I was merely objecting to your saying that as a Lutheran you were as far from Catholicism you could be. Didn't I prove it was a misstatement?
Not really. What you said made a legitimate point, but missed the spirit of my point, that Protestants are at the opposite end of Catholics, primarily because they originated as an historical protest, large-scale, against Catholicism!
My own particular position is somewhat different than the traditional Protestant position, as I've been explaining. But with respect to Lutheranism, it is clearly at the opposite end of Catholicism. I don't know how you could doubt that?
I was raised, in Protestant circles, to believe that Catholics were virtually the Antichrist, and that they are semi-occultists, praying to the dead, calling upon visions of Mary, and in the firm belief that their prayers availed those in purgatory.
Worse, they believed they could get into heaven strictly by being good Catholics, protecting the authority of the Pope and all Catholic traditions, replaying Mary's prayers, etc. That is what I mean by "poles apart" differences between my upbringing and Catholics.
Ok, so you disagree with Luther's "Bondage of the Will," and perhaps it's why you're not Lutheran. Neither am I Lutheran, yet I agree with his every point in it, as far as I can remember (it's been awhile since I read it). Perhaps this may be another discussion if you care to, about which quotes in the book you object to.
Well, that's exciting to me--somebody who likes discussing such things!
It's kind of rare, if you look at most of society, and even most of Christianity.
I actually like Luther alot. But that doesn't mean I'm disinterested in disagreeing with some of his positions. Everything he did was 1) well thought out, and 2) in sync with his Reform Theology of Salvation by Faith Alone. It is this last part of "Faith Alone" that requires a careful examination of what the language actually means?
Does Faith actually exclude Works in the sense of human initiative? Luther was Predestinarian in his approach, and seemed to leave little room for personal initiative.
Or does Faith actually include Works of some kind? It is here where my own views can get confused somewhat with what Catholics describe, using their own language.
Catholics place such a burden on Catholic authority and Tradition that Works don't really appear to be anything more than Sectarianism and a case of being Loyal to the Catholic cause. This is very different from the kind of Works I describe as "Repentance"--something Jesus called for as well.
When we turn from Human Carnality and Independence to a Partnership with Christ and Cooperation with his Spirituality, then our Works aren't purely independent initiative, but better, initiative inspired by Christ's heart.
I agree with adhering to the "10 Commandments" as the moral witness of our life and faith, and that keeping them does not justify us.
My problem with the 10 Commandments is that there is a basic confusion between it representing a purely Moral aspect of the Law, as opposed to a subsection of the Legal aspects of the Law, since the Decalogue included Sabbath Law.
In my view, we are still under "Moral Law," as in the beginning Adam was created in God's Image, to live in His spirituality. That has not changed.
But we are not under the "Written Law," including the Sabbath Law. That Covenant was irretrievably broken when Israel abandoned their God for Idolatry, and ultimately rejected, as a People, their Christ.
So where did you get the idea that I didn't believe that Christians' works was the product of faith and post-generative?
I would have to turn the page back to look. But I'll take your word that you believe in Faith-Based Work, or what we both call "Christian Fruit."
So that's all I've been saying, that the initial "Work" we do to get Saved is not Self-Justifying, but rather, a form of Work that acknowledges Christ's Word, believes in it, and acts upon it to confirm it. This is "Repentancce"--a kind of "Work."
It is not Self-justifying, but it is a Work that God demands in order for us to be Saved. It is not "Faith + Works" like the Catholics formulate as a Self-justifying Work. But I'm not sure their better theologians put it that way anyway.
They more likely would put it the way I do, although they add to this "Work" adherence to Catholic Traditions, the Pope, Mary, etc. And I do think that is "Self-justifying."
Although there is a distinction between imputation and impartation, according to how I read the NT, you can't have one without the other.
Now you're distinguishing yourself from your own position! The true Doctrine of Imputation necessarily separates Imputation from Impartation. With "Impartation," you're back to the danger of earning your own Salvation!
Are you justifeid when Christ's Righteousness is "imparted" to you in such a way that you actually *do* Work? Or are you justified *before* Righteousness is imparted to you? In that case, Imputation precedes Inpartation.
I believe Jesus made his atonement for our sins *before* we were Saved. This is Justification, though I won't call it "imputation."
I'm just making an issue out of the verbiage. "Imputation" doesn't work for me, although Justification as preliminary to Salvation does work for me.
Just like you can't have faith without regeneration, unless you're talking about an unbiblical imputation, or an unbiblical faith. And just like you can't have justification without sanctification, though there be a real distinction between them.
I don't get this last part, but I've said enough for now.
