How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[JonNC]

Based on your answer, do you believe then that we get to heaven as “dung heaps covered with snow”?

What do you make then of St Paul’s writing that we are made a new creation?

We go to heaven as new creations, in Christ, through Christ’s suffering and death and resurrection.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;6764979]

Blessings Jon; I believe the difference here between the Catholic Saints who disputed the canonicity of the Deutero books and Luther is a great divide. Because neither of the Catholic Saints began a protestant reformation against the Church, and Luther placed himself on a higher platform by disputing the books of the canon.

Where we differ “I think”? is not in the dispute over the books, but what resulted from their disputes. The Catholic saints did not protest or try to reform the Church in their dispute over the D.C books, such as Luther did with both the septuagint and the epistles of the New Testament.

I look at what has resulted from the disputes from the DC books. In the Catholic position the DC books never lost their canonicity in the Catholic Church. From the Protestant position what resulted was the removal of the canonized DC books from their bibles.

Sure, Luther included them in his translation, never the less Luther discounted the DC books canonicity by relabeling them “apochrypha” which the Catholic church never does. Yes some of her members disputed the books, but by themselves could never take away their canonicity from the DC books which was the end result.

My friend Gabriel,
Remember the timeline regarding Luther’s translation, in that it happened after his excommunication, but before the council of Trent. So, Luther’s position did not “start” the Reformation. I still don’t see how Luther placed himself on a higher platform, and I consider what others did after him, particularly those of other communions, are their actions, not his.

You raise valid arguments and impressive points to Luthers position and those Catholic saints who disputed the DC books. I believe all points leave room for debate, but no debates can change the result from the DC books remaining canonized throughouth history until the coucil of Trent finally settled all disputes over the books and kept them in the canon.

And I think, as a Lutheran, that we should take into account when dealing with the D-C’s this point: that there are many both east and west, that consider them canon. This should not be ignored.

Now that Trent has closed the disputes over the DC books forever making them remain in their authentic canonicity state (since the early fourth century) from her binding and loosing authority given by Jesus Christ. What is your position in regards to the DC books today? Do Lutherans still hold to the canonized DC books as inspired of God, or as Luther renamed them in his translation as “not inspired of God” or “apochrypha”?

My understanding is that Lutherans consider them on a second level from the canon, but have not technically closed the canon, based on the Lutheran Confessions. It is also my understanding, though I would need to rely on Lutheran pastors and theologians to confirm this, that Lutheran thinkers more than any others with the exception of high Church Anglicans, use and study the D-C’s. I know some parishes will include D-C readings as part of the lectionary. Luther said they are good books, worth reading and study, and I think Amrican Lutheran Bibles ought to have them, as German Lutheran Bibles do.

I am not one who says Catholics added books, just as I do not believe Luther excluded them. I certainly don’t believe he questioned them based on Mac 2, or Purgatory or intercession of saints, but instead for the same reasons others questioned them. I also think Lutherans must keep an open mind about them. Other Lutheras might disagree.

You do know that Trent placed an “anathema” clause to these canonized books of the bible, to whom ever rejects them?

I’m not sure, but I’m all ears.

Love your commentary,

And I always value and learn from your dialogue.

Peace be with you:thumbsup:

And also with you.
Jon

 

[LittleSoldier]

yes you are correct. all related after our baptism. love the name benedictus. and i love St. Francis. have you ever seen the movie Francisco? its about his life. very moving. Peace

Thanks for the heads-up on the movie. I love St. Francis of Assisi, also (as is evident by my six cats, dog, and two northern alligator lizards)! I’ll find the movie and watch it as I know very little about his life.

God bless!

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6763295]

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.

In either case, benedictus, whether you believe He imputes His righteousness in you, making His righteousness what God sees in you, or makes you righteous, it is His righteousness that transforms you. It is not something you or I do. It is by grace.

My honesty regarding imputed or infused righteousness is my uncertainty regarding it. So, as I said, I know that the righteousness God sees in me is Christ’s righteousness, not my own, whether imputed or infused.
For “None is righteous, no, not one.”

Is that imputed, or infused? Either way, it is His righteousness within me.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

And for your information, the doctrine on purgatory is based on the Bible. But you have a chopped up version of the Bible that you won’t find it in yours.

I believe that Purgatory is referenced in the NT, too, not just in Maccabbees.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 3:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]

Here’s a great Catholic Answers tract on where Purgatory is found in the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

 

[shaky]

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

What happens to all Them when they Die. Some of them have been taught that way or brought up as children in these different cults and denominations. + protestants denominations??
Most of them think what they are teaching or believing its the Truth. In most cults if you leave they get their family and friends to shun and not talk to you if you leave.
Some people in cults Know what is being taught is not the truth but will not Leave because of this.
But in normal protestant chruches if you leave you can still be in contact with your family and friends.
There are lots of people that don’t go to a church because of all the confussion. but they live as a christian in there own way reading the word of God and have a realationship with God.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how any tree can claim, “My rotten fruit is less rotten than yours.”

I can.

Catholic tree produced this fruit: Mother Teresa, Maximilian Kolbe.

Can you show me any atheists who gave their lives for a total stranger out of love?

 

[benedictus2]

We go to heaven as new creations, in Christ, through Christ’s suffering and death and resurrection.
Jon

If we go to heaven as a new creation, then how can it be imputation when according to this theology, we remain dung heaps just covered with Christ righteousness. A dungheap covered with snow can hardly be called a new creation.

I write here an excerpt from the English Theologian E.L. Mascall (taken from Beckwith’s conversion story) commenting on the effect of nominalism on the theology of Luther and Calvin.

"What then was there left for Luther to say, being convinced, as he rightly was by St Paul, that a man cannot be justified by his works? Only this: that there is no real change in the man at all, but God treats him as if there was. By a sheer gratuitous act of his love, God imputes to the man the merits of Christ; God treats him as if he were as sinless as Christ Himself, while leaving him the sinner that he was.

How can we be a new creation (here alluding to the state of grace before Adam’s fall) when we are left as we are - sinners.

How then do you use the term regenerate in this instance. If we are left the same sinner as we are, can we be called regenerate?

 

[benedictus2]

I can.

Catholic tree produced this fruit: Mother Teresa, Maximilian Kolbe.

Can you show me any atheists who gave their lives for a total stranger out of love?

Stalin?

Ooops wrong answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Stalin?

Ooops wrong answer.

[SIGN]Mao?[/SIGN]

Oops! Wrong answer again!

 

[benedictus2]

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?

Not at all. I did not say that. And the Church does not say that. Every movement towards God is a movement towards truth.

Before he was a Catholic he was farther from knowing the fullness of truth.

“Leading” is not a static, finite event. It is an ongoing continuous process.

Yes, I completely agree. However, if the Church has been led into truth that A is true, it cannot suddenly change to A is a lie later on. There will probably be a realization that B is truth as well, but if B is the opposite of A, then B cannot be declared truth.

Doctrine develops but new doctrines will not contradict the old ones. It will be a development, a shedding of more light, greater illumination.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

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

You have not said it exactly in that way. But when you indicate that somehow we will come to a doctrinal agreement by continued dialogue while retaining our viewpoints, well, that is just untenable.

In our discussion on whether justification is infused or imputed, well, it can only be one or the other. So either I abandon my position and concur with you that it is by imputation, or you abandon your position and agree with me that it is infusion.

Hoping against hope that somehow we will come up with a happy medium that we can both agree on is impossible. When we all come to agree, we will all come to agree on one or the other.

 

[benedictus2]

[sign]Mao?[/sign]

Oops! Wrong answer again!

There’s a phrase that goes to love someone till death. Maybe they misunderstood the meaning.

 

[benedictus2]

yes you are correct. all related after our baptism. love the name benedictus. and i love St. Francis. have you ever seen the movie Francisco? its about his life. very moving. Peace

If that is the Italian one yes I have and I think it is the best one I have seen (gorgeous actor too ).

I am not a big fan of Brother Sun, Sister Moon.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Jon,

I checked the posts and I still owe you two responses on your previous posts. I will do that tomorrow as it is past midnight and I need to sleep.

Peace!

Cory

 

[PRmerger]

Doctrine develops but new doctrines will not contradict the old ones. It will be a development, a shedding of more light, greater illumination.

'zactly.

I gave this example in a different thread. While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it makes the point of how doctrine develops but does not “change”.

*Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.*

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6766311]Not at all. I did not say that. And the Church does not say that. Every movement towards God is a movement towards truth.
Whew! We agree on something. Just kidding. I think we probably agree on many things, though these discussions always seem to be on the things we do not yet agree on.

Yes, I completely agree. However, if the Church has been led into truth that A is true, it cannot suddenly change to A is a lie later on. There will probably be a realization that B is truth as well, but if B is the opposite of A, then B cannot be declared truth.

I haven’t said that it can.

Doctrine develops but new doctrines will not contradict the old ones. It will be a development, a shedding of more light, greater illumination.

Hold that thought.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6766273]If we go to heaven as a new creation, then how can it be imputation when according to this theology, we remain dung heaps just covered with Christ righteousness. A dungheap covered with snow can hardly be called a new creation.
I thought you were talking about upon entry to heaven. I wouldn’t describe the saints in the Church triumphant in the way you have.

I write here an excerpt from the English Theologian E.L. Mascall (taken from Beckwith’s conversion story) commenting on the effect of nominalism on the theology of Luther and Calvin.

"What then was there left for Luther to say, being convinced, as he rightly was by St Paul, that a man cannot be justified by his works? Only this: that there is no real change in the man at all, but God treats him as if there was. By a sheer gratuitous act of his love, God imputes to the man the merits of Christ; God treats him as if he were as sinless as Christ Himself, while leaving him the sinner that he was.

How can we be a new creation (here alluding to the state of grace before Adam’s fall) when we are left as we are - sinners.
Are we not, here on earth, sinners? Even those of us who have the Holy Spirit in us by justification?

How then do you use the term regenerate in this instance. If we are left the same sinner as we are, can we be called regenerate?

We are not “the same” sinner. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” The very fact that you and I both believe in and practice confession/Holy absolution is evidence that the regenerate are still sinners.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6766337]You have not said it exactly in that way. But when you indicate that somehow we will come to a doctrinal agreement by continued dialogue while retaining our viewpoints, well, that is just untenable.
And yet there is evidence that our communions have done this. In the jddj, no one gave up their viewpoint, but, as far as it goes, agreed that our viewpoints are, in fact the same, and no longer are cause for mutual condemnations on those points.

In our discussion on whether justification is infused or imputed, well, it can only be one or the other. So either I abandon my position and concur with you that it is by imputation, or you abandon your position and agree with me that it is infusion.

I will leave that to our communion’s dialogue participants and the HOly Spirit to decide that. But I will mention that earlier you said:
“Doctrine develops but new doctrines will not contradict the old ones. It will be a development, a shedding of more light, greater illumination.”
Cory, I don’t mean this question in any way but as a question: do you think this belief cannot be applied to our communions’ mutual dialogue, but only to statements by the Pope and Magisterium outside of dialogue?

Hoping against hope that somehow we will come up with a happy medium that we can both agree on is impossible. When we all come to agree, we will all come to agree on one or the other.

Happy mediums are not convergences, but compromises. Neither of us is willing to compromise.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I checked the posts and I still owe you two responses on your previous posts. I will do that tomorrow as it is past midnight and I need to sleep.

Peace!

Cory

His peace also with you.

Jon