How did Luther say: Only Faith?

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

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.

Yes, there is much to blame in the pre-Reformation Church, but not Dis-Unity. Abuses, yes; Scandals, yes. But that never justifies heresy or schism. Even today the abuses and scandals continue. But still the Church remains one.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, there is much to blame in the pre-Reformation Church, but not Dis-Unity. Abuses, yes; Scandals, yes. But that never justifies heresy or schism. Even today the abuses and scandals continue. But still the Church remains one.

Indeed! The Church remains. The One Holy Catholic Church, of which we are both members. And it remains one Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Indeed! The Church remains. The One Holy Catholic Church, -]of which we are both members. And /-]it remains one Church Catholic.

Jon

Jon,

For clarification

• Protestants are NOT the Catholic Church, no matter their stripe. Protestantism regardless the stripe, is listed in [The Great Heresies (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies)
• “for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity”. We talked about the following just the other day. For those born outside the Catholic Church, aren’t guilty of schism. But when they come to the knowledge of the Catholic Church, her founder, and necessity for being in the Catholic Church for salvation, would refuse to enter the Catholic Church, THEN they become guilty of that sin. Their Ignorance is no longer innocent.

People in history trying to hijack the name Catholic , and Catholic Church is not new.

“the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”

(Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4 [397 A.D.]).

To test that out, a stranger coming into town asking for directions to the Catholic Church, won’t be directed to the Lutherans, or the Baptists, or the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, etc etc etc.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You know Steve, the CC still has the Log of the Schism with the East. We are really not in very good position to be judging others and finding them wanting, since the Schism predated the Protestant Reformation by about 500 years.

Steve your attitude is not one that attracts others to unity.

That’s for people who are absolutely clueless. They have to be innocently ignorant of this topic to qualify.

I am relieved that it is not up to you to get to decide who qualifies!

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Actually, it covers all those who have been born and raised in ecclesial communities that are brothers in Christ, joined to us by baptism and faith.

Then refute this #34
and be sure to use as many materials as I used, all properly referenced to refute it of course.

You are coming across as demanding and somewhat condescending. How do you expect this approach to bear any good fruit?

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.

The visible Church, perhaps, but none of us can read the heart but God, and only He knows those who are His. You keep insisting on this point which is opposite to what your Catechism states. There is only one Church, and all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body.

And as far as “protestant Catholics”, I think there are probably more of them than there are non-denoms. They are also called nominal Catholics or cafeteria Catholics. They protest the Teachings of the Church, defy the Code of Canon Law and yet, still lcain they are Catholic.

If you were in the Church you profess, you could receive all the sacraments of the Church.

I am not sure what your goal is by continually emphasizing division. You seem to have a personal need to get met - not sure what it is.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

guanophore:

You know Steve, the CC still has the Log of the Schism with the East. We are really not in very good position to be judging others and finding them wanting, since the Schism predated the Protestant Reformation by about 500 years.

It is not the fault of the Catholic Church that schism and heresy existed, and continue. Otherwise we (as Catholics) would need to apologize for Arianism, the Donatists, and all the rest. No. The Catholic Church is ONE, both in the past and now. Just as the Apostles were one, despite the treachery of Judas.

Now, JonNC, a very amiable and intelligent poster, has already said that there is enough blame to go around on all sides. There is truth in that. In many respects the Church was so filled with scandal and abuse, prior to Luther, that such a result could have been forseen, and indeed was forseen by many.

But that does not excuse the schismatics and heretics, nor justify them. But those who today adhere to those denominations and sects, are not guilty of schism and/or heresy. We have already established that too.

I think steve b makes some good points about schismatics in the past who also tried to “hijack” the Catholic name. It is nothing new, nor is it any more convincing now. The Donatists were a particularly virulent sect that also called themselves Catholic, and sneered at the corruption and abuse they saw within the actual Catholic Church. That was in St. Augustine’s time. So these things do continue to bubble up to the surface. Sort of proving Ecclesiastes “there is nothing new under the sun.”

JonNC finds comfort in supposing there is such a thing as a Catholic Lutheran. Sometimes it is our job to make the comfortable uncomfortable.

 

[guanophore]

It is not the fault of the Catholic Church that schism and heresy existed, and continue. Otherwise we (as Catholics) would need to apologize for Arianism, the Donatists, and all the rest. No. The Catholic Church is ONE, both in the past and now. Just as the Apostles were one, despite the treachery of Judas.

No, and I don’t mean to imply that it is, but the Schism had very little to do with theology, and a lot to do with misunderstanding (cultural and linguistic) and arrogance (on both sides).

Remember that the East asked for help against the Muslims, and when the European crusaders arrived, they slaughtered the Christians because they dressed too much like the Muslims.

In many respects the Church was so filled with scandal and abuse, prior to Luther, that such a result could have been forseen, and indeed was forseen by many.

Yes, I think Luther was a small pebble that dislodged a large avalanche. But that just reinforces my point, that the scandal and abuse lies as much on both sides, and this constant criticism of Luther and Lutherans seems to lose sight of that. Even a cursory look at the Borgia will shed some light on why so many were scandalized.

But that does not excuse the schismatics and heretics, nor justify them.

Indeed not, but it should help us to approach the healing of them with humility, and the affirmation of the very passionate faith and commitment of our separated brethren. This is especially true in the case of JonNC, and some of the other members of CAF who are actually more Catholic in faith and practice than the majority of US “Catholics” who do not even bother to go to Mass on Sundays and if they do, present themselves to the Holy Table in a wretched state.

But those who today adhere to those denominations and sects, are not guilty of schism and/or heresy. We have already established that too.

I don’t think this is at all clear to steve b. The assault has been fairly constant over a period of time.

So these things do continue to bubble up to the surface.  Sort of proving Ecclesiastes "there is nothing new under the sun."

I don’t know, I find the 5 Sola’s quite innovative.

 JonNC finds comfort in supposing there is such a thing as a Catholic Lutheran.  Sometimes it is our job to make the comfortable uncomfortable.

Perhaps you don’t realize how uncomfortable and downright insulting this Board has been to Lutherans in recent months? It has even required moderator intervention.

Speaking the truth in love does make people uncomfortable at times, but accusing them of holding positions they do not, pressing them to defend that which they do not espouse, and insulting their faith, or failing to affirm it.

 

[arjanssen]

I do not want to argue.

This is merely an historical question for me.

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

THANKS!

I will merely read the answers.

I do not think I will respond.

THANKS!

Jim

Read Romans (especially ch1-4), Gal, Eph, and Hebrews 11. Salvation is by faith apart from works, otherwise it isn’t Grace and it isn’t a gift.

Grace

Andy

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t know, I find the 5 Sola’s quite innovative.

LOL! I see what you did there!

 

[Jim_Baur]

Andy:

THANKS!

 

[Jim_Baur]

Andy

Romans 4: 13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

World is “kosmos.”

I believe that it is saying Abraham inherited the beautiful order of love in his inner person–the place of the true Israelite.

Is that correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

Even Luther found this problem vexing; so much so that he added “alone” because he felt sure Paul had intended it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even Luther found this problem vexing; so much so that he added “alone” because he felt sure Paul had intended it.

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Well, these are Luther’s words…

 

[arjanssen]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

So the apostle didn’t say alone, so it can’t mean that? I guess the pope doesn’t exist then, because that’s not in there either

Romans 4:1-6 ALONE

 

[Randy_Carson]

So the apostle didn’t say alone, so it can’t mean that? I guess the pope doesn’t exist then, because that’s not in there either

Romans 4:1-6 ALONE

The word “pope” does not exist in scripture. That’s a term that was invented later. Like the word “trinity”.

But like the trinity, the concept of the papacy or spiritual fatherhood is evident in the NT.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Romans 4:1-6 ALONE

Which translation has the word “alone”? Thanks.

 

[arjanssen]

Which translation has the word “alone”? Thanks.

Already answered. Just like your answer to the word pope.

 

[arjanssen]

Acts 20:24-31 is A perfect example why Scripture is needed as final authority. Fierce molds from within. How do we tell they are wolves? By Scripture. They’ll be speaking their own traditions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Already answered. Just like your answer to the word pope.

Ah, so it’s okay for YOU to imply the meaning of “faith alone” when it really isn’t taught in a single verse of scripture.

But let a Catholic state that Mary is sinless from the implications of an ACTUAL verse, and you cry “foul”.

Okay. I see how it is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 20:24-31 is A perfect example why Scripture is needed as final authority. Fierce molds from within. How do we tell they are wolves? By Scripture. They’ll be speaking their own traditions.

Scripture is the final authority, eh?

When two Protestants from different ecclesiastical traditions (oops!) argue over the baptism of infants, who settle the dispute?

And when two brothers disagree, does scripture say to take the matter to the Bible? Or to “take it to the Church”? (Mt. 18:17)

You are sorely misinformed, my friend.