How did Luther say: Only Faith?

[Seraphim73]

I’ve always wondered this myself. Even the book that Luther and quite frankly most Protestants base their theology on, the Letter to the Romans, states quite clearly that we will be judged by our works. I don’t understand how you can claim to follow Scripture alone when you ignore a very direct statement from St Paul. The fact that they have to purposefully mistranslate various verses to fit their theology is very instructive.

 

[JohnR77]

How did or what did Luther mean with only faith (or what ever the correct phrase is)?

See
defendingthebride.com/mo/justification.html#luther

.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I Timothy 1: 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Does not grace imply many, many, many gifts from God?

Does not grace imply many, many, many gifts from God and not just faith?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Ephesians 6: 14 So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate **(“thorax”),15 and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.

I Thessalonians 5: 8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, putting on the breastplate**(“thorax”) of faith and love and the helmet that is hope for salvation.

Is Justification faith and love?

Thanks!

 

[Jim_Baur]

I could have used a different word in my other posts.

I should have said: Does not grace include so much more than merely faith?

I Cor. 3: 16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

I Cor. 6: 19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

Is not grace a homogeneous reality?

Is not God dwelling in us?

Is there a division in God?

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Indwelling-Of-The-Holy-Spirit#sthash.yFX6dTvR.dpuf

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Remember there is context involved here. Luther has (even for me) the annoying habit of lacing what appears to be a compliment into a charge. See here.

But even as a stand-alone statement, I have no problem with it. I think it senseless to deny the incredibly important role the Bishop of Rome has played in the Church Catholic. I certainly do not consider it in any way “lethal” for my tradition, however.

Jon

I’m reading a book called Politicizing the Bible by Scott Hahn and Wieker which has an excellent chapter on Luther.

In it, we see how Luther fits into a whole European tradition begun (or inspired) by Averroes the Muslim Philosopher of the Middle Ages, which thread is further developed by Marcillius and Ockham in the early 14th c. and developed further by Wycliffe, Machiavelli, and ultimately by King Henry VIII and Martin Luther (in an unintended complimentary fashion)

But with Luther, we have a German State that feels the call of Nationalism (in admiration of England and France) which both have national churches. It was a perfect storm in Germany with the convergence of a past century of horrible Papal scandal and abuse, Petty princes and German Electors wanting to control the Holy Roman Empire, and a grass roots level revulsion at the Italian hierarchical encroachments and abuses in Germany.

If Luther hadn’t somehow stripped the Bible away from the Church, some of his early followers would have. So it was inevitable, and political.

There were philosophical undercurrents with Luther to be sure, but his huge success was political and cultural.

It is an excellent book, and although very demanding of the reader, Scott Hahn’s contribution assures that it is eminently readable!

 

[fred_conty]

I could have used a different word in my other posts.

I should have said: Does not grace include so much more than merely faith?

I Cor. 3: 16
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

I Cor. 6: 19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

Is not grace a homogeneous reality?

Is not God dwelling in us?

Is there a division in God?

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Indwelling-Of-The-Holy-Spirit#sthash.yFX6dTvR.dpuf

How Luther said justification thru faith only is because he saw that man was sinful and filthy in the eye of God. And man had to have someway to overcome his filth. Since man was filthy in himself, there was no way man could offer to God anything good to justify himself. So it had to be by faith given to man freely by God whereby man accepted his justification from God. So it was only by faith that he is justified.

The Catholic church agrees that man cannot justify himself since he has nothing to justify himself with. Man cannot pick himself up by his own bootstraps. So the church says that initially, man is given the grace of faith whereby man is at first justified in the eye of God. That it is only thru acceptance of this faith in Jesus that we are justified and nothing of what we do can accomplish this.

However from this first initial justification, the church and Luther part company. For Luther then says that justification is accomplished by God covering man with a blanket of goodness to cover his sin and filth, and that is what now God sees as beautiful and makes man justified. And once man has been justified by this blanket of goodness, if man sins again, it just adds to the filth already there, and therefore does not remove the outer layer of his justification. So man once justified and saved, can never lose his justification.

Of course the church takes a different outlook on justification altogether. For it teaches that we are cleansed of our sin and filth and transformed by grace into other children of God. That justification cleans us up and maks us children of God by adoption. So that if we sin again in a pronounced fashion, then we lose our justication, and our beauty before God and become lost sheep.

And so there are different neouances that Justification can take, and depending on this will depend on our understanding of faith “only”.

As I understand this, it seems Luther was having a spiritual problem when he was a catholic priest. He had a difficult time thinking that he would be saved and had severe doubts in this area. And to remedy this pain, he developed this idea that once saved by justification, then there was no way a person could lose it because of this garment of beauty God gave the soul which then blanketed the depravity of the soul. And that adding to the soul’s already existing depravity would not change its status of being saved.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Do you think he believed his own ideas?

 

[fred_conty]

Do you think he believed his own ideas?

I have no reason to think that he did not believe what he said. And then too, a man can say something so often that he actually believes what he is saying, even if he didn’t previously.

So I don’t know for sure, but he did want a way to solve his own problem with salvation. He may have suffered from scruples. In his own pressured mind, he probably thought he was right. I do think that he must have been miserable to go to that length.

I’m not including his thesis he posted as part of this, just his own spiritual inner life.

Praise be Jesus Christ.

 

[steve_b]

And the translation using “alone” isn’t in the English Bible, of any translation, either, hence the understanding that Luther thought it necessary for the German.

Again I’ll make this point. The full interpretation and printing of scripture “in German” the Mentel bible, was already done by Germans before Luther was even born. 18 versions came from it “in German” before Luther printed his “bibel”. Does Luther really believe he is the only German who can speak proper German? … That all the other Germans before him got it wrong in translating the scriptures into German?
J:

Now, one can disagree with Luther’s reasoning, but this is the reason. The sarcasm taken out of the context of the letter earlier was just that; sarcasm.

His changes became the rallying cry of the entire protestant revolt, and it is still here today.
J:

Remember there is context involved here. Luther has (even for me) the annoying habit of lacing what appears to be a compliment into a charge. See here.

It looks like that site also validated the quote I used and asked you about.

I could have some fun with that site and how they tried to obfuscate and runaway from the obvious in that quote. But that’s for another time
J:

But even as a stand-alone statement, I have no problem with it. I think it senseless to deny the incredibly important role the Bishop of Rome has played in the Church Catholic. I certainly do not consider it in any way “lethal” for my tradition, however.

Jon

there is no apostolic “tradition” where there is such a thing as seperate but equal, or parallel but equal when it comes to the Catholic Church. Jesus call for perfect unity in His Church John 17:20-23

IMV Here’s the example where Luther’s statement is lethal.

• John 17:20-23 Jesus wants “perfect” unity. And since the HS who inspires the apostles in their teaching, only speaks what He hears from Jesus John 16:12-15 then the following was inspired from Jesus who will be the judge of everyone
• Tit 3:10
  “As for a man who is factious ( [αἱρετικὸν (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm) heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Open the link for the definition of that Greek word. It’s heretic. A man who is a heretic. factious , disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious person specializing in half-truths and misimpressions “to win others over” to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions (used only in Tit 3:10)… Okay, one can ask… how does the Church define heresy? (from the CCC 2089 ). IOW, one who has been baptised, (showing how powerful the sacrament baptism is) and embraces heresy, is condemned by God, and if they remain that way till death, heaven will not be in their future

• Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia* (open the links, and also the link for the definition of that Greek word) =* division / dissension / factions /sedition. That same Greek word is used in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… notice that the consequences for that sin is given in Gal 5:21. “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” iow heaven isn’t in their future.
• What could be more lethal than THAT?

Protestantism is “sects” and “division” and “heresy” on steroids. No matter the stripe. The Great Heresies

Jon

When you say “I certainly do not consider it in any way “lethal” for my tradition, however.” ya have to defend that view against those passages just mentioned that refute and condemn division from the Catholic Church that Jesus established #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12349816]Again I’ll make this point. The full interpretation and printing of scripture “in German” the Mentel bible, was already done by Germans before Luther was even born. 18 versions came from it “in German” before Luther printed his “bibel”. Does Luther really believe he is the only German who can speak proper German? … That all the other Germans before him got it wrong in translating the scriptures into German?

I believe Luther thought his was the best translation into German. The fact that Esmer used it for his lends some evidence. But this isn’t the topic of the thread.

There is no apostolic “tradition” where there is such a thing as seperate but equal, or parallel but equal when it comes to the Catholic Church. Jesus call for perfect unity in His Church

Agreed. And neither of our communions currently meets His standard.

MV Here’s the example where Luther’s statement is lethal.
John 17:20-23 Jesus wants “perfect” unity. And since the HS who inspires the apostles in their teaching, only speaks what He hears from Jesus John 16:12-15 then the following was inspired from Jesus who will be the judge of everyone
Tit 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Open the link for the definition of that Greek word. It’s heretic. A man who is a heretic. factious , disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious person specializing in half-truths and misimpressions “to win others over” to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions (used only in Tit 3:10)… Okay, one can ask… how does the Church define heresy? (from the CCC 2089 ). IOW, one who has been baptised, (showing how powerful the sacrament baptism is) and embraces heresy, is condemned by God, and if they remain that way till death, heaven will not be in their future
Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia (open the links, and also the link for the definition of that Greek word) = division / dissension / factions /sedition. That same Greek word is used in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… notice that the consequences for that sin is given in Gal 5:21. “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” iow heaven isn’t in their future.
What could be more lethal than THAT?
Protestantism is “sects” and “division” and “heresy” on steroids. No matter the stripe. The Great Heresies

Jon

When you say “I certainly do not consider it in any way “lethal” for my tradition, however.” ya have to defend that view against those passages just mentioned that refute and condemn division from the Catholic Church that Jesus established #34

The single most important point in this is the first three letters: IMV. I do not share your view that we are heretics (your communion does’t, either, btw). So, again, the quote is not lethal IMV. Your communion also says that we cannot be charged with the sin of separation. Further, I do not share the view that Christ established the Church Catholic as only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We, weekly, confess our belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we consider ourselves members, just like we consider you members.

We both have views on the matter, and I certainly do not have to defend the statement based on your view.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

Agreed. And neither of our communions currently meets His standard.

That is your opinion.

My opinion is that the Catholic Church is the ONE Church in Unity.

Can you blame the 11 Apostles for Judas’ treachery?

Nor can anyone blame the Catholic Church with disunity for those who CHOOSE to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

Jesus’ standard of unity was not that sinners would never break away from His Church’s Unity, but rather that they SHOULD NOT do so.

 

[JonNC]

That is your opinion.

My opinion is that the Catholic Church is the ONE Church in Unity.

Can you blame the 11 Apostles for Judas’ treachery?

Nor can anyone blame the Catholic Church with disunity for those who CHOOSE to separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

Jesus’ standard of unity was not that sinners would never break away from His Church’s Unity, but rather that they SHOULD NOT do so.

That assumes, again, that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is only and exclusively his one true Church. That is your opinion. And like mine, it is only an opinion.
I might add that the comparison of Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome
to Judas is offensive, and I believe outside the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I b

The single most important point in this is the first three letters: IMV. I do not share your view that we are heretics (your communion does’t, either, btw). So, again, the quote is not lethal IMV. Your communion also says that we cannot be charged with the sin of separation. Further, I do not share the view that Christ established the Church Catholic as only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We, weekly, confess our belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we consider ourselves members, just like we consider you members.

We both have views on the matter, and I certainly do not have to defend the statement based on your view.

Jon

Well…you had to redefine “apostolic” to rationalize the rejection of apostolic authority, so that it could fit the Lutheran situation, correct?

And for one thing, Jon…in your prior posts, you always say Lutherans are not to blame for the various protestant denoms today…for the deviation from SS…you here you seem to blame the CC for all the went bad…

So is it the Lutheran view that they did nothing wrong, it was all the big bad Catholic Church led by the anti-christ?

 

[pablope]

That assumes, again, that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is only and exclusively his one true Church. That is your opinion. And like mine, it is only an opinion.
I might add that the comparison of Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome
to Judas is offensive, and I believe outside the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Jon

Anyway…how about his quote from Luther, taken from Jame’s blog:

" Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s.

So if we follow the pope…we are of the devil?

 

[JonNC]

Well…you had to redefine “apostolic” to rationalize the rejection of apostolic authority, so that it could fit the Lutheran situation, correct?

And for one thing, Jon…in your prior posts, you always say Lutherans are not to blame for the various protestant denoms today…for the deviation from SS…you here you seem to blame the CC for all the went bad…

So is it the Lutheran view that they did nothing wrong, it was all the big bad Catholic Church led by the anti-christ?

I have no idea how your post in any way relates to my response here. I have never said that the Catholic Church alone is responsible for the divisions, and frankly, Pablope, you know it. In fact, I. Would say that there are few non-Catholics more willing to express the shared responsibility for the sad division of the Church.
Further, find a post where I refer to the Catholic Church as led by the anti-Christ. There isn’t one, and you know that, as well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Anyway…how about his quote from Luther, taken from Jame’s blog:

" Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s.

So if we follow the pope…we are of the devil?

Of course not. I am not bound to Luther, and you know that, too.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I believe Luther thought his was the best translation into German. The fact that Esmer used it for his lends some evidence. But this isn’t the topic of the thread.

Luther’s bible is where we see “only faith” (sola fide) which IS the topic of the thread.
J:

Agreed. And neither of our communions currently meets His standard.

Our Lord’s standard is perfect unity in His Church, the Catholic Church. Lutheran’s as well as all the protestants, got their start in the 16th century and following who are all divided from His Church. Therefore, Protestants no matter the stripe do NOT meet His standard.
J:

The single most important point in this is the first three letters: IMV.

No the most important points are what follows “IMV” …#30 It’s all those quotes from scripture.
The ones condemning division from Our Lord’s Church that need to be addressed.
J:

I do not share your view that we are heretics (your communion does’t, either, btw).

On the contrary count the number of times heretic or forms of it appear in the following document. And notice “all his followers” are included

Decet Romanum Pontificem

Then there is [The Great Heresies (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies) protestantism is on the list
J:

So, again, the quote is not lethal IMV.

It got him labeled a heretic and excommunicated, along with “with his followers” for Luther’s belief system and activities. By definition, that IS lethal to die in that state. And I gave the scripture passages as evidence.
J:

Your communion also says that we cannot be charged with the sin of separation.

That’s for people who are absolutely clueless. They have to be innocently ignorant of this topic to qualify. It doesn’t cover those who are

• NOT innocently ignorant. i.e. put little effort to learn the truth,
• or refuses to learn,
• or pretend to be ignorant,
• or are just hard of heart, or just plain stubborn,
• ( [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) , [1859 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1859) ) they are NOT considered ignorant but culpable for their state.

That’s why the CCC states that Once someone “knows” [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846) then they are required to act.

And this knowlege is easy to find today. It’s never been easier.

Further, I do not share the view that Christ established the Church Catholic as only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Then refute this #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)
and be sure to use as many materials as I used, all properly referenced to refute it of course.
J:

We, weekly, confess our belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we consider ourselves members, just like we consider you members.

There is no such thing as a protestant Catholic. Lutherans aren’t Catholic. They aren’t part of the Catholic Church. They are outside the Catholic Church.

If you were in the Church you profess, you could receive all the sacraments of the Church. Can you? No. Let’s test that. The sacrament of reconcilliation. Can protestants go into a Catholic Church and confess to a Catholic priest? No. catholic.com/quickquestions/as-a-protestant-who-wishes-to-stay-focused-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri
J:

We both have views on the matter, and I certainly do not have to defend the statement based on your view.

Jon

You didn’t answer the quotes #30 surrounding those points being raised. And as you can see what followed “IMV” were all quotes NOT my opinion Not my view.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

That assumes, again, that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is only and exclusively his one true Church. That is your opinion. And like mine, it is only an opinion.
I might add that the comparison of Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome
to Judas is offensive, and I believe outside the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Jon

I was not comparing Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome to Judas, which I know is offensive. I was responding to your comment that apparently NO Church has preserved Unity as the Lord wished.

You said: “Agreed. And neither of our communions currently meets His standard.”

That is not true. That is why I made the analogy to Judas. Just because Judas separated from the Apostles with his betrayal, does not implicate the remaining Apostles. You can’t point to the various divisions of Christianity and blame the Church either.

I would further remark that the analogy was to Luther, and his immediate followers, who, according to Church doctrine, WERE heretics and schismatics (one of the most depraved sins in the Church,) and so the analogy to Judas may be offensive, but offensive to them, not to today’s Lutherans and other Protestants.

The fact that today’s Lutherans and other Protestants adhere to the teachings of known heretics and schismatics is something they must question for themselves, since they were brought up with a view that Catholics are led by the Anti-Christ. (Something very offensive to Catholics.)

However, it is no use arguing in the vein that no one is right, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, all of which are equally valid. That is to deny objective Truth, a truly odious Liberal doctrine which is rampant and far more; orthodox in our world.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;12358079]I was not comparing Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome to Judas, which I know is offensive. I was responding to your comment that apparently NO Church has preserved Unity as the Lord wished.

Thank you for this clarification.

You said: “Agreed. And neither of our communions currently meets His standard.”

That is not true. That is why I made the analogy to Judas. Just because Judas separated from the Apostles with his betrayal, does not implicate the remaining Apostles. You can’t point to the various divisions of Christianity and blame the Church either.

Yet even the CCC says there was blame enough on both sides. This I agree with. It is the human sin, then and now, that divides us, and it is on both sides.

I would further remark that the analogy was to Luther, and his immediate followers, who, according to Church doctrine, WERE heretics and schismatics (one of the most depraved sins in the Church,) and so the analogy to Judas may be offensive, but offensive to them, not to today’s Lutherans and other Protestants.

Again, thank you for the clarification.

The fact that today’s Lutherans and other Protestants adhere to the teachings of known heretics and schismatics is something they must question for themselves, since they were brought up with a view that Catholics are led by the Anti-Christ. (Something very offensive to Catholics.)

And it is quite offensive. In fact, both aspects are.

However, it is no use arguing in the vein that no one is right, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, all of which are equally valid. That is to deny objective Truth, a truly odious Liberal doctrine which is rampant and far more; orthodox in our world.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, that doesn’t mean all opinions are correct. I never meant to imply that. As an LCMS Lutheran, I can do nothing but agree regarding liberalism. I have seen it infest some Lutheran synods, much to my sadness.

Jon