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

[Josiah]

Tell me what Christian you (Josiah) have encountered who has said that 'self' is savior and not Christ.

1. When people protest what Luther said on that (calling it "heresy" for example), it seems likely to me they don't agree with it. Make sense?


2. Some verbatim quotes from my Catholic teachers. "Jesus opening the door to heaven but you got to get yourself through it by what you do." "Technically, Jesus saves no one but He makes it possible for all to be saved." "God helps those who help themselves." You've probably read some of the posts here at CH.


3. Some have insisted that God rewards those who first repented, came to faith, and dedicated their lives to God with the payment of faith, spiritual life and a changed relationship with God. Their soteriology is that first the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God who "cannot" even say "Jesus is Lord" and "cannot come to Him" this one FIRST must do x,y,z (and who knows what else) and as a reward, God grants to them justification (spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, faith in Christ). IMO, that at least implies that self saves self.

You may not state it outright, but by inference the suggestion could be made.

1. I have repeatedly stated that I personally hold that the vast majority of Catholics fully embrace Jesus as their Savior and will be in heaven. Please don't lay that often-made affirmation aside. I have also said IMO, from my experience as a former Catholic and from most of my family being Catholic and from some 12 years of discussing this specific point with Catholics, that there is no other topic under heaven in which Catholics seem more confused. And IMO, this is not because of their lack of faith or misplaced faith but from the confusion they are often taught - the mixture of Law and Gospel, of sanctification and justification, of self and Christ. However (again) I have found that generally, IF TIME PERMITS, it is possible to untangle the MESS they are taught and discover that God has worked faith in them - often then conveyed in classic, verbatim, Lutheran ways (LOL) - leaving them in a bit of a fix (see next point).


2. At times, there are Catholic apologists. The centerpiece of such is protecting and defending the denomination because that's key to everything. Doctrine is right (in their view) because the denomination is authoritative/infallible (Jesus on earth).
They will defend, above all, their denomination. And this, at many points, creates a bit of a problem because many informed Catholics feel that their denomination has at times been wrong - even when it comes to dogma and Ecumenical Councils - but they can't state that without destroying the whole point of the authority and infallibility of their singular denomination. Been there myself! I'm SURE you know that Luther, a Doctor of the Church responsible for reporting false teaching, informed the authorities of the sellers of Indulgences preaching bold-face Pelagianism in direct contradiction to the council of Orange, etc, etc. He was SURE the RC would fully agree with him and thank him and work to correct the false teachers. But we all know what happened, don't we? We all know that the RCC fully understood what Luther was saying regarding Justification and Sanctification.... and we all know there was complete agreement on Sanctification (eventually)... we all know the RCC said what Luther taught on Justification was horrible, apostate heresy and justified what the RCC did 500 years ago. Now, friend, you WILL find many Catholics who insist the RCC was just wrong.... and on THAT point, Luther was right. A case where the RCC blew it (enormously)... and thus the Council of Trent (while much more carefully worded) also blew it. The informal "agreement" of a few years ago between SOME Lutherans and the RCC essentially conveys that by at least affirming that the RCC misunderstood (a polite way to say it goofed since CLEARLY it did NOT misunderstand). The "agreement" contains no agreement but it does admit fault without actually admitting anything. I've had a number of discussions with Catholic teachers (including a couple that teaches RCIA classes in my former parish) who actually thought the Pope would officially apologize during the 500th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation. But here's the deal: Either Luther was wrong on this point or the RCC was (is?) wrong on this point. And when Catholics (and others) protest when someone states Luther's position on this (whatever the reason), then they are rejecting it. IMO, they cannot therefore argue that they agree on it. There was a huge split 500 years ago.... and all "sides" insisted THIS was the issue... and we're still split.... and every time anyone posts that Jesus is the Savior, well.... you know what happens.

And (since you are still reading), of course, there were several points of disagreement: Whether we must dogmatically number the Sacraments, Transubstantiation rather than just Real Presence, unmarried clergy. what language worship must be in, Purgatory in the unique Latin/Western form, the Assumption of Mary - but NONE of these were dogmas at the time, and all of these that had MANY objectors (not just Luther) and their objection was permitted. Many (including me) think that the Infallibility of the Pope was actually at least an equal issue (my Greek Orthodox friend insists it WAS the singular issue - the justification thing was pure drummed up) but that was not dogma until 1870 and MANY disagreed with that, not just Lutherans. Catholic apologists LOVE to change the subject and suggest something ELSE what the issue (rejecting what the RCC insisted at the time, it said Justification - in the sense Luther meant it - was the issue; the indulgence sellers were right in their Pelagianism) but this is just historically false and a diversion.


Arsenios is correct: Proclaiming Jesus as the Savior IS a passion of mine. It is for all Lutherans. I don't say that any Christian is unsaved (I say that generally Catholics ARE saved) but I will (I hope to my dying day) proclaim the Gospel that Jesus saves. I know, this upsets some. I trust not you.




- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Wow. I'm impressed.

I know that you were addressing someone else, but if it is in order to hear from a third party who has read the comments made by both sides...everything you said there was 100% correct.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

It's a mystery of CH communication. Whatever it is it apparently is narrow has has "justification" as a kind of suffix.

The list of heresies that the pope in Luther's day gave is this.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.​

​

This is a list of the errors, not a list of their refutations. It needs to be read as a list of the errors that Martin Luther teaches in his writings.

 

[Josiah]

Of course, there were several points of disagreement: Whether we must dogmatically number the Sacraments, Transubstantiation rather than just Real Presence, unmarried clergy. what language worship must be in, Purgatory in the unique Latin/Western form, the Assumption of Mary - but NONE of these were dogmas at the time, and all of these that had MANY objectors (not just Luther) and their objection was permitted. Many (including me) think that the Infallibility of the Pope was actually at least an equal issue (my Greek Orthodox friend insists it WAS the singular issue - the justification thing was pure drummed up) but that was not dogma until 1870 and MANY disagreed with that, not just Lutherans. Catholic apologists LOVE to change the subject and suggest something ELSE what the issue (rejecting what the RCC insisted at the time, it said Justification - in the sense Luther meant it - was the issue; the indulgence sellers were right in their Pelagianism) but this is just historically false and a diversion.


.

This is a list of the errors, not a list of their refutations. It needs to be read as a list of the errors that Martin Luther teaches in his writings. You keep missing that.

.

The video does not speak of "41 errors" but of a singular HERESY. "Luther's heresy." Specifically a "heresy" and in the singular. The premier Catholic apologetic ministry quite consistently here and in its publications, radio shows and videos, never quite seems willing to identify "Luther's heresy."

And what it does indicate that the basis of doctrine is having exactly SEVEN Sacraments*. And that the RCC is right about this not-disclosed "heresy" because it itself uniquely agrees with it itself alone, it has unity with ITSELF on "this" issue (whatever "it" is, it doesn't say).


- Josiah



* Tim Staples and the whole ministry of the premier "Catholic Answers" seems unaware that the Anglican Communion also officially count the Sacraments as exactly SEVEN but they don't hold that the Anglican Communion thus has sound doctrine... kinda destroys their whole often-made point? And of course, this whole dogmatic "SEVEN" thing is fairly recent even in the RCC, so was the RCC wrong in its dogma before it dogmatically insisted all count to exactly SEVEN (not 6 or 8) Sacraments?


.

 

[Josiah]

Wow. I'm impressed.

I know that you were addressing someone else, but if it is in order to hear from a third party who has read the comments made by both sides...everything you said there was 100% correct.

Thank you.



We'll see what our friend ImaginaryDay2 says....



.

 

[Albion]

The list of heresies that the pope in Luther's day gave is this....

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

Will someone please explain how the above, whether affirmed or denied, can possibly be a heresy.


or this:

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

 

[Josiah]

Will someone please explain how the above, whether affirmed or denied, can possibly be a heresy.


or this:

Just diversions.... from some unidentified individual whom MC found on the internet... irrelevant to "the heresy of Luther" (singular... the "heresy" not simply an error according to some singular individual with access to the internet). And irrelevant to the point that the premier RC apologetics ministry accused Luther of a "heresy" but here again, as typical, avoids saying that that "heresy" was (seems CA feels its best to not tell anyone what it was... hum... wonder why?) Also irrelevant to the two things CA says ARE critical: That a denomination dogmatically numbers the Sacraments as exactly SEVEN (any other denomination is highly suspect) and that the RC MUST be right about the issue CA refuses to identify because the RCC itself agrees with it itself on that unidentified issue (a denomination agreeing with itself is hallmark proof of correctness, that's a major apologetics point of CA)

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

We'll see what our friend ImaginaryDay2 says....

.

What he says is thank you for not re-posting the myriad of points that have been made already in the several years I have read your posts here and elsewhere, but instead presenting different cogent points. I'll read more in-depth soon as I'm away from home right now

 

[Albion]

Just diversions.... from some unidentified individual whom MC found on the internet... irrelevant to "the heresy of Luther" (singular... the "heresy" not simply an error according to some singular individual with access to the internet).

That would seem to be the case, all right.

 

[Josiah]

What he says is thank you for not re-posting the myriad of points that have been made already in the several years I have read your posts here and elsewhere, but instead presenting different cogent points. I'll read more in-depth soon as I'm away from home right now

Actually, I simply restated what I've posted many times before on this subject. I agree.... lots of round and round. I've seldom been able to get a straight answer as to what, specifically, in Luther's teaching on Justification ("Jesus saves") is SO horrible, SO apostate, SO heretical as to mandate all the RCC did 500 years ago. I CAN understand why the Pope would be upset with Luther's denial of the Infallibility of the Singular RC Bishop in Rome or Whatever - but that wasn't dogma then. I CAN understand why some would be upset that Luther thought people should worship in their own language rather than a form of Latin but he never made that an issue of dogma. I CAN understand why some would be upset that Luther (like SO many others in his day) didn't accept Transubstantiation (in it's western form at that time) in stead of jsut Real Presence but it wasn't dogma then either. But no, the issue (according to the RCC) was especially Justification in the sense that Luther meant it. WHY? Well.... Lord knows how often that question must be asked, for how many centuries... usually what we get are endless diversions and things like this CA video, where the accusation is made but the heresy unidentified. And what makes it even odder is you can hear Catholic PRIESTS teach EXACTLY what Luther taught (I have, pretty much verbatim) yet insist Luther was a heretic on that point (which I guess makes them a heretic, too?). Very odd, IMO.

Well.... I've been all over the points in post 61 many, many times since coming to CH.... and before that at CF. MANY times. No answer yet. Just occasionally some Catholic sharing that in their opinion, the RCC erred 500 years ago and considers it too dangerous to admit it or that whatever good would come from agreement wouldn't be worth the admission. But know this: I will continue to proclaim that Jesus is the Savior, that it's Jesus who saves. And I'm SURE a few non-Protestants will continue to debate and protest and argue... perhaps never identifying WHAT they are protesting, just protesting .... or never telling you WHY Lutherans are so very wrong on that specific topic. You can theorize why as good as I can.


If you choose to respond to post #61, it might be good to do so in a different thread (or even PM) since this one is about the CA video. Up to you, former staffer (lol). You might want to read post #59, too.




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Actually, I simply restated what I've posted many times before on this subject.
.

Sorry for the hatchet job, but as I said, I'm away from home at the moment. It may appear a restatement; however, posts have primarily begun with 'justification narrow' and follow with some sort of a descriptor of that. The issue is that the term is something that is not in use by Lutherans and (imo) ought not to be used, no matter the context or description. The further away from that we can move, the better and I don't see post #61 in that same light

 

[Arsenios]

Sorry for the hatchet job, but as I said, I'm away from home at the moment. It may appear a restatement; however, posts have primarily begun with 'justification narrow' and follow with some sort of a descriptor of that. The issue is that the term is something that is not in use by Lutherans and (imo) ought not to be used, no matter the context or description. The further away from that we can move, the better and I don't see post #61 in that same light

I would second that -

Josiah, can you cite a Christian Theologian who uses the term "Justification narrow"?

Because as you are using it, you are simply describing a divine encounter one degree or another, wherein someone comes away with the conviction that God is real and one had better do something about it...

And IF that is indeed WHAT you mean by it, then why call it Salvation or Justification at all?

The fuel of this back and forth between Josiah and MC seems to be a litany of complaints without litigation...


Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

1. When people protest what Luther said on that (calling it "heresy" for example), it seems likely to me they don't agree with it. Make sense?

In a way it does. However,the conclusion that "self saves self" would be heartily denied by them, I'm sure. And that's where the problem lies in drawing that conclusion about synergists.

2. Some verbatim quotes from my Catholic teachers. "Jesus opening the door to heaven but you got to get yourself through it by what you do." "Technically, Jesus saves no one but He makes it possible for all to be saved." "God helps those who help themselves." You've probably read some of the posts here at CH.

Indeed I have, and it's laughable on the face of it.

3. Some have insisted that God rewards those who first repented, came to faith, and dedicated their lives to God with the payment of faith, spiritual life and a changed relationship with God.

Among synergists I would see the first three as being man's 'effort' (if you will), with spiritual life and a changed relationship being the result. Of course, one who is spiritually 'dead' cannot make such effort - you and I know that - however it does not negate the fact that GOD brought them to faith and was active in repentance and the dedication to life in Christ. We both know that the 'dead' man was actually alive in Christ (through the gift of faith) to accomplish such things.

Their soteriology is that first the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God who "cannot" even say "Jesus is Lord" and "cannot come to Him" this one FIRST must do x,y,z (and who knows what else) and as a reward, God grants to them justification (spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, faith in Christ). IMO, that at least implies that self saves self.

But again, we know this isn't true. It is the working of God through the gift of faith.

1. I have repeatedly stated that I personally hold that the vast majority of Catholics fully embrace Jesus as their Savior and will be in heaven. Please don't lay that often-made affirmation aside. I have also said IMO, from my experience as a former Catholic and from most of my family being Catholic and from some 12 years of discussing this specific point with Catholics, that there is no other topic under heaven in which Catholics seem more confused. And IMO, this is not because of their lack of faith or misplaced faith but from the confusion they are often taught - the mixture of Law and Gospel, of sanctification and justification, of self and Christ.

I'm not so sure that I would call it confusion on their part - but again I have only had my own experiences and interacted with Catholics in my own family and those in my circle of influence. I can think of one example here (with whom debates are endless) who does not seem confused, but is actually quite forthright, and from whom I have learned a lot. So, imo, the confusion can come from our own desire to make sense of something, but inability to step out of our own worldview to make sense of it. Granted, there's still much that doesn't make sense, and is confusing, but doesn't make the Catholic the confused one. Sorry of this offends.

However (again) I have found that generally, IF TIME PERMITS, it is possible to untangle the MESS they are taught and discover that God has worked faith in them - often then conveyed in classic, verbatim, Lutheran ways (LOL) - leaving them in a bit of a fix (see next point).

And this can be true for many - not just Catholics. A lot of Pentecostal and Mennonite errors had to be undone for me to see the truth contained in Lutheranism

2. At times, there are Catholic apologists. The centerpiece of such is protecting and defending the denomination because that's key to everything. Doctrine is right (in their view) because the denomination is authoritative/infallible (Jesus on earth).
They will defend, above all, their denomination. And this, at many points, creates a bit of a problem because many informed Catholics feel that their denomination has at times been wrong - even when it comes to dogma and Ecumenical Councils - but they can't state that without destroying the whole point of the authority and infallibility of their singular denomination.

Here I would agree with you. In the video (and I think I posted this earlier, too) a point was made about Catholics being united in their view of Luther's heresy (I believe this was the point, or something similar). And I brought up the idea that this 'unity' may exist dogmatically, but perhaps not with individual Catholics who would dare to think for themselves about individual doctrines/dogmas of the Church. So while some might defend the church to the death, others... well...

Forgive me, I need to take a break here. Sometimes longer posts take me a while to respond and this is one of those times

 

[MoreCoffee]

The 41 points of heresy were written within a year or two of Martin Luther raising them. They are contemporary. They are part of the history that happened 500 years ago. I provided the list of 41 because it was asked for. It is the heresy of Martin Luther as it was seen within the Catholic communion at the time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is a list of the errors, not a list of their refutations. It needs to be read as a list of the errors that Martin Luther teaches in his writings. You keep missing that.

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] added words - perhaps by mistake - to what he alleged to be a quote from my post. He wrote
This is a list of the errors, not a list of their refutations. It needs to be read as a list of the errors that Martin Luther teaches in his writings. You keep missing that.

The part in blue is what I wrote. The part in red which I also put strike through tags around is what Josiah added.

 

[Albion]

The 41 points of heresy were written within a year or two of Martin Luther raising them. They are contemporary. They are part of the history that happened 500 years ago. I provided the list of 41 because it was asked for. It is the heresy of Martin Luther as it was seen within the Catholic communion at the time.

But no author, no citation, no dates, no nothing to connect these to anything. Not even a link.

 

[Josiah]

Sorry for the hatchet job, but as I said, I'm away from home at the moment. It may appear a restatement; however, posts have primarily begun with 'justification narrow' and follow with some sort of a descriptor of that. The issue is that the term is something that is not in use by Lutherans and (imo) ought not to be used, no matter the context or description. The further away from that we can move, the better and I don't see post #61 in that same light

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


Actually, the term is. But that's quite besides the point: I have defined what is meant by it MANY, MANY times. So have others here.


The reality, my friend, is that many terms are used variously (including in Scripture). Salvation, justification, sanctification, soteriology, redemption, and many more CAN be totally inter-changeable ... and they can mean different things (including in Scripture) depending on the context. We all know this. But, my friend, the dispute we're discussing is ONE narrow aspect of this, the establishment of the different relationship, the granting of the Holy Spirit and of faith in Christ and of the Holy Spirit. This is one aspect of justification/sanctification/salvation/soteriology and certainly not the whole of it. Since Vatican 2, some (especially liberal) Catholics now refer to this as "initial grace" whereas Lutherans tend to use the term "justification" to ONLY refer to this establishment, but also use the term "Justification in the narrow sense."

Friend, I have explained this so very, very many times. I have used illustrations and examples. I have explained endlessly the differentation that is needed because the dispute is NOT (and never has been) what FOLLOWS this establishment (Sanctification in the narrow sense) - both Luther and the RCC of his day stressed their agreement in that matter. The Lutheran Confessions make it clear we agree on this matter. The divine call to His children, to the justified, is a point Luther stressed as much (I'd say more) than Catholicism did/does. What Christians are to do is not the issue.... never has been.... never will be.... between classical Protestantism and Catholicism. Thus, the desire of some to "hijack" the discussion to that simply derails the conversation and prevents any furtherance of understanding (much less resolution). We are NOT taking about the whole, broad spectum of EVERYTHING God desires... the entirety of soteriology.... because most of it is not in dispute anywhere in Christianity (indeed, Luther and the RCC both STRESSED their agreement) but in ONE aspect of it - the establishment.


See posts 59 and 61.

I would see the first three as being man's 'effort' (if you will), with spiritual life and a changed relationship being the result. Of course, one who is spiritually 'dead' cannot make such effort - you and I know that - however it does not negate the fact that GOD brought them to faith and was active in repentance and the dedication to life in Christ.

Read post 59 (and so very many more I've posted since coming to this site). I have - very often - presented a possibility that the Holy Spirit changes the will and actions; that the Holy Spirit is given to the dead, unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God - and a fruit of that is a CHANGE (narrow justification), including a repentant heart and a hearing of the Call and a responding in faith. I have stated (repeatedly) that while IMO such is "saying too much" but that I would not object. But note: this has CONSISTENTLY been rejected (or just ignored). The protest has been that FIRST the dead atheist must repent and/or hear the Call and/or come to faith - and THEN, once the dead atheistic enemy of God has finished doing all that, THEN God responds. Please remember - that conversation has happened countless times. If you've been reading my discussions on this, you are fully aware of this. This conversation happens at least weekly, the last time 2 days ago in post 59 in this thread with arsenios where I AGAIN present that "God helps us" and it was yet again totally ignored. Why? My theory, agreeing with me (and you) means Luther was right: Justification is God's going, God's grace comes FIRST.... we don't fine God, He finds us.... We don't earn our justification by the dead atheistic enemy of God jumping through a serious of hoops (and thus God rewards those works with Justification) BuT Christ jumped through the hoops and GIVES us the fruits of that. Friend, the non-Protestants here are smarter than you give them credit, lol. They know what to ignore, what NOT to agree with.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

I see narrow as a way to limit discussion and ignore all the rest which may or may not agree with the viewpoint which is why I refuse to get drawn into any discussion where this is tossed about. My two cents, now continue to debate as I retire from said thread.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Actually, the term is.

Using your tactic of big writing:

Either show me or point me to a credible Lutheran source that uses the exact phrase "Justification Narrow", and not a paraphrase from you. I am more than capable of looking up said source if you would kindly give it so I can see for myself.

But that's quite besides the point:

Presently, I am making it the point

I have defined what is meant by it MANY, MANY times.

I'm no longer interested in your paraphrase (to be more exact). You've been asked MANY, MANY times for the source of your paraphrase and have NEVER provided it.

 

[Arsenios]

[MENTION=55]ImaginaryDay2[/MENTION]


Actually, the term is. But that's quite besides the point: I have defined what is meant by it MANY, MANY times. So have others here.


The reality, my friend, is that many terms are used variously (including in Scripture). Salvation, justification, sanctification, soteriology, redemption, and many more CAN be totally inter-changeable ... and they can mean different things (including in Scripture) depending on the context. We all know this. But, my friend, the dispute we're discussing is ONE narrow aspect of this, the establishment of the different relationship, the granting of the Holy Spirit and of faith in Christ and of the Holy Spirit. This is one aspect of justification/sanctification/salvation/soteriology and certainly not the whole of it. Since Vatican 2, some (especially liberal) Catholics now refer to this as "initial grace" whereas Lutherans tend to use the term "justification" to ONLY refer to this establishment, but also use the term "Justification in the narrow sense."

Friend, I have explained this so very, very many times. I have used illustrations and examples. I have explained endlessly the differentation that is needed because the dispute is NOT (and never has been) what FOLLOWS this establishment (Sanctification in the narrow sense) - both Luther and the RCC of his day stressed their agreement in that matter. The Lutheran Confessions make it clear we agree on this matter. The divine call to His children, to the justified, is a point Luther stressed as much (I'd say more) than Catholicism did/does. What Christians are to do is not the issue.... never has been.... never will be.... between classical Protestantism and Catholicism. Thus, the desire of some to "hijack" the discussion to that simply derails the conversation and prevents any furtherance of understanding (much less resolution). We are NOT taking about the whole, broad spectum of EVERYTHING God desires... the entirety of soteriology.... because most of it is not in dispute anywhere in Christianity (indeed, Luther and the RCC both STRESSED their agreement) but in ONE aspect of it - the establishment.


See posts 59 and 61.







Read post 59 (and so very many more I've posted since coming to this site). I have - very often - presented a possibility that the Holy Spirit changes the will and actions; that the Holy Spirit is given to the dead, unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God - and a fruit of that is a CHANGE (narrow justification), including a repentant heart and a hearing of the Call and a responding in faith. I have stated (repeatedly) that while IMO such is "saying too much" but that I would not object. But note: this has CONSISTENTLY been rejected (or just ignored). The protest has been that FIRST the dead atheist must repent and/or hear the Call and/or come to faith - and THEN, once the dead atheistic enemy of God has finished doing all that, THEN God responds. Please remember - that conversation has happened countless times. If you've been reading my discussions on this, you are fully aware of this. This conversation happens at least weekly, the last time 2 days ago in post 59 in this thread with arsenios where I AGAIN present that "God helps us" and it was yet again totally ignored. Why? My theory, agreeing with me (and you) means Luther was right: Justification is God's going, God's grace comes FIRST.... we don't fine God, He finds us.... We don't earn our justification by the dead atheistic enemy of God jumping through a serious of hoops (and thus God rewards those works with Justification) BuT Christ jumped through the hoops and GIVES us the fruits of that. Friend, the non-Protestants here are smarter than you give them credit, lol. They know what to ignore, what NOT to agree with.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.

An argument that but repeatedly insists, again and again, that one has already answered all the questions many times, over and over, and again and again, is not an answer to the questions posed...

It MIGHT qualify as an exercise in vanity, but for myself, I would need a lot more evidence!

When one is asked a question, answering it simply and directly is a good thing...

Twisting it into a different question is not...

Rattling on and on about how it has already been answered is not helpful...


Arsenios