Luther! Read Read!

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-
(concerning post477)

It seems to me, you want to be able to attack Luther for teaching antinomianism, but you hit the giant roadblock of Luther’s writings, which continually and repeatedly express a living faith that shows itself by its works, done out of a heartfelt gratitude to God rather than attempting to appease God for eventual salvation.

Im going to read that work on Good Works writing by Luther you just posted and see what he has to say and post what I find.

Luther’s point is that Luke is highlighting the fact that a true saving faith has fruit. For Luther, Luke is not denying sola fide, rather he is simply expressing what the Bible teaches: God saves by faith alone, yet that faith is alive and produces works. As Habakkuk says, “The righteous will live by faith.[Hab2:4]” As Paul says, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last.” Yet, God has prepared good works for us to do in advance (Eph.2:10). These works prove we have repented and have faith (Acts 26:20).

Here is what Luther says in his Commentary on Galatians for that Hab2:4 quote in Gal3:11-
The Apostle draws into his argument the testimony of the Prophet Habakkuk: “The just shall live by his faith.” This passage carries much weight because it eliminates the Law and the deeds of the Law as factors in the process of our justification.

The scholastics misconstrue this passage by saying: “The just shall live by faith, if it is a working faith, or a faith formed and performed by charitable works.” Their annotation is a forgery. To speak of formed or unformed faith, a sort of double faith, is contrary to the Scriptures. If charitable works can form and perfect faith I am forced to say eventually that charitable deeds constitute the essential factor in the Christian religion. Christ and His benefits would be lost to us.
I was shocked to read this, James Ch2 has a lot to say about this as well. This passage sounds like the opposite of what you have been telling me Luther believed. I will have to read that link on Good Works you posted to get a better idea.

According to Luther in his sermon, Luke doesn’t downplay faith. Luke downplays fictitious faith.

Do you mean like the James2 references to a “dead faith”?

You really do need to get a book on Luther’s theology, as 90% of my comments first have to explain what Luther means, then explain how you misunderstand his theology. Do you really think Luther and Protestants never address this? Tell you what. Do a little research for yourself on this question, and you tell me how Luther would answer this question.

I will read that Good Works letter right now.

That being said, think about this: If the Pope were to call you up tonight and say, “Catholic Dude, I’ve been reading your posts on the Catholic Answers web boards. I’m extremely impressed by your work. I can tell you have a real heart of faith producing works. I have been in council with the magisterium, and in deep prayer. God has revealed to me that you indeed have a true saving faith. When you die, you will instantly be taken to Heaven and rewarded with eternal life. I am going to pronounce this “from the chair.” Now, would you have confidence that your faith is a true faith?

The pope would never say anyone is guaranteed Heaven.

(im off to read that letter and post my findings)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well, I read Luthers work on “Good Works” and I was stunned, it was not what I was expecting. Im too tired right now to post what I found, but I was amazed at what he said. I agreed with a very high amount of it, I couldnt believe what he was saying.

I noticed it was written in 1520 early in his protestant years compared to the Galatians commentary written in 1535 when he doesnt talk as he did in the Good Works Treatise.

I get the feeling that as time went on he started to abandon/change more and more his views, because the way he was talking in that Treatise sounded very Catholic in many ways.

I hope to post what I found tomorrow.

 

[bekalc]

Catholic Dude:

Well, I read Luthers work on “Good Works” and I was stunned, it was not what I was expecting. Im too tired right now to post what I found, but I was amazed at what he said. I agreed with a very high amount of it, I couldnt believe what he was saying.

I noticed it was written in 1520 early in his protestant years compared to the Galatians commentary written in 1535 when he doesnt talk as he did in the Good Works Treatise.

I get the feeling that as time went on he started to abandon/change more and more his views, because the way he was talking in that Treatise sounded very Catholic in many ways.

I hope to post what I found tomorrow.

Yes, I remember readaing that Luther had one opinion and then changed it. He thought bondage of the will was the way to stop the Church. In fact I remember Pope Benedict said he wanted Lutherans to read Luther’s earlier works.

I think Luther’s Bondage of the Will is the most important understanding.

 

[Assurance]

Hello all,

Just wanted to pop in here and say I was able to get caught up with the discussion. I’ll be doing some posts later on this week, but I’m excited about the direction this thread is going. TertiumQuid, great suggestion. I’m looking forward to you and Catholic Dude’s exchanges, as I’m going to have to step back from the “book reading club” thing. I wish I had time though!

One thing to keep in mind. Luther commented somewhere (in 1537 I think) that all the stuff he wrote besides the Bondage of the Will and the Large Catechism should be burned! Of course, he also held unto the Smalcald Articles of 1537, which were to be his contribution to a Church council (which finally materialized in Trent). Anyway, I think it should be informative. Maybe I can pitch in some halfway intelligent commentary here and there even if I don’t actually read it, but I’ll try to hold my tongue!

Hey, I hope and pray this thread can be a place where there is heat restrained by Christian love (not like Luther I know, but our historical circumstances are a little bit different). May Jesus Christ bless all of the ensuing conversation and debate to His glory!

Onward!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Assurance:

Luther commented somewhere (in 1537 I think) that all the stuff he wrote besides the Bondage of the Will and the Large Catechism should be burned!

In the Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Works (1545). Luther says,

“…I wanted all my books to be buried in perpetual oblivion, that thus there might be room for better books.”

“Consequently you will find that, in my earlier writings, I most humbly conceded many important things to the pope, things which I later detested and now detest as being the greatest blasphemy and abomination. Therefore, dear reader, kindly ascribe this error or, as my calumniators call it, this contradiction to the time and to my inexperience. At first I was alone and surely much too inept and unlearned to be dealing with such matters. For, as God is my witness, it was by accident and not by my own will or desire that I got involved in all this turmoil.”

The entire document is found here: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/preflat-eng.txt

I would not be so quick to dismiss Luther’s Treatise on Good Works as a non-Protestant pro Catholic work. One of leading Luther scholars Eric Gritsch has explained,

“The treatise was a response to basic concernes on the part of political friends, particularly at the court of Elector Frederick, such as: If one is justified by faith alone, why perform good works at all? Or why adhere to law and order when one is really not rewarded for doing good? Did not Luther’s basic stance lead to the demise of the existing moral fabric of life in the world? The substantial treatise…was originally intended to be a sermon…It’s basic thesis is that good works are the natural consequence of a truly trusting relationship between the faithful and God, grounded in the atonement of Christ. The divine mandate to do good, summarized in the Decalogue, can only be fulfilled when Christ has become the driving force within the faithful. Consequently “faith” is not a decision to try to do good or an assent to divine teachings mediated by the church, but rather the source of all relationships of life on earth. All of these relationships find meaning only in the relationship between God and the Christ whose death redeemed a sinful world. “Faith, therefore, does not originate in works; neither do works create faith, but faith must spring up and flow from the blood and wounds and death of Christ.” In this sense doing good is always the consequence of trust in God who wants believers to love others the way Jesus, a suffering servant, loved the world. This is the true meaning of the “first table” of the Decalogue, which commands that one should not have any other gods but should honor the Father of Jesus Christ and should worship God through him. That is the way the new Adam fights the old Adam in the name of Christ…. Luther admonished his readers to return to this basic understanding of the Decalogue: the principal guide for life with God in the face of earthly conflicts which will end only when Christ returns at the end of time. Since the Roman Church has abused the Decalogue, Luther contended, common sense is to be used to resist Roman authorities. “We have to act as good children whose parents have lost their minds,” Luther suggested in the context of his exposition of the Fourth Commandment (to honor father and mother). One should know the difference between what is commanded for the maintenance of basic values in life and what is not commanded, namely, “the building of churches, beautifying them, making pilgrimages, and all those things of which so much is written in the ecclesiastical regulations.” Finally, one should know that original sin will never be eliminated by any commandment. “It may be checked, but it cannot be entirely uprooted except through death. It is for this reason death is both profitable anddesirable.”

Source: Eric Gritsch: Martin- God’s Court Jester, Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 32-33

Much of what Gritsch points out above is what has been pointed out already, thus I’m curious to what “stunned” Catholic Dude.

Assurance:

Hey, I hope and pray this thread can be a place where there is heat restrained by Christian love

So far, I have enjoyed Catholic Dude’s efforts in this thread, mainly because he will actually go and read Luther for himself. Many Catholics will not do this.

I don’t expect any Roman Catholic to change their mind about Luther, but I do expect they will at least first understand what he’s saying, without saying something like “Luther said X and what this means is Y.” No Luther said X and he means X.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Assurance:

One thing to keep in mind. Luther commented somewhere (in 1537 I think) that all the stuff he wrote besides the Bondage of the Will and the Large Catechism should be burned!

"Writing to Capito on July 9th, 1537, with reference to a suggested complete edition of his works, {Luther} roundly affirmed that none of them deserved preservation save the little children’s Catechism and The Bondage of the Will; for only they, in their dapartments, were ‘right’ "

Source: The Bonage of The Will (Packer & Johnston translation)- introductory comments page 40.

regards,

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

bekalc:

In fact I remember Pope Benedict said he wanted Lutherans to read Luther’s earlier works.

I think he meant “pre-Reformation works” (before 1517), and I think this was said previous to being Pope:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70438

During the debate on the encyclical “Fides et Ratio,” which took place in Rome in October 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger revealed that before entering university he had already read all of Luther’s works written before the Reformation.

“That is, the reflections of Catholic Luther,” Spath told ZENIT.

“Ratzinger invited those present to read those writings again, as they express the great battle that Luther had with himself to live and accept the teachings of the just and good God,” she added. “‘Dear Protestant friends, rediscover the Luther of those years,’” recommended Cardinal Ratzinger at the time. "

Regards,
James Swan

 

[bekalc]

I’m not going to read Luther, although I tried to read bonadge of the will and one time I read 95 thesis. Luther’s one man, and even if I agreed with his words I still wouldn’t follow him. All I know now is Lutherans refuse to say that man has any free will.

I find the idea abhorehant. Yes, Lutherans and Protestants agree that a Christian must have good works. But they would never truly say you better have them if not your not going to heaven. It’s double speak as far as I’m concerned.

 

[TertiumQuid]

bekalc:

I’m not going to read Luther, although I tried to read bonadge of the will and one time I read 95 thesis.

I would simply ask, why bother joining into a discussion entilted " Luther! Read Read!"? Especially since Luther’s views are being discussed, I would think that it makes sense to actually read his writings in order to fruitfully participate.

On the other hand, The Bondage of the Will is a difficult book to read, and the 95 Thesis are hard to understand, so I can understand why you wouldn’t want to read Luther!

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is the link to Luther’s Treatise on Good Works. (the format of the work on that link was lousy so there will be uneven indentations and such, not to mention many mistyped words and floating letters that are not part of the work)

Chapter1-
Here is a passage that gives a general look at what has been said so far:VI. …So a Christian who lives in this confidence toward God, knows all things, can do all things, undertakes all things that are to be done, and does everything cheerfully and freely; not that he may gather many merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for him to please God thereby, and he serves God purely for nothing, content that his service pleases God. On the other hand, he who is not at one with God, or doubts, hunts and worries in what way he may do enough and with many works move God. He runs to St. James of Compostella, to Rome, to Jerusalem, hither and yon, prays St. Bridget’s prayer and the rest, fasts on this day and on that, makes confession here, and makes confession there, questions this man and that, and yet finds no peace. He does all this with great effort, despair and disrelish of heart, so that the Scriptures rightly call such works in Hebrew Avenama, that is, labor and travail. And even then they are not good works, and are all lost. Many have been crazed thereby; their fear has brought them into all manner of misery. Of these it is written, Wisdom of Solomon v: “We have wearied ourselves in the wrong way; and have gone through deserts, where there lay no way; but as for the way of the Lord, we have not known it, and the sun of righteousness rose not upon us.”
This was kind of the end of the introduction of this work. There are no major comments about separating faith and works in this work as far as I could tell. The main problems he talks about this whole writing were abuses in the Church, not Church teachings.
Next is where he gets into talking about stuff (he basically goes over the 10 Commandments in this work):IX. Now this is the work of the First Commandment, which commands: “Thou shalt have no other gods,” which means: “Since I alone am God, thou shalt place all thy confidence, trust and faith on Me alone, and on no one else.” For that is not to have a god, if you call him God only with your lips, or worship him with the knees or bodily gestures; but if you trust Him with the heart, and look to Him for all good, grace and favor, whether in works or sufferings, in life or death, in joy or sorrow; as the Lord Christ says to the heathen woman, John iv: “I say unto thee, they that worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” And this faith, faithfulness, confidence deep in the heart, is the true fulfilling of the First Commandment; without this there is no other work that is able to satisfy this Commandment. And as this Commandment is the very first, highest and best, from which all the others proceed, in which they exist, and by which they are directed and measured, so also its work, that is, the faith or confidence in God’s favor at all times, is the very first, highest and best, from which all others must proceed, exist, remain, be directed and measured. Compared with this, other works are just as if the other Commandments were without the First, and there were no God, Therefore St. Augustine well says that the works of the First Commandment are faith, hope and love. As I said above, such faith and confidence bring love and hope with them. Nay, if we see it aright, love is the first, or comes at the same instant with faith. For I could not trust God, if I did not think that He wished to be favorable and to love me, which leads me, in turn, to love Him and to trust Him heartily and to look to Him for all good things.
This is the kind of talk that is in most of this work, nothing major that I would disagree with.

(cont…)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

%between%
XVI. But you say: How can I trust surely that all my works are pleasing to God, when at times I fall, and talk, eat, drink and sleep too much, or otherwise transgress, as I cannot help doing? Answer: This question shows that you still regard faith as a work among other works, and do not set it above all works. For it is the highest work for this very reason, because it remains and blots out these daily sins by not doubting that God is so kind to you as to wink at such daily transgression and weakness. Aye, even if a deadly sin should occur (which, however, never or rarely happens to those who live in faith and trust toward God), yet faith rises again and does not doubt that its sin is already gone; as it is written I. John ii: “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with God the Father, Jesus Christ, Who is the propitiation of all our sins.” And Wisdom xv: “For if we sin, we are Thine, knowing Thy power.” And Proverbs xxiv: “For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again.” Yes, this confidence and faith must be so high and strong that the man knows that all his life and works are nothing but damnable sins before God’s judgment, as it is written, Psalm cxliii: “In thy sight shall no man living be justified”; and he must entirely despair of his works, believing that they cannot be good except through this faith, which looks for no judgment, but only for pure grace, favor, kindness and mercy, like David, Psalm xxvi: “Thy loving kindness is ever before mine eyes, and I have trusted in Thy truth”; Psalm iv: “The light of Thy countenance is lift up upon us (that is, the knowledge of<> Thy grace through faith), and thereby hast Thou put gladness in my heart”; for as faith trusts, so it receives.
Finishing up Chapter 1, besides the underlined parts which I only conclude as questionable but not enough to be called unCatholic, other than that for this chapter nothing major that I disagree with. This is really as “bad” as its gets in terms of my disagreeing with what he has said.

Chatper 2-
Mostly the same talk, here is a passage towards the end of this chapter:
XXX. …But if you should say: “Why does not God do it [ie good works] alone and Himself, since He can and knows how to help each one?” Yes, He can do it; but He does not want to do it alone; He wants us to work with Him, and does us the honor to want to work His work with us and through us. And if we are not willing to accept such honor, He will, after all, perform the work alone, and help the poor; and those who were unwilling to help Him and have despised the great honor of doing His work, He will condemn with the unrighteous, because they have made common cause with the unrighteous. Just as He alone is blessed, but He wants to do us the honor and not be alone in His blessedness, but have us to be blessed with Him. And if He were to do it alone, His Commandments would be given us in vain, because no one would have occasion to exercise himself in the great works of these Commandments, and no one would test himself to see whether he regards God and His Name as the highest good, and for His sake risks everything.
How can I disagree with this? All I can conclude is that his rabid FA talk had to have come later, and that this was early in his protestant career (when he sound very Catholic). He doesnt trumpet FA, instead stuff like “wants us to work with Him”, those unwilling to work will be condemned, the Commandments were given to be followed, people should test themself, etc. This doesnt sound like his later works. (Also not only has he cited from the book of Wisdom in this work a few times, in this chapter he also cites Baruch a few times)

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Chapter 3-I. We have now seen how many good works there are in the Second Commandment, which however are not good in themselves, unless they are done in faith and in the assurance of divine favor; and how much we must do, if we take heed to this Commandment alone, and how we, alas! busy ourselves much with other works, which have no agreement at all with it. Now follows the Third Commandment: “Thou shalt hallow the day of rest.” In the First Commandment is prescribed our heart’s attitude toward God in thoughts, in the Second, that of our mouth in words, in this Third is prescribed our attitude toward God in works; and it is the first and right table of Moses, on which these three Commandments are written, and they govern man on the right side, namely, in the things which concern God, and in which God has to do with man and man with God, without the mediation of any creature.
Again, I agree with this.
This next part is AMAZING:II. In the mass it is necessary that we attend with our a hearts also; and we do attend, when we exercise faith in our hearts. Here we must repeat the words of Christ, when He institutes the mass and says, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is given for you”; in like manner over the cup, “Take and drink ye all of it: this is a new, everlasting Testament in My Blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. This shall ye do, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of Me.” In these words Christ has made for Himself a memorial or anniversary, to be daily observed in all Christendom, and has added to it a glorious, rich, great testament, in which no interest, money or temporal possessions are bequeathed and distributed, but the forgiveness of all sins, grace and mercy unto eternal life, that all who come to this memorial shall have the same testament; and then He died, whereby this testament has become permanent and irrevocable.** In proof and evidence of which, instead of letter and seal, He has left with us His own Body and Blood under the bread and wine.**

Here there is need that a man practise the first works of this Commandment right well, that he doubt not that what Christ has said is true, and consider the testament sure, so that he make not Christ a liar.** For if you are present at mass and do not consider nor believe that here Christ through His testament has bequeathed and given you forgiveness of all your sins, what else is it, than as if you said: “I do not know or do not believe that it is true that forgiveness of my sins is here bequeathed and given me”? Oh, how many masses there are in the world at present!** but how few who hear them with such faith and benefit! Most grievously is God provoked to anger thereby. For this reason also no one shall or can reap any benefit from the mass except he be in trouble of soul and long for divine mercy, and desire to be rid of his sins; or, if he have an evil intention, he must be changed during the mass, and come to have a desire for this testament. For this reason in olden times no open sinner was allowed to be present at the mass.

When this faith is rightly present, the heart must be made joyful by the testament, and grow warm and melt in God’s love. Then will follow praise and thanksgiving with a pure heart, from which the mass is called in Greek Eucharistia, that is, “thanksgiving,” because we praise and thank God for this comforting, rich, blessed testament, just as he gives thanks, praises and is joyful, to whom a good friend has presented a thousand and more gulden. Although Christ often fares like those who make several persons rich by their testament, and these persons never think of them, nor praise or thank them. So our masses at present are merely celebrated, without our knowing why or wherefore, and consequently we neither give thanks nor love nor praise, remain parched and hard, and have enough with our little prayer. Of this more another time.
Now I understand he usese terms like “memorial” to talk about the Mass, but I dont believe he meant it in the modern day Protestant sense, I believe at this point in time Luther still believed in the Eucharist as Christians always have. There surely was a change in what he believed and preached about later in life.
(cont…)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

%between%
VI. Thus we see that this Commandment, like the Second, is to be nothing else than a doing and keeping of the First Commandment, that is,** of faith, trust, confidence, hope and love to God**, so that in all the Commandments the First may be the captain, and faith the chief work and the life of all other works, without which, as was said, they cannot be good.

But if you say: “What if I cannot believe that my prayer is heard and accepted?” I answer: For this very reason faith, prayer and all other good works are commanded, that you shall know what you can and what you cannot do. And when you find that you cannot so believe and do, then you are humbly to confess it to God, and so begin with a weak spark of faith and daily strengthen it more and more by exercising it in all your living and doing. For as touching infirmity of faith (that is, of the First and highest Commandment), there is no one on earth who does not have his good share of it. For even the holy Apostles in the Gospel, and especially St. Peter, were weak in faith, so that they also prayed Christ and said: "Lord, increase our faith "; and He very frequently rebukes them because they have so little faith.
Again, I agree with this. Faith active with and completed by works as James2:22 says. Thats really the heart of the issue here, faith does need to come first, but it is not completed and built up without works.
XIII. …So we must deal with God of definite things, namely, mention some present need, commend it to His mercy and good-will, and not doubt that it is heard; for He has promised to hear such prayer, which no earthly lord has done.

XIV. We are masters in this form of prayer when we suffer bodily need; when we are sick we call here upon St .Christopher, there upon St. Barbara; we vow a pilgrimage to St. James, to this place and to that; then we make earnest prayer, have a good confidence and every good kind of prayer.
I dont disagree here.
XXV. This order of good works we pray in the Lord’s Prayer. The first is this, that we say: “Our Father, Who art in heaven”; these are the words of the first work of faith, which, according to the First Commandment, does not doubt that it has a gracious Father in heaven. The second: “Hallowed be Thy Name,” in which faith asks that God’s Name, praise and honor be glorified, and calls upon it in every need, as the Second Commandment says. The third: “Thy kingdom come,” in which we pray for the true Sabbath and rest, peaceful cessation of our works, that God’s work alone be done in us, and so God rule in us as in His own kingdom, as He says, Luke xvii, “Behold, God’s kingdom is nowhere else except within you.” The fourth petition is “Thy will be done”; in which we pray that we may keep and have the Seven Commandments of the Second Table, in which faith is exercised toward our neighbor; just as in the first three it is exercised in works toward God alone. And these are the petitions in which stands the word “Thou, Thy, Thy, Thy,” because they seek only what belongs to God; all the others say “our, us, our,” etc; for in them we pray for our goods and blessedness.

Let this, then, suffice as a plain, hasty explanation of the First Table of Moses, pointing out to simple folk what are the highest of good works.
I agree with this, Catholics always pray the Lord’s Prayer at every Mass, and even daily outside of Mass.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Chapter 4-The Second Table [ie the other half of the Ten Commandments] follows.

“Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.”
From this Commandment we learn that after the excellent works of the first three Commandments there are no better works than to obey and serve all those who are set over us as superiors. For this reason also disobedience is a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft and dishonesty, and all that these may include. For we can in no better way learn how to distinguish between greater and lesser sins than by noting the order of the Commandments of God, although there are distinctions also within the works of each Commandment. For who does not know that to curse is a greater sin than to be angry, to strike than to curse, to strike father and mother more than to strike any one else? Thus these seven Commandments teach us how we are to exercise ourselves in good works toward men, and first of all toward our superiors.

The first work is that we honor our own father and mother. And this honor consists not only in respectful demeanor, but in this: that we obey them, look up to, esteem and heed their words and example, accept what they say, keep silent and endure their treatment of us, so long as it is not contrary to the first three Commandments; in addition, when they need it, that we provide them with food, clothing and shelter. For not for nothing has He said: “Thou shalt honor them”; He does not say: “Thou shalt love them,” although this also must be done. But honor is higher than mere love and includes a certain fear, which unites with love, and causes a man to fear offending them more than he fears the punishment. Just as there is fear in the honor we pay a sanctuary, and yet we do not flee from it as from a punishment, but draw near to it all the more. Such a fear mingled with love is the true honor; the other fear without any love is that which we have toward things which we despise or flee from, as we fear the hangman or punishment. There is no honor in that, for it is a fear without all love, nay, fear that has with it hatred and enmity. Of this we have a proverb of St. Jerome: What we fear, that we also hate. With such a fear God does not wish to be feared or honored, nor to have us honor our parents; but with the first, which is mingled with love and confidence.
Again, I agree with this.
Next:

V. Thus it is true, as men say, that parents, although they had nothing else to do, could attain salvation by training their own children; if they rightly train them to God’s service, they will indeed have both hands full of good works to do. For what else are here the hungry, thirsty, naked, imprisoned, sick, strangers, than the souls of your own children? with whom God makes of your house a hospital, and sets you over them as chief nurse, to wait on them, to give them good words and works as meat and drink, that they may learn to trust, believe and fear God, and to place their hope on Him, to honor His Name, not to swear nor curse, to mortify themselves by praying, fasting, watching, working, to attend worship and to hear God’s Word, and to keep the Sabbath, that they may learn to despise temporal things, to bear misfortune calmly, and not to fear death nor to love this life. …

VI. On the other hand, parents cannot earn eternal punishment in any way more easily than by neglecting their own children in their own home, and not teaching them the things which have been spoken of above. Of what help is it, that they kill themselves with fasting, praying, making pilgrimages, and do all manner of good works? God will, after all, not ask them about these things at their death and in the day of judgment, but will require of them the children whom He entrusted to them. …
This is amazing.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

VII. The second work of this Commandment is to honor** and obey the spiritual mother, the holy Christian Church, the spiritual power, so that we conform to what she commands, forbids, appoints, orders, binds and looses, and honor, fear and love the spiritual authority as we honor, love and fear our natural parents**, and yield to it in all things which are not contrary to the first three Commandments.

Now with regard to this work, things are almost worse than with regard to the first. The spiritual authority should punish sin with the ban and with laws, and constrain its spiritual children to be good, in order that they might have reason to do this work and to exercise themselves in obeying and honoring it. Such zeal one does not see now; they act toward their subjects like the mothers who forsake their children and run after their lovers, as Hosea ii. says; they do not preach, they do not teach, they do not hinder, they do not punish, and there is no spiritual government at all left in Christendom.

What can I say of this work? A few fast-days and feast-days are left, and these had better be done away with. But no one gives this a thought, and there is nothing left except the ban for debt, and this should not be. But spiritual authority should look to it, that adultery, unchastity, usury, gluttony, worldly show, excessive adornment, and such like open sin and shame might be most severely punished and corrected; and they should properly manage the endowments, monastic houses, parishes and schools, and earnestly maintain worship in them, provide for the young people, boys and girls, in schools and cloisters, with learned, pious men as teachers, that they might all be well trained, and so the older people give a good example and Christendom be filled and adorned with fine young people. So St. Paul teaches his disciple Titus, that he should rightly instruct and govern all classes, young and old, men and women. But now he goes to school who wishes; he is taught who governs and teaches himself; nay, it has, alas! come to such a pass that the places where good should be taught have become schools of knavery, and no one at all takes thought for the wild youth.
This doesnt sound like someone who was out to change Church teachings. Its clear that throughout this work he is mad a the abuses going on, BUT I dont get the impression in this work that he was out to change teachings. There were abuses going on here, and Luther was ticked about them, but in terms of changing major doctrines or anything like that, I dont see that at all.
As for the rest of this work, its the same type of talk as all of the paragraphs cited above. Nothing really stood out that I felt like posting.

Luther clearly changed his views as time went on, I wouldnt be surprised to read what Assuance posted that Luther wanted all his early works burned.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

Luther clearly changed his views as time went on, I wouldnt be surprised to read what Assuance posted that Luther wanted all his early works burned.

Catholic Dude:

his rabid FA talk had to have come later, and that this was early in his protestant career (when he sound very Catholic).

Just a quick comment: Luther’s comment “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day” is from August 1521. Luther’s treatise on Good Works is from June 1520. Obviously, Luther’s rabid “FA talk” dates from the same period of the Treatise on Good Works.

The treatise itself is an example of what Luther meant by sola fide and its relationship to good works. His later theology is consistent with what he wrote in 1520 on this subject. If you insist on saying otherwise, it would be your responsibility to do the research needed to prove your position.

That you appear to be *getting closer * to understanding Luther on this subject means that this discussion is coming to an end.

Introductory comments from LW 44 for the Treatise on Goood Works:

“The possibility of misunderstanding and distorting Luther’s emphasis upon justification by faith alone was very real. When medieval man thought of faith he did so in terms of the concepts of fides informis (unfashioned, raw faith) and fides formata or informata (complete faith). The fides informis was held to be bare knowledge or assent which needed to be completed by the fides formata, faith adorned by good works by which men make themselves acceptable in the sight of God and win his favor.”

“At the very outset of the treatise Luther takes issue with the prevalent understanding of good works. This understanding regarded good works as those prescribed by the church and voluntarily assumed by the faithful: fasting, pilgrimages, fixed prayer recitation, going to mass, etc. Such a concept established a false dichotomy of works. It led quite easily to the idea that there is a distinction in works in God’s sight, by which certain works are superior or religious and therefore more acceptable to God, whereas others are inferior or secular and therefore less acceptable. To this Luther says unequivocally that there are no good works save those which God has commanded; that the first and most precious good work is faith in Christ; that in this faith one work is like another because there is no distinction between them; and that this faith is the source from which all truly good works issue. Thus the man who in faith stays at home to support his family and to care for his wife and children rather than make a pilgrimage does a truly good work, and one which is commanded by God. Prevalent teaching and popular piety, however, would have it the other way around. For Luther whatever is done in faith—even if it be to suffer and to endure the infirmities and loneliness of old age—is pleasing in God’s sight, for faith ”fulfils all commandments and makes all its works righteous.”

The reason faith “fulfills all the commandments” is because it is that which has justified us. It is the source from which good works flow. I’ve been saying this all along…

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Assurance]

Well, a lots actually happening here with the discussion about faith and good works, and I am happy to see it.

One comment: Catholic Dude said that is appears obvious that Luther isn’t out to change anything. Luther himself would say that he was never looking for a fight. Tetzel came near his territory and Luther, obsessed with being a good pastor in care of his sheep, countered him. Things blew up from there. Keep in mind that it was during this time that Luther was writing this stuff that he was under the must strident attack from the Roman curia and Eck and others and it was during this time he became convinced that the Antichrist dwelled in the highest quarters of the Church.

Please look at this post, which deals with Luther’s meeting with Cardinal Cajetan, which I believe took place in 1518 or 1519 and I believe shows what ultimately may have pushed Luther over the edge - namely, the issue of assurance:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1072199&postcount=153

on the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73096&page=2&pp=100

Anyway, I have some posting to catch up with. Catholic Dude, you seem to be going strong here and I don’t want to distract you, but I’d like to catch up myself!

 

[Assurance]

Steve:

Hello Catholic Dude,

Have you had the chance to go to the Protestant site that Assurance posted the link to? elcic.ca/docs/2005/eriksson2.pdf

My take, after reading it, is that Luther realized, in his own life time, the damage he had done in his rejection of Jesus teaching to obey the commandments if we wish to enter into life. It seems that Luther realized that many were promoting “cheap grace”, abandonment of God’s law and that there was no problem at all to continue on in sin. Say it isnt’ so! People took Luther’s concept of “faith alone” and Luther’s teaching that the law and works are out, and they threw out God’s commandments and any importance to obeying them to go to heave? (I am being sarcastic here).

I think Luther’s treastise on good works may be clearing things up here.

Dcdurel:

[Luther] deliberately tried to argue that when St. Paul said we were not under the law, he was referring to the law of Christ instead of the law of Moses.

But didn’t Jesus follow the Law of Moses perfectly? Did He really bring a New Law? I think If He brought a New Law in any sense, it was simply further expounding on what the Law of Moses really meant – He brought out the true meaning.

Catholic Dude:

Adam fell by his own free will, no defects or tricks on God’s part or anything like that. Post-fall man is able to NOT sin, not by their own strength, but none the less they are able to not sin:

But keep in mind I got hammered by Steve for saying they could become perfect in this life, so I’m curious - how exactly is what you are saying different?

Catholic Dude:
Someone cant say they are already justified by faith alone and then go break the commandments with no consequences.

We agree. Remember, Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation.

Quote:
Assurance: …I believe this, as I have said ad nauseum) - that’s how we lose our faith and are damned. My point is simply that in the Roman Catholic system a person can never know with certainty…

Catholic Dude: This sounds like a desperate attempt to discredit the Catholic position. Im glad you acknowledge the possibility of “loosing our faith and being damned” as that is always possible while we are alive.

As for no assurance of a “relationship” with God, we have the Sacraments as well as a host of other things. The protestant position on the flip side only has emotions and guesses concerning their “relationship”, not backed by solid physical means.

Catholic Dude, I kindly ask, what is “desperate” about this? This is what the entire Reformation was over, I believe. Lutherans have the objective Sacraments as well, and we actually think that not only other Protestants but Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as well focus too much on “emotions and guesses concerning their “relationship”, not backed by solid physical means.” (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1056032&postcount=111 to see what Lutherans believe about the Lord’s Supper)

How amazing that Baptism is described as regeneration and renewal, a physical act which we feel on the outside we can hardly fathom how that translates into the grace conferred by such a work.

We Lutherans believe this too.

 

[Assurance]

Quote:
Assurance: I have written about this at length here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…35&postcount=87 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…36&postcount=88 and I don’t think you can deny it.

(I didnt really read these links because they are 88 posts past the OP so I dont really know what Im reading. If you could PM or post the link to the full thread instead of individual posts I will try to look into it.)

The link is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73096&page=2&pp=100. I really hope you will read it Catholic Dude. (UPDATE: I see that you did read them and will address your thoughts below)

You say:
The CC is the only Church I know of with absolute physical assurance, not hollow “did I have enough faith?” type. Your confused to say Catholics are not assured, we are most assured of any group.

I think if you read the links above (again 87 and 88) in the thread above, you should start to think differently about this. (UPDATE: I see that you did read them and will address your thoughts below). I can concur with TertiumQuid - besides Scott Hahn, Rosalind Moss and others, I haven’t heard or met too many Catholics who have a real sturdy assurance of their salvation.

Assurance:
What about Mark 7?:
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 all these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

“all these evil things” - are “evil” things sins or concupiscence? Do they need Christ’s forgiveness?

Catholic Dude: They only defile the man if acted out, James 3:5ff talks about this same issue. Its not some outside force that makes someone sin, but their own doing.

So you don’t think anger and lust (Matthew 7) need forgiveness and that they are only evil if they come out? I thought the point is that the evil things come from within, and then they come out. Catholic Dude, I think you should think long and hard about this. I quoted many verses to you about how wicked we are, and you did quite well in explaining them from your perspective. I disagree of course – and primarily because Jesus Himself calls his disciples “evil” – a passage I note you did not deal with. I myself find this and the above text to be quite important texts – ones that I would ignore to the peril of my salvation.

Quote:
Assurance: Catholic Dude (and Steve) - I submit that when Jesus says “do this and you shall live” you need to weigh that very seriously. I do to. Jesus’ words are sometimes not meant to be taken strictly at face value, but are, like the parables, meant to confound and break us. Think about it. Jesus said he didn’t come for the healthy but the sick. Was he saying the Pharisees were really not sick? Jesus said to Simon the Pharisee that “he who has been forgiven much loves much and he who has been forgiven little…” Did Jesus mean to say that Simon really didn’t need to be forgiven that much? Jesus says to the Canaanite woman “it is not right to give the children’s food to the dogs”… did he really mean that he had not come for the Gentiles?

Catholic Dude: I would agree in general with this

.

Great! Now… how about you guys trying to look at Luther’s statements through lenses more akin to these? Is it so fantastic to think that when Jesus says “Do this and you will live” to the rich young ruler or the teacher of the law, there is not some of this? I think its not only possible, but probable, given the whole context of the Gospels and the Scriptures.

Quote:
Koberle: …
… …

In general I dont disagree with this quote by Koberle (edited for size).

Than at rock-bottom, I really don’t know if you are a Catholic, Catholic Dude. Koberle says: “Though still engaged in the struggle he know that he has attained the end. While yet wrestling hourly for the decision of obedience he already possesses the end he is striving for (244).” According to official RC teaching, one can not know that one has attained the end. One can not know that one already possesses the end. Catholics cannot have absolute assurance that they are in a state of grace and have obtained even present salvation – they CANNOT know that their faith is without error, according to the Council of Trent.

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude: Why is a Christian “terrified”? IF he is a Christian he should know that his sins are forgiven at Baptism. Thats what Catholics have always believed. As the Council of Orange (530AD) says:
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.
Anyone who calls themself “Christian” should not not be terrified. He should always be alert lest he fall, but he shouldnt be afraid of the Man who saved him.

Luther and myself believe that Christians get terrified when cooperation with Christ means doing good deeds (even good deeds of love - loving God) so that they might be saved. Again, Catholics can never know if they’ve done enough and achieved salvation – and since you say we are capable of not sinning, in light of a Holy God I don’t know how you sleep at night!

Its about comfort and assurance, BUT its also about the fight of your life. Enduring till the end, taking the path less traveled, separating yourself from the world, etc. When you obey Christ THEN you find true comfort and assurance.

Yes. It is the fight of your life, but “No” as well - it is primarily just by believing in Christ – not bringing anything of our own to the table – that we separate ourselves from the world. He gives us true comfort and assurance, and out of thankful hearts for our salvation, we do the works He has given us to do and created us to do which, when combined with the proclamation that “we are only unworthy servants” and all that matters is the cross, we are further alienated from the world. When you obey Christ you do find assurance (see I John), but when you are really terrified, uncertain, and attacked by the devil, Romans 7 is even more comforting.

Steve commenting on Catholic Dude’s Luther quotes:
Wow! These are some awesome quotes from Luther that drive home your point. Unless Luther repented from such statements I do no know how anyone can believe that Luther felt obedience to God had anything to do with going to heaven, as some on this thread have claimed that he did.

Steve, again - obedience to God has nothing to do with going to heaven, if we are talking about our love that we give to God.

And yet…

Sin separates even the saved Christian from God, and may cause them to lose faith, and hence their salvation, which is fully theirs and has been fully won for them by Christ alone.

You had nothing to do with your being born the first time. You have nothing to do with being born again. You can only take life and not create it. In salvation, God gets all the glory for eternal life. If we inherit eternal death instead, we get all the blame.