How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[benedictus2]

Without a source stating that it was Luther’s intent, it seems speculation, no disrespect intended to Craycraft.

Well then, what would you say was Luther’s reason declaring the DC non-canonical? What new doctrine was he proposing that made having the DCs part of the Bible an inconvenience?

All the greater question if righteousness is infused. If it is infused, and you are righteous, why Purgatory, or Theosis?

Because purgatory is the process of cleansing, the last steps in the process of theosis, of divinization. Not everyone dies completely remade in Christ’s image. Purgatory is for that purpose.

If righteousness is infused (that is we are actually made righteous) then there is a need for purgatory because unless the last vestiges of sin, of self-love is “burned away” we are not ready to come face to face with God.

If righteousness is imputed, then there is no need for purgation because we do not need to be “made” righteous, we only need to be declared “righteous”.

If we are able to go to heaven still sinners but just clothed in the righteousness of Christ, then why indeed wold one need to be cleansed of these sins.

So how do you reconcile your belief in purgatory with imputed righteousness? Imputed righteousness means there is no need of purgation. That is why Luther got rid of that doctrine (which brings us back to the question of the DCs).

And another thing that seems inconsistent with imputation as well. You do believe in being regenerated at Baptism don’t you? So why would there be a need for baptismal regeneration if God declares us righteous but leaves us sinners.

Unless you mean something else when you speak of regeneration.

I don’t know that to be true, or not true. I do know this, had he been as opposed to the D-C’s as some claim, he would have never spent the time and effort to translate and include them, appendix or not.

Perhaps he was prevailed upon?

I think there is a tendency to, on the Catholic side, make nmore of this than there is. And on the Lutheran side, to wash the facts in the same degree. The truth of the man is probably somewhere in the middle. He was a sinner, with faults like you and me, needing God’s grace.

I would agree that he is no more a sinner than we are. But the writings that have come down to us I found really quite shocking. Especially the one when he insisted on putting the word “alone’ in his translation and when he said that if he could he would burn the Franciscan friars.

I wrote before that it was a pity St Ignatius wrote his spiritual exercises a few years after Luther. Luther would have benefited greatly from the section on the discernment of spirits.

Again, speculation on motives.

It may be speculation but it is a speculation that have been proposed by scholars and I don’t think those speculations are groundless.

Also remember that Trent only applies to the CC. It is a different subject to discuuss whether or not Trent was a truly ecumenical council.

But that is not what we are discussing here.
I said that Protestants subordinate every one to Luther and you said that they one should not be subordinate to Trent.
So my question is, between Trent and Luther, who has the greater authority when it comes to determining what is canonical. You appealed to Cajetan but he is not an authority either.
Why would a protestant subordinate everything to Luther (and one does indeed do this when one accepts Luther’s canon within a canon) when the Church has always accepted the DCs as canonical?
That is why my question is who has more authority to decide which books are canonical – Luther or Trent?

I don’t think so. Specifically, I have said all along that compromise of doctrine will not work. That would be a false unity that cannot long survive. What I have said is that it will take the Holy Spirit guiding our words and understanding to the one truth together. And I’ve given the example of the jddj. It is not a compromise, but instead a convergence of understanding of the truth, as far as the document goes.

I agree with your point here but I tend to go back to my point earlier about the fork on the road (because there is a fork). To remain together, we can only go one way, the Protestant interpretation or the Catholic.

Fifty years ago, prior to Vatican II, and before the start-up of high level dialogue between our two communions, the documents that have resulted since would never have been possible. I’m not being Polly Anna about this, but in my lifetime has been the greatest movement between us since the Reformation.

I would agree that. There is certainly greater dialogue. Nothing is beyond the Holy Spirit. In Genesis, God’s Spirit hovered over the chaos and brought forth creation……

Even if Rome and Lutherans came to reconciliation, I am certain that some, maybe a significant number, of Lutherans would not be moved by it. I asm equally certain that there are Catholics who would condemn the Vatican for allowing it to happen. We both have our hard-headed wings.

That is true. That is why I firmly believe that re-union will be achieved one soul at a a time. But each one will have a multiplier effect.

Then I think of Alex Jones who brought almost his entire congregation with him.

Miracles abound.

 

[benedictus2]

“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it (Mar 10.15).” It is good to read the Bible as a child would read it. For personal devotion, look for Christ in all Scripture, especially the OT, because He said that it was about Him. For instance, you can see Christ in Noah’s ark and in Noah. God is holy; therefore, He MUST judge all sin.

In Noah’s day, all people were invited into the ark by virtue of Noah’s preaching for 120 years. At the end of those years, only Noah and his family entered the ark. The waters fell upon the wicked and killed them. The ark (Jesus) also went through the same waters (judgment). Noah and his family also went through the judgment, inside the ark (Jesus).

Now, Noah is also a picture of Christ. Scripture says Noah was righteous. We know that that is a declared righteousness because there is only One who is Righteous, Jesus. Now, the Scriptures does not state anything regarding the righteousness of Noah’s family, only Noah. Noah’s family was saved because of Noah’s “righteousness.” This shows us that we are not saved because of our righteousness but by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

But, back to interpretation: don’t; just read the Scripture. Then, if someone wants to give his “interpretation,” just reply, “But that is not what Scripture says.” We place our trust in Jesus Christ because of what He said, not of our interpretation of what He said.

But what happens when two people come up with different interpretations? How do you know which one is the correct interpretation.

I mean take the Protestants alone. The reason you have so many denominations is because you all came up with different interpretations and followed that interpretation. Which one of you is correct?

 

[benedictus2]

Cory, may the Peace of our Lord be with you. As I mentioned yesterday, I was going to try to add a few comments to ths topic. Where “sin” does not exist, “righteousness” and “incorruptibility” reign; where death is unknown, “immortality” exits . Under these conditions we were created.
***“The Lord God gave man this order: ‘you are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad…From that tree you shall not eat…the moment you eat from it you are surely DOOMED TO DIE.” (Gen. 2:16-17)
When our ancestors DISOBEYED God’s order (humanity’s first sinful action) our righteousness was “corrupted” and our flesh came to know “mortality.” “By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; for you are “DIRT” and to dirt YOU SHALL RETURN.” ***(Gen. 3:19)
SIN overshadowed God’s creation with “corruptibility” and “mortality.” The Christ of God, our Savior and Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh to RESTORE us to the nature we had before it became corrupted and mortal;
I think (and I think this is what the Church teaches) that the restoration that came with Christ is way above the the way were were before. Whereas before we were mortals, with Christ we become as gods, by becoming children of God through Him.

He will set us free from the chains of sin and its consequences. St. Paul writes, “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.”

Good post Deacon!

 

[Tommy555]

I am a Lutheran. I see very little difference between the Pope and what is going on in the synods. The ECLA has already gone off the deep end, and I believe the LCMS will go off the deep end before the Catholic church does. I see a lot more arrogance in protestants than I do Catholics. I was thinking that perhaps this was because of private interpretations, that “the Holy Spirit has shown them something that He hasn’t shown others.” But I have stumbling blocks when it comes to the Catholic church, e.g. the Marian doctrine, praying for the dead, praying to the saints, etc. Also, I hear very little gospel during the mass. Re the interpretation of Scripture: I look at the ECLA; majority rules regardless of right or wrong. Perhaps it is because I am Lutheran that I see protestant churches going down the slippery road a lot more rapidly than the Catholic church. On the other hand, when I see Ted Kennedy, Nance Pelosi, the Vice President, etc., and the Catholic church, for the most part, remaining silent, then I begin to wonder about them. It appears that culture is dictating. If I could overcome the stumbling blocks, I would most certainly be Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, I hear very little gospel during the mass.

Can you be more specific, Tommy, about this criticism? Do you mean that not all of the Gospels are read throughout the Liturgical year? Or do you mean that the priest does not usually preach about the Gospel in his homily?

Or do you mean that the Mass does not really have much Scripture in it?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I am a Lutheran. I see very little difference between the Pope and what is going on in the synods. The ECLA has already gone off the deep end, and I believe the LCMS will go off the deep end before the Catholic church does.

In the Lutheran scheme of things where do you fall? LCMS, ECLA?

But I have stumbling blocks when it comes to the Catholic church, e.g. the Marian doctrine

You being a Lutheran I can only speculate on what position Luther holds in your opinions, but it may interest you to read his thoughts on some of the Marian beliefs. It certainly enlightened me.

, praying for the dead, praying to the saints,

God is the king of the living, not the dead. All those in Christ are alive

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6786035]Well then, what would you say was Luther’s reason declaring the DC non-canonical? What new doctrine was he proposing that made having the DCs part of the Bible an inconvenience?

Welcome back, Cory. He is a link that seems to well explain Luther’s postion.

tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

Because purgatory is the process of cleansing, the last steps in the process of theosis, of divinization. Not everyone dies completely remade in Christ’s image. Purgatory is for that purpose.

If righteousness is infused (that is we are actually made righteous) then there is a need for purgatory because unless the last vestiges of sin, of self-love is “burned away” we are not ready to come face to face with God.

If righteousness is imputed, then there is no need for purgation because we do not need to be “made” righteous, we only need to be declared “righteous”.

Why? This seems contradictory. If you are righteous, you are righteous.

If we are able to go to heaven still sinners but just clothed in the righteousness of Christ, then why indeed wold one need to be cleansed of these sins.

It has never been taught to me that our souls enter Heaven sinful.

So how do you reconcile your belief in purgatory with imputed righteousness? Imputed righteousness means there is no need of purgation. That is why Luther got rid of that doctrine (which brings us back to the question of the DCs).
Well, I never said I believe in Purgatory - a place or state where cleansing takes place prior to entry into heaven. What said was that it makes sense that we, at the moment of death, are cleansed upon entry into Heaven.

And another thing that seems inconsistent with imputation as well. You do believe in being regenerated at Baptism don’t you? So why would there be a need for baptismal regeneration if God declares us righteous but leaves us sinners.

Unless you mean something else when you speak of regeneration.

Here is what the Confessions say:

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Whether you believe in infused righteousness or imputed righteousness, Baptism is necessary for salvation.

I would agree that he is no more a sinner than we are. But the writings that have come down to us I found really quite shocking. Especially the one when he insisted on putting the word “alone’ in his translation and when he said that if he could he would burn the Franciscan friars.

We have to be careful here, because both sides in that time said and even did things you and I would not be too proud of. Luther tended to use hyperbole quite a bit, Hus and others really were executed. Luther stated anti-Jewish views near the end of his life. Johan Ecke stated anti-Jewish views.

I wrote before that it was a pity St Ignatius wrote his spiritual exercises a few years after Luther. Luther would have benefited greatly from the section on the discernment of spirits./

QUOTE]
Clearly he and others of his time spoke in ways we today find harsh and lacking charity.

I said that Protestants subordinate every one to Luther and you said that they one should not be subordinate to Trent.

Each Protestant group, on their own, make a determination on this. That they accept a 39book OT is their choice. Protestants have never been, from the time of the Reformation, a singular institution.

So my question is, between Trent and Luther, who has the greater authority when it comes to determining what is canonical. You appealed to Cajetan but he is not an authority either. Why would a protestant subordinate everything to Luther (and one does indeed do this when one accepts Luther’s canon within a canon) when the Church has always accepted the DCs as canonical?
That is why my question is who has more authority to decide which books are canonical – Luther or Trent?

I only appreal to Cajetan as evidence that Luther was permitted to have views regarding the D-C books. I contend that some apologists today wish to have a double-standard in this issue - one for Luther, and another for every Catholic who questioned the D-C’s.
As for authority, Trent is more authority for Catholics, and the Lutheran Confessions are the authority for Lutherans. I would suggest that you have stated here why Luther did translate and include the 7 books , history and tradition prevailed upon him to do so.

I agree with your point here but I tend to go back to my point earlier about the fork on the road (because there is a fork). To remain together, we can only go one way, the Protestant interpretation or the Catholic.

Again, I am not talking “protestant”, but Lutheran. Clearly, 500 years ago, our two coomunions, having traveled the same road as one, took divergent paths. It seems our paths are coming closer together again. The prayer would be that they once more converge.

That is true. That is why I firmly believe that re-union will be achieved one soul at a time. But each one will have a multiplier effect.

Perhaps so, and perhaps the road followed toward reconciliation will be similar to the corporate path desired by JPII and layed out for Anglicans by Benedict XVI.

Jon

 

[Pitcharan]

How do*** ANY*** of you know what’s correct?
You are following rules made by man. So…who’s right?
It’s like the chicken and the egg, yeah?
Just sayin’

Though it’s true that human rules have constantly tried to distort and nullify God’s law, the fact it that, God’s Law alone prevails. That is why we are still flourising and not perishing. If not, our ancestors would not have survived to bring forth all of us as they would have mostly been done to death by stoning, maiming, gouging out of eyes etc. If not for God’s Law prevailing these barbaric human laws would not become extinct as they are now.

 

[Pitcharan]

Though it’s true that human rules have constantly tried to distort and nullify God’s law, the fact it that, God’s Law alone prevails. That is why we are still flourising and not perishing. If not, our ancestors would not have survived to bring forth all of us as they would have mostly been done to death by stoning, maiming, gouging out of eyes etc. If not for God’s Law prevailing these barbaric human laws would not become extinct as they are now.

In this context, I like to share a verse frequently quoted by my countrymen, especially muslims: “Wohi hotha hai jo Mansoor-e-Khuda hotha hai” which means, “God’s will alone prevails always”.

 

[benedictus2]

Welcome back, Cory.

Thank you. :) Been flat out and still flat out so can manage to reply to only one post today (plus it's nearly midnight again):sleep:

He is a link that seems to well explain Luther’s postion.

tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

I had a quick read of the article ( I will read it thoroughly this weekend).
Just a quick comment at this stage. Taken from the above link:

"The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. ***Sorting them out ***of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”

Here you can see a deliberate easing out of the DCs and a denigration by saying they are not equal to Scriptures and yet the DCs have always been a part of the canon.

The only reason one could find is that one book in question (Mac2) would have put a spanner in the works with regards his theology of salvation.
I will give a more detailed comment on the article this weekend.

Why? This seems contradictory. If you are righteous, you are righteous.

Exacrtly! IF you ARE righteous. But imputation says that you are NOT righteous, merely declared to be so. Infusion says you ARE.
And this is the reason purgation is necessary, because when we get to heaven we are actually righteous instead of being merely pronounced to be so. If all that is needed is to be declared righteous then there is no need of purgation.
That is why holding to a belief in a cleansing before going to heaven is at odds with the doctrine that righteousness is imputed.

It has never been taught to me that our souls enter Heaven sinful.

Then you are faced with a doctrinal inconsistency. Luther himself said we are all dung covered with snow. If this is the case, we enter heaven sinful but somehow this sinful nature is shielded from God’s penetrating gaze by Christ’s righteousness.

Well, I never said I believe in Purgatory - a place or state where cleansing takes place prior to entry into heaven. What said was that it makes sense that we, at the moment of death, are cleansed upon entry into Heaven.

That is purgatory - apurgation / cleansing.

The queston is: why would one need to be cleansed if all that is needed is to be declared righteous.

 

[benedictus2]

Whether you believe in infused righteousness or imputed righteousness, Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Okay. But how does Baptism work? Why do we need to be baptized? Why is it necessary for salvation? Does baptism cause regeneration? What does it mean to be regenerated?
Also, when it says “that through Baptism is offered the grace of God” what is this grace?
I think that we have come to the heart of the matter here. It is precisely Luther’s nominalism that caused him to come up with an erroneous theology of grace.
I think this can be discussed in this thread without going off topic.

We have to be careful here, because both sides in that time said and even did things you and I would not be too proud of. Luther tended to use hyperbole quite a bit, Hus and others really were executed. Luther stated anti-Jewish views near the end of his life. Johan Ecke stated anti-Jewish views.

Yes I agree with you there. I am not referring here just to bad comments. More that his comments (and the way he said it ) underlies his over all demeanor and this kind of primacy of self is just very evident. Which again, can be traced back to his nominalist bent.

Clearly he and others of his time spoke in ways we today find harsh and lacking charity.

With regards St Ignatius, I am not referring to lack of charity or sinfulness.
What Luther lacked was humility and discernment.

Luther apprehended that situation correctly. The Church hierarchy was incredibly corrupt and sinful. And he was very right to be vocal and vehement in protest again the sin and hypocrisy. We all should be when we see this. No doubt he had good intentions. But if he had been more self-aware/ a little bit of self-doubt instead of self centred, he would have known that this kind of concern if not tempered with humility, can be easily twisted by the devil for his own ends. This is precisely the thing that St Ignatius says to guard against. That is why there is this warning about watching for the serpents tail.

I once attending a retreat given by Fr Thomas Green S.J where he gave this example. “You want to become a religious sister. (Good intention). You want to serve God (good intention). But when you start thinking “I will become a nun so that I can reform the Veronica’s Veilites ( there is no such order but this is just an example) then you know that something not quite of the Holy Spirit has crept in.”

This is why Luther would later on say (very early in the piece) that the reformers have become worse than that which they seek to reform. How can it go so very wrong, so early on, if the reform was indeed undertaken the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It is always good to questions one’s self. And when in doubt, obey and trust in the Lord. I think that is one thing that was lacking too- a real abiding trust in Christ’s promise that He will be with His Church always.

Each Protestant group, on their own, make a determination on this. That they accept a 39book OT is their choice. Protestants have never been, from the time of the Reformation, a singular institution.

But each protestant group HAVE to accept the 39 book OT because of their particular theology. To hold to that the Catholic Bible in its entirety is canonical would go against particular protestant theologies.

I only appreal to Cajetan as evidence that Luther was permitted to have views regarding the D-C books. I contend that some apologists today wish to have a double-standard in this issue - one for Luther, and another for every Catholic who questioned the D-C’s.

Holding a view is one thing, insisting that this is the view that must be held with regards the canon (irrespective of the councils) is another.

As for authority, Trent is more authority for Catholics, and the Lutheran Confessions are the authority for Lutherans.

But that is nothing more than relativism (which is also an off shoot of nominalism).
Surely there has to one authority that is the real authority. Is this the way Christ meant His Church to be, one authority for you and one for me?
So again I ask, which one has more authority to decide on the canon, Councils or 1 single man who is not even a bishop?
And this question is not addressed to Luther’s contemporaries but to Protestants in this century, who have the benefit of hindsight.

Again, I am not talking “protestant”, but Lutheran. Clearly, 500 years ago, our two coomunions, having traveled the same road as one, took divergent paths. It seems our paths are coming closer together again. The prayer would be that they once more converge.

You are probably more optimistic that I am. I see our points of divergence and they are not points that one can reason away.

Which is why I would say that if there will be unification then it will be because Lutherans have decided to join the Catholic Church and embrace her doctrines. I somehow can’t see the Catholic Church giving up the truths that she has held for 2000 years. Of recent note is the issue of contraception. If she has held on to that knowing that many will desert (and have deserted) her tells me that she will take the same stand with regards the other doctrines.

I just can’t see the Church abandoning the deposit of Faith that has been entrusted her, where that faith clashes with Lutheran theology.

Perhaps so, and perhaps the road followed toward reconciliation will be similar to the corporate path desired by JPII and layed out for Anglicans by Benedict XVI.

I must confess that I don’t know what’s the go with the en masse conversion from Anglicanism. However, I doubt that if these converts hold to doctrines contrary to what the Church believes that they would have converted. Disciplines are altogether a different matter (as in priestly celibacy).

 

[benedictus2]

I am a Lutheran. I see very little difference between the Pope and what is going on in the synods. The ECLA has already gone off the deep end, and I believe the LCMS will go off the deep end before the Catholic church does. I see a lot more arrogance in protestants than I do Catholics. I was thinking that perhaps this was because of private interpretations, that “the Holy Spirit has shown them something that He hasn’t shown others.” But I have stumbling blocks when it comes to the Catholic church, e.g. the Marian doctrine, praying for the dead, praying to the saints, etc. Also, I hear very little gospel during the mass. Re the interpretation of Scripture: I look at the ECLA; majority rules regardless of right or wrong. Perhaps it is because I am Lutheran that I see protestant churches going down the slippery road a lot more rapidly than the Catholic church. On the other hand, when I see Ted Kennedy, Nance Pelosi, the Vice President, etc., and the Catholic church, for the most part, remaining silent, then I begin to wonder about them. It appears that culture is dictating. If I could overcome the stumbling blocks, I would most certainly be Catholic.

This is a very quick reply as it is rather late.
Just regarding the highlighted texts.

• Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.
• The Gospel during the Mass is the right amount of Gospel. You need to bear in mind that there are several readings from the Bible not just from the Gospels.
• Authority is not majority rules. Truth is truth and not dependent on the majority. The Church is not a democracy. Christ established a heirarchichal Church.
• These people are members of the Church and ex-communication is not something one does willy nilly. The always tries conciliation. This has no bearing on the matter s to why one should convert. One should only convert because one has been convicted (after a thorough study) that the Catholic church is indeed the CHurch that Christ established here on earth.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6789129]
Thank you. Been flat out and still flat out so can manage to reply to only one post today (plus it’s nearly midnight again)

Respond when you can. I’m a teacher on summer break, not on any schedule, lol.

"The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. ***Sorting them out ***of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”

Here you can see a deliberate easing out of the DCs and a denigration by saying they are not equal to Scriptures and yet the DCs have always been a part of the canon.
No moreso or less so than all the others dating back to Jerome and before. It is interesting that Lutherans are not as strident about this as others. The Lutheran Confessions make no doctrinal statement about the D-C’s. Even Luther doesn’t in his writings in the confessions.

Exacrtly! IF you ARE righteous. But imputation says that you are NOT righteous, merely declared to be so. Infusion says you ARE.

And this is the reason purgation is necessary, because when we get to heaven we are actually righteous instead of being merely pronounced to be so. If all that is needed is to be declared righteous then there is no need of purgation.
That is why holding to a belief in a cleansing before going to heaven is at odds with the doctrine that righteousness is imputed.

It is curious how we come to view things. It seems to me that if you are infused with righteousness, and you are righteous, then there seems to be no need of purgation. Righteous is righteous. But in this life, if God sees Christ’s righteousness in you, the n upon entry to Heaven you are then cleansed of your unrighteousness.

Then you are faced with a doctrinal inconsistency. Luther himself said we are all dung covered with snow. If this is the case, we enter heaven sinful but somehow this sinful nature is shielded from God’s penetrating gaze by Christ’s righteousness

So, you see it different regarding how God sees us in order to gain entry Heaven, and our state of righteousness when we actually do enter Heaven.

That is purgatory - apurgation / cleansing.

And for Lutherans, the rejection has always been a rejection of this being an additional “place” once we die. We believe that the regenerate go to Heaven, and the unregenerate go to Hell. I’m not aware of a rejection of a teaching that our sinfulness enters Heaven with us. Perhaps you’ve read something that this is what Luther taught?

The queston is: why would one need to be cleansed if all that is needed is to be declared righteous.

And why would we need to purgation if we already are righteous?
Maybe the answer is that nothing unrighteous enters Heaven.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6789161]
Okay. But how does Baptism work? Why do we need to be baptized? Why is it necessary for salvation? Does baptism cause regeneration? What does it mean to be regenerated?
Also, when it says “that through Baptism is offered the grace of God” what is this grace?
I think that we have come to the heart of the matter here. It is precisely Luther’s nominalism that caused him to come up with an erroneous theology of grace.
I think this can be discussed in this thread without going off topic.
What is this grace to you?

Yes I agree with you there. I am not referring here just to bad comments. More that his comments (and the way he said it ) underlies his over all demeanor and this kind of primacy of self is just very evident. Which again, can be traced back to his nominalist bent.
With regards St Ignatius, I am not referring to lack of charity or sinfulness.
What Luther lacked was humility and discernment.

I would not deny that Luther’s writing style was filled with hyperbole, that sits poorly with the modern reader. but I’ve never viewed Luther as having a primacy of self. His was always a primacy of Christ.

Luther apprehended that situation correctly. The Church hierarchy was incredibly corrupt and sinful. And he was very right to be vocal and vehement in protest again the sin and hypocrisy. We all should be when we see this. No doubt he had good intentions. But if he had been more self-aware/ a little bit of self-doubt instead of self centred, he would have known that this kind of concern if not tempered with humility, can be easily twisted by the devil for his own ends. This is precisely the thing that St Ignatius says to guard against. That is why there is this warning about watching for the serpents tail.

On one hand, you describe Luther as lacking self-doubt, on the other, Catholics describe him as having scrupulosity. I would say that neither is necessarily the case, that Luther was not the monster Fr. O’Hare and others have painted. Neither was he a prophet or saint. He was a man who made mistakes, and also brought to light mistakes in his day.
I think it simple polemics to speculate on his motives that are not specifically stated by him. We have talked in great length regarding his view of the canon. You seem to believe that he thought his view was greater than that of Church. I say no more than others, Including Erasmus.

But each protestant group HAVE to accept the 39 book OT because of their particular theology. To hold to that the Catholic Bible in its entirety is canonical would go against particular protestant theologies.

Again, you will have to talk to them about that. They are not lemmings simply following Luther.

Holding a view is one thing, insisting that this is the view that must be held with regards the canon (irrespective of the councils) is another.

Actually, that is quite contrary to what Luther said. He never insisted on his view of the canon.

But that is nothing more than relativism (which is also an off shoot of nominalism).
Surely there has to one authority that is the real authority. Is this the way Christ meant His Church to be, one authority for you and one for me?
So again I ask, which one has more authority to decide on the canon, Councils or 1 single man who is not even a bishop?

But I never stated that there is more than one truth. all I’m saying that that Trent, because of the division and schism in the Church, only has authority of those in communion with Rome. Trent was not an ecumencial council. someone more knowledgeable than me will know if the canon has ever been set by a truly ecumenical council, ie., before the schism. It is not relativism.

You are probably more optimistic that I am. I see our points of divergence and they are not points that one can reason away.

I am. Who said anything about reasoning them away?

Which is why I would say that if there will be unification then it will be because Lutherans have decided to join the Catholic Church and embrace her doctrines. I somehow can’t see the Catholic Church giving up the truths that she has held for 2000 years. Of recent note is the issue of contraception. If she has held on to that knowing that many will desert (and have deserted) her tells me that she will take the same stand with regards the other doctrines.

Again, a convergence of understanding of doctrine, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I just can’t see the Church abandoning the deposit of Faith that has been entrusted her, where that faith clashes with Lutheran theology.

No one is asking either Church to do so. But instead, to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Read the first 14 paragraphs of the JDDJ. It speaks of convergence based on modern study and understanding. It rejects the notion that either rejects their past statements.
It says things like:
*Our common way of listening to the word of God in Scripture has led to such new insights. *
and:
By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification

Other Lutheran / Catholic documents point to the same approach, not a submission of one side to another. That approach has a track record of 450 years of failure.

Jon

 

[Deacon_JAR]

I think (and I think this is what the Church teaches) that the restoration that came with Christ is way above the the way were were before. Whereas before we were mortals, with Christ we become as gods, by becoming children of God through Him.

Good post Deacon!

Cory, may the Peace of the Lord be with you. Yes my friend, I AGREE WITH YOU.

Catechism of the Catholic Church says on CCC 302:
Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

Thank you for your insight, which has provided me with a deeper understanding. I thank the Lord for the gifts He has bestowed upon His lay people.

 

[krbray]

It is curious how we come to view things. It seems to me that if you are infused with righteousness, and you are righteous, then there seems to be no need of purgation. Righteous is righteous. But in this life, if God sees Christ’s righteousness in you, the n upon entry to Heaven you are then cleansed of your unrighteousness.

So, you see it different regarding how God sees us in order to gain entry Heaven, and our state of righteousness when we actually do enter Heaven.

I think this point of contention between you and benedictus2 boils down to a misunderstanding of what righteousness means. From the Catholic viewpoint, righteousness is not equated with purification. Righteousness is required for entry into heaven, but since “nothing unclean” shall enter it, one must not only be righteous but purified. A state of unrighteousness sends you to hell; there is no chance of being cleansed of it.

Well, I never said I believe in Purgatory - a place or state where cleansing takes place prior to entry into heaven. What said was that it makes sense that we, at the moment of death, are cleansed upon entry into Heaven.

What do you mean by “at the moment of death”? Is this before or after the bodily death? What does “upon entry” mean? When, exactly, is this? Are you cleansed before or after entry?

 

[benedictus2]

Respond when you can. I’m a teacher on summer break, not on any schedule, lol.

That is great. I do accounts and it is the end of financial year so panic stations. I used to tutor kids though from kinder to high school Found it very rewarding.

No moreso or less so than all the others dating back to Jerome and before. It is interesting that Lutherans are not as strident about this as others. The Lutheran Confessions make no doctrinal statement about the D-C’s. Even Luther doesn’t in his writings in the confessions.

So it would not be a problem for a Lutheran to embrace the DCs and the other books that no longer appear i the protestant Bible?

It is curious how we come to view things. It seems to me that if you are infused with righteousness, and you are righteous, then there seems to be no need of purgation.

Actually, purgation is the last phase in the process of making you righteous. Not everyone goes through after-death purgation. Some will have done this in this life (quite few I think). You can look at infusion as a continuous cleansing, with the final result being that we image Christ, the Son of God/ Some of tha cleansing is done after we die because rarely does any one die perfected in love.

Righteous is righteous.

Not quite. Put it this way. Take an axe murder. The merciful judge declares him blameless even though he is not. Inside he is the same rotten sinner that he is but the judge says he is righteous.

Contrast that with a judge who is able to effect a change in this man’s soul such that he repents and in the process of grows in love for God and for his fellowman. That man is now indeed righteous in the very depths of his being. He is no longer a sinner.

But in this life, if God sees Christ’s righteousness in you, the n upon entry to Heaven you are then cleansed of your unrighteousness.

Not quite. The process of making you righteous starts here and now and you grow in righteousness as you grow in love.
This is something that has struck me as well with regards Protestant theology. We hear very much about the power of God, of being made righteous but rarely has love come in to play. And this again you can trace back to the nominalism that shaped Luther’s and Calvin’s mindset.

So, you see it different regarding how God sees us in order to gain entry Heaven, and our state of righteousness when we actually do enter Heaven.

God looks at us with nothing but love (sinner or not). But because on love can behold Love we have to be transformed into love.

I have to keep going back to nominalism here because it is precisely nominalism that makes one view justification and righteousness in a very forensic way.

And for Lutherans, the rejection has always been a rejection of this being an additional “place” once we die.

I thinhk “place” is how best to explain it because we are limited to concepts of space and time. When we get to eternity it will be different because then you will be in the Kairos - the eternal now where the bounderies of space and time no longer exist.

We believe that the regenerate go to Heaven, and the unregenerate go to Hell.

What do you mean by regenerate. I know you gave me that text from the confession but it does not explain what a regenerate is.

** I’m not aware of a rejection of a teaching that our sinfulness enters Heaven with us.**

Can you clarify this? Are you saying that you agree that our sinfulness enters heaven?

Perhaps you’ve read something that this is what Luther taught?

I gave a quote from I think an English theologians analysis of Luther’s position with respect to the great influence nominalism exerted on his theology. I will try to locate that post and give you a link. I think I posted that in this thread.

And why would we need to purgation if we already are righteous?

Because until we get to heaven we cannot be considered truly righteous. Our life is a long process of grace acting upon our souls to make us righteous. The last vestiges of sin, of self love that remain after we die is what gets purged after in purgatory.

Maybe the answer is that nothing unrighteous enters Heaven.

Yes, that is exactly why. As a matter of fact that is one of the scriptural supports that Catholic’s cite in defense of the doctrine of purgatory.

 

[JonNC]

I think this point of contention between you and benedictus2 boils down to a misunderstanding of what righteousness means. From the Catholic viewpoint, righteousness is not equated with purification. Righteousness is required for entry into heaven, but since “nothing unclean” shall enter it, one must not only be righteous but purified. A state of unrighteousness sends you to hell; there is no chance of being cleansed of it.

That sounds reasonable.

What do you mean by “at the moment of death”? Is this before or after the bodily death? What does “upon entry” mean? When, exactly, is this? Are you cleansed before or after entry?

The LCMS website says “when one dies”. Bodily death. I’m not sure that I’m knowledgeable enough to be more specific. Fr. George Tavard made this brief explanation in Lutheran Catholic dialogue:

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-212.shtml
If Purgatory is described this way, I can see this as reasonable. Less a place, which the Confessions reject, a more a momentary event.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

What is this grace to you?

I answered this partly in posts 83 and 84.

I did more detailed treatment of this in a thread called called “To live by faith” in response to Craig’s request for a compare and contrast of the Thomist and Mollinist view on predestination.

I will locate the post and give you a link later.

I would not deny that Luther’s writing style was filled with hyperbole, that sits poorly with the modern reader. but I’ve never viewed Luther as having a primacy of self. His was always a primacy of Christ.

I think he did have a primacy of self. Which brings me back again to nominalism because you end up with a very individualistic view of reality. This is why he held to private interpreation.

On one hand, you describe Luther as lacking self-doubt, on the other, Catholics describe him as having scrupulosity.

From what little I have read of him, he did go through a period of scrupulosity. Then I think after doing an extensive study of St Paul’s epistles, I think the scrupulosity went and I think it was due to his “faith alone” take on salvation. That is why what he wrote about James in the link you provided was really quite telling. He seemed to be almost afraid of James because he absolutely did not want “works”, probably thinking that to even consider it would lead him back to scrupulosity.

But that last bit is just my impression.

I would say that neither is necessarily the case, that Luther was not the monster Fr. O’Hare and others have painted. Neither was he a prophet or saint. He was a man who made mistakes, and also brought to light mistakes in his day.

Oh no, I would not say that he was a monster. I do believe though that he and Calvin will have a lot to answer for. But then someone will probably say that William of Ockham is the one that will have a lot to answer for.

I think it simple polemics to speculate on his motives that are not specifically stated by him. We have talked in great length regarding his view of the canon. You seem to believe that he thought his view was greater than that of Church. I say no more than others, Including Erasmus.

Yes, but neither Erasmus nor Cajetan ended up creating their own churches with precisely this diminished canon.

Actually, that is quite contrary to what Luther said. He never insisted on his view of the canon.

Then how did we end up with a diminished Protestant Bible? If we say that it was his followers who did this, we can always argue that he started it

But I never stated that there is more than one truth. all I’m saying that that Trent, because of the division and schism in the Church, only has authority of those in communion with Rome.

In terms of authority over people perhaps. But the question is who has more authority in pronouncing what should and should not be included in the canon of Scriptures.
You have Luther on the one hand and Trent on the other. Which one would you say has a greater authority to pronounce which book is and is not canonical.

Trent was not an ecumencial council. someone more knowledgeable than me will know if the canon has ever been set by a truly ecumenical council, ie., before the schism. It is not relativism.

Then that puts us in a quandary, if you start questioning the authority of this council or that council then really we cannot hold to the truth of the Bible at all.

Again, a convergence of understanding of doctrine, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

They can’t converge if they are opposite. Think of two lines running along side each other. Even a very slight angle at the beginning will cause them to diverge at some point. We know all the points of unity,but then there is that point where we diverge.

No one is asking either Church to do so. But instead, to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

But that is precisely what is left. Let me put it this way.

We both agree, that A is blue, B is red. Then comes C. You say it is black, I say it is White. For us to agree, either you agree with me or I agree with you. It can’t be both black and white.

Read the first 14 paragraphs of the JDDJ. It speaks of convergence based on modern study and understanding. It rejects the notion that either rejects their past statements.
It says things like:
*Our common way of listening to the word of God in Scripture has led to such new insights. *
and:
By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification

Other Lutheran / Catholic documents point to the same approach, not a submission of one side to another. That approach has a track record of 450 years of failure.

Jon

I am not denying this at all. There definitely are points of convergence. But – the points of divergence are equally real.

Take for example the doctrine on salvation as infuse or imputed. There is a clear delineation there. Even as we grow in understanding the two will remain different.
One sould at a time will decide - infusion or imputation?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6792470]That is great. I do accounts and it is the end of financial year so panic stations. I used to tutor kids though from kinder to high school Found it very rewarding.

It is rewarding. My wife says that, despite my mid-fifties age, I am at heart 11 years old, so I’m a perfect fit to teach. lol

So it would not be a problem for a Lutheran to embrace the DCs and the other books that no longer appear i the protestant Bible?

The only other books not in a typical “Protestant” Bible would be the books that appear in Orthodox Bibles.
I don’t know if I’m best equipped to answer. As I said, my understanding is that Lutheran theologians regularly use them and highly value them, and I also have been told that the LCMS publising house is soon to offer a study version of the D-C’s. My guess is that the sticking point might be using them to establish doctrine.
My personal view on this (and many other things) is that we do well to use caution when considering things long used or practices long employed by the Church both east and west.

Actually, purgation is the last phase in the process of making you righteous. Not everyone goes through after-death purgation. Some will have done this in this life (quite few I think). You can look at infusion as a continuous cleansing, with the final result being that we image Christ, the Son of God/ Some of tha cleansing is done after we die because rarely does any one die perfected in love.

Not quite. Put it this way. Take an axe murder. The merciful judge declares him blameless even though he is not. Inside he is the same rotten sinner that he is but the judge says he is righteous.

Contrast that with a judge who is able to effect a change in this man’s soul such that he repents and in the process of grows in love for God and for his fellowman. That man is now indeed righteous in the very depths of his being. He is no longer a sinner.

Is he then both “sinner and saint”?

The “in this life” part here Lutherans would refer to as sanctification, and we view it in many respects as synergistic. Growing in grace, and endeavoring to be more Christ-like.

This is something that has struck me as well with regards Protestant theology. We hear very much about the power of God, of being made righteous but rarely has love come in to play. And this again you can trace back to the nominalism that shaped Luther’s and Calvin’s mindset.

First, I would encourage you to unlink Lutheran and Calvinist mindsets. James Akin:

However, the Protestant [he means here specificallu Lutheran] idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

**Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which works by charity then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. **The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestants idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan salvation by faith alone becomes the Catholic slogan salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

What do you mean by regenerate. I know you gave me that text from the confession but it does not explain what a regenerate is.

From the LCMS website
lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=c&word=CONVERSION

Can you clarify this? Are you saying that you agree that our sinfulness enters heaven?

No. The opposite.

Jon