J
josie_L
Guest
But Jon does it make sense to criticize the Catholic Church for not practicing the theology they preached, when Luther did the very same thing (where was his love for those who disagreed with him?), furthermore, if the theology was the same what was the argument about, why stress “faith alone” if he had the same understanding as the Catholic Church? Here’s something I found interesting:
**Luther’s “discovery”
The thought came to him that Paul meant nothing less than that the righteousness of God could be made" our own simply by trusting in the righteousness of Christ. Luther thought he had been wasting his time and his efforts in trying to do for himself what Christ had already done for him. A feeling of immense relief swept over him. He felt that he was saved and that he could be saved in no other way than this.
When he began to teach theology, in 1512, he put forward his theory of justification by faith alone, of God’s forgiving love freely bestowed upon all who simply repent of their sins and trust in Christ. He convinced himself that that was the true faith of the Catholic Church, and he tried to combine his new-found doctrine with all other teaching of Catholic theology.
Gradually, however, Luther encountered opposition to his new theory of justification by faith alone. On October 31,1517 he published his 95 Theses, declaring that indulgences destroyed the true spirit of repentance. Called to account, he refused to recant his views unless refuted by biblical evidence itself, refusing to accept the authority and traditional teachings of the Church as reliable sources of doctrine.
**
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp
So basically Jon he came out with the doctrine of “faith alone” long before Tetzel.
Here’s what he advocated during his the first three years of posting his theses:
**The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God’s.
Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation. **
newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
These were major theological differences between Luther’s new found beliefs and the Church’s, in fact, he debated Eck in 1518 on the topic of Church authority (papacy, priesthood . . etc.) Here’s what was said by Luther:
“Eck took his antagonist to task for placing the individual in a position to understand the Bible better than the popes, councils, doctors, and universities, and in pressing his argument closer, asserting that the condemned Bohemians would not hesitate to hail him as their patron, elicited the ungentle remonstrance “that is a shameless lie”. Eck, undisturbed and with the instinct of the trained debater, drove his antagonist still further, until he finally admitted the fallibility of an ecumenical council, upon which he closed the discussion with the laconic remark: “If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican” (Köstlin-Kawerau, op. cit., I, 243-50)”
newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
to be continued. . . .
