Follow up on SS

[FathersKnowBest]

Belongs there in the German because of the language.

… according to Luther allein.

Alone does not appear in any English translation because it isn’t needed in the English.

Nor is is “needed” in the German unless one is trying to insert one’s own preconceptions.
He changed the meaning. On purpose.

There are many German Bible translations that don’t have the word allein there.
In fact, the view that he added this word through eisegesis is vindicated by the FACT that he subsequently removed the word.

Not contradiction at all.
Jon

Contradictions, yes. Contortions to justify the contradictions, YES!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Like I said, I wanted to have a little time to reflect so I could hopefully respond to your great post. First of all, thank you for your response and your kind comments.

Topper! What an extraordinary post! This is exactly what I was referring to way back when I first mentioned Luther’s mental problems and everyone got so upset with me.

As you have learned, criticizing Martin Luther will draw a certain ‘response’. Luther’s problems and his character have had a direct effect on Christianity. The Truth about Luther tends to cause people to ‘wonder’ about whether he was really teaching God’s Absolute Truth, as well they should. These things are the Truth, and if people get upset with us, maybe they should wonder why they are not upset with Luther instead of with us.

I think it goes back to Harvard’s Steven Ozment quote:

“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing it has believed in vain.” Ozment, “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”,

In this particular case, the Facts About Luther cannot possibly NOT cause Protestants and especially Lutherans, to doubt. When Luther doubted, and he doubted a LOT, he attacked the people who caused that doubt. Here we see the same phenomenon.

Especially House was offended and the general consensus was it doesn’t matter whether Luther had this problem or not along with the oft expressed view that “our differences are not so great.”

Mary, can you imagine it NOT being important that the man who developed the foundational doctrines of Protestantism had significant psychological issues? Even before he was excommunicated, he had rejected or reformulated more than 4 dozen important accepted doctrines, and yet, some people, as I have also experienced, don’t seem to WONDER OR CARE WHY? Astonishing! Where is the intellectual integrity? As for the differences not being so great – that is wishful thinking/heads buried in the sand – and it is not helpful to true ecumenism.

Of course that hopeful but inaccurate view is usually put forth by Lutherans but some Catholics hold it as well for unity is not in denying significant problems but bravely facing the challenges they present.

As I have come to learn, this is generally the position of people who consider themselves to be “evangelical catholic” or “Evangelical Catholic”, but not necessarily the position of the leaders of their particular communions. Incidentally, I simply cannot imagine how people who are not Catholic can justify calling themselves Catholic, with a capitol “C”. Someday I would like to have somebody explain it to me. As for bravely facing the challenges, IMHO, facing the actual facts and dealing with them, including Luther’s mental health and his responsibility for SS+PI, AND the ‘results’ of SS+PI – that would be ‘brave’.

Luther’s particular sickness IS a very big deal. Very. Why? well not because of Sola Scriptura, not because of papal primacy, and not because of purgatory or Maccabees. Those are minor resolveable issues compared to the biggest issue- perceptions of sin, forgiveness, and Confession. Luther actually redefined in a most destructive way Christ’s intentions and practices. In other words the significance of sin and how it corresponds to forgiveness and penance and the role of the Confessor are radically different in Lutheranism and even more so to other forms of Protestant faith from the Catholic view.

Mary, I think you are right on the money here, but as serious as your accusation is, I think it goes one step further than that. In redefining man’s relationship with God, Luther was actually redefining God, and with that, as he came to realize only a bit at a time, everything had to change (and little of it for the better).

As always, our Scholars are able to flesh this out, hopefully to provide a possible explanation as to how and why Luther found it necessary to conjure up SS, and worse yet, PI.

“While Luther’s discovery of ‘justification by faith’ was in one sense a sudden awakening, crystallized win his Turmerlebnis, the actual change which came over Luther was much deeper and involved a long period of time. ** Karl Holl states that Luther first had to undergo a complete change in his conception of God.” ** Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert, pg. 289

This confirms your comment and it also leaves Protestants and especially Lutherans in a rather sticky position. If Luther’s concept of God was wrong in the beginning then it was with an incorrect understanding of God that he forged his Reformation. If his concept of God was wrong after he began his reformation, then reformation theology is based on an incorrect understanding of God. It’s a pick your poison thing.

Eric Erickson and many others state that Luther saw God as only a vengeful unforgiving being. Roland Bainton, who is among the most ‘generous’ of biographers towards Luther comments that:

“For such a person (Luther) there was no question which mattered much save this: How do I stand before God……The ultimate problem was always God and man’s relationship to god.” Bainton, pg. 214 Richard Marius, the Harvard Scholar who wrote what is possibly the best of all Luther biographies wrote: “….we know how difficult self-condemnation and submission were for Luther, for we have his witness that he rebelled, that he sometimes hated God and wished God did not exist. **** This sort of rebellion is obviously not the attitude that demonstrates perfect contrition for one’s depraved state.” Marius, pg. 204

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part two

How could submission **not **have been a problem for Luther given that he hated God, wished He did not exist, and was certain that he was damned to Hell? How could you love a God that was nothing in your mind but a punishing avenger? From there the question is – How can you develop a coherent theology if it is based on both an incorrect understanding of, and also a hatred of God? The short answer is that you can’t. At least this should make us Catholic feel better about the fact that Luther hated both Catholics and the Catholic Church.

In order to achieve the absolute certainty of his salvation, and while still alive, Luther had to develop a radical version of Salvation and as such, a whole ‘new relationship’ between God and man. In order for Luther to be certain of his salvation, by necessity, God must have already accepted him as being destined for heaven. Furthermore, God could not be able to change his mind and then condemn Luther for anything (bad) that he might do in the future.

But what might it be that would cause that acceptance by God, given that everything about man is sinful (according to Luther) What is the most simple thing that a man could ‘do’ and not really be ‘doing’ anything (lest he be accused of ‘good works’ – horror of horrors!)

FAITH of course! Never mind that this ‘Faith Only’ version Salvation was an extremely cheapened Salvation, or that it had never been taught before in Christian history. It did however provide Luther with the certainty of his salvation – except for when it didn’t – which BTW was a LOT.

Part of Luther’s ‘solution’ involved a rather curious ‘requirement’ of God:

“**Because sinners (meaning Luther of course) recognize their need for grace and call upon God to bestow it, this places God under an obligation to do so, thereby justifying the sinner.” **(The Great McGrath), “Reformation Thought”, pg. 106

Of course, if God were to see us ONLY as saved, because He was OBLIGATED to, then it would be ‘reasonable’ that he would see in us only that which is good. But as Luther’s ‘logic’ went, we were completely devoid of good, so the only thing possibly good in us would be Christ. It’s the old ‘dunghill under a coating of snow’ thing. Apparently God can do a lot, but seeing through snow isn’t one of them. It’s kind of a kryptonite thing I guess.

Of course this kind of thing cannot stand beside more traditional beliefs, but what is surprising is how odd Luther’s beliefs were even early on (1519):

“It is worth saying one other thing about the Leipzig debate: Luther was evolving toward a conception of god outside of Christ in that the unrevealed depth of the divine mystery and seems more like the Greek idea of fate or destiny……**Christ alone shows the merciful face of God **– but only in the sacred text and then only in the encounter of the heart as the Christian assents to the text and reads it……He was moving towards his mature position.” Marius, pg. 186-7

What Marius is saying here is that early on Luther’s beliefs were at least in some respects, decidedly anti-Christian.

“Luther was to make more of Satan as the years went along. Heiko Oberman sees Luther’s demonology as the rudder which guided his thought………Luther was to say that Satan was finally God’s Satan, doing in a perverse way God’s will. It was almost to suggest that “Satan” was the name Luther gave to those powers and actions of God that take place outside of Christ, that God is in himself divided.” Marius, pg. 78

Personally, I don’t ever want to get so close to Luther’s thought, that this kind of thing (and many others) make actual sense to me. I forget which saint it was who said that he would read the writings of heretics but only standing barefoot, on one foot, on a cold stone floor, lest he forget the nature of what he was reading. At any rate, it seems clear that Luther did create a new concept of God. When you get this far off the ‘beaten path’ theologically, there is no end to the innovations that will be necessary to support that kind of doctrinal departure.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi FKB,

… according to Luther allein.

Nor is is “needed” in the German unless one is trying to insert one’s own preconceptions.
He changed the meaning. On purpose.

There are many German Bible translations that don’t have the word allein there.
In fact, the view that he added this word through eisegesis is vindicated by the FACT that he subsequently removed the word.

Contradictions, yes. Contortions to justify the contradictions, YES!

I think the proof is in the puddin, as in the previous German translations, meaning those prior to “Luther’s translation”, which wasn’t really a translation at all. In fact, there were at least 26 or 26 previous versions of the German Bible. How many of them had the word “allein”?

NONE, which means that Salvation by Faith alone was a radical proposal, unknown in Germany until the time of Luther. If those other pre-Luther German Bibles had included the word ‘allein’, then Lutherans would have a case as to the word being ‘needed’. But the facts being what they are - not so much.

God Bless You Father, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Hi Mary,

Like I said, I wanted to have a little time to reflect so I could hopefully respond to your great post. First of all, thank you for your response and your kind comments.

As you have learned, criticizing Martin Luther will draw a certain ‘response’. Luther’s problems and his character have had a direct effect on Christianity. The Truth about Luther tends to cause people to ‘wonder’ about whether he was really teaching God’s Absolute Truth, as well they should. These things are the Truth, and if people get upset with us, maybe they should wonder why they are not upset with Luther instead of with us.

I think it goes back to Harvard’s Steven Ozment quote:

“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing it has believed in vain.” Ozment, “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”,

In this particular case, the Facts About Luther cannot possibly NOT cause Protestants and especially Lutherans, to doubt. When Luther doubted, and he doubted a LOT, he attacked the people who caused that doubt. Here we see the same phenomenon.

Mary, can you imagine it NOT being important that the man who developed the foundational doctrines of Protestantism had significant psychological issues? Even before he was excommunicated, he had rejected or reformulated more than 4 dozen important accepted doctrines, and yet, some people, as I have also experienced, don’t seem to WONDER OR CARE WHY? Astonishing! Where is the intellectual integrity? As for the differences not being so great – that is wishful thinking/heads buried in the sand – and it is not helpful to true ecumenism.

As I have come to learn, this is generally the position of people who consider themselves to be “evangelical catholic” or “Evangelical Catholic”, but not necessarily the position of the leaders of their particular communions. Incidentally, I simply cannot imagine how people who are not Catholic can justify calling themselves Catholic, with a capitol “C”. Someday I would like to have somebody explain it to me. As for bravely facing the challenges, IMHO, facing the actual facts and dealing with them, including Luther’s mental health and his responsibility for SS+PI, AND the ‘results’ of SS+PI – that would be ‘brave’.

Mary, I think you are right on the money here, but as serious as your accusation is, I think it goes one step further than that. In redefining man’s relationship with God, Luther was actually redefining God, and with that, as he came to realize only a bit at a time, everything had to change (and little of it for the better).

As always, our Scholars are able to flesh this out, hopefully to provide a possible explanation as to how and why Luther found it necessary to conjure up SS, and worse yet, PI.

“While Luther’s discovery of ‘justification by faith’ was in one sense a sudden awakening, crystallized win his Turmerlebnis, the actual change which came over Luther was much deeper and involved a long period of time. ** Karl Holl states that Luther first had to undergo a complete change in his conception of God.”** Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert, pg. 289

This confirms your comment and it also leaves Protestants and especially Lutherans in a rather sticky position. If Luther’s concept of God was wrong in the beginning then it was with an incorrect understanding of God that he forged his Reformation. If his concept of God was wrong after he began his reformation, then reformation theology is based on an incorrect understanding of God. It’s a pick your poison thing.

Eric Erickson and many others state that Luther saw God as only a vengeful unforgiving being. Roland Bainton, who is among the most ‘generous’ of biographers towards Luther comments that:

“For such a person (Luther) there was no question which mattered much save this: How do I stand before God……The ultimate problem was always God and man’s relationship to god.” Bainton, pg. 214 Richard Marius, the Harvard Scholar who wrote what is possibly the best of all Luther biographies wrote: “….we know how difficult self-condemnation and submission were for Luther, for we have his witness that he rebelled, that he sometimes hated God and wished God did not exist. **** This sort of rebellion is obviously not the attitude that demonstrates perfect contrition for one’s depraved state.” Marius, pg. 204

Part two to follow

Heavy stuff here Topper. As usual you have done your
homework. I can hardly wait til we get to Zwingli and
Calvin.

Why is Luther totally dead set against good works?
What is the point? Even if we buy into faith alone
why push good works all the way down to a SIN???

And wouldn’t that be a bizarre way of viewing Christ
who went all over healing paralytics, lepers, and
raising the dead? We’re those not “good works?”
Did not Christ say to do as He had done? Was He
sinning?
Luther’s hatred of good works is probably the most
bizarre aspect of the man. Lol.

A person can and does naturally good works whether
or not he is attempting to “save himself”. I mean
what gives?

Now it seems the Lutherans have dismissed so much
of what Luther taught such as good works because
Lutherans do do good works.

And in fact if we talk to the highly motivated Lutherans
on the ecumenical movement, while they try their
best to defend Luther there is so much they
reject in his theology it makes one
scratch his head to baldness.

As Lutheranism has evolved it seems
they get more like Catholics all the time in what they
accept and deny of Luther’s writings.
It really is a conundrum and out of all the Protestant
sects the Lutherans are truly unique and definitely
our brothers in Christ.
I do believe unity will occur with the Lutherans. The others?
Not so sure.

 

[marywarfield]

Oh I have to share this. Too funny for words. Talking
about Sola Scriptura-

A Scripture only guy says “show me where Catholics
changed the Sabbath to Sunday”.

I post quotes from Barnabas all the way to the
Council in Loedicia, 74AD- 326?Ad.

He says it’s not in Scripture. The ECFs are not trustworthy
only Scripture is trustworthy.

Ok I say. End of discussion. You are Scripture only
but believe the people who researched it, translated it,
confirmed it, and assembled it are not trustworthy.
Bummer for you.

I’m sorry I can’t stop laughing. Wow!

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12000261]… according to Luther allein.
Nor is is “needed” in the German unless one is trying to insert one’s own preconceptions.
He changed the meaning. On purpose.

According to many, but that’s beside the point. I provided his reasons for his translation. If you choose to believe he was disingenuous on the point, that’s your POV. It won’t attempt to change it, just like yours won’t change mine.

Contradictions, yes. Contortions to justify the contradictions, YES!

Since he’s not here, and can’t speak for himself, I can only speak for me, and I see no contradiction between James and justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;12001194]
Why is Luther totally dead set against good works?
What is the point? Even if we buy into faith alone
why push good works all the way down to a SIN???

And wouldn’t that be a bizarre way of viewing Christ
who went all over healing paralytics, lepers, and
raising the dead? We’re those not “good works?”
Did not Christ say to do as He had done? Was He
sinning?
Luther’s hatred of good works is probably the most
bizarre aspect of the man. Lol.

A person can and does naturally good works whether
or not he is attempting to “save himself”. I mean
what gives?

Now it seems the Lutherans have dismissed so much
of what Luther taught such as good works because
Lutherans do do good works.

If I may, Mary, I’d like to post just a few quotes from Luther regarding good works. I won’t offer a commentary or spin, other than to say this is the view of Lutheranism, since the time of the confessions. Therefore, I will let you decide if Luther was against good works. And if you decide he was, I won’t argue the point with you.
.

A Christian who possesses faith in God does everything with liberty and joy; while the man who is not at one with God is full of care and kept in bondage; he asks himself with anguish how many works he should perform; he runs to and fro; he questions this man and that; he nowhere finds peace, and does everything with sorrow and fear.

Consequently, I have always extolled faith. But in the world it is otherwise. There, the essential thing is to have many works – works high and great, and of every dimension, without caring whether they are quickened by faith. Thus, men build their peace, not on God’s good pleasure, but on their own merits, that is to say, on sand. (Matthew 7:27.)

To preach faith (it has been said) is to prevent good works; but if a man should posses the strength of all men united, or even of all creatures,[2] this sole obligation of living in faith would be a task too great for him ever to accomplish. If I say to a sick man: ‘Be well, and thou shalt have the use of thy limbs,’ will any one say that I forbid him to use his limbs? Must not health precede labour? It is the same when we preach faith: it should go before works, in order that the works themselves should exist.

Where then, you will say, can we find this faith, and how can we receive it? This is in truth what it is most important to know. Faith comes solely from Jesus, who was promised and given freely.

O man! figure Jesus Christ to yourself, and contemplate how God in him has shown thee his mercy, without any merit on thy part going before.[3] Draw from this image of his grace the faith and assurance that all thy sins are forgiven thee. Works cannot produce it. It flows from the blood, and wounds, and death of Christ; thence it wells forth into our hearts. Christ is the rock whence flow milk and honey. (Deut. 32.)

I have taught that our good works are of such sort that they cannot bear the judgment of God, as is said in Ps. 101 [Ps. 143:2], “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for no man living is righteous before thee.” Since, however, His judgment is true and just, He does not condemn works which are wholly blameless. He wrongs no one, but as it is written, “He will render to every man according to his works” [Rom. 2:6]. It follows, therefore, that our good works are not good unless His forgiving mercy reigns over us. Our good works are evil, if the judgment of Him who renders to every man threatens us. This is the way to teach the fear of God and hope in him. Yet in accordance with Latomus’ rantings, my calumniators condemn this godly wisdom, extol their works, deprive men of fear and hope in God, make them proud with their pestilent doctrines, and invent a good work which is worthy of praise, glory, and reward

(Galatians 5:6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.)

“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.”

continued

 

[JonNC]

Faith is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1). It kills the old Adam and makes altogether different people, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Spirit.

Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. And so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them.

He who does not these works is a faithless man. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are, though he talks and talks, with many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times. This confidence in God’s grace and knowledge of it makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and all His creatures.

And this is the work of the Holy Spirit in faith. Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace.

And thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire. Beware, therefore, of your own false notions and of the idle talkers, who would be wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools.

Therefore, pray to God to work faith in you. Else you will remain forever without faith, whatever you think or do.”

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.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Now it seems the Lutherans have dismissed so much
of what Luther taught such as good works because
Lutherans do do good works.

Lutherans, weak sinners though we may be, do good works, not based on what Luther or any others say for or against them, but based on what Christ commands us to do, to care for the least of His children.
This is reflected in the confessions themselves:

We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. 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.

And in fact if we talk to the highly motivated Lutherans
on the ecumenical movement, while they try their
best to defend Luther there is so much they
reject in his theology it makes one
scratch his head to baldness.

As Lutheranism has evolved it seems
they get more like Catholics all the time in what they
accept and deny of Luther’s writings.
It really is a conundrum and out of all the Protestant
sects the Lutherans are truly unique and definitely
our brothers in Christ.
I do believe unity will occur with the Lutherans. The others?
Not so sure.

This is an interesting reflection. I, as a Lutheran, don’t see what I believe as some type of evolution away from orthodox Lutheranism. On the other hand, I see an evolving of the Catholic explanation of the role of works, at least away from what was being espoused in central Europe in Luther’s time. Either way, I thank God for the Spirit’s movement in our hearts that we see each other as closer to each other.

I also thank you sincerely for your very kind words in this post.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Why is Luther totally dead set against good works?
What is the point?

Here’s what Luther actually said, with bold from me:

   Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream 
   is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by 
   good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they
   speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they
   say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.''
   They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working,
   creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I
   believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because
   this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything
   from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this
   `faith,' either.

        Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives 
   new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
   completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
   our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
   it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
   faith. **Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
   stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
   asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
   ceasing.  Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
   unbeliever.**  He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
   works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
   Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
   words.

        Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of 
   God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.
   Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy,
   joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The
   Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you
   freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve
   everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who
   has shown you such grace. **Thus, it is just as impossible to
   separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from
   fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard
   against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough
   to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools**.
   Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without
   faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s what Luther actually said, with bold from me:

   Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream 
   is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by 
   good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they
   speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they
   say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.''
   They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working,
   creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I
   believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because
   this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything
   from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this
   `faith,' either.

        Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives 
   new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
   completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
   our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
   it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
   faith. **Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
   stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
   asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
   ceasing.  Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
   unbeliever.**  He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
   works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
   Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
   words.

        Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of 
   God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.
   Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy,
   joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The
   Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you
   freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve
   everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who
   has shown you such grace. **Thus, it is just as impossible to
   separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from
   fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard
   against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough
   to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools**.
   Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without
   faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

This is most certainly true.



Jon

 

[steido01]

In concurrence with Luther, I’d like to add words from a man some posters here might be familiar with:

…Our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

That man was Pope Benedict XVI. Considered by some to be the most Lutheran of popes.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

 

[marywarfield]

In concurrence with Luther, I’d like to add words from a man some posters here might be familiar with:

That man was Pope Benedict XVI. Considered by some to be the most Lutheran of popes.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Duh! He’s German. Lol

 

[JonNC]

In concurrence with Luther, I’d like to add words from a man some posters here might be familiar with:

That man was Pope Benedict XVI. Considered by some to be the most Lutheran of popes.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

** For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love **

Can you imagine, Don, do you think it even remotely possible, that Pope Benedict said this not knowing Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:14?

In part:

It is customary with Paul to lay the doctrinal foundation first and then to build on it the gold, silver, and gems of good deeds. Now there is no other foundation than Jesus Christ. Upon this foundation the Apostle erects the structure of good works which he defines in this one sentence: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

**In adding such precepts of love the Apostle embarrasses the false apostles very much, as if he were saying to the Galatians: “I have described to you what spiritual life is. Now I will also teach you what truly good works are. I am doing this in order that you may understand that the silly ceremonies of which the false apostles make so much are far inferior to the works of Christian love.” **This is the hall-mark of all false teachers, that they not only pervert the pure doctrine but also fail in doing good. Their foundation vitiated, they can only build wood, hay, and stubble. Oddly enough, the false apostles who were such earnest champions of good works never required the work of charity, such as Christian love and the practical charity of a helpful tongue, hand, and heart. Their only requirement was that circumcision, days, months, years, and times should be observed. They could not think of any other good works.

The Apostle exhorts all Christians to practice good works after they have embraced the pure doctrine of faith, because even though they have been justified they still have the old flesh to refrain them from doing good. Therefore it becomes necessary that sincere preachers cultivate the doctrine of good works as diligently as the doctrine of faith, for Satan is a deadly enemy of both. Nevertheless faith must come first because without faith it is impossible to know what a God-pleasing deed is.

Let nobody think that he knows all about this commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” It sounds short and easy, but show me the man who can teach, learn, and do this commandment perfectly. None of us heed, or urge, or practice this commandment properly. Though the conscience hurts when we fail to fulfill this commandment in every respect we are not overwhelmed by our failure to bear our neighbor sincere and brotherly love.

The words, “for all the law is fulfilled in one word,” entail a criticism of the Galatians. “You are so taken up by your superstitions and ceremonies that serve no good purpose, that you neglect the most important thing, love.” St. Jerome says: “We wear our bodies out with watching, fasting, and labor and neglect charity, the queen of all good works.” Look at the monks, who meticulously fast, watch, etc. To skip the least requirement of their order would be a crime of the first magnitude. At the same time they blithely ignored the duties of charity and hated each other to death. That is no sin, they think.

Pope Benedict knew exactly what he was saying.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Lutherans, weak sinners though we may be, do good works, not based on what Luther or any others say for or against them, but based on what Christ commands us to do, to care for the least of His children.
This is reflected in the confessions themselves:

This is an interesting reflection. I, as a Lutheran, don’t see what I believe as some type of evolution away from orthodox Lutheranism. On the other hand, I see an evolving of the Catholic explanation of the role of works, at least away from what was being espoused in central Europe in Luther’s time. Either way, I thank God for the Spirit’s movement in our hearts that we see each other as closer to each other.

I also thank you sincerely for your very kind words in this post.

Jon

Thing is Jon this not any different from what the
Catholic Church taught and teaches before and
after Luther. I guess corrupt priests selling indulgences six hundred
years ago defines the Catholic Church for Lutherans
and Protestants in general for they still today slam
the Church including me for trying to buy our way"
to salvation. So if a Lutheran gives alms he’s a hero
full of faith but if I give alms I’m a heretic trying
to purchase salvation.

 

[JonNC]

Thing is Jon this not any different from what the
Catholic Church taught and teaches before and
after Luther**. I guess corrupt priests selling indulgences six hundred
years ago defines the Catholic Church for Lutherans**
and Protestants in general for they still today slam
the Church including me for trying to buy our way"
to salvation. So if a Lutheran gives alms he’s a hero
full of faith but if I give alms I’m a heretic trying
to purchase salvation.

The thing is, Mary, it doesn’t. Don just quoted Pope Benedict, referred to him as "the most Lutheran of popes. Don’t you see, Mary? Don’t you see that even the Lutheran posters of the dreaded LCMS love Pope Benedict, quote him, read what he has said, even though we don’t agree with him on everything.
It seems to me that Pope Benedict turns Luther around on Lutherans by saying, Luther is not wrong “if”… We as Lutherans have to take up that “if”. We have to recognize that what you say is in large measure true, that our notions of soteriology, our notions of the necessity of works are not far different, even the way Luther frames it.

Maybe there is one, Mary, but I can’t remember any posts in this thread where the Lutherans have been on the offensive. We haven’t attacked the Catholic Church, or your understanding of hermeneutics. Think on it.

You are not a heretic. You are a child of God, a sister to Christ, and therefore a sister to us in Him.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

The thing is, Mary, it doesn’t. Don just quoted Pope Benedict, referred to him as "the most Lutheran of popes. Don’t you see, Mary? Don’t you see that even the Lutheran posters of the dreaded LCMS love Pope Benedict, quote him, read what he has said, even though we don’t agree with him on everything.
It seems to me that Pope Benedict turns Luther around on Lutherans by saying, Luther is not wrong “if”… We as Lutherans have to take up that “if”. We have to recognize that what you say is in large measure true, that our notions of soteriology, our notions of the necessity of works are not far different, even the way Luther frames it.

Maybe there is one, Mary, but I can’t remember any posts in this thread where the Lutherans have been on the offensive. We haven’t attacked the Catholic Church, or your understanding of hermeneutics. Think on it.

You are not a heretic. You are a child of God, a sister to Christ, and therefore a sister to us in Him.

Jon

I think at this point it becomes problematic for Catholics
like me who just scratch their heads and say what are the
Lutherans holding out for? Why are they just not
re-entering the Catholic Church then? What’s the
hold up? Not good works. Not Purgatory really. Is it
consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation? Even the
Sola vs Tradition thing is workable.
So then what is the point of being in a Lutheran
Church rather than Catholic?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Heavy stuff here Topper. As usual you have done your homework.

For the record, it’s not that I do actual research in order to write posts. I have done a lot of reading over the years and I have a pretty fair memory for the things that stood out when I read them, and also for where to find those things. I can normally find those quotes pretty rapidly, so what I do is sort of assemble the comments that I remember as they fit the topic at hand.

Why is Luther totally dead set against good works?
What is the point? Even if we buy into faith alone why push good works all the way down to a SIN??? And wouldn’t that be a bizarre way of viewing Christ who went all over healing paralytics, lepers, and raising the dead? We’re those not “good works?” Did not Christ say to do as He had done? Was He sinning? Luther’s hatred of good works is probably the most bizarre aspect of the man.

.
Maybe in order to even begin to answer your question, it might be necessary to explore Luther’s psychological issues a little deeper. After all, I don’t think we can really understand Luther unless we understand his motivations. But if we cannot fully understand his motives, at least we need to have a grasp on just how serious his emotional problems were.

Luther’s behavior in the monastery has no place in the Legend that Protestantism has built around him. As we have seen, thankfully, it is documented by the more honest Protestant Scholars that we have been reading. In the following quotes we will discover additional evidence of Luther’s psychological problems which will (should) cause us to wonder about his “qualifications” as a “Reformer”.

While Protestants are prone to give Luther a “pass” on virtually every issue (as we have seen), they should ask themselves whether they would wonder about the sanity of someone who exhibited these various behaviors today.

We read recently how Luther would lock himself into his room without food or drink for two or three days, so that he could ‘catch up’ on saying his breviary. There was nothing in the rules of the Augustinian order which recommended that monks behave in this manner. In fact as we will learn, this kind of fanaticism was frowned upon. Luther confirms this by explaining that this was “self-torture” rather than something that was required and imposed on him. We know that Luther was “in agony” while in the monastery and that his fanatical practices left him confused. Of course this is not surprising. After all, two or three days spent without food or water would not lead to a more clearheaded outlook.

Another Protestant, Thomas Sefton Rivington comments on the same kind of conduct:

**
“Once, overwhelmed with sadness, he shut himself up in his cell, and for several days and nights allowed no one to approach him.** Lucas Edemberger, one of his friends, feeling uneasy about the unhappy monk, and having some presentiment of the state in which he actually was, taking with him several boys, who were accustomed to chant in choirs, went and knocked at the door of his cell. No one opens or answers. Good (Brother) Edemberger, still more alarmed, forces the door.** Luther is stretched on the floor insensible, and showing no signs of life. His friend tries in vain to revive him, but he still remains motionless.** The young boys began to chant a soft anthem. Their pure voices act like a chaim on the poor monk, who had always the greatest delight in music,** and he gradually recovers sensation, consciousness, and life.**” Rivington, “The Story of Luther’s Life”, pg. 41

Luther’s “self-torture” in this particular instance was the result of overwhelming sadness, which we have come to understand as having to do with the lack of certainty over his personal salvation. In this case his friends are concerned enough to break down the door and then find him lying on the floor “insensible”. Would a completely sane person put themselves through the kind of self-torture which could result in their death if someone were not to intervene? What does this episode (among all the rest) reflect about the “mindset” of the man who “found” Salvation by Faith Alone during the time of his “discovery”?

“In an autobiographical sketch penned a year and a half before his death, he recites his hardships and fears in the cloister, **then tells of the blood-curdling terror with which he had dwelt on the passage in Romans **1.17…." Fife, pg. 198

Here we have a direct connection between the fear over salvation and Luther’s terrors. The fact that he expresses that terror in the strongest possible terms cannot help but cause us to understand the depths of his need to “find” (by any means possible) that assurance he so desperately sought. Not surprisingly it was the very verse that caused such terror that later provided him with that assurance. Either Luther had misunderstood it earlier or later but in either case, Scripture obviously is not as “clear” as he (and Lutherans) would have us believe.

To be continued….

 

[Topper17]

Part two:

“A vivid recollection of this kind comes down from the period of the struggle over indulgences and is found in the Explanations on the Power of Indulgences in 1518. Here, in a remarkable passage on the tortures of purgatory, he describes pangs of conscience which he had endured. "They lasted, to be sure, only a short while, but they were so hard and infernal that no tongue can express their power, no pen describe it, nor can anyone believe it who has never had the experience. If they should remain at their most extreme point for an hour, yes, even six minutes, the victim must quite perish and all his bones be turned to ashes."” Fife, pg. 120

Protestant Biographer Roland Bainton relates Luther’s level of fear as follows:

“In consequence the most frightful insecurities beset him. Panic invaded his spirit. The conscience became so disquieted as to start and tremble at the stirring of a wind-blown leaf. The horror of nightmare gripped the soul, the dread of one waking in the dusk to look into the eyes of him who has come to take his life. The heavenly champions all withdrew; the fiend beckoned with leering summons to the impotent soul. These were the torments which Luther repeatedly testified were far worse than any physical ailment that he had ever endured. Bainton, pg. 55-6

Even given Luther’s well known habit for embellishment, we have no choice but to believe that his torments in the monastery were so horrific that he believed that he could not survive them. With that kind of belief, what else could he do other than “find” some way to calm himself?

“Now, oddly enough," we find Luther, in 1532, telling the people quite seriously in his sermons on Matt, v. vii., that, as a novice, he had not been able to endure the sight of the crucifix. “When I saw a picture or statue of Christ hanging on the Cross, etc., I was so affrighted that I averted my eyes.” And, again, in the same sermons: “When I looked at Him on the Cross He seemed to me like a flash of lightning.” He also adds that he "had often been affrighted at the name of Jesus.", " The Last Day," he says in a sermon of 1534, he could not bear to hear spoken of, and “my hair stood on end when I thought of it.” These statements are doubtless exaggerations, but Luther has others even stronger:** He would “rather have heard the devil spoken of than Christ”; he would rather have seen " the devil than the Crucified”, “rather have heard of the devils in hell than of the Last Day.”** Grisar VI, pg. 225-6

I wonder if he was afraid of holy water.

Protestant Robert Herndon Fife relates the same information:
**
“The fears inspired by early beliefs also went with him into the cloister. One of these was that of Christ as his severe judge, which, as we have seen, probably arose from impressions derived in childhood from pictures familiar in late medieval iconography. This became a source of unhappiness in the cloister to which he returns again and again in his recollections of experience there**. Here he refers frequently to his conviction that Christ was indifferent to human woes and must be won over through the intercession of his mother, the Virgin. The picture of Christ sitting in judgment on the Last Day dwelt vividly in his mind, so that he could not shake off fears connected with it. "When I looked on Christ, I saw the devil: so *, 'Dear Mary, pray to your Son for me and still His anger," He was the first of all the devils. Everybody fled from Him and hated Him. Whenever he saw the picture of Christ he would cast down his eyes and was so minded that he would rather have seen the devil.” Fife, pg. 122-3

We have already read something about Luther’s early life, how it was shaped by a semi-Pagan/semi-Christian upbringing and also an extremely harsh set of parents. Fife here explains to us that that background supplied him with the fears that he took with him to the monastery. Those fears were based on a belief that God was only a punisher and an avenger; a God who could never find a human being to be “good enough”, exactly the same way he was made to feel from his earthly father. What made Luther “unique” was his inability to believe that God had provided a means by which we humans can obtain Salvation. It was this lack of “trust” in God that made him unable to believe that God actually forgives sins, meaning real sins. In place of the Catholic Sacrament of Confession that he SO hated and couldn’t deal with psychologically, he “developed” a “theology” which made God responsible for his sins.

Why should we Catholics (as Lutherans and Protestants would have us do), believe that Luther correctly understood the Bible when the distinctions between our respective faiths were developed by a man who admitted to hating God (whom he completely misunderstood), feared even pictures of Christ, and behaved like in such an ‘odd’ manner during the time when he developed those distinctions? (Topper says attempting to master the understatement)

God Bless You Mary, Topper*