Yes! I’m working my way through @JohnR77’s link now. It’s from a website I’d never heard of till now, called Defending the Bride. It’s a list of approximately 40 passages from the deuterocanonicals, with the corresponding NT verses. My first impression is that in some cases the similarity is so slight as to be negligible, and in others the similarity points to a common origin of the two passages rather than one of them being the direct source of the other. There is, however, a numerous third group of passages that would repay further investigation. Tomorrow morning, or possibly even later today, I’ll post a list here with my first reactions to them, to see if you agree with me.
Are you sure? I believe you believe that, but Luther did not! He explicitly condemned any type of cooperation of grace on our part, i.e. grace-infused works of love, in being justified before God! Hence, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in being justified before God.
Would you care to explain how a bona fide Catholic on a Catholic forum could possibly be a ‘troll’?
They aren’t necessary for justification (for Lutherans). Do you disagree?
But, not for justification. Do you disagree?
Define Justification. That’s what I’m driving at. If we use Pope Benedict’s definition of Justification from the papal audience quoted above, then both Roman Catholics and Lutherans agree works aren’t necessary for Justification.
Well, what does Pope Benedict state?
Of course he would - that’s in keeping with Roman Catholic definitions and language describing a ‘broad’ view of Justification. He is harmonizing what Catholics call 'Initial Justification" (the only sort Lutheran language and terms acknowledge) with the post-Trent Roman Catholic ‘broad’ definition of Justification. The terms and understandings are what separates the two theological schools here; not so much the mechanisms. (Comical side note: this is why a few Hyper-Trads disdainfully joked about Benedict being “the first Lutheran pope.”)
This is certainly not what Luther taught; I’ve already noted that Lutherans are not Antinomians. What Benedict is doing here is expertly and deftly nipping in the bud that false assertion against Luther. As I’ve already said:
This is why the JDDJ was able to be written in the first place: agreement on the mechanisms of Justification (rather, what Roman Catholics call “Initial Justification”), in and of itself, and the cooperative life of the Christian after conversion (what Roman Catholics also call Justification) have essentially always been there. Terms and definitions largely separate the concepts. It’s when we get to other important doctrinal issues that we differ. Most notably on Original Sin and the level of depravity within man (this is why the LCMS, for example, did not sign the JDDJ).
Is what becoming clearer? You said works are necessary; I rebutted that works are not necessary in terms of Luther’s view of justification. I asked you if you disagreed. You did not answer. You dodge, equivocate, and supply all these presuppositions that don’t help you answering my question in a clear, succinct way.
I said works are necessary in the cooperative life of the regenerate. You misunderstood both me and Luther, because you understand neither the Lutheran approach to this issue nor the Lutheran terms. So your question starts from a faulty premise; it is loaded. It is broken from the start.
No, I certainly answered. What you mean to accuse me of is not answering in the way you wanted me to because your question was flawed. You see things in such black and white certainty, that you are unable to consider any other way. You perceive me as not answering your questions, but you’re asking the wrong questions. Our theologies have two different languages with separate concepts.
You crave the ‘clear and succinct’. History is neither of those things. Theology cannot be those things when two schools of thought use different terms and concepts. To truly dialogue takes listening and an earnest attempt to understand. There will be no direct translations of concepts; you must be open to seeing through a different worldview to understand it. To “take off your [Catholic or Lutheran] hat” and think as “they” do. Are you willing and able to attempt this?
My bad. Which post was this from?