"Catholic Answers" Why Did Luther's Heresy Persist?

[Andrew]

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems to me that the mission of Christians is to preach the gospel. To be at it in season and out of season.

 

[Josiah]

.

This thread is about a very, very typical "Catholic Answers" apologetic video...

"Catholic Answers" (featuring Tim Staples) is of course the premire Catholic apologetic ministry - with radio stations, publications, videos, website, etc, etc. I've read MANY of their publications and viewed MANY of their videos and of course have been to their website and participated (briefly) in their discussion forum.

This one - about why Luther's horrible "heresy" has nonetheless persisted - is pretty typical. Since CA doesn't allow discussion of these things, I choose to do it here. That's the purpose of this thread.

The (admittedly) detouring comment that ODDLY the Orthodox Church (mentioned quite a bit in the video) seems quiet and disengaged, there are significant issues there - LONG before Luther came along (with some similar and identical issues) and of course that much larger split happening some five centuries earlier still persists. Good comment, if a bit of a detour.

I WELL realize that uber-relativism, Mr. Rogers'ism, Kumbyah-ism all are reigning in much of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism - so none of this will be of importance or relevance to such (just if they feel hugged and hugging). I acknowledge that reality but don't share that pov.


Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Could the reason for CAs style be that it is what some call "boob bait," which is to say that it purposes mainly to give the credulous members of that church something to applaud and for them to feel righteous about themselves and their choice of denomination?

Other readers assume that the commitment of such sites is to educate critics from outside the organization, but often these sites are intended just to keep the members loyal and believing that the only reason for any non-member to criticize the church is misinformation. This could explain why the charge made by CA against Luther is blunt, but the presentation of supporting facts/justification is lacking.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the Dilbert cartoons (printed cartoons, not a cartoon show as far as I know) there's "Saint Dogbert" who regularly casts out the demons of stupidity. One wonders how to go about casting out the demons of obsessive anti-Catholicism so obviously present in this thread.

 

[Arsenios]

You took so much time to say nothing. You are truly gifted.

Garsch!

Thank-you...


'Twarn't nuttin'...


I was but replying in kind...





A.

 

[Arsenios]

.

This thread is about a very, very typical "Catholic Answers" apologetic video...

"Catholic Answers" (featuring Tim Staples) is of course the premire Catholic apologetic ministry - with radio stations, publications, videos, website, etc, etc. I've read MANY of their publications and viewed MANY of their videos and of course have been to their website and participated (briefly) in their discussion forum.

This one - about why Luther's horrible "heresy" has nonetheless persisted - is pretty typical. Since CA doesn't allow discussion of these things, I choose to do it here. That's the purpose of this thread.

The (admittedly) detouring comment that ODDLY the Orthodox Church (mentioned quite a bit in the video) seems quiet and disengaged, there are significant issues there - LONG before Luther came along (with some similar and identical issues) and of course that much larger split happening some five centuries earlier still persists. Good comment, if a bit of a detour.

I WELL realize that uber-relativism, Mr. Rogers'ism, Kumbyah-ism all are reigning in much of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism - so none of this will be of importance or relevance to such (just if they feel hugged and hugging). I acknowledge that reality but don't share that pov.

So Josiah, IF CAF were to articulate from their RCC perspective the exact nature of Luther's Heresy as they understand it, then what, exactly, would they say it is or was? And what would be their reply to it? Strictly from their pov, please...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

So Josiah, IF CAF were to articulate from their RCC perspective the exact nature of Luther's Heresy as they understand it, then what, exactly, would they say it is or was? And what would be their reply to it? Strictly from their pov, please...


Arsenios

CA specifically referred to "Luther's heresy." Heresy. It just did as it usually does - never stated what that is. Hum. Inquiring minds want to know why.... Of course, the RCC focused especially on one thing - what Luther taught regarding narrow justification, that Jesus is the Savior and that it's Jesus who saves. Luther never did understand why his position SO powerfully infuriated the RCC but we all know what it did (and has done for 500 years) about it. And when Luther's position is even now stated (even at CH), why.... 2 or 3 posters passionately protest - often for hundreds of posts, even hundreds of pages of posts - although often won't indicate what Luther said on this that they are protesting, they are just protesting "it" (endlessly).


CA's video is about that "heresy" that it (yet again) refuses to specify and refuses to indicate why it's "heresy." Instead, we get 2 other things (both perpetual keystones of the apologetics of CA)...
1. The basis of all sound theology and denominations is the dogmatic embrace of SEVEN (not 6 or 8) "Sacraments." Not Jesus. Not salvation. Not forgiveness. Having SEVEN Sacraments.
2. The RCC is lord over all and infallible and authoritative because it agrees with none of it itself (and even that only currently and in a very, very limited sense).




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So Josiah, IF CAF were to articulate from their RCC perspective the exact nature of Luther's Heresy as they understand it, then what, exactly, would they say it is or was? And what would be their reply to it? Strictly from their pov, please...


Arsenios

Well, a short list might look like this ...

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Rejection of seven deuterocanonical books.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. Sola Scriptura and radically private judgment: “if we are all priests . . . why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith?”
9. Denial that the pope has the right to call a council.
10. Only justified men can do good works.
11. Denial of the sacrament of ordination.
12. Denial of exclusively priestly absolution. Anyone in the Christian community can grant absolution.
13. God has not instituted the office of bishop.
14. God has not instituted the office of the papacy.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes: “The pope should have no authority over the emperor”.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority.
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. God has not instituted the vocation of monk
25. Feast days should be abolished.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial that the Mass is a good work.
35. Denial that the Mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. The seven sacraments lack any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to grant them.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (the only two sacraments are baptism and the Eucharist).​

PS: if you are curious to know what Catholic Answers, the web site, has to say about Martin Luther then click the following link

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther

The Bull of excommunication, "Exsurge Domine", was accordingly drawn up July 15. It formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment.

The text of Exsurge Domine is available in Latin and English online. The 41 points condemned in Martin Luther's teaching are documented there. Why Josiah cannot find these things is a mystery. Google works just as effectively in California as it does in Western Australia. One cannot help but think that the difficulty stems more from a lack of effort than from a lack of availability.

 

[Arsenios]

Well, a short list might look like this ...

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Rejection of seven deuterocanonical books.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. Sola Scriptura and radically private judgment: “if we are all priests . . . why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith?”
9. Denial that the pope has the right to call a council.
10. Only justified men can do good works.
11. Denial of the sacrament of ordination.
12. Denial of exclusively priestly absolution. Anyone in the Christian community can grant absolution.
13. God has not instituted the office of bishop.
14. God has not instituted the office of the papacy.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes: “The pope should have no authority over the emperor”.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority.
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. God has not instituted the vocation of monk
25. Feast days should be abolished.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial that the Mass is a good work.
35. Denial that the Mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. The seven sacraments lack any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to grant them.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (the only two sacraments are baptism and the Eucharist).​

PS: if you are curious to know what Catholic Answers, the web site, has to say about Martin Luther then click the following link

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther

The Bull of excommunication, "Exsurge Domine", was accordingly drawn up July 15. It formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment.

The text of Exsurge Domine is available in Latin and English online. The 41 points condemned in Martin Luther's teaching are documented there. Why Josiah cannot find these things is a mystery. Google works just as effectively in California as it does in Western Australia. One cannot help but think that the difficulty stems more from a lack of effort than from a lack of availability.

That is a laundry list of complaints, MC...

But my real hope was for Josiah to present his understanding of the 'erroneous' Latin charges against Luther in the best light possible... He tends to set up straw man positions and then burns them cheerfully, and I was hoping he might present the Latin understanding in its best light, and then show how it fails...


For myself, I really do not care what the history might prove, but I do care how it is understood...

The way it is being addressed is just too juvenile in it's approach...

eg "Rome does not believe that Jesus is the Savior period."

That is just a silly way of approach...

Even if it is true it is childish...

I am beginning to gain insight into fascist Antifa from this argument...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

That is a laundry list of complaints, MC...

But my real hope was for Josiah to present his understanding of the 'erroneous' Latin charges against Luther in the best light possible... He tends to set up straw man positions and then burns them cheerfully, and I was hoping he might present the Latin understanding in its best light, and then show how it fails...


For myself, I really do not care what the history might prove, but I do care how it is understood...

The way it is being addressed is just too juvenile in it's approach...

eg "Rome does not believe that Jesus is the Savior period."

That is just a silly way of approach...

Even if it is true it is childish...

I am beginning to gain insight into fascist Antifa from this argument...


Arsenios

The list of 50 points was captured (by myself) from a web page that is very long and written by somebody who took the time to draw up a list. I can't recall if they were for or against Martin Luther's errors. All I wanted to do it make a list available for the sake of discussion. I do not expect it will receive fair treatment nor would the 41 errors in Exsurge Domine which, by the way, I reproduced in English in a thread here in CH some months ago only to have it ignored even through it was requested.

There is very little likelihood that any facts will be dealt with in a discussion here. The reason for these threads is to give a soap box from which a chap can announce his/her own views without hearing anybody else's.

 

[Arsenios]

The list of 50 points was captures (by myself) from a web page that is very long and written by somebody who took the time to draw up a list. I can't recall if they were for or against Martin Luther's errors. All I wanted to do it make a list available for the sake of discussion. I do not expect it will receive fair treatment nor would the 41 errors in Exsurge Domine which, by the way, I reproduced in English in a thread here in CH some months ago only to have it ignored even through it was requested.

There is very little likelihood that any facts will be dealt with in a discussion here. The reason for these threads is to give a soap box from which a chap can announce his/her own views without hearing anybody else's.

Well, MC, expecting to convert anyone on-line in a hostile debating encounter is not realistic, although hoping for simple and clear and, dare I say, honestly humble, articulations of points of view should hold more promise, mind you!

I mean, I read your post, and thanked God that I am not a depressive, because that post would have canted me over the side and into the deep, to speak in the naval metaphor of the great days of sail... I mean, encouragement is a good thing, and its thirst begs a drop of cooling water, and your post was parched in pessimism, so to say...

But I wax poetic!

I do think Josiah believes that he has captured the essence of the historic Church's rejection of Luther's theology, and he does co-equate, even if not all that convincingly, the EOC's and the RCC's basis for doing so... For us, the Neptic Fathers and the Hesychastic approach to human divinization refutes him, but this approach, as he remarked, makes him nervous, smacking of spiritual encounters with God that transform man into a divinized person whose shadow can heal the sick... Yet I do not think the RCC's understanding has much place for this approach...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah will speak for himself.

For my part, I can chat with people elsewhere and find better ground for agreement.

Here the ground is rocky.

 

[Albion]

Maybe the best idea would be to reply to that which the OP inquired into--Luther's alleged heresy that could not be identified by Catholic Answers.

Not some unofficial list of 50 'errors' (not heresies).

 

[Josiah]

I do think Josiah believes that he has captured the essence of the historic Church's rejection of Luther's theology

[MENTION=486]Arsenios[/MENTION]
[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]



1. This thread is about a very typical video of "Catholic Answers", the premier RC apologetics organization with many publications, radio stations, a popular website and hundreds of apologetical videos. It is specifically (and by name) about the "heresy" (sic) of Luther. It's "heresy" and it's in the singular. This is a popular topic with "Catholic Answers." But if you actually watched the video, you will notice what I did: There is (yet again) a complete evasion of WHAT that "heresy" (specifically a heresy, and in the singular) actually is. I have noticed this from "Catholic Answers" many times. AND I noted two other things: 1) The foundational issue for CA is not Christ or the Cross or salvation but whether a denomination officially and dogmatically has SEVEN (not 6 or 8) "Sacraments" as defined currently and uniquely by the RC denomination. 2) The RCC has to be right about this not-specified "heresy" of Luther because it agrees with none, it has "unity" only with it itself alone - singularly, individually, uniquely - and even that only in a very limited sense. So far, no one has disagreed with me on any of this. It is undeniable from watching this very typical video of "Catholic Answers" (THE premier RC apologetical ministry).


2. I can't state what singular, specific "heresy" Catholic Answers is addressing because, yet again, still again, it won't say what this "heresy" is/was. I think it probably has a reason for this common evasion, some reason why this premier Catholic apologetics ministry wants to evade saying it is the "heresy." But from history, we all know that while there were several things Luther said that the RCC didn't like, it itself said the major point was his teaching on narrow Justification, and of course, everyone knows what that teaching was: Jesus is the Savior, Jesus does the saving.... not self, not in part or in whole, not now or ever. So, we really have no choice in identifying what the RCC so passionately, so powerfully protested: Jesus is the Savior (because that's what Luther taught on this). Lest one try to change the subject, Luther stressed that he was speaking of justification in the narrow sense, what some post-Trent modern Catholics call "initial grace", the COMING of the changed relationship, the COMING of spiritual life, faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit. Luther was a clear as possible that he was not at all speaking of what follows that (Sanctification, discipleship, growth) but ONLY the establishment - and the RCC was as clear as it possibly could be that it fully understood that in Luther and that it agreed with Luther on what flows from justification ("narrow" "initiial") so the attempt to change the subject (as CA is apt at times to do) doesn't work. And we are left with only one possibility: What "heresy" Luther taught was that Jesus is the Savior (in this sense), Jesus does the Saving, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life - not self, not in part or in whole. There were other things the RCC protested (including having worship in the language of the people) but THE issue it most protested was Luther's view about Jesus being the Savior. So, CA is likely referring to that - especially since it speaks of a singular point and it calls IT specifically "heresy."

, and he does co-equate, even if not all that convincingly, the EOC's and the RCC's basis for doing so

I don't know what the EOC teaches on this.... you have stated you agree with Luther on this but that you totally protest Luther on this... and of course, every time anyone remotely suggests that Jesus is the Savior you immediate enter the discussion to protest - inserting many, many, many posts to debate it. I suspect that if you agreed with Luther and Luther on this, you'd have just two words to post: "I agree" and that would be that. But instead, we get endless posts of protest and debate from you. And MC. Over and over. In any thread even remotely related to Jesus being the Savior. Probably implies something... unless your style is to protest what you agree with.

The list of 50 points was captured (by myself) from a web page that is very long and written by somebody

... thus you admit it as nothing to do with the discussion here. The "someone" appears to not be the premier RC apologetics ministry of "Catholic Answers" and the issue here is not some (very absurd, obviously ignorant) list of "50 errors" from some unknown, unidentified individual poster on the internet proving that he/she knows nothing of Lutheranism, but THE (singular) HERESY that Catholic Answers is addressing (but yet again, still again, feels best for it to not identify).




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Arsenios]

But if you actually watched the video, you will notice what I did:
There is (yet again) a complete evasion of WHAT that ... heresy... actually is.

I can't state what singular, specific "heresy" Catholic Answers is addressing because, yet again, still again, it won't say what this "heresy" is/was.

That is what I suspected - The RCC at CAF has a lot of ink on what is wrong with Luther and his ideas, but no one singular big "heresy" with which they charge him... MC gave a good link to their account of Luther's bio, of which I read a paragraph, and that was enough, as they were looking to condemn him... So the matter is not all that clear cut - Luther just kind of went rogue and the Reformation ensued through him and then many others... Please understand that I am an outsider trying to make sense of it - I have no dog in this one...

Luther stressed that he was speaking of justification in the narrow sense, what some post-Trent modern Catholics call "initial grace", the COMING of the changed relationship, the COMING of spiritual life, faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit. Luther was a clear as possible that he was not at all speaking of what follows that (Sanctification, discipleship, growth) but ONLY the establishment -

and the RCC was as clear as it possibly could be that it fully understood that in Luther and that it agreed with Luther on what flows from justification ("narrow" "initiial") so the attempt to change the subject (as CA is apt at times to do) doesn't work. And we are left with only one possibility:

What "heresy" Luther taught was that Jesus is the Savior (in this sense), Jesus does the Saving, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life - not self, not in part or in whole.

You see, this is where I get lost, because you are the only one I know who uses the term "narrow justification" like this, and when I ask you to put it into context with Paul's three-fold development of Call, Justification, and Glorification, I get ignored - You have not yet answered... So that it seems you have an idiosyncratic term known only to yourself and not affirmed by anyone else... And that you will not defend it, but insist on it...

I don't know what the EOC teaches on this.... you have stated you agree with Luther on this but that you totally protest Luther on this... and of course, every time anyone remotely suggests that Jesus is the Savior you immediate enter the discussion to protest - inserting many, many, many posts to debate it.

I absolutely affirm it, which you will not acknowledge, because I add that it must be sought by seeking good and fleeing evil... And you wrongly insist that by adding works, I am adding to Christ's Gift...

The Faith of Christ, you see, is THE Great Work of Mankind on this earth...

And in your understanding, Faith and Works are opposites...

But not in the understanding of the Ancient and Primal Faith...

Thank-you for taking the time to give this another "think", Josiah...

I know it is a hot-button topic for you, and a kind of crusade...


Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...You see, this is where I get lost, because (Josiah is) the only one I know who uses the term "narrow justification" like this, and when I ask you to put it into context with Paul's three-fold development of Call, Justification, and Glorification, I get ignored - You have not yet answered... So that it seems you have an idiosyncratic term known only to yourself and not affirmed by anyone else... And that you will not defend it, but insist on it...

Arsenios
*Parenthesis added by 'ID2' for clarity

Arsenios is not the only one who has asked. 'Narrow Justification' as a term is nowhere to be found in Lutheran literature or talking points that I have seen (I've looked extensively) and should be taken at face value - a term denoted by one person with dubious meaning. Sorry, Josiah, just my personal take on it.

 

[Josiah]

1. This thread is about a very typical video of "Catholic Answers", the premier RC apologetics organization with many publications, radio stations, a popular website and hundreds of apologetical videos. It is specifically (and by name) about the "heresy" (sic) of Luther. It's "heresy" and it's in the singular. This is a popular topic with "Catholic Answers." But if you actually watched the video, you will notice what I did: There is (yet again) a complete evasion of WHAT that "heresy" (specifically a heresy, and in the singular) actually is. I have noticed this from "Catholic Answers" many times. AND I noted two other things: 1) The foundational issue for CA is not Christ or the Cross or salvation but whether a denomination officially and dogmatically has SEVEN (not 6 or 8) "Sacraments" as defined currently and uniquely by the RC denomination. 2) The RCC has to be right about this not-specified "heresy" of Luther because it agrees with none, it has "unity" only with it itself alone - singularly, individually, uniquely - and even that only in a very limited sense. So far, no one has disagreed with me on any of this. It is undeniable from watching this very typical video of "Catholic Answers" (THE premier RC apologetical ministry).


2. I can't state what singular, specific "heresy" Catholic Answers is addressing because, yet again, still again, it won't say what this "heresy" is/was. I think it probably has a reason for this common evasion, some reason why this premier Catholic apologetics ministry wants to evade saying it is the "heresy." But from history, we all know that while there were several things Luther said that the RCC didn't like, it itself said the major point was his teaching on narrow Justification, and of course, everyone knows what that teaching was: Jesus is the Savior, Jesus does the saving.... not self, not in part or in whole, not now or ever. So, we really have no choice in identifying what the RCC so passionately, so powerfully protested: Jesus is the Savior (because that's what Luther taught on this). Lest one try to change the subject, Luther stressed that he was speaking of justification in the narrow sense, what some post-Trent modern Catholics call "initial grace", the COMING of the changed relationship, the COMING of spiritual life, faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit. Luther was a clear as possible that he was not at all speaking of what follows that (Sanctification, discipleship, growth) but ONLY the establishment - and the RCC was as clear as it possibly could be that it fully understood that in Luther and that it agreed with Luther on what flows from justification ("narrow" "initiial") so the attempt to change the subject (as CA is apt at times to do) doesn't work. And we are left with only one possibility: What "heresy" Luther taught was that Jesus is the Savior (in this sense), Jesus does the Saving, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life - not self, not in part or in whole. There were other things the RCC protested (including having worship in the language of the people) but THE issue it most protested was Luther's view about Jesus being the Savior. So, CA is likely referring to that - especially since it speaks of a singular point and it calls IT specifically "heresy."




I don't know what the EOC teaches on this.... you have stated you agree with Luther on this but that you totally protest Luther on this... and of course, every time anyone remotely suggests that Jesus is the Savior you immediate enter the discussion to protest - inserting many, many, many posts to debate it. I suspect that if you agreed with Luther and Luther on this, you'd have just two words to post: "I agree" and that would be that. But instead, we get endless posts of protest and debate from you. And MC. Over and over. In any thread even remotely related to Jesus being the Savior. Probably implies something... unless your style is to protest what you agree with.


.

No one singular big "heresy" with which they charge him...

Actually, Catholic Answers DOES charge him with a (it's in the singular) "heresy" . They just again won't identify what that is. I wonder why... And yes, it is very typical of that premier RC apologetics ministtry.

What DOES the video say? That the defining point of true teaching is that a denomination dogmatically holds that there are SEVEN (not 6 or 8) specific SACRAMENTS (defined in the way the indiviidual RC denomination currently does)... and that the
singular RC denomination has to be right about this unidentified "heresy" (in the singular) is because it itself agrees with it itself (it doens't say on what) and no other, so a denomination that agrees with self alone is automatically correct (perhaps the most common apologetical point of CA).

So the matter is not all that clear cut

Actually, it is just AGAIN entirely evaded. In typical fashion by this premier Catholic apologetics ministry.


The whole point of the video is that Luther had this "HERESY" (in the singular and specifically a "heresy" - not 50 points of error according to some unidentified individual who posted on the internet) but a specific "HERESY" But as you admit, it evades AGAIN saying what that was/is. I wonder why it so often, so obviously, evades indentifying that?



Continues in next post...




.

 

[Josiah]

... continuing from above...

You see, this is where I get lost

Is that your determined desire? It has been explained... by several here.... again and again and again and again.... very simply.... with many Scriptures and even illustrations and examples.... Anyone remotely engaged and anywhere near your obvious intellectual ability and knowledge, would obviously (and easily) understand, if such was desired. They may not agree that Jesus is the Savior (in this sense) or that the Holy Spirit is the GIVER of life (as the ancient Creed affirms) rather than self, but I think they can (and generally do) understand. If you need to have this point refreshed yet again, still one more time, that can be done but I'm entirely confident such is not necessary.

when I ask you to put it into context with Paul's three-fold development of Call, Justification, and Glorification, I get ignored - You have not yet answered...

Addressed endlessly..... The point however is WHO does it: self or God or some Pelagian/synergistic combination of self and God? You keep evading that point. AND you seem to hold - dogmatically - that the Greek word "kai" MUST (dogmatically) mandate sequence , a point we obviously disagree upon.

As I have noted, the HOW God performs His miracle of life - faith - justification is a point Lutherans will not discuss (we affirm this as 'mystery') - and BTW, so did the RCC of Luther's day. BUT Luther gave all the credit to God alone ("Soli Deo Gloria"), noting that is it GOD ALONE who justifies in this sense. And all who remember their high school history know that the RCC did not affirm that but protested that in the strongest way possible and went to great lengths to note that THAT was the point of disagreement, the issue on which the RCC again chose to split itself.

I add that it must be sought by seeking good and fleeing evil...

Yes, it is a contradiction to say that Jesus does the saving but that self does it by seeking and fleeing. If one earns something, then it's not a "free gift" as Scripture says. If one is reworded for doing certain good works, then they are saved by doing their own good works and not by Jesus and His good works. You seem to want to embrace Pelagianism and radical synergism..... to say that Jesus is THE Savior but that actually He doesn't save at all, He simply acknowledges the saving good work that the dead, atheistic, enemy of God who "cannot come to Him" has done.

Now.... as I've posted many times..... IF you could hold that it is GOD who causes one to "hear" and respond to the Call, I'd be comfortable with that (although I think that is going too far, attempting to tell God how He performs a miracle) but I would not object. I have even stated - a few times - how a Baptist minister just before issuing his "altar call" stated that "if you feel you are being tugged.... if your heart is racing and your palms are sweating.... indeed if you come down at all.... this is ENTIRELY the work of God and not yourself, you already believe and the Holy Spirit is telling you to declare such." As I posted, I would not state that but I don't object to it. But you won't give the Holy Spirit any role in the GIVING of spiritual life (in spite of what you declare every Sunday) only that God OFFERS something, He gives nothing.

The Faith of Christ, you see, is THE Great Work of Mankind on this earth...

Funny, because Scripture calls it "the free gift of God." And states that the unregenerate CANNOT (the verbatim word) CANNOT do this. I've quoted all these Scriptures, you always ignore them. Faith is NOT a good work that dead, unregnerate, atheistic, enemies of God entirely void of the Holy Spirit performs - and God therefore rewards with spiritual life, faith, the Holy Spirit because it has been earned. We disagree on that point. Dead don't give life to self, the Holy Spirit does. Atheistic enemies of God, void of the Holy Spirit, don't say "Jesus is Lord" because (among many other reasons) the Bible flatly says they "cannot."

But I see you point: that unregnerate self does it.... which of course means you shouldn't declare "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life" and you shouldn't refer to Jesus as the Savior.

And in your understanding, Faith and Works are opposites...

No, I've never REMOTELY stated any such thing.

But substituting the words of dead, atheistic, unregenerate man for the works of God is, in a sense, opposites. Declaring self the Savior and Christ as the Savior are opposites. Declaring self as the giver of spiritual life/faith/Holy Spirit is the opposite to declaring the Holy Spirit was the Lord and Giver of life. I affirm that we are justified by works - I just hold it's the works of Jesus and you hold it's with works of dead, atheistic, enemies of God who have not yet received the Holy Spirit or faith or life.

Again, yet again, still one more time, I'd be okay if you held to mystery here... if you held that the Holy Spirit brings about that "response" to the Call but you won't. And it has always been my position that once we have been given the Holy Spirit - spiritual life - faith - justification, then as a consequence, Christians are thus to respond with the whole of their lives - OUR works thus becoming critical, but that's another issue for another day, one that Luther and the RC denomination of his day were in complete agreement (and Catholics and Lutherans still are). BUT Luther would not affirm (in contradiction to the Council of Orange and all of Scripture) that dead self saves self and gives life to self and gives the Holy Spirit to self THEN, having performed the good works that bring justification, God rewords such good works as He must (Jesus being not the Savior but the Possibility-Maker and perhaps one Helper).

I know it is a hot-button topic for you, and a kind of crusade...

Thank you.

All of Christianity hinges on Jesus as the Savior, the Holy Spirit as the giver of life. Without that, Christianity falls.... and we are left with the soleriology of every other religion.

Yeah.... kind like a denomination having SEVEN "Sacraments" (defined only as the current RCC currently does) and that if a singular denomination currently agrees with it itself (and no other) on a dogma, it must be right is the crusade of "Catholic Answers" as we again see in this typical video.



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Tell me what Christian you (Josiah) have encountered who has said that 'self' is savior and not Christ. Or is this something you infer from one who holds a synergistic mindset? I would hazard a guess that you might get some strange looks if it was suggested to them that Christ was not their savior, and that they, in fact, were. It's an argument that doesn't quite hold water as the inference might be that the person's standing in Christ might not be as they suppose. I'm not even sure that a Catholic would go so far as to suggest that you and I as Monergistic Lutherans were somehow outside the grace of God. You may not state it outright, but by inference the suggestion could be made.