Luther and James

[Jerry-Jet]

The passage speaks of a person suffering loss and being saved but by means of fire.

This passage refers to purgatory.

PROESS–PROCESS–PROCESS.

The notion of salvation starting at a discrete point in time and FLOWING and Continuing until death and the ENTIRETY of that being justification is beyond the intellectual imagination of the Protestant mind.

ENTIRETY = Hard.

Salvation as instantaneous only–at a discrete point in time only–and never as a starting point of a process = Easy!

Mortal Sin = HARD!

No mortal sin = Easy!

Purgatory = HARD!

No purgatory = Easy!

Purgatory as PROCESS after death = HARD!

Sanctification with no PROCESS and no duration at the moment of death = Easy!

No one will enter the kingdom of heaven who is not holy = HARD!

Dung clothed with the robe of Christ waltzing into heaven = Easy!

Acknowledging Catholics COOPERATING with God and doing “works” that God wills them to do–“Works” that are “God willed works” = HARD!

Calling all “works” the same and equating them with “works of the law” thus justifying not worrying about whether you have cooperated with God or not = Easy!

If I am indeed wrong about this maybe a Protestant would like to make the case how living a Protestant life that would be minimally enough to make it to heaven would be HARDER than a Catholic living the Catholic faith at a minimal enough level to make it to Heaven?

They can’t! They won’t!

In their heart of hearts they KNOW that the Protestant life is EASIER and that the Catholic life is HARDER!

Satan knows it too! That’s why he always advocates the EASIER road to eternal life!

 

[Michael_Francis]

*Mind the rash generalizations regarding non-Catholics, both past and present and remain on topic or citations will be issued.

Please note missing and edited posts and post accordingly.*

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Deep in Scripture, EWTN’s Marcus Grodi’s radio show (found on iTunes) had an interesting discussion about Luther.

He added the german word “alein” (spelling problem here - meine deutsch is nicht zu gut!) which means alone. Faith “alone”…

What is the warning in Revelation about adding to & subtracting from the Bible?

There were several books Luther wanted to purge from the scriptures (later known as the Bible).

 

[MaryT777]

Deep in Scripture, EWTN’s Marcus Grodi’s radio show (found on iTunes) had an interesting discussion about Luther.

He added the german word “alein” (spelling problem here - meine deutsch is nicht zu gut!) which means alone. Faith “alone”…

What is the warning in Revelation about adding to & subtracting from the Bible?

There were several books Luther wanted to purge from the scriptures (later known as the Bible).

Yes, that was excellent and worth finding. I really enjoy Marcus Grodi.

 

[Tomster]

I’ve been told that Martin Luther rejected the epistle of James, calling it an epistle of straw. can anyone verify this? Could you give any insights as to why he rejected it?

The difference between the Catholic and Protestant concept of the Bible is manifold and begins with the contents, which the Reformers determined should be otherwise than the Church had believed since apostolic times. As currently received, the Protestant Bible has seven books less in the Old Testament by excluding Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, Baruch and the two Books of the Maccabees. Behind this mutilation stands a whole system of theology that epitomizes the spirit of Protestantism even to the present time.

At the dawn of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin were faced with a difficult problem. By substituting the Bible for the Church as the ultimate ground of faith, they put a heavy strain on the Scriptures. There was one way they might have logically tried to carry our their plan. They might have refused entirely to discuss the question of inspiration or canonical authority, and simply accept the Bible from the Church as a primitive document sanctioned by time and prestige and having the sure claim to authority possessed by any Christian writing that was more than fourteen centuries old. After taking the Scriptures on these terms, they might have built on them a new religious structure to replace the Catholic Church they had left. But this would have seemed like compromise. With the Reformers it was an essential postulate that mere tradition, however old, or Church authority counts for nothing. Consequently, as the basis of their theological system, they set the principle that the Holy Spirit, speaking in the heart of every godly man, identifies the books which He inspired.

As the pioneer in this iconoclasm, Luther was more crude than some of his successors. Shortly after his defection, when faced with texts from the Old Testament which contradicted his teaching, he boldly answered that the questions were from books which he denied were canonical. When told that the Church had always considered them inspired, he retorted that “the Church cannot give more authority or validity to a book than it has already.” Later on, when he published a German translation of the New Testament and relegated to an appendix the Epistles of Sts. James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation, it was on the score that they were not apostolic. He defined an apostle as one who “preaches the suffering, resurrection and works of Christ, and thereon lays the foundation of his faith.” Accordingly, “whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though Peter or Paul should teach it; on the other hand, what preaches Christ is apostolic even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod produced it.” Since four books of the Catholic New Testament did not preach Christ to Luther’s satisfaction, they were put outside the biblical canon. Fortunately for the spiritual welfare of his followers, this treatment was too drastic, and Protestant Bibles now include without qualification the writings he had disclaimed as unapostolic.

 

[JonNC]

=Pepband Mom;10689622]Deep in Scripture, EWTN’s Marcus Grodi’s radio show (found on iTunes) had an interesting discussion about Luther.

He added the german word “alein” (spelling problem here - meine deutsch is nicht zu gut!) which means alone. Faith “alone”…

What is the warning in Revelation about adding to & subtracting from the Bible?

Then all translations violate that verse, since all translations “add” words.

There were several books Luther wanted to purge from the scriptures (later known as the Bible).

Source, please, where he says, on the one hand, that he wants to purge books, while on the other hand, he translates and includes 74 books.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

It’s interesting because this LCMS freely notes that Luther states James was an epistle of straw
He was concerned about the justification implications with the epistle and how it could be misconstrued that works were necessary for justificatiion which he said the LCMS rejected.

Here the quote is not “explained away” if he felt it was an epistle of straw then so be it.

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;10690957]The difference between the Catholic and Protestant concept of the Bible is manifold and begins with the contents, which the Reformers determined should be otherwise than the Church had believed since apostolic times. As currently received, the Protestant Bible has seven books less in the Old Testament by excluding Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, Baruch and the two Books of the Maccabees. Behind this mutilation stands a whole system of theology that epitomizes the spirit of Protestantism even to the present time.

Luther’s Bible includes all of these, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

At the dawn of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin were faced with a difficult problem.

At the “dawn of the Reformation”, when Luther nailed the 95 theses on the Church door at Wittenburg, Calvin was 8 years old.

By substituting the Bible for the Church as the ultimate ground of faith, they put a heavy strain on the Scriptures. There was one way they might have logically tried to carry our their plan. They might have refused entirely to discuss the question of inspiration or canonical authority, and simply accept the Bible from the Church as a primitive document sanctioned by time and prestige and having the sure claim to authority possessed by any Christian writing that was more than fourteen centuries old. After taking the Scriptures on these terms, they might have built on them a new religious structure to replace the Catholic Church they had left. But this would have seemed like compromise. With the Reformers it was an essential postulate that mere tradition, however old, or Church authority counts for nothing. Consequently, as the basis of their theological system, they set the principle that the Holy Spirit, speaking in the heart of every godly man, identifies the books which He inspired.

Source, please. This is not the claim of the Lutheran Confessions

As the pioneer in this iconoclasm, Luther was more crude than some of his successors.

Luther was not an iconoclast. Lutherans are not iconoclasts. The Lutheran reformers fought against iconoclasm.

Shortly after his defection, when faced with texts from the Old Testament which contradicted his teaching, he boldly answered that the questions were from books which he denied were canonical.

Please be specific, for each of the 7 books. IOW, for this claim to be true, there must be a specific teaching that contradicted what Luther believed.
The fact is that Luther’s question and disputes regarding the dueterocanon were based on the same claims as St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, and others. Cajetan, a Luther contemporary, and no fan of Luther’s, makes essentially the same claim regarding them.

When told that the Church had always considered them inspired, he retorted that “the Church cannot give more authority or validity to a book than it has already.” Later on, when he published a German translation of the New Testament and relegated to an appendix the Epistles of Sts. James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation, it was on the score that they were not apostolic. He defined an apostle as one who “preaches the suffering, resurrection and works of Christ, and thereon lays the foundation of his faith.” Accordingly, “whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though Peter or Paul should teach it; on the other hand, what preaches Christ is apostolic even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod produced it.” Since four books of the Catholic New Testament did not preach Christ to Luther’s satisfaction, they were put outside the biblical canon. Fortunately for the spiritual welfare of his followers, this treatment was too drastic, and Protestant Bibles now include without qualification the writings he had disclaimed as unapostolic.

Again, Luther’s dispute regarding the Antilegomena, the term used by Eusebius, in the early Church, is essentially the same as those of Catholics from the early Church onward.
And, Luther, like Cajetan, had the Catholic liberty to dispute them, as all Catholics did prior to Trent.

Jon

 

[Jerry-Jet]

JonNC: Is any scripture from the deuterocanonical books used in Lutheran liturgy?

The prayer of Manasseh isn’t in the Catholic bible but it was an addendum to the Vulgate.

Do you think it should be in the bible?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC: Is any scripture from the deuterocanonical books used in Lutheran liturgy?

The prayer of Manasseh isn’t in the Catholic bible but it was an addendum to the Vulgate.

Do you think it should be in the bible?

Some Lutheran synods do use them liturgically, and they appear in some of our hymnody.
I frankly think they should be used a lot more.

I think Luther’s inclusion of the Prayer is appropriate.

Jon

 

[brb3]

No. Lutherans believe we are cleansed at the moment of death for entry into heaven. What we don’t believe in is an intermediate state/place.

So, we are forevermore cleansed… not at our beginnings, by an OSAS judgment upon our Adoptions into Christ, but at our afterlife Particular Judgments ?

 

[pablope]

So, we are forevermore cleansed… not at our beginnings, by an OSAS judgment upon our Adoptions into Christ, but at our afterlife Particular Judgments ?

Just do not call it purgatory…

 

[MaryT777]

Just do not call it purgatory…

We won’t go there…

 

[brb3]

Just do not call it purgatory…

But, we do … we must ! Because, Christ taught nothing [no one] unclean enters Heaven.
Something about that word ‘purgatory’ … drives Protestant up a wall. We don’t explain it so well to them.

Or maybe we do … and they are thinking OSAS doesn’t mesh so well with concept of Purgatory ?

 

[JonNC]

But, we do … we must ! Because, Christ taught nothing [no one] unclean enters Heaven.
Something about that word ‘purgatory’ … drives Protestant up a wall. We don’t explain it so well to them.

Or maybe we do … and they are thinking OSAS doesn’t mesh so well with concept of Purgatory ?

Well, I don’t care about OSAS, but our problems as Lutherans with Purgatory are

1. historically, what the Lutheran reformers saw as abuses that arose around the doctrine - indulgences, and private masses, etc.
2. no scriptural support for an intermediate state/place, though cleansing certainly takes place.

See the link.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Well, I don’t care about OSAS, but our problems as Lutherans with Purgatory are

1. historically, what the Lutheran reformers saw as abuses that arose around the doctrine - indulgences, and private masses, etc.
2. no scriptural support for an intermediate state/place, though cleansing certainly takes place.

See the link.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

Jon, here’s some scriptural support.

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

 

[brb3]

See the link.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

Good stuff !!

Chp. 3 # 156-178 Background / Historical Discussion
# 179-191 Lutheran Criticisms
# 192-206 Contemporary Discussions of Caths with Lutherans on issue
# 207-211 Area of Agreement
# 212 … " In light of the analysis given, this dialogue believes that the type of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our [Catholic & Lutheran] communions.

 

[pablope]

Good stuff !!

Chp. 3 # 156-178 Background / Historical Discussion
# 179-191 Lutheran Criticisms
# 192-206 Contemporary Discussions of Caths with Lutherans on issue
# 207-211 Area of Agreement
# 212 … " In light of the analysis given, this dialogue believes that the type of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our [Catholic & Lutheran] communions.

That is why…just do not call it purgatory…

And Jon will not object…

 

[MaryT777]

Me thinks even if we don’t say purgatory Jon will “protest” it.

 

[brb3]

That is why…just do not call it purgatory…

And Jon will not object…

Jon’s reference consensus article is the best review of Purgatory I’ve come across.

Benedict 16 nailed it … IMO.

This article — says its not punitive, not temporal [per say], that it begins at death during our Particular Judgment, with our meeting Christ …his glory burns away our venial sins, a purifying fire … not one of punishment, not one meant to be physically painful, … its really intended to be a beautify experience for every Christian — getting us ready to live in communion with a Holy God.

This is a purgation experience we can all look forward to … not one to fear. It’s not prison and punishment ----go to jail on outskirts of Hell experience… one Protestants always feared it might be, but knew was inconsistent with a Jesus who taught us the Beatitudes.