for us to join them in that vision of Truth Himself.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Luther excised the Deuterocanonicals not because he had an issue with them but only because he had an issue with Mac2 (because it gives support to the doctrine on Purgatory).

But since he has no grounds for getting rid of just Mac2, and he knows that the Jamnia Council rejected the Septuagint, then this gave him an opening- a reason - to get rid of Mac2 even if it meant excising the rest of the Deuterocanonicals as well.

He tried to do that to James but did not succeed because he could not find any support to do so. But by calling it the epistle of straw, he lessened its “canonicity” in the eyes of his followers.

Although he did leave the DCs as appendices in his translation, this denigration of the books would result in the following generations of protestants to completely excise these books from their Bibles.

This is why I have always said that Luther was right to condemn the abusive practices in his time. The practice is without a doubt extremely corrupt. But the doctrine was sound.

What he did was throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[benedictus2]

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 Transubstatiation is not man made. This is what the Church has always believed, that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord and that the bread and wine is no longer.

Transubstantiation is merely an attempt to put in limited human language what actually happens. As St Thomas wrote in “Adore te Devote”, the senses fail when it comes to this sacrament.

The objection to this understanding of the doctrine came at around 1000 AD with Berengarius of Tours which the fathers completely squashed. When St Thomas Aquinas came, his treaties on the Eucharist is the closest that we humans can attempt to explain what happens and yet he still says that the senses will still fail to comprehend.

The orthodox understanding is the same except that they do not attempt to explain why. They know it is the Body and Blood of our Lord and leave it at that.

When the reformation came, all they did was revive the Berengarian heresy.

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

On no, I am not saying that at all. It will happen. Christ said there will be one flock and one shepherd. He appointed Peter to shepherd His flock and that’s that. We may do this and that to thwart it but as prophesied by Isaiah
" For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down And do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, Giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats, So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it."

 

[benedictus2]

I think I did. I said I view the righteousness within me to be His righteousness, not my own. I don’t know whether that is infused or (name removed by moderator)uted. I don’t view myself as a dungheap, as I am His creation. I do not view myself as righteous of my own doing, as I am “subject to sin and cannot free myself”.

Jon

I am sorry Jon but that is not an answer. That’s evading the choices presented.

If this were a multiple choice test where you are asked to pick one answer which one will it be? (None of the above is not an option )

a) imputation
b) infusion.

Just tell me is is it A or B.

 

[krbray]

I know I’m jumping in late in the game, but I thought I’d reply with this…

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.

I don’t know if this is going to help, but if we’ll look at what follows in Jon’s quote from Paragraph 817 of the CCC, we might get a better perspective of his point about sin and it’s place in this discussion:

The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

True, it is, that he Catholic hierarchy was incredibly corrupt. But when they, themselves, became even worse than the people they were hoping to reform, they apparently didn’t examine their consciences, didn’t go to the confessional and didn’t firmly resolve to sin no more and amend their behavior. The rest, as they say, is history.

If I’m getting the meaning of Paragraph 817 correctly, I think sin is at the root of all division but our sinful nature does not necessarily lead all of us to disagree with each other.

Regarding Luther and the Bible, he is known to have to have inserted the word “alone” after “faith” in Romans 3:28 to support his belief in salvation by faith alone and, most assuredly, declared the so-called apocryphal (a.k.a deuterocanonical) books to be unequal with the rest of scripture. This, as has been pointed out, led to further translations that didn’t have them at all.

 

[krbray]

I am sorry Jon but that is not an answer. That’s evading the choices presented.

If this were a multiple choice test where you are asked to pick one answer which one will it be? (None of the above is not an option )

a) imputation
b) infusion.

Just tell me is is it A or B.

Jon’s not evading anything. He told you he doesn’t know. Perhaps if you’ll give him your understanding of how and/or why Luther taught that we are snow-covered dung and compare it to why we Catholics believe we are, rather, made to be snow when we receive the free gift of sanctifying grace, he’ll be better prepared give you the answer.

 

[benedictus2]

If I’m getting the meaning of Paragraph 817 correctly, I think sin is at the root of all division but our sinful nature does not necessarily lead all of us to disagree with each other

Yes, I agree with your assessment there and I do see what Jon is getting at . But even were we all to become Catholic, we still would continue to sin. That is why, even though it is at the bottom of the divide, the divide cannot just be brushed aside with “it’s because of sin” unless you say that the erroneous doctrine that Luther, et al came up with is due to sin, i.e. sin prevents one from espousing the truth.

But then again, how do you account for the fact that in spite of their corruption, the bad Popes and bishops never taught error?

If we attribute that to the promise of Christ that her Church will be led into all truth, thus preventing her from teaching error, well then , we just go back full circle into the claim that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church of Christ. And if one comes up with that conclusion, then all I say, is “Come Home! We’re eagerly waiting for you”.

 

[benedictus2]

Jon’s not evading anything. He told you he doesn’t know. Perhaps if you’ll give him your understanding of how and/or why Luther taught that we are snow-covered dung and compare it to why we Catholics believe we are, rather, made to be snow when we receive the free gift of sanctifying grace, he’ll be better prepared give you the answer.

I think he does know. That is why he won’t commit to either infusion or imputation.

But for anyone else who doesn’t know and would like to know, here is the difference.

Imputation: We are declared righteous by God because of our faith and this is purely gratuitous, nothing we merited by ourselves. But because it is imputation, we remain the same putrid, rotting creatures that we are (dung) but we are covered with the righteousness of Christ (snow). So when the Father looks at us, He does not see the rotten, putrid, smelly creature underneath but sees the nice smelling white as snow righteousness of Christ that covers us. In short it is very legalistic. God has declared you righteous regardless of whether you are righteous or not.

Infusion: Grace is infused into the soul so that instead of just covering us with the righteousness of Christ, we are actually transformed into Christ. We are not merely declared righteous, we are **made **righteous. We become indeed, a new creation.

As both Peter Kreeft and Francis Beckwith said: Salvation is not just a matter you and me of getting into heaven. It also means getting heaven into you and me. The goal of justification and sanctifaction is that we may be made into the image of Christ, or as the Orthodox would call it - theosis. And the doctrine of Purgatory which Luther was so dead set against was an extension of that doctrine of deification.

I usually tell people this little analogy to drive home the difference.

The point of salvation is to get us from point A (here) to point B (heaven).
Scenario. We are bleeding and battered and can hardly walk. But Christ by His death and resurrection has already built this highway that leads to heaven. All we need to do is cross that highway and were home free.

Imputation: So God fashions this mechanized armour, puts this around us and somehow this motorized armour walks down heavens highway to get us there. Inside we are still battered and bleeding but the mechanized armour does the walking for us.

Infusion: Christ bandages our wounds, give us some food so we can take the first hesitant steps. We struggle but as we keep walking He gives us some more food and medicine (we can handle a little bit more now). As we keep walking we notice that the sores are healing, our muscles are getting stronger, and even on days when He doesn’t seem to be there with the ration, we find that this little trial actually helps our strength. And on and on we keep receiving this grace, transforming us from the inside till every cell in our body is like new again, and we keep walking that highway till we finally make it home.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi krbray,

Further to my post above, I think the difference hinges on the understanding of the nature of grace and the effect it has on the soul.

I would like to re-post something I wrote I think over a year ago in response to a question from Craig Kennedy.

benedictus2:

Craig Kennedy:

Hi Tom,

In your post you make this statement:

“Christ has paid the full price for the salvation of all mankind. None of us get to heaven by our efforts- but, by cooperating with the Grace of God and DOING what Christ said to DO. And that means you have to WORK for this eternal treasure…”

Herein, lies the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION of your position. On the one hand you assert - correctly - that no one gets to heaven by their own efforts; on the other hand, you assert that a person has to WORK for the eternal treasure of salvation and eternal life.

Hi Craig,

The seeming contradiction only exists when we fail to understand the interplay between grace and faith.

I think I have said this before but all that salvation by grace means is that it is free. We did not merit it. It is purely as John wrote : because God so loved the world.

But the question is how does God effect salvation? Okay so it is free, so Christ died on the cross once to save us. But have you ever asked yourself how his dying brought on salvation?

The protestant understanding of salvation is like this:
God imputes on us Christ’s righteousness so even though deep inside we are still the same miserable, wretched creatures that we are, His righteousness covers all that muck within so when God sees us, He sees that outer covering that is Christ. In short we are a garbage pit that’s be covered with white turf so it looks pleasing to the eye.

If all that is needed is for us to be imputed with Christ’s righteousness why go to the extent of being human? Furthermore, why the need to suffer and die on the cross?

The Catholic understanding is this: The suffering death and resurrection of Christ opened up heaven so to speak so that the graces are made available to us. Justificatiion is not a mere DECLARATION by God that we are righteous but rather that we are actually MADE rigteous.

I think I said in a reply in “To live by faith” that in saving us from the pit Christ requires us to put our hand in His. He could have very well yanked us out but no, He wants us to grab His hand.

This action of grace on our soul makes us righteous.

But what does it mean to actually be righteous?

It means following God’s commandments which in a nutshell boils down to love of God and love of neighbour. LOVE is WORK.

We do not truly love unless we prove it by our deeds. You can tell your wife till you are blue in the face that you love her but that will mean zilch if you do not bring her a rose every now and again, help her with the chores, look after the children, provide for her, take the time to listen to her, etc., etc.

That is why in one of Paul’s most moving letters he says the greatest is LOVE because to love is to participate in Divine life.

When we get to heaven, faith and hope will cease, but love will still be there and love manifestests itself in WORK so long as we are on this side eternity. That is why we have the phrase “labour of love”.

James is so right when he says “I will show you my faith by my works”.

Christ said follow me. The following of Christ involves a dying to self. A carrying of our crosses. All these involve WORK. *
*

 

[krbray]

Yes, I agree with your assessment there and I do see what Jon is getting at . But even were we all to become Catholic, we still would continue to sin.

I’m not saying that the division and separation from our protestant brothers and sisters is maintained by sin, I’m just saying that it started with sin.

That is why, even though it is at the bottom of the divide, the divide cannot just be brushed aside with “it’s because of sin” unless you say that the erroneous doctrine that Luther, et al came up with is due to sin, i.e. sin prevents one from espousing the truth.

But then again, how do you account for the fact that in spite of their corruption, the bad Popes and bishops never taught error?

Apples and oranges. You know the answer to this question.

Luther’s sin of false witness/impugning the known truth led him to separate himself from the teachings of the Church and come up with his own teachings, which did not have the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit. Although they may have been just as sinful as Luther, the sinful “bad popes” did have that guarantee and never taught erroneously, as Luther did.

 

[PRmerger]

Infusion: Christ bandages our wounds, give us some food so we can take the first hesitant steps. We struggle but as we keep walking He gives us some more food and medicine (we can handle a little bit more now). As we keep walking we notice that the sores are healing, our muscles are getting stronger, and even on days when He doesn’t seem to be there with the ration, we find that this little trial actually helps our strength. And on and on we keep receiving this grace, transforming us from the inside till every cell in our body is like new again, and we keep walking that highway till we finally make it home.

LOVE this, b2!! :bowdown: I now have a wonderful image in my mind to demonstrate this theological paradigm!

I presume by “food” you mean the sacraments, yes?

And if we die before “every cell in our body is like new again”, then that’s the purpose of Purgatory, right?

Also, may I use this metaphor in my future postings (giving you proper credit, of course!)

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6762609]Yes, yes, yes. The Holy Spirit can. Now let’s look at the matter of doctrine. If one claims to be led by the Holy Spirit this way and the other claims to be led that way, then only one could be true.

So, Father Neuhaus, a lifelong Lutheran, was not led to truth until he converted to Catholicicsm? All that time he was Lutheran, the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with him?
“Leading” is not a static, finite event. It is an ongoing continuous process.

Therefore, the only way the Holy Spirit could lead all to unity was to make all see that either THIS way is the truth or THAT way is the truth. They can’t exist together

Find a quote where I say they do.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

So, Father Neuhaus, a lifelong Lutheran, was not led to truth until he converted to Catholicicsm? All that time he was Lutheran, the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with him?

To the degree that his beliefs converged with the teachings of the Apostles he was led by the HS.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6762647]
Luther excised the Deuterocanonicals not because he had an issue with them but only because he had an issue with Mac2 (because it gives support to the doctrine on Purgatory).
But since he has no grounds for getting rid of just Mac2, and he knows that the Jamnia Council rejected the Septuagint, then this gave him an opening- a reason - to get rid of Mac2 even if it meant excising the rest of the Deuterocanonicals as well.
A citation, please, where he states this as his motive. Why is it that Mac 2 doesn’t convince the Orthodox of the Catholic notion of Purgatory?
Luther states his feeling clearly, just as many Catholics did over the centuries, regarding the Deuterocanon. Finally, Luther translated the entire D-C, plus the Prayer of Manasses.
Why would he even take the effort to translate Mac 2, much less the rest of the D-C’s, and include them in his translation into German if it was his intent to “get rid” of Mac 2?

He tried to do that to James but did not succeed because he could not find any support to do so. But by calling it the epistle of straw, he lessened its “canonicity” in the eyes of his followers.

He also said this about James: *]“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle… *

Although he did leave the DCs as appendices in his translation, this denigration of the books would result in the following generations of protestants to completely excise these books from their Bibles.

His was not a denigration worse than many others. Example: Cardinal Cajetan
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose."

To only target Luther about this widely held belief regarding the D-C’s is just historically one-sided.

This is why I have always said that Luther was right to condemn the abusive practices in his time. The practice is without a doubt extremely corrupt. But the doctrine was sound.

What he did was throw out the baby with the bath water.

So, working together in dialogue, perhaps Lutherans and Catholics today can overcome the mistakes of the Church and of Luther.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6762682]But Transubstatiation is not man made. This is what the Church has always believed, that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord and that the bread and wine is no longer.

Transubstantiation is merely an attempt to put in limited human language what actually happens. As St Thomas wrote in “Adore te Devote”, the senses fail when it comes to this sacrament.

The objection to this understanding of the doctrine came at around 1000 AD with Berengarius of Tours which the fathers completely squashed. When St Thomas Aquinas came, his treaties on the Eucharist is the closest that we humans can attempt to explain what happens and yet he still says that the senses will still fail to comprehend.

The orthodox understanding is the same except that they do not attempt to explain why. They know it is the Body and Blood of our Lord and leave it at that.

If you ask me if I believe that at consecration, the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, I will say absolutely, yes.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession

we confess that we believe, **that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. **

This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] **is truly changed into flesh. **

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry Jon but that is not an answer. That’s evading the choices presented.

If this were a multiple choice test where you are asked to pick one answer which one will it be? (None of the above is not an option )

a) imputation
b) infusion.

Just tell me is is it A or B.

The Lutheran position is that the righteousness within the regenerate is that of Christ, not our own. That is imputation.

Jon