Catholic Versus Protestant Church Attitudes on Repentance

[Mystophilus]

Excommunication generally does not work in Protestantism, except in really small villages.

The purpose of it is to separate a person out of the fellowship of Christians, but that only works if you have only one church. As soon as you have two different churches, a person kicked out of one can walk down the road and join, or start, another.

For it to work for a Protestant, you need the excommunicant to abide by the rules of the church which kicked them out, and people tend not to feel like doing that when they have been expelled.

As for repentance, what does your correspondent think Confession is, exactly?

 

[KP3243]

I’m pretty sure that calling Protestantism “evil” is wrong, by modern Catholic teaching.

I hope you read my entire post because this is a very difficult and extremely sensitive subject. It is very upsetting and sad for everyone - both Catholics and Protestants. The Protestant Reformation is wrong, is evil and it is a heresy. Like I said before you won’t typically hear Catholics speak about Protestants in such a way because most of us don’t view Protestants as heretics we view our brothers and sisters as lost and it isn’t going to bring you home to Jesus if we use such harsh language. There are millions of amazing and loving protestants who love our Lord and live for our Lord every day we would never dismiss anyone who has such love and call them a heretic, we as Catholics especially in the laity have a responsibility to bring our lost protestant brothers and sisters to the fullness of truth as loving as our Lord asks us to. That is why Catholics pray for unity of Christ’s Church daily so we will be one body - Jesus even made this request in the Garden of Gethsemane.

God Bless you my brother or sister in Christ and have a wonderful Tuesday!

 

[JonNC]

No problem. This is from Luther to Melanchthon (another German reformer) Letter no. 99. The full text is here: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt though its paragraphs seem not to be interrelated. The full paragraph we are concerning here is:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

First, this is a letter, not a doctrinal statement. Speaking to Melanchthon he knows that, 1st, Melanchthon recognizes the need for repentence, confession, and the desire to grow in grace, and 2nd, that Melanchthon is quite the gentle man, compared to Luther’s on hyperbole, to he knows that Melanchthon is not prone to adultery and murder, particularly the outlandish notion of committing adultery a thousand times a day.

Luther is, therefore, not stating we have no responsibility, but only that even within our good works there is sin. Rather he is saying, do not stop preaching the Gospel, do not stop doing good works simply because there is still sin in them. He is saying recognize who and what you are, much as Paul recognized who he was when he says, in Romans 7:
*"For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! **Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! *So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Trust that the Grace of Christ will lead you, even when you sin. At the end of the paragraph above, he encourages Melanchthon to pray hard, implying that grace will abound for those who strive to live a godly life.

He further encourages Melanchthon not to be deceived by guilt.

“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God’s paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” and “for the transgression of His people was He stricken” (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.”

Not unlike Paul in Romans, Luther encourages Melanchthon to continue to preach the Gospel, trust in Christ, and as Paul says, “Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Jon

 

[poptown]

First, this is a letter, not a doctrinal statement. Speaking to Melanchthon he knows that, 1st, Melanchthon recognizes the need for repentence, confession, and the desire to grow in grace, and 2nd, that Melanchthon is quite the gentle man, compared to Luther’s on hyperbole, to he knows that Melanchthon is not prone to adultery and murder, particularly the outlandish notion of committing adultery a thousand times a day.

Luther is, therefore, not stating we have no responsibility, but only that even within our good works there is sin. Rather he is saying, do not stop preaching the Gospel, do not stop doing good works simply because there is still sin in them. He is saying recognize who and what you are, much as Paul recognized who he was when he says, in Romans 7 …

Trust that the Grace of Christ will lead you, even when you sin. At the end of the paragraph above, he encourages Melanchthon to pray hard, implying that grace will abound for those who strive to live a godly life.

I appreciate your effort. But from my perspective, you are so merciful to Luther that you almost depict him as if he were a big supporter to Catholicism Haha! …

I completely agree with you on that Luther was right in recognizing the imperfectness of human works. But did Luther in any way infer that we are still responsible for doing good works after recognizing that we are sinners? No, since he clearly said one can surely saved by acknowledging Christ as the Lord alone even if he/she “sin on bravely” and “commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders”. From these words we can see Luther completely denied human’s responsibility for salvation. You may say that Luther encouraged Melanchthon to do good things, like spreading the Gospel. But Luther did not say them in the same way Catholic did. Luther only cares about faith in Christ without mentioning obedience to what Christ commanded.

As another example, you said Luther “encourages Melanchthon to pray hard” so that “grace will abound for those who strive to live a godly life”. In this letter Luther did not talk about godly life at all (other than preaching the Gospel). Instead, the only intention he had upon asking his German friend to pray is to let him continue to “acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world”, which alone, as Luther believed, is completely sufficient for salvation.

I too would say there are many other good, at least reasonable, things Luther said. But that doesn’t cover his heretical statements.

 

[JonNC]

=poptown;9875024]I appreciate your effort. But from my perspective, you are so merciful to Luther that you almost depict him as if he were a big supporter on Catholicism Haha! … For example, you said Luther “encourages Melanchthon to pray hard” so that “grace will abound for those who strive to live a godly life”. In this letter Luther did not talk about godly life at all. Instead, the only intention he had upon asking his German friend to pray is to let him continue to “acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world”, which alone, as Luther believed, is completely sufficient for salvation.

It isn’t my place to be merciful to Luther, but God’s. OTOH, is there anything but grace that is sufficient for salvation? He speaks of preaching grace? Is that not preaching the godly life? How beautiful are the feet… etc.

Also, I completely agree with you on that Luther was right in recognizing the imperfectness of human works.

Here is a start. We mutually agree that, regardless of our regenerative state, “if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and truth is not in us”.

But did Luther teach that we are still responsible for doing good works or simply recognizing that we are sinners?

Let’s see. A couple of quotes:

There is no justification without sanctification,** no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow**.

From Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere.** It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith.** Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. **To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men. **

No, since he clearly said one can surely saved by acknowledging Christ as the Lord alone even if he/she “sin on bravely” and “commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders”. From these words we can see Luther completely denied human’s responsibility for salvation.

Please read what I wrote again. His words regarding sinning boldly is in response to an acknowledgement that even our good works have sin. Is it even possble to literally commit adultery a thousand times a day? Of course not. This is clearly hyperbole, and assuming this is giving permission to sin misses the entire point.

It isn’t a matter of “being responsible”, but instead being capable of of affecting salvation.
This is the meaning of sola fide, that “justification is the work of the triune God”, as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification states.

There are many other good, at least reasonable, things Luther said. But that doesn’t cover his heretical statements.

If, as you say, there are plentiful heretical statements by Luther, it seems prudent to go find those, and certainly there is no need to misrepresent statements. Find the ones that, in your opinion, are overtly heretical, but by all means, argue against what he really said and meant.

Jon

 

[kbwall]

From my experience, Catholocism is the one that puts more emphasis on repentance. In Catholocism, you are forced to look within yourself and acknowledge your sin on a regular basis.

In Protestantism, it’s just kind of said that you’re forgiven if you believe in Christ, and that is enough, you’ll deal with the rest after you die.

That’s one of the main reasons I left Protestantism is that I was never sure if I was doing enough to purge my sin, since there are so many conflicting accounts of what does and does not damn you to Hell.

 

[AbideWithMe]

No problem. This is from Luther to Melanchthon (another German reformer) Letter no. 99. The full text is here: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt though its paragraphs seem not to be interrelated. The full paragraph we are concerning here is:

Basically, Luther’s argument is: since human cannot be perfect and has to commit sins by nature, why bother even trying not to sin? Shouldn’t Christ set us completely free from all responsibility? If we had even a little bit of responsibility for our salvation, wouldn’t that be an insult to Christ since it is Christ who has offered an ultimate sacrifice for our sins? If we ought not to sin in even the smallest degree in order to receive salvation, wouldn’t it mean that our sins are not real and God’s mercy is imaginary? Similar ideas can also be observed in his another work at the same period, On the Bondage of the Will. As we can see, Luther simply confused two concepts: Christ’s Commandments on morality and love, and the concept of so-called perfectness from sinning.

Hi Poptown—Thanks for your reply last night. I just got home and I’m going to bed, but JonNC gave you a very good response.

 

[AbideWithMe]

From my experience, Catholocism is the one that puts more emphasis on repentance. In Catholocism, you are forced to look within yourself and acknowledge your sin on a regular basis.

In Protestantism, it’s just kind of said that you’re forgiven if you believe in Christ, and that is enough, you’ll deal with the rest after you die.

That’s one of the main reasons I left Protestantism is that I was never sure if I was doing enough to purge my sin, since there are so many conflicting accounts of what does and does not damn you to Hell.

Kbwall-

My experience as a Protestant has been different than yours—I have been consistently taught that we should do an examination of conscience before our Maker, so long as we don’t become scrupulous about it—but I’m glad you’ve found peace within Catholicism.

 

[hn160]

From my experience, Catholocism is the one that puts more emphasis on repentance. In Catholocism, you are forced to look within yourself and acknowledge your sin on a regular basis.

In Protestantism, it’s just kind of said that you’re forgiven if you believe in Christ, and that is enough, you’ll deal with the rest after you die.

That’s one of the main reasons I left Protestantism is that I was never sure if I was doing enough to purge my sin, since there are so many conflicting accounts of what does and does not damn you to Hell.

And how do you ever know if you done enough to purge your sin?

 

[poptown]

Thank you for explaining. I think you are right: Luther in his Commentary on Galatians did insist that faith need to result in good works. Nevertheless, Luther, being a major opponent to the doctrine of free will, also insisted that human has no responsibility in the process of sanctification. The idea is that: upon accepting faith, one is already justified; and because of the nature of the faith, this man will somehow experience a process of sanctification and begin to do more good works. How much good works he does doesn’t matter for his justification. Christ’s sermon on the mount is merely about what people may do after being justified, rather than what people need to do in order to be justified. It’s just like water flowing through the surface of a piece of dirty glass and the glass surely turns out to be cleaner. It is the flowing of water that justifies the glass. How cleaner the glass is after being washed doesn’t matter.

Therefore, going back to the original passage, that’s why Luther clearly said that one can have true faith in Christ even if one commits as many murders and adulteries as possible, because justification does not depend on what one does; justification is simply independent from sanctification, while the former results in the latter. After all, according to Luther’s belief (and a majority of Protestants’), if God wants to save someone by giving him the faith, who can nullify God’s will by simply committing sins against Him?

 

[poptown]

… Nevertheless, Luther, being a major opponent to the doctrine of free will, also insisted that human has no responsibility in the process of sanctification…

Sorry about my poor English. What I mean is that:

Nevertheless Luther, being a major opponent to the doctrine of free will, also insisted that human has no responsibility in the process of sanctification that determines his/her justification.

Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

=poptown;9875733]Thank you for explaining. I think you are right: Luther in his Commentary on Galatians did insist that faith need to result in good works

.
Indeed. Because it is scriptural. And as a result, Lutheranism never abandoned confession/Holy Absolution, the regenerative nature of Baptism, and the forgiveness of sins which is promised in the sacrament of the altar.

Nevertheless, Luther, being a major opponent to the doctrine of free will, also insisted that human has no responsibility in the process of sanctification.

How can you say that we have no responsibility in light of Luther’s response to Gal. 5:6?
It is sanctification that we do have responsibility. And as I said, it isn’t a matter of responsibility when it comes to justification, it is a matter of no power to come to it. Even faith, the vehicle by which we access justification is a gift of grace. This is where we lack free will. We do, however have free will to reject grace.

The idea is that: upon accepting faith

Not a matter of accepting faith, but receiving it

one is already justified; and because of the nature of the faith, this man will somehow experience a process of sanctification and begin to do more good works. How much good works he does doesn’t matter for his justification.

I don’t think its outside Lutheran teaching to say that in much of sanctification, guided by the Holy Spirit, we respond with good works. It isn’t that it “somehow happens”.

Christ’s sermon on the mount is merely about what people may do after being justified, rather than what people need to do in order to be justified. It’s just like water flowing through the surface of a piece of dirty glass and the glass surely turns out to be cleaner. It is the flowing of water that justifies the glass. How cleaner the glass is after being washed doesn’t matter.

I’ve never viewed it this way.

Therefore, going back to the original passage, that’s why Luther clearly said that one can have true faith in Christ even if one commits as many murders and adulteries as possible,

Forget the number of sins. That’s hyperbole - exaggeration for the purpose of making the point, which is that grace is powerful, so powerful that it overcomes our sins. My sins are many, too many to fathom, but Christ’s grace is greater than these. I can and do confess my sins, I confess the sins I don’t know about, and receive forgiveness, hearing the words of absolution from my pastor. I also know that I am commanded to, “go and sin no more”.
And like Paul, I fail often to do so, no matter how hard I try (working out my salvation in fear and trembling). And the great thing is that Christ again takes me back, forgiving my sins when I contritely confess them.

because justification does not depend on what one does; justification is simply independent from sanctification, while the former results in the latter.

You’re right here, because no matter what I do I deserve eternal condemnation. DId you read what I posted regarding Paul?
While what I do doesn’t save me, what I don’t do can condemn me. Repeated unrepented sin drives faith away. You call it mortal sin, but whatever one calls it, it separates us from Christ. Repentence and Christ’s love brings reconciliation.

After all, according to Luther’s belief (and a majority of Protestants’), if God wants to save someone by giving him the faith, who can nullify God’s will by simply committing sins against Him?

From the confessions.

Augsburg Confession

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have **fallen after Baptism **there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

and the Epitome of the Formula of Concord

1. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

Jon

 

[poptown]

Thank you for replying.

Things becomes interesting, as Luther on one hand, from what I learned, teaches that God has the ultimate decision on everything, including whether one is saved of course, while on the other hand, based on what you have quoted, teaches that man can freely choose to renounce the true faith (by not doing good works that God prepared for him). Let’s see why this is a problem.

I think Luther believes in man’s Total Depravity, which means man cannot choose God’s grace but only choose evil, even if God’s grace is right in front of him. The implication is that in order for a man to have faith, God must first plant that faith into the man (regeneration) against his will; and this man starts to experience a change of will and start to choose God’s grace instead of evil, all because of that faith already existed in him. However, according what you have quoted, Luther seems to also teach that one can still lose his faith by sinning against God, even if his faith is true faith.

Another way to formulate this contradiction is: Luther(anism) teaches the unconditional (i.e. without foreknowledge) election of salvation as well as the possibility of falling away based on our free will. Think about this: since God predestined our destiny without considering our free will, how can we possibly will against God’s predestination?

I simply don’t see how these two doctrines can be compatible. In fact, after my little research, it turns out that even Luther himself didn’t resolve these two doctrines, neither did Calvin and their followers. Luther even suggested that this issue is secondary and that people shouldn’t debate about it, simply because he believed that both of these two are undoubtedly the teachings of Holy Scriptures, and ignored the apparent theological contradiction. Based on this, I say Luther is quite a fundamentalist.

On the other hand, Catholicism does not teach in Total Depravity, but teaches that human, though weakened, threatened, and tempted by sins (especially original sin), can still make free choices, i.e., still be able to choose God when God put his grace in front of us and let us choose. if we can fall away from faith, then very likely it means that God does not force us to have faith, but truly loves us and wants us, his creation, to freely choose to love Him. CCC 600 states that “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”. God foreknows who we are and what our choices will be (even if we haven’t made them), and then plans for our lives based on this foreknowledge (Rm 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

 

[stevekehl]

People are often blinded by the shiny skins of Protestant churches. I agree that many Protestants are doing good works. Still, Protestantism is evil and heretical by its nature,

So Vatican II says we are separated brothers, but you have decreed we are going to hell. Very charitable.

since in its core there are the doctrines of “faith alone”, “Christ alone”

That would be faith and Christ, since you can’t believe in two things alone.

and human’s complete freedom from moral responsibility.

Not true. Protestants look to the Holy Spirit and Scripture for guidance, not church law. This doesn’t mean we engage in wanton debauchery or that we don’t emphasize repentance when sin is committed.

“Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”

I must be slacking,I’ve only committed 63 acts of adultery and killed 23 people today. Or could he be exaggerating to illustrate God’s limitless love. We have all sinned, we will all sin in the future despite our best efforts.
1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Could Luther have been saying that no sin is beyond God’s forgiveness? I think his hyperbole suggests just that.

 

[poptown]

So Vatican II says we are separated brothers, but you have decreed we are going to hell. Very charitable.

I am sorry, but I really didn’t mean that way. Vatican 2.0 says Christians outside the Church are in partial communion with the Church. Still, Protestantism is a heresy. Anyone who strongly believes in it or severely attack the Catholic Church based on it is in great danger of “self-excommunication”. Nevertheless, God alone decides who are to be saved. And I believe through invincible ignorance, obedience to Christ’s commandments and exceptional good works, non-Catholic Christians can be saved.

Also, what good it is for me to say a Protestant is surely going to Hell? The door of Catholic Church is always open, so are the heart and will of every man.

Not true. Protestants look to the Holy Spirit and Scripture for guidance, not church law. This doesn’t mean we engage in wanton debauchery or that we don’t emphasize repentance when sin is committed … We have all sinned, we will all sin in the future despite our best efforts.

Repentance simply means to feel bad about sins and to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Lord. It doesn’t require one to refrain from sinning, right? You said that “We have all sinned, we will all sin in the future despite our best efforts”, and I totally agree; we are by nature sinners; there are a lot of sins that we simply cannot stop doing; what we can do is only to try our best.

But if you think that’s good enough for salvation, then I will say “no” to you. Why? Because not all sins are the same. There are sins that you shouldn’t have committed at all. Those sins that directly and deliberately offend Christ’s Commandments are mortal sins, while others do not affect salvation. If you commit those mortal sins, you have to make special penance with God and truly change yourself to be obedient to the Commandments. Otherwise, personal salvation is in great uncertainty.

John 15:10 “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”

John 14:15 "“if you love Me, keep My Commandments.”

1 Cor 16:22 “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed.”

So that’s my problem with Luther: He did that hyperbole too far that he crossed the line between venial sins and mortal sins. I hope I made myself clear. Thank you!

 

[KP3243]

Not true. Protestants look to the Holy Spirit and Scripture for guidance, not church law.​

Catholics too look to the Holy Spirit and Scripture for guidance we have been doing it before the first Gospels were even written and hundreds of years before we cannonized the books of the Holy Bible in the 4th century.

 

[kbwall]

And how do you ever know if you done enough to purge your sin?

Well, I suppose one never can know 100%, but I’m definitely more sure in Catholicism than I ever was in Protestantism. Catholocism makes a pretty good case as to why it’s correct, and it’s pretty straight forward on the methodology of repentance and such.

In Protestantism, none of the branches make any decent for why THEY are the right branch, and there’s so many conflicting accounts over what will save you and even what constitutes as sin or not. And with no Pope or difinitive authority, there’s nobody to concretely say what interpretation of the Bible is correct.

 

[JonNC]

=poptown;9880758]Thank you for replying.

Things becomes interesting, as Luther on one hand, from what I learned, teaches that God has the ultimate decision on everything, including whether one is saved of course, while on the other hand, based on what you have quoted, teaches that man can freely choose to renounce the true faith (by not doing good works that God prepared for him). Let’s see why this is a problem.

Learned where and from whom? A Lutheran? If not…
If I want to learn what the CC teaches, I go to the local priest, or the Catholic Catechism. Where did you go to learn about Luther and Lutheranism, because frankly, what you’ve expressed about it isn’t what I learned in Catechetical Class, my Lutheran parishes, the Lutheran college I attended, and from the Confessions.

I think Luther believes in man’s Total Depravity, which means man cannot choose God’s grace but only choose evil, even if God’s grace is right in front of him.

If God’s grace is right in front of him, it is available to him. And to my knowledge, Catholicism doesn’t teach we can choose to come to God without His grace.

The implication is that in order for a man to have faith, God must first plant that faith into the man (regeneration) against his will;

Oh, you mean like Baptism? Is that against our will? that’s where God first plants His grace.

and this man starts to experience a change of will and start to choose God’s grace instead of evil, all because of that faith already existed in him. However, according what you have quoted, Luther seems to also teach that one can still lose his faith by sinning against God, even if his faith is true faith

What do you mean, “however”, as if these two are in contradiction? We can’t come to grace on our own, but we can reject grace.

Another way to formulate this contradiction is:

Not a contradiction.

Luther(anism) teaches the unconditional (i.e. without foreknowledge) election of salvation as well as the possibility of falling away based on our free will. Think about this: since God predestined our destiny without considering our free will, how can we possibly will against God’s predestination?

Its called Christ. God wishes that all be saved, and through Christ this is indeed possible, and through no other means. Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection was not the result of a conference with me or you.

I

simply don’t see how these two doctrines can be compatible. In fact, after my l****ittle research, it turns out that even Luther himself didn’t resolve these two doctrines

Read the confessions. that’s where your research should begin.
www.bookofconcord.org

Luther even suggested that this issue is secondary and that people shouldn’t debate about it, simply because he believed that both of these two are undoubtedly the teachings of Holy Scriptures, and ignored the apparent theological contradiction. Based on this, I say Luther is quite a fundamentalist.

It isn’t a contradiction. Why do you see this as a contradiction, other than the fact that you haven’t read about it.

On the other hand, Catholicism does not teach in Total Depravity, but teaches that human, though weakened, threatened, and tempted by sins (especially original sin), can still make free choices, i.e

Does a Catholic believe that he has the ability to come to God on his own, without Grace?

., still be able to choose God when God put his grace in front of us and let us choose. if we can fall away from faith, then very likely it means that God does not force us to have faith, but truly loves us and wants us, his creation, to freely choose to love Him. CCC 600 states that “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”. God foreknows who we are and what our choices will be (even if we haven’t made them), and then plans for our lives based on this foreknowledge (Rm 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

So, you are under the perception that Lutherans believe God’s will is forced upon us, even after all that I’ve written?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Regarding free will, here is the Augsburg Confession. One can also from here follow the links to the Confutation, followed by the Apology.
bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article18
By the way, the Confutation starts out by saying, regarding the article,

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.

Jon

 

[poptown]

Hey John,

Thank you for replying, but I am afraid you didn’t understand what I said. So I will try to make my explanation short this time.

First, you misunderstood my word when you claim that I said that Catholics believe men are saved without grace. But take a look at what I wrote: I said Catholics believe that we have freedom and are “able to choose God when God put his grace in front of us and let us choose”. My quotes from Catechism also says man has free response to God’s grace. So you misunderstood what I said.

Second, Catholics believe that, though we need God’s grace to initiate the process, faith is not received by grace alone, since it involves human’s free response: acceptance or denial.

Third, as you should see, for Catholics, even Baptism is done by our free will. In other words, God presents his saving grace as he gives us an invitation to His Holy Baptism, and some of us freely choose to obey God and get Baptized. But since Luther believes in Total Depravity, Luther claims that man, whose will is already fundamentally evil and corrupted, cannot say anything but “no” to God even if God put his grace in front of him; instead, God has to completely change his will in order to let him say “yes” to God’s grace, and then comes faith and Baptism and everything.

Do you see what I am saying? I hope so. If not, feel free to reply back to me.

Some selections from Formula of Concord that proves Luther’s belief in Total Depravity:
“For this reason the human being who is not reborn resists God completely and is totally the slave of sin.”
“we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but rather a corruption so deep that there is nothing sound or uncorrupted left in the human body or soul, in its internal or external powers.”