Imputed Rightousness

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Sara,

I applaud you on another exellent thread.

I think one has to ask, “Why did God not make a box of rocks into saints rather than Protestants?”.

If free willed chosen love for God is not an ingredient for eternal life then why allow free will in the first place? If there was no free will there would be no hatred, sin and damnation.

Why did not God impute faith and into a box of rocks, which do not have the capacity to be unrighteous, and then give the box of rocks knoledge and understanding that they were just a box of rocks which He brought into eternal life?

Catholics belive that through our obedience and good works we produce the fruit of the Kingdom of God. We believe that we have the choice to love or hate God through obedience and disobedience and it is those who freely choose to love God who go to heaven through Jesus.

If human free willed choices of love and obedience have no connection with eternal life, then I would think that Protestants would agree that imputting faith into a box of rocks, which do not have the capacity to be unrighteous, and bringing the box of rocks into eternal life, would be a whole lot better idea than allowing human free will from which hatred, sin and damnation flow.

 

[Contarini]

**Edwin,

As an Episcopalien, Do you believe in Eternal Security or Assured Salvation.?

**

I emphatically do not believe in eternal security.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that we have a living relationship with Christ. However, I’d make three caveats:

1. Obviously it’s possible to think you have such a relationship when you do not;
2. It’s possible to be plagued by doubts even when you have genuine faith; and
3. This “assurance” is not assurance of final salvation but only of one’s present relationship with God.

Therefore, I don’t think my position is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. But it seems to me that Catholic piety has far too small a place (if any) for this understanding of the witness of the Spirit, and this is one of the places where I think evangelical Protestantism has a lot to offer.

Edwin

 

[Bishopite]

Yes the Church fathers did use faith alone but in a different sense than Luther did. Listen Jimmy Akin who is the top apologist at Catholic answers even says Luther was antinomian. Ih a debate against James White of Alpha Omega on the Christian Research Institute Akin says so and he knows Catholic theology very well.

that’s a ridiculous statement, since neither Luther’s Bible nor the Greek text used any English words at all.

Luther did add the word “alone” in his September Bible even though it isn’t there in the Greek manuscripts. You haven’t heard this?

This is not a trivial point I’m making. It’s exactly the point Luther makes in his essay “On Translating” to justify his use of the word “allein.” Greek and German are different languages, and you can’t simply translate word for word when trying to render the sense of one language into another language with different syntax. He makes this argument right after saying that he doesn’t owe the “Papist blockheads” any argument at all. Catholic polemicists take that paragraph out of context and completely ignore the careful argument that follows. I wonder why? What do they have to lose in reporting the argument Luther actually gives, instead of giving the false impression that he fails to provide an argument? Luther’s approach to translation (though not necessarily that particular choice) is one that most translators today would endorse.

Luther a mere rebellious priest had no authoritative right to create his own interpretation of Scripture and hence use ad hominem attacks against the papacy by calling them “blockheads.”

Well, that doesn’t tell us which Psalms commentary. And I have to wonder why (if you want to understand Luther) you are relying on a patently biased, polemical collection of quotes which you haven’t even read for yourself but only know through a Catholic apologetics website.

And yours aren’t bias? Hardly. The Catholic Church existed from pentacost and for 1500 years before Luther even knew right from wrong, he had no authoritative basis for his own personal interpretation. In fact you so defend Luther but what of his other beliefs, i.e., Mary as theotokos (mother of God) or immaculately conceived? I’ll post those quotes and the sources too soon.

Here’s a revolutionary idea–why not read some Luther directly? Why not read a good, scholarly book on him like Bainton or Oberman or Althaus?

You are doing as Newman said and poisoning the well. They don’t have a bias toward the Catholic Church do they? Oh I’m sure they do. I’ve read many Protestants in fact Edwin I grew up and was baptised Southern Baptist and was a good anti-Catholic Baptist until my mid-thirties when through a series of events, started to read outside my box and found Protestant theology wanting.

rc

 

[Contarini]

Bishopite:

Yes the Church fathers did use faith alone but in a different sense than Luther did.

And that was exactly my point.

Akin says so and he knows Catholic theology very well.

What does his knowledge of Catholic theology have to do with it? His knowledge of Luther is in question. I respect Akin, but I have no idea how well he understands Luther or what he meant by calling him antinomian. This is not evidence. If you were right, you could prove your point by a serious discussion of Luther’s writings. But you can’t do this. You are desperately trying to distract the discussion from Luther’s actual writings, because you clearly don’t know them very well and hence don’t have a leg to stand on.

Luther did add the word “alone” in his September Bible even though it isn’t there in the Greek manuscripts. You haven’t heard this?

Are you seriously telling me that Luther’s Bible was in English? No, I hadn’t heard that

Being in German, of course it didn’t contain the word “alone.” It contained the word “allein.” Which of course was not in the Greek text, because it isn’t a Greek word.

Anyone who has ever tried to translate knows that words in one language are never the exact equivalent of words in another. So accusing someone of “adding a word” is silly unless you can show that he was distorting the sense of the original by doing so. And even then you have just proved that he made a mistake, not that he was deliberately dishonest. Luther made what appears to be a good-faith argument that his translation of the Greek text captured the meaning of the original. Right or wrong, there’s no reason to think that he was deliberately distorting the text.

Luther a mere rebellious priest had no authoritative right to create his own interpretation of Scripture

So when you say that he was “adding words to Scripture” what you really mean was that he was daring to interpret Scripture otherwise than the hierarchy wanted him to? Now perhaps we are getting somewhere.

And yours aren’t bias? Hardly.

Actually, I don’t have a particularly strong axe to grind here. I don’t agree with Luther, and I’ve said so explicitly. (You keep ignoring me, but that’s your problem.) I am a trained church historian and I care about historical accuracy. So I do claim to be less biased than the author of “The Facts about Luther” or even a respectable full-time Catholic apologist like Dave Armstrong.

However, I don’t ask you to take my word for it. I’m asking you to defend your position by a serious reading of Luther rather than quotes taken out of context. This is no more than you Catholics rightly demand of those who attack you. Why aren’t you willing to extend the same courtesy you demand from others? Do you like it when people take quotes out of context from Catholic documents to trash Catholicism? Why aren’t you following the Golden Rule?

Lorraine Boettner takes quotes from Catholic documents. Does that justify Protestants in trusting him implicitly? Of course it doesn’t.

 

[Contarini]

Bishopite:

The Catholic Church existed from pentacost and for 1500 years before Luther even knew right from wrong, he had no authoritative basis for his own personal interpretation.

But that’s completely irrelevant to the question of whether you are interpreting Luther correctly.

In fact you so defend Luther

I’ll defend anyone who is being misrepresented. It’s my job.

but what of his other beliefs, i.e., Mary as theotokos (mother of God) or immaculately conceived?

Of course I believe that Mary is the Mother of God. I confess to having doubts about the Immaculate Conception. But how is this relevant? I never said all Luther’s ideas were correct. I think his more Catholic beliefs are in general far more likely to be correct than his more innovative ideas. Yet again, you’re charging off in an irrelevant direction because you simply can’t defend your bigoted interpretion of Luther on the basis of the original documents.

You are doing as Newman said and poisoning the well.

You’re quoting (not even directly) a polemical book called *The Facts About Luther *and I’m supposedly poisoning the well when I suggest that you should read other sources? Don’t make me laugh.

They don’t have a bias toward the Catholic Church do they? Oh I’m sure they do.

Am I suggesting that you should read them to learn about Catholicism? If a Protestant were trashing Aquinas based on anti-Catholic literature, I’d suggest that he should read Aquinas or a good scholarly source on Aquinas, and the names I would mention (Davies, Gilson, Levering) would be Catholic.

There are Catholic historians who have done serious work on Luther–Hartmann Grisar and Joseph Lortz are two of the big names, and I believe Otto Hermann Pesch (author of a book on Luther and Aquinas) was also Catholic. Similarly, Protestants like Eleanor Stump are respected for their work on Aquinas. If we were talking about Calvin, two of the books I’d recommend first and foremost would be by Catholics (*The Young Calvin *by Alexander Ganoczy and Kilian McDonnell’s book on Calvin’s sacramental theology). I’m not trying to recommend Protestant propaganda.

If you really want to understand the past, you need to read works written from various points of view. If you read only propaganda for your own side, then you will get no respect for your opinions and deserve none.

Everyone is biased, but not everyone is equally biased. Professional, respected historians whose work is reviewed by colleagues of various ideological persuasions are likely to be fairer than people who write only for those who agree with them.

You are the one trying to poison the wells. You can’t defend your view of Luther on the basis of the primary sources, so you’re charging off in any irrelevant direction you possibly can. This does not serve the truth.

I’ve read many Protestants in fact Edwin I grew up and was baptised Southern Baptist and was a good anti-Catholic Baptist until my mid-thirties when through a series of events, started to read outside my box and found Protestant theology wanting.

Let me tell you something shocking. Luther was not a Baptist. He would have considered Baptists “Schwarmer” (fanatics) and heretics. If you read Luther through a Baptist (or ex-Baptist) lens, you will inevitably misunderstand him.

Having gone outside your Baptist box, you are now apparently afraid to go outside your narrow Catholic-propagandist box (you don’t even appear to be acquainted with good Catholic writers on Protestantism, such as Louis Bouyer or George Tavard). You don’t need to be so nervous, you know. Catholicism is a solid tradition of Christianity. It will not collapse if you drop your guard for a minute and try to understand the Reformation historically instead of trashing on the basis of inadequate knowledge! The Catholic Church really doesn’t need you to defend it against Luther. It certainly doesn’t need you to endanger your own soul by spreading bigoted misrepresentation instead of looking fairly at the evidence.

Edwin

 

[sara888]

**Why Thank You Steven.!

To reiterate the gospels are very simple all one has to do is obey and follow the Lords words. Faith Love obedience. Thats its. why some tend to complicate the Lords teachings is beyond comprehension.

Some will refute that salvation has anyting to do with Gods Laws, yet what they are doing is agreeing Commandment keeping is part of Faith however, this has nothing to do with ones salvation, yet how can it not have anything to do with salvation.?
How can you have Faith and claim you keep the commandments yet these Laws have nothing to do with the outcome of salvation. I just thinks it’s absurd.

It makes no sense, then why keep them? If we are already saved and judged by God to go right to Heaven at death because we believed in him, and commandments have nothing to do with ones Salvation, then why are they in the gospels

Sara**

 

[Contarini]

**Why Thank You Steven.!

To reiterate the gospels are very simple all one has to do is obey and follow the Lords words. Faith Love obedience. Thats its. why some tend to complicate the Lords teachings is beyond comprehension.**

And you seriously think that Catholic teachings are not complicated? For a Catholic to accuse Protestants of “complicating” things is the pot calling the kettle black.

**

Some will refute that salvation has anyting to do with Gods Laws, yet what they are doing is agreeing Commandment keeping is part of Faith however, this has nothing to do with ones salvation, yet how can it not have anything to do with salvation.?

**

It’s not that it has nothing to do with salvation, simply that (in classical Protestant teaching) it is not the basis for justification.

** How can you have Faith and claim you keep the commandments yet these Laws have nothing to do with the outcome of salvation. I just thinks it’s absurd.**

You think love and gratitude are absurd? What better motive do you need?
Edwin

 

[sara888]

****Edwin,

I think if you love God you keep his commandments after all that is a direct requirement from God.****]

“If you love me you keep my commandments.”

Sara

 

[sara888]

**

****

Edwin,

I think if you love God you keep his commandments after all that is a direct requirement from God.****

**]

“If you love me you keep my commandments.”

Edwin said:
t’s not that it has nothing to do with salvation, simply that (in classical Protestant teaching) it is not the basis for justification.

Thats the part I as a Catholic do not understand, if it is not the basis for salvation, then why do some protestants keep the commandments, some claim because" if you have faith you follow them",

I dont see how the two can be seperated then claim it is not the basis for salvaton. I agree Faith, saves us but, one must define real faith. Faith is part of salvation, and commandments are part of Faith.

We are judged by our conduct or actions with this great faith of ours, the whole NT is filled with consequences for the believers or the faithful. So If I love God and have Faith I would think I must obey his commands that explains what is required of a faithful Christian that truly loves the Lord.

Sara

Sara

 

[Contarini]

Sara,

The whole point I am making is that we should obey out of love. I don’t think we are actually disagreeing here. The classical Protestant view (Luther, Calvin, etc.) is that only when we are confided that God has accepted us for Christ’s sake can we be free to do God’s will out of love and gratitude.

The debate is not over whether we should obey the commandments (though some Protestants would say that this obedience is spontaneous, while others would say that we do need the law to guide us in knowing God’s will). The debate is over just how this obedience is related to our justification before God.

I am with you in thinking that the “classical” Protestant view is overly convoluted and not (as Protestants have historically claimed) a central truth of the Faith. But rightly understood I don’t think it’s some horrendous heresy either. For people with certain sorts of issues (i.e., people who have trouble believing that God loves and forgives them), this teaching frees them to live a life of love and obedience.

Edwin

 

[sara888]

****Edwin, I agree with you and I dont believe we are disagreeing in most areas especially since you are an Episcopalien and you do believe one can lose their salvation.

However as a Catholic at some point one has to be truly sorry for the same sin or offense against God, since he does love us and forgives us.

Yet we all sin many times over, that is why as a Catholic I feel I do not deserve Heaven since nothing unholy and unclean may enter. Remember sin sends one to Hell. So if one lives in sin, continual , is he forgiven and goes to Heaven anyway.?

When do we become sincere, stop offending God if we truly love him.?

Sara****

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is a departure from the one faith that was revealed by God. Its logical consequences are devastating to the Christian. It implies that one can be saved while continuing in sin. Consequently, those who are faithful to the Lord must oppose this doctrine with every ounce of their being.

Sara

I wonder where that implication comes from ?

What Protestants don’t always make clear is that this righteousness is not Christ’s personal righteousness, but His covenantal righteousness. It is something that we have no way whatever of getting for ourselves by our own resources - we have it, only because we are within the covenant of grace which He has sealed for us in His own Blood.

How is that an encouragement to sin ? It is an encouragement to holy living, and just about the strongest dissuasive from sin one could possibly have. Especially as it is reinforced by so many other gifts of God. It’s part of an entire economy of salvation - all the elements of which are reasons not to sin.

It is only through being in this grace that we can oppose what is wrong in doctrine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

No, Sara, the logical consequences you describe do not exist.

Being “saved” means being ultimately freed from all sin. Obviously one cannot be saved in this sense while still sinning. But one can be forgiven for the sins that one commits in this life, and all Christians agree that this is possible.

The divide comes not between those who believe in imputed righteousness and those who do not, but those who believe that saving faith (to which righteousness is imputed in the classical Protestant view) is compatible with deliberate unrepentant sin and those who do not.

Luther did not believe that it was compatible, nor did any other of the major reformers.

The idea that someone can have a saving trust in Christ and deliberately persist in sin is a horrible error of certain Protestants, mostly in the modern era. (There were antinomians in the sixteenth century, but they were condemned by mainstream Protestants.)

Edwin

What I don’t understand (among other things ) is how any one could think anything so unspeakable

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Are not people who know God dead to sin? The Word of God says they are.

(Romans 6: 10 - 11) “When He died, He died, once for all, to sin, so His life now is life with God; and in that way, you too must consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive for God in Jesus Christ.”

(Romans 8: 4) “He did this in order that the law’s just demands might be satisfied in us, who behave not as our unspiritual nature but as the Spirit dictates.”

(Romans 8: 5) “The unspiritual are interested only in what is unspiritual, but the spiritual are interested in spiritual things. It is death to limit oneself to what is unspiritual, life and peace can only come with concern for the spiritual.”

(Romans 8: 9 - 13) “Your interest, however are not in the unspiritual, but in the spiritual, since the Spirit of God has made His home in you. In fact, unless you possessed the Spirit of Christ you would not belong to Him. Though your body may be dead it is because of sin, but if Christ is in you then your spirit is life itself because you have been justified; and if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, then He who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit living in you.”

So then, brothers, there is no necessity for us to obey our unspiritual selves or to live unspiritual lives. If you do live in that way, you are doomed to die; but if by the Spirit you put an end to the misdeeds of the body you will live.”

(Hebrews 6: 4) “As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, and appreciated the good message of God and the powers of the world to come and yet in spite of this have fallen away it is impossible for that to be renewed a second time. They cannot be repentant if they have willfully crucified the Son of God and openly mocked Him.”

(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

(1 John 3: 3 - 9) “Surely everyone who entertains this hope must purify himself, must try to be as pure as Christ. Any one who sins at all breaks the law, because to sin is to break the law. Now you know that He appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in Him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen Him or known Him. My children do not let anyone lead you astray; to live a holy life is to be holy just as He is holy; to lead a sinful life is to belong to the Devil, since the Devil was a sinner from the beginning. It was to undo all that the Devil has done that the Son of God appeared. No one who has been begotten by God sins: because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.”

(1 John 5: 16) “If anybody sees his brother commit a sin that is not a deadly sin, he has only to pray, and God will give life to the simmer - not those who commit a deadly sin; for there is a sin that is death, and I will not say that you must pray about that. Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly.

We know that anyone who has been begotten by God does not sin, because the begotten Son of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.”
Robert

 

[Bishopite]

What does his knowledge of Catholic theology have to do with it?

**His knowledge of Luther is in question. I respect Akin, but I have no idea how well he understands Luther or what he meant by calling him antinomian. **

My point is/was that Akin doesn’t only understand Catholic theology but Catholic history especially the reformation. However, this is quote can be found at www.newadvent.com which is wrttten by erudite and well respected Catholic historians. Catholic answers refers to it often. You are correct, I haven’t found a quote (yet) to prove explicitly that Luther was an antinomian at least in some sense, but I’m still searching and if I can’t conclude that Luther was then I’ll apologize and recant. However, my sources are valid and credible. Also, I do know Catholic theology. I juxtaposed (and still do), Protestant and Catholic theology and did so five years prior to conveting to Catholicism. I’m now a Catholic for four years that makes nine years of study, so please don’t tell me I don’t know my faith. I’m certainly no historian but rely on experts and try not to take an a prior position.

antinomianism (anti, against, and nomos, law) The heretical doctrine that Christians** are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his secretaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God." **

** It goes on but space would allow me to post more.**

Are you seriously telling me that Luther’s Bible was in English?

Uh…no I never said that. He was German of course, I was just using the word alone in English and Luther insert that into his September Bible.

Being in German, of course it didn’t contain the word “alone.” It contained the word “allein.” Which of course was not in the Greek text, because it isn’t a Greek word.

**Right, yet the word alone in the Greek is found nowhere next to the word faith save James 2:24 where it is a salvific negative **

So when you say that he was “adding words to Scripture” what you really mean was that he was daring to interpret Scripture otherwise than the hierarchy wanted him to? Now perhaps we are getting somewhere.

All due deference Edwin but you’ve never heard that Luther added the word alone to Rom 3:28 and you are a Church historian?
He evetually changed it under pressure from Melanchtin I think it was. I’ll get the reference for you since I’m saying this from years of hearing it in debates/talk etc. and reading it too!!

Why aren’t you following the Golden Rule?

**I really have no axe to grind either; it’s irrelavent to me. Luther was wrong on sola scriptura and much more I could argue. And I will be glad to apologize if I’m wrong, however, www.newadvent.com and Jimmy Akin I and I suppose everyone who I’ve heard it and READ it from, should too, since that’s how I came to find out years ago. You are a historian and I’m sure others believe your credibility and knowledge about history, can’t I do the same? Both are orthodox Catholic sources. **

Lorraine Boettner takes quotes from Catholic documents. Does that justify Protestants in trusting him implicitly? Of course it doesn’t.

Right Boettner, and Dave Hunt, Jack Chich and others. And with all fairness there are Catholics who do the same against Protestants and I don’t mean to impune you or any other Protestant and I apologize if I have even implictly. I rely on those who are respected by both Catholics and Protestants and www.newadvent.com and Jimmy Akin and I could give you a whole host of others too if you want.

rc

 

[Bishopite]

Edwin, I think you are correct in that there are no writtings of Martin Luther that quote him saying anything of a snow covered dunghill that describes his view of justification.
I do apologize if I used it improperly and unjustly and will not use it again unless someone shows me the quote.
I do, however, stick by my assertion that Luther was antinomian; perhaps in a lesser degree than the more mainstream antinomians of the reformation and he did argue against them, yet he held views on justification that didn’t fully separate himself from antinomianism.

Luther wrote: …Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, a sinner even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day" (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard J., p.93 Rebuilding a lost faith).

Now I do agree with you that certainly Luther DID teach keeping the commandments, I’m not arguing this point and that they are neccessary for proving true faith. Yet to say that “even if we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day” that doesn’t "drag us away from Him [God] is antinomian. Every grave sin takes us away from God if we have done it intentionally, because we have intentionally taken ourselves away from Him.

The problem with Luther’s view, is his position of what justification is in relation to whether it is imputed (merely covering us) or infused (that God actually makes us fully righteous and holy). His views were contradictory and make no rational nor Scriptural sense.

I suppose that why he had a problem with James, Revelation, Hebrews and other canonized books.

“St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546)
He wrote, “About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it” (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).

rc

 

[Steven_Merten]

sara888:

Some will refute that salvation has anyting to do with Gods Laws, yet what they are doing is agreeing Commandment keeping is part of Faith however, this has nothing to do with ones salvation, yet how can it not have anything to do with salvation.?

Contarini:

It’s not that it has nothing to do with salvation, simply that (in classical Protestant teaching) it is not the basis for justification.

Edwin

Jesus certianly does not agree with Luther that commandment keeping has nothing to do with who will go to heaven.

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, "Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"NAB JOH 5:27

"The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned."
NAB ROM 2:6 (St. Paul is speaking)

. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
**NAB **REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.” NAB MAT 25:31

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[Bishopite]

Edwin,

I just found this old post and I’d like to respond.

You’re quoting (not even directly) a polemical book called *The Facts About Luther *and I’m supposedly poisoning the well when I suggest that you should read other sources? Don’t make me laugh.

Never heard of nor read the book Being a convert to Catholicism doesn’t mean that I should have read every Protestant denomination’s version of Luther being there are a plethora of Protestant denominations and a multitude of scholars within them.
Lord knows it would take beyond a lifetime.

Am I suggesting that you should read them to learn about Catholicism? If a Protestant were trashing Aquinas based on anti-Catholic literature, I’d suggest that he should read Aquinas or a good scholarly source on Aquinas, and the names I would mention (Davies, Gilson, Levering) would be Catholic.

What I meant about poisoning the well (a metaphor meaning one won’t drink from the well that they think is tainted, i.e. Protestants won’t read Catholic sources because they don’t trust the source!) Cardinal John Henry Newman used the term and it is from him whom I got it, sorry Edwin I can’t quote the primary source. **But you know you don’t give your sources so how is it that I have to? **Well, I prefered to read Prof. Peter Kreeft of Boston College on St. Thomas Aquinas thank you

There are Catholic historians who have done serious work on Luther–Hartmann Grisar and Joseph Lortz are two of the big names, and I believe Otto Hermann Pesch (author of a book on Luther and Aquinas) was also Catholic.

Yes, I’ve heard of them but time only allows so much reading and I’m not very bright nor erudite so it takes me a long while to read those thar things. What you falsely assume is that because you know a bit about Luther that what you do know is the “truth.” Obviously Trent excommunicated him, thus making him a formal heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church and it is the Catholic Church that sees Luther as one who tore away from the true faith. You are going around posting Luther as a man who just wanted to reform Rome’s outdated theology which is WRONG.

Similarly, Protestants like Eleanor Stump are respected for their work on Aquinas. If we were talking about Calvin, two of the books I’d recommend first and foremost would be by Catholics (*The Young Calvin *by Alexander Ganoczy and Kilian McDonnell’s book on Calvin’s sacramental theology). I’m not trying to recommend Protestant propaganda.

Great, I appreciate the tip. I’ve heard and read many things or about Luther for thirty-eight years as a former Southern Baptist and to make sure that you understand that I’m not saying Luther was a Baptist, cause I know he wuzn’t

 

[Steven_Merten]

Sara888:

Some will refute that salvation has anyting to do with Gods Laws, yet what they are doing is agreeing Commandment keeping is part of Faith however, this has nothing to do with ones salvation, yet how can it not have anything to do with salvation.?

Contarini:

It’s not that it has nothing to do with salvation, simply that (in classical Protestant teaching) it is not the basis for justification.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

You should really clarify that what you say is what Luther and Protestants believe and not your personal belief.

Edwin says:"*Why do you assume that I agree with Luther? Is the concept of historical fairness and accuracy totally alien to you? I can’t find Luther teaching that believers are judged on the basis of their works. ***As far as I can tell, he believed that believers are covered with Christ’s righteousness at the judgment. *And like you, I think this is flatly contrary to the plain sense of Scripture.
*Edwin quotes from Luther! Read Read!

Post 242
**Contarini:
*bishopite, *

You are completely wrong in your interpretation of Luther. Luther did not think that faith was simply an intellectual assent. No Luther scholar would maintain such a thing. This is an ignorant caricature. Apparently few people on this thread are actually interested in the truth. You would rather keep your stereotype. OK, keep it.

Sorry for the anger, but I’ve spent post after post pointing out (with ample documentation) what Luther’s views actually were, and people simply ignore the evidence. Well, have your distortions if you love them so much. But you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about other Christians’ beliefs.

Edwin

Post 245
Steven Merten:
Hello Edwin,

*So are you saying that Luther condemned Christ’s teaching, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" But Luther taught “you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about Luther’s beliefs”?*

*Can you give us quotes from Luther as to what actions, works, disobedience, conduct, which Luther did teach that Jesus will judge and condenm people to hell for committing? *

Luther

The doctrine of our opponents* is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law*, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

​

Post 247

Contarini]

My post said nothing about what Luther taught on the subject. Why do you assume that I agree with Luther? Is the concept of historical fairness and accuracy totally alien to you?

BTW, in response to your earlier question, to which you now allude, I can’t find Luther teaching that believers are judged on the basis of their works.* As far as I can tell, he believed that believers are covered with Christ’s righteousness at the judgment.*

And like you, I think this is flatly contrary to the plain sense of Scripture. So please spare me your endlessly repeated proof-texts!

Edwin