Luther! Read Read!

[Assurance]

Luther
Whoever teaches that good works are indispensable unto salvation, that to gain heaven a person must suffer afflictions and follow the example of Christ and of the saints, is a minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, and of death

When understood correctly, how true. God justifies not the “righteous”, who need no doctor, but rather the wicked (the evil men Jesus, who is the only One who is good, speaks of in Matthew 7). He regenerates them as well, but he does not justify them because they are regenerated. His Word alone justifies. Regeneration is an effect of this justification, but does not constitute our acceptance or justification before God.

but I do remember some protestant posts in this thread explaining that for Luther any sin was grave sin

When small sins are considered small, they become great.

I even read in this thread that Luther even considered temptations as sins.

Do you think all the evils from within man (Mark 7) are just temptations to sin and not already sin themselves? Do you not worry, on ocassion, that you have perhaps been deceived here? Whoever has lusted has committed adultery… Whoever is angry with his brother…. Catholic Dude, don’t go down this path.

Catholic Dude:

Also “believing” in Jesus doesnt mean a single prayer and instant justification, it means do you believe He is your Lord?..then OBEY what he says and you will be rewarded just as He says. Faith Alone has no grounds here at all, for it rests entirely on words, just like the second son.

But how can a person say “we are only unworthy servants – we have only done what you required” if they believe in works of superrogation?

Quote:
TertiumQuid: None of us keeps the Great Commandment for five minutes. We may think that we do in a surface way, but upon a moment’s reflection it is clear that none of us loves God with our whole heart or our whole mind or our whole strength. No one loves his neighbor as he loves himself. We may do everything in our power to avoid thinking about this at a deep level, but there is always that nagging sense in the back of our minds to accuse us of the certain knowledge that in fact we violate the Great Commandment every day.

CD: This is totally unChristian and unBiblical. As I have said before, show me where the Bible even hints that Christians cant avoid doing evil for 5 minutes. This kind of talk is anti Gospel for it gives people the impression that sins cant be avoided and that pleasing God is impossible.
This is just amazing to me, where is the hope, desire to do good, love, etc with the way Luther is talking? This leads to total devistation of the worst level. And as I concluded from the earliest posts, FA was not the issue, it was the solution. This is truly a disease and unChristian attitude to teach people we cant avoid sin for five minutes and that as Christians we all break the greatest commandment every day.

This total depravity is unChristian on all levels, not one passage of the words of Jesus will give people such an impression.
Show us one passage from Jesus that indicates this depraved attitude, JUST ONE!

You then, though you are evil know how to give good gifts to your children. (Matthew 7)

Quote:
Tertium Quid: I have never met a Roman Catholic who knows they are saved. In fact, the very well respected Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott has said, “The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this: that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.”

Catholic Dude: There is a distinction that needs to be made here. Catholics believed we are saved, being saved, and will be saved. The issue your talking about here lies on the “will be saved” aspect.
Here is an example that I have used before, a man has fallen in a pit and is falling down down down, Jesus throws him a rope, the man grabs on and the man is saved, but is not out of the pit. The man is being pulled up out of the pit, being saved, but is not out of the pit. The man will finally be taken out of the pit for good, will be saved. When the man disobeys Jesus he chooses to resist the work Jesus is doing by pulling him out, if it is a bad enough sin its like he let go of that rope. Jesus will not abandon him and toss the rope to him again if the man requests. The man is never sure he is going to make out of the pit, not because Jesus is not trustworthy, but because the man has the option to turn away at any time.

Catholic Dude – this is basically what Lutherans believe. Further, TertiumQuid’s quote here shows how in official Catholic teaching, one may not have absolute assurance that one currently resides in God’s grace.

 

[Assurance]

Quote:
TertiumQuid: “Roman Catholic theology distinguishes between mortal and venial sins. … The Reformation rejected this works-orientation, but the Reformers did not reject the idea of degrees of sin. John Calvin said that all sin is mortal in the sense that it deserves death, but no sin is so severe that it can destroy the grace of justification.

Catholic Dude: This is where a lot of this mess resides. Calvin clearly believed in osas. If no sin is severe enough then why are there so many warning all through the Bible? Is there a passage that says no sin can separate us from Jesus?
Sounds like Luther’s words:
“No sin can separate us from the Lamb”
Now that I think more and more about this, it looks like people like Calvin and Luther were in total denial, they never would openly say sin sin sin, but in their minds they believe that no sin would separate them from the Lamb.

This is not true. Luther did not teach the same as Calvin here and the distinction is critical. Lutherans have lots of problems with many things Calvin said. In fact, I believe that Lutheranism is not only true, but the real middle way (between Catholicism and Calvinism) when it comes to doing theology.

Catholic Dude:
Jesus says this in Matt7:
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate [which] is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate [which] is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
It is clear that getting to Heaven is not an easy task.

I will agree here. But not because we have to do good works in order to get in, but because to believe in Christ is to suffer and to bear the reproach of the world.

Tertium Quid:
Quote:
I find the response of those listening to Jesus in Matthew 18 quite telling: “Who then can be saved?” Indeed, those hearing Jesus realized if even a guy who (allegedly) kept almost all the commandments outwardly wasn’t close to being saved, no one was.

And what is the lesson? That getting to heaven doesn rest in a single act of faith.
They heard Jesus loud and clear, they knew the Gospel was a hard road.

So Catholic Dude, I kindly ask, how close do you think you are to being saved? Have you left everything, sold everything, to follow Jesus? Do you have assurance? And if so, why?

Assurance-
Quote:
…Where does “faith working through love” come in? This act of love follows on the footsteps of faith which apprehends the promised mercy as a latter, second activity (in us, it’s not a “First Thing” to quote C.S. Lewis!) of the soul. “First the hand of the beggar grasps the treasure; after that he rejoices; after that he loves.” (quoted in Francis Peiper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 427). This is what Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees in Luke 7 about the woman who displayed the evidence of love because she had realized that she needed to be forgiven much. We can all say the same. And to us broken sinners as well, He says: “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

Here is what Luke 7 says, ZERO hint of FA:
44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house,

you gave me no water for my feet,
but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.

46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.

47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Read the last verse, to say Faith Alone saved the woman is a total distortion of what Jesus was teaching. By faith people act and are saved.

No Catholic Dude – Jesus said it was her FAITH that saved her. This passage is saying just what I said it is – Jesus is saying that based on the evidence of the works (her love for God), it is clear that she has been forgiven. Actually, works are necessarily involved in the final judgment because some people think that in the normal course of the Christian life we are forgiven after we do good works by faith, instead of before!

 

[Assurance]

Quote:
Steve, in short, love is a “good work”, and involves something we do for God. God commands us to do this with our whole heart and we can’t do that… therefore our love can never justify us. Only Christ’s love can justify us by faith.

Catholic Dude: Total distortion of the Gospel and blasphemy of our Lord. Not one word have you cited of Jesus EVER HINTING of such a thing. Never is obeying our Lord seen as an impossible task.

Well, Catholic Dude, this is the key issue. We both want to do this, for whatever reason. The difference is that I don’t think I can love God perfectly from my heart and you do.

Quote:
Catholic Dude, you might find all of the above quite informative to as you try to understand how folks from the Reformation see faith - and yes, we believe it is how Jesus, the apostles, Paul and the Fathers viewed faith as well.

Catholic Dude: I will look into that link when I find time, I am VERY interested to see where the Fathers were Lutherans in disguise.

This might be a good place to start: angelfire.com/ny4/djw/chemnitz.html (Martin Chemnitz, was the “second Martin”). Again, Luther and the Lutherans claimed to be faithfully passing on the true biblical, apostolic, and patristic doctrine.

Catholic Dude:

Phil4:
15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedo’nia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving except you only; 16 for even in Thessaloni’ca you sent me help once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

“the fruit which increases to your credit”. So, Catholic Dude – because of this verse, you don’t think these works / fruits were given to the Philippian Christians to do ahead of time? That this is a work of superrogation? So here they can say to the master “we are unworthy servants who have done MORE than you required of us!”?

 

[Assurance]

Quote:
The following is a quote from our Confessions (Phillip Melanchton)

Is this the Augsburg Confession?
Quote:
Commenting on II Peter 1:10:

Who is commenting here, Melanchton? What work is it, it says "Apology XX:13) but I dont know what that is.

Its in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assurance
I apologize to everyone over my incompetence with putting links in here.

Here they are again Steve. I think they are THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, and are ultimately, what was driving Luther:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…35&postcount=87

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…36&postcount=88

or the whole thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…6&page=1&pp=100

Catholic Dude: I read those links and from what I could understand you were misunderstanding what the Church teaches. There is no infallible certainty of going to Heaven (except in the case of a private revelation) because we dont know how we will act tomorrow or in the fututre. To say you know for sure your going to Heaven means one of the two:

1. you know the future and know how you will act and not do something to lose your salvation.
   2)you believe in OSAS and it really doesnt matter what you do in the future.

based on what you have posted one post earlier, you dont seem to believe in OSAS, therefore you cant claim your going to Heaven beyond a doubt unless you know the future and know your not going to put yourself in a situation to lose your salvation. Thats all the Church is saying there, that while we know what we must do to be saved, we dont make the claim with 100% certainty that we will remain on the correct path.

This kind of fits into that topic of the second coming where Jesus compares it to a robber and a home (Mt24:43), if the people knew WHEN their house was going to get robbed they would guard it, but NOBODY knows when so they must always be on guard. Same thing with your comments, you dont know what tomorrow brings and to say will 100% confidence that your home free is like saying you know when the robber is going to break in.

Catholic Dude, you still misunderstand the whole point. Of course I am not saying I know the future. Further, Lutherans don’t believe in OSAS but say you can lose your salvation. They also say that one can (should!) have absolute certainty (faith without error) that AT THE PRESENT moment one is in the state of grace, because of God’s perfect forgiveness that comes to us through Word and Sacrament. This, Rome clearly denies.

You don’t think Rome does this? After listening to 100 or so hours of Catholic Answers, I didn’t think they denied it either – until one day I heard something that shocked me:

(this is from a post at another forum from last Feb or around there):

I was kind of taken back the other day when I heard one of Catholic Answer’s most exciting and passionate speakers, Tim Staples, say to the host Jerry Usher “[we’ll know the answer to that question] when we get to heaven…or if we make it, right Jerry?”. I don’t know why, but it shook me up—maybe because I had recently read in the 16th century Lutheran father, Martin Chemnitz, in his work on justification (from his Loci), that Rome in the Council of Trent denied any kind of certainty of salvation. Further, I always hear how Rome has never recanted anything from the Council of Trent, even if they have “changed the WAY they say things”. In any case, Tim’s comment shook me up although I could not argue with the fact that I too, do not know if ultimately I will “make it”—that is, whether I will hold on to the faith, although I tend to hold on to the idea that Jesus will hold on to me and in trusting Him to do this, I will persevere in my faith in Him and His work (blood and righteousness). I guess I just don’t talk like Tim—because it seems TO ME to take the focus off of the certainty that I believe can be found in Christ and His promises.

In short, the above incident caused me to go on a journey where I discovered that if Tim Staples were to die at this very moment, he, according to official Roman Catholic doctrine, could have no absolute confidence that he would make it to heaven – even if he had not participated in some grave moral sin. Doubt about one’s state of grace is simply part and parcel of what it means to “believe” in the Roman Catholic Church. I am not talking about future salvation here, just certainty that one is presently saved – in a state of grace.

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude: How does faith become weak or strong without some other factor like works?

By constantly being nourished with the Word of God, for man shall live by every Word that comes from the mouth of God.

Catholic Dude: He doesnt ask for the impossible, we are not gods, but none the less we can reach a level pleasing and acceptable to Him. What about those passages that call us to be holy and blameless? Those tasks are not impossible

.

Please try to understand Catholic Dude – to me, all of this seems like utter nonsense! To me, this is only true of Jesus because as the Psalmist says “every man is a liar”.

Angelmessenger:
Luther degraded St. Paul’s concept of justification and considered the doctrine of justification by faith alone an incontrovertible dogma, as the foundation rock of the Reformation, an “article by which the church must stand or fall” This ‘dogma’ is based on self-deception. Let it also be known that it was Luther who laid the foundation for the separation of religion and morality. For, by stating that fiduciary faith alone suffices for obtaining both justification and eternal happiness, he minimized our moral faculties to such an extent that charity and good works no longer affect our relations with God By this doctrine Luther opened a fundamental breach between religion and morality, between faith and law, and assigned to each its own distinct sphere of action in which each can attain its end independent of the other.

Luther’s most dangerous adversary, however, was his friend Melancthon, who, in his praiseworthy effort tried to smooth over the difficulties of this ‘belief system’ In general it was precisely the denial of man’s free will in the moral order, and of the impossibility of his full cooperation with Divine grace that repelled so many followers of Luther.

Later there were many willing to admit the fallible assurance of salvation – given by fiduciary faith – only in case that that assurance was confirmed by internal experience. Fiduciary faith was no longer considered a spiritual means to assist man in reaching out for the righteousness of God, but was identified with a disposition which is upright and pleasing to God. Others deviated still further from the old doctrine saying that contrition and penance was also necessary for justification, thus coming nearer to the Catholic system. In fact the Church of Scandinavia now ‘quietly’ defends the Catholic doctrine on justification

Jan, of course I believe Luther was right and I think that your analysis of what Luther caused is overblown. Even if it is not, however, that does not make him wrong. I disagree that “Luther opened a fundamental breach between religion and morality, between faith and law,” and would like more evidence for this.

Your last paragraph is the most telling: “Fiduciary faith was no longer considered a spiritual means to assist man in reaching out for the righteousness of God, but was identified with a disposition which is upright and pleasing to God.” Faith is not to be seen as a virtue in any sense, but is only receiving a gift from God. Yes, many have compromised with Lutheran doctrine indeed., including Melanchton. In my opinion, it is for this reason that the Church of Scandinavia, (I take it you mean Lutheran) now does this (I take your word that it does) – because having disposed of the pure truth of justification a long time ago, it has no true spiritual life and therefore in order to keep moral order must embrace Catholic teaching, which has a greater focus on external works. Still, I don’t think this says much for the Church of Scandinavia however, as they also embrace all manner of godless living (homosexuality, abortion, etc).

Only the doctrine of justification preached in all of its purity creates truly righteous people. We must know that in Christ we are righteous and secure before God before any truly good works are even possible.

 

[Assurance]

Bekalc:
How is the Sacramental system not relational? This is where I Have a hard time understanding Protestants. What do the sacraments really teach? That Christianity is a lifetime of repentence. Baptism first of all comes directly from Jesus himself. You have hear “Confession/Reconcilation.” What this teaches is if you commit a mortal sin especially but for other sins. You need to get right with God, confess! Please Repent! That’s all it teaches. That’s Christianity right there.

So you don’t like that we go to a priest and do so, but who are you to judge your brother for doing it. We believe we are confessing to Jesus too. There is Scriptural support for confessing to someone else. James tells us to do confess our sins to one another, and pray for each other so that you may be healed. Confessing your sins to another person, what does God promise for this? He promises healing. There are a lot of Protestants struggling with sinful areas in their lives. And why are they still struggling with those sins? Because they are not following God’s Word on the subject.

When we confess to one another in someways the power of the secretness of sin gets broken. It’s not longer just between the devil, us and Jesus. This type of thing provides some form of accountabilty. Whenever Protestants have followed God’s word on this matter, revival has broken out in their midst. So you don’t like that we go to a priest, we believe the apostles/ were given the power to forgive sins in Jesus name. Okay. But hey at least our Church is doing and encouraging people to follow God’s word on the matter of confession. How many Protestant churches are doing so.

So what do our sacraments teach. Baptism in many ways the entrence point. Confession (sin in your life repent) and then Sacrament of healing/anointing of sick. This especially at death teaches, you better go to your death confessing Jesus as Lord of your life…

Now has this teachings been abused yes. But the sacraments are thoroughly Biblical in their understanding. If a Protestant does not go at least to their death confessing their sins, and calling on Jesus as Lord of their life, well that Protestant is not going to heaven.

Bekalc, with all due respect, who are you talking to? Did you put this post on the wrong thread? In any case, as a Lutheran I affirm 99% of what you say here.

Hurst: As for trusting “in” Christ, I didn’t notice that as part of his religion. Instead, I noticed it was more of a trusting “on” Christ.

Hurst, Luther talks about trusting in Christ. Rest assured.

Hurst: Thus he ended up spreading a new religion that people can now be sure that they will make it to heaven without having to worry about their sins anymore - they just needed to believe that God won’t hold it against them, based on what Christ did.

Oversimplification of the issue. Sin can destroy faith and salvation.

Catholic Dude:
Rm13:
9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; 12 the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; 13 let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Catholic Dude, I think it might be hard for a Calvinist to answer this stuff, but not a Lutheran. We say the Old Man must be killed daily by the New Man that arises with the Gospel so that the Old Man does not let in the sin which crouches in our door….which eventually means true faith and salvation end up on the outside. The fact that salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed (namely that the New Heaven and Earth won at the cross will achieve consummation) does not necessarily mean that we should be doing good works in order to guarantee that we will be saved. No, we already possess full salvation in Jesus Christ - because we are saved we ought to do good works and shine as His children that others may glorify the Lord.

Bekalc
No where did Paul say faith alone. He was clearly talking about works of the Jewish law.

Really? Romans 3:20 is talking about the Jewish Law? How about Romans 7 where Paul discusses coveting? Is that just ceremonial and civil stuff?

 

[Assurance]

Hey all,

And with that, I need to take another break. Catholic Dude, I know you may want to answer me quickly (sometimes I do when someone posts something that I just have to disagree with publicly and get the truth out, you know?), but don’t do it for my sake. I, for one, have lots of other stuff I need to do now, and really, if I do come back here, I’d like to read the Good Works treatise that TertiumQuid has suggested.

One key passage from that however that I’d like to leave everyone with (I started reading it):

VI. This we may see in a common human example. A When a
man and a woman love and are pleased with each A other,
and thoroughly believe in their love, who teaches them
how they are to behave, what they are to do, leave
undone, say, not say, think? Confidence alone teaches
them all this, and more. They make no difference in
works: they do the great, the long, the much, as gladly
as the small, the short, the little, and vice versa; and
that too with joyful, peaceful, confident hearts, and
each is a free companion of the other. But where there is
a doubt, search is made for what is best; then a
distinction of works is imagined whereby a man may win
favor; and yet he goes about it with a heavy heart, and
great disrelish; he is, as it were, taken captive, more
than half in despair, and often makes a fool of himself.

    So a Christian who lives in this confidence toward God, a
    knows all things, can do all things, undertakes all
    things B that are to be done, and does everything
    cheerfully and F freely; not that he may gather many
    merits and good works, N 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 A v e n a m a 1, 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."

Catholic Dude, my apologies if you already posted this portion of the treatise above.

As all can see, its about assurance.

In Christ,
Assurance

 

[hurst]

TertiumQuid:

…
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…

And yet, Luther says:

Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without
faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt

What do you call this “Ask God” part? Is it a “good work”? Is it “faith”?

Is it not the single point from which his system of “faith bearing good works” must start - a system which is trying to deny the merit of man’s free will?

It reminds me of the “single point” from which the Big Bang Theory’s universe must start - a theory that denies the merit of God’s free Will, so to speak. But where did the point come from? Scientists try to ignore that question.

Please don’t ignore this question. It is the man behind the curtain.

Where did the “Ask God” part come from? I ask this rhetorically, because I think it is clear that it cannot be the “faith” Luther speaks of, since that is what is being asked for. It cannot be a “good work”, because that can only flow from the “faith” which you don’t have yet. He is admitting that prayer is needed after all, even before “faith”. It plainly shows that man must cooperate with God for his salvation.

Thus, even before “justification”, man’s free will is capable of desiring and choosing good, though it isn’t in his power to give that chosen good to himself. And if it is active beforehand, it is active afterwards. For even people with “faith” are able to still say no to all those works they should be doing from that “faith” that Luther describes, though he says “Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.”

But that is another issue.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Assurance:

…
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.

Not quite. We can be certain we are in the state of grace, but we can’t be certain we will stay in it. We can’t be certain we will persevere and actually attain our salvation (Canon 16).
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Being in the state of grace is not the same as being “saved”. But we are closer than when we first believed (Rom 13:11), and he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved (Matt 10:22,24:13).

hurst

 

[hurst]

Assurance:

…
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.

The underlined part is contrary to the Catholic notion of the requirement to cooperate with God’s grace.

A popular saying is:
**
God created us without us, but He will not save us without us.
**

Also, while all glory goes to God, yet He bestows glory on His saints. To ignore that is to deny God’s wish that they be glorified in some measure.

Matt 6:1 Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven.

1 Cor 3:14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Or do you make that reward out to be something else?

hurst

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-

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.

I didnt realize those two works were so close, at the same time as I have seen that Sin Boldly letter not as authoritative as the Good Works or Galatians commentary.
As I said above, he doesnt use the term FA in that whole work that I noticed. He even says things that would indicate that failure to do good works, eg:
parents cannot earn eternal punishment in any way more easily than by neglecting their own children in their own home
I would agree with.

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

Im still confused on stuff, like in the good works thing he wasnt attacking the Church, in the Galatians commentary he was. He doesnt sound the same at all, Im also out to see if Lutherans maintain what Luther believed about the Mass.

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…

I read the introduction on good works, but I felt it didnt explain the actual writing at all. I found the introduction misleading and falls short of what Good Works had to say.

(I will be busy till tomorrow so I cant get up to date on the other stuff)

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

As I said above, he doesnt use the term FA in that whole work that I noticed.

From Luther’s Treatise on Good Works-

“Therefore, when some people say, as they do, that when we preach **faith alone ** good works are forbidden, it is as if I were to say to a sick man, “If you had health you would have the full use of all your limbs, but without health the works of all your limbs are nothing,” and from this he wanted to infer that I had forbidden the works of his limbs. Whereas on the contrary I meant that the health must first be there to work all the works of all his limbs. In the same way faith must be the master-workman and captain in all the works, or they are nothing at all.”

Source- LW 44:34

"That these words seem strange, and that some people call me a heretic because of them, is due to the fact that they have followed blind reason and heathen ways of thinking. They have set faith not above but beside other virtues. They have made faith into a kind of work of its own, separated from all works of the other virtues, although **faith alone ** makes all other works good, acceptable, and worthy because it trusts God and never doubts that everything a man does in faith is well done in God’s sight. In fact, they have not let faith remain a work but have made it a habitus, as they call it, although the whole of Scripture gives the name good, divine work to no work except to faith alone. Therefore, it is no wonder that they have become blind and leaders of the blind. And this faith soon brings along with it love, peace, joy, and hope. For God gives his spirit immediately to him who trusts him, as St. Paul says to the Galatians, “You have received the Spirit not from your good works but because you have believed the word of God” [Gal. 3:2].

Source LW 44:25.

Editors comment:

“The present Treatise on Good Works belongs to this body of essentially pastoral writings. In February of 1520 Luther’s old friend Spalatin, private secretary to the elector, reminded him of his promise to prepare a sermon on the subject of good works and urged him to set about it. The reason behind Spalatin’s urging is not at all obscure. Luther had been accused by his enemies that his stress on justification by faith alone had led-and indeed would increasingly lead-to a total neglect of good works and a concomitant rise of lawlessness, license, and immorality. This accusation was a concern shared even by those who were favorably inclined toward Luther. Particularly, however, this was a matter of concern for the princes and ruling nobility.”

Source LW 44:17

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-
(concerning post478)

Luther is saying that one is first justified completely by the work of Christ. Then, Before the eyes of men, our works “prove” our saving faith. Thus, we are said to be “justified” before men. James expresses this very point in James 2. Abraham’s “work” of sacrificing Isaac on the alter causes us to consider him “righteous.” James himself says he will show his faith by what he does (2:18).

What Abraham did was not mere evidence for us, there was no one around to see it. There is nothing to prove before men that is separated from the saving process. James 2 doesnt support this, and as for v18 the context (v14-26) doesnt support that either. One example that comes to mind is Matt6:2 "Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do… 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will** reward you**.It goes on in that chapter of a few more cases of justification by works not before men, but before God. Not to say that we shouldnt do certain works before men, just that there is no such thing as outward works simply to prove to others that we were already justified.

Luther cited Matthew 7:20 at the point your talking about. Jesus says “…by their fruit you will recognize them.” So if outward works prove nothing, then you’re really saying Jesus made an error, outward works prove nothing. I would not want to be as bold as you here. I believe what Jesus said.

I never said I believe outward works dont prove anything, I was saying thats what Luther believed and cited a passage showing it.

In order to understand what Luther means about faith and works in relation to the heart, you need to grip Luther’s Anfechtungen. Again, it would behoove you to sign off of Catholic answers forums for a while, and do a little research. This thread probably wouldn’t be 400 + posts long. Indeed, God ultimately knows the heart, and only He knows who really belong to His flock and who do not. On the other hand, we can get a fairly accurate reading in most cases on people by looking at their lives, so says Jesus in Matthew 7:20.

Matt7:20 is Jesus telling people what He requires of them, nothing whatsoever about first justification via FA and then showing works only as a proof before men, here is Matt7:20-20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ 24 "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;… 26 And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;
When Jesus says “hears these words” He is talking about the whole sermon (ie Ch5-7).
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

No you definitely moved out of the context of the parable, thus the context. Jesus tells multiple parables in Luke 18, and makes different points. For instance, the point Jesus makes in Luke 18:1-8 is not the same point being made in Luke 18:9-14. The point made in Luke 18:15-17 is not the same as the point being made in Luke 18:1-8 and Luke 18:9-14. and so on. To read Luke 18 as if Jesus was making one big point or argument does violence to the text.

Fair enough.

If faith and works were separated, they would not have any relationship to one another. In Luther’s theology, the relationship is as Althaus described, “If faith is the actual basis of the work, then the work becomes the basis for knowing we have faith.” The Catholic position you advocate is unable to grasp a relationship of faith and works in which works are not meritorious.

Good works by Christians have to be meritorious, Jesus uses the term “reward” all the time for doing as He commands.

The Protestant realizes the only works that are meritorious are those Christ performed, because “the righteousness which can pass God’s scrutiny must be entirely perfect and must in every way measure up to the divine law (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10; Duet. 27:26)” (Heidelberg Catechism). The works we do are related to faith in that they are produced by faith. This is not misleading, it is biblical (Luke 6:43-45; John 15:5).

The above red is a major problem I see, the protestant notion seems to be that of an innocent bystander, rather than a new creation regenerated and ready to do God’s work.
As for the passages you cited:
-Rm3:20, that is explicitly dealing with “works of the law” which as I have come to conclude from Luther’s Galatians writing that he did not (for whatever reason) distinguish between the works of the law and the good works as per Christs teachings.
-Gal3:10, same situation as above, it explicitly is dealing with the works of the law.
Im surprised that that quote came from where it did because thats a fundamental error is mistaking works of the law with the commands Christ spoke.
Now the Gospel passages you cited:
-Lk6:43-45 is the same exact teaching as Matt7:20ff, those fruits are not merely a secondary “proof” for outsiders, but also a standard by which God will judge.
-Jn15:5, that is misunderstanding the text, here is more of the context:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
This is a beautiful summary of the Gospel and what Christ expects us to do to be saved. The Catholic Church has always believed this. Catholics believe that apart from Christ we cant do anything, but in Him not only can we bear good fruit we are required to. Protestants in general dont like Catholic teachings because they dont understand passages like this. Protestants have the idea that we are buying our way into Heaven apart from the merits of Christ, Catholics are not buying our way into Heaven, rather we are doing what is required of us through the merits and help of Christ.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-
concerning post 519 (

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 hope Luther didnt really say this, this is terrible. He is admitting to ignorance and inexperience in dealing with the various issues and yet he started the war anyway? It looks clear to me that he changed his views over time, from first being semi Catholic to doing everything to eliminate anything that even reminded him of Catholics.

"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.

So what works did Luther finally end with claiming that they were worth saving? I would be interested to know that list, I dont even see the Small or Large Cat in the above quote.

“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,” he added. “‘Dear Protestant friends, rediscover the Luther of those years,’” recommended Cardinal Ratzinger at the time. "

From the little amout I have read I have made a similar conclusion, that FA was not the problem at hand, rather it was the solution to a problem Luther found himself in.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Assurance:

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

Concerning the first link, the main quote came from a non-Catholic pro lutheran source so its conclusions are going to give credence to the protestant position, in this case by making the Catholic position appear “bad”.
eg, it says:Still, one could never be certain that one’s contrition was sufficient…
Is there an official source of the Catholic Church teaching this? If there isnt a source, then those words were merely the authors opinion rather than actual Catholic teachings.
Apart from that quote I do believe there was an element of Luther being pushed over the edge, however I also have to consider the later words of Luther. Two wrongs dont make a right, even if he was pushed too far that doest give him the green light to do whatever he wants. From that passage of TQ, Luther says:in my earlier writings, I most humbly conceded many important things to the pope, things which I later detested
Its clear here that even if there was an original push, he admits here that that original push didnt include “many important things”, yet he now destest them.

(post 532)

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?

Im not quite sure the posts & quotes in question here.

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…2&postcount=111 to see what Lutherans believe about the Lord’s Supper)

When I say “desperate”, I talking about comments that sound like: “Catholics can never be sure about ____”, is there an official Church source that says Catholics are never sure about their state of salvation? As I have said above OSASers believe they are 100% sure they going to heaven which both C’s and L’s believe a person can lose their salvation. Does that OSASer have room to say “Catholics and Lutherans can never be sure about if they are going to Heaven”? Their comment doesnt mean anything because it is unfounded. Catholics do have assurance, just not the kind some protestants are looking for.

As for the Communion link above, I saw:[Lutherans] simply assert that the bread is the body and the blood is the wine, while not explaining HOW this occurs and also not denying that the elements no longer are bread and wine.There is no requirement to explain how it happens, the issue is whether you hold the correct views or not. I dont think its the same as the EO like you claim in that link, from what I understand the EO do believe it is the actual Body and Blood AND that the elements are NO longer bread and wine, BUT they dont explain HOW it happens. The issue here is you seem to believe that the bread and wine ARE STILL bread and wine. I dont see how thats possible while maintaining that you dont believe in consub.
Also the EO believe as do Catholics believe that a valid Apostolic line of succession is requred (as for other sacraments as well) to consecrate the elements.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello James,

I am still waiting to here your response to the fact that Protestants just made up their own definition to Jesus’ biblical word “believe”. The Protestants have created on their own a false definition, anti and opposing to Christ’s true meaning and use of the biblical term “believe”.

Post 503

TertiumQuid:

*This is probably the reason we will never have any type of fruitful discussion: **I believe that in order to read the Bible properly, one must go to those specific passages of Scripture that speak the most fully and clearly on a particular doctrine. ***

If though you insist on applying a faulty method of intepretation, please explain John 6:28-29-

"Then they said to him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them and said, “This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
I put the words of Jesus in red especially for you.

Regards,
James Swan

Post 513
Steven Merten:
Hello James,

Please define Jesus biblical word “believe”. Please show us the scripture which supports your definition to God’s biblical word believe.

Believe

NAB JOH 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God.

NIV PSA 78:32

In spite of all this, they kept on sinning; in spite of his wonders, they did not believe.NAB LUK 8:13

Those on the rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. They have no root; **they believe **for a while, but fall away in time of temptation.

NAB WIS 12:2

Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little, warn them, and remind them of the sins they are committing, that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD!**NAB JOH 12:44

Jesus proclaimed aloud: “Whoever puts faith in me believes not so much in me as in him who sent me; and whoever looks on me is seeing him who sent me. I have come to the world as its light, to keep anyone who **believes **in me from remaining in the dark. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I am not the one to condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words already has his judge, namely, the word I have spoken it is that which will condemn him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own; no, the Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to speak. Since I know that his commandment means eternal life, whatever I say is spoken just as he instructed me.”
NAB MAT 7:21

"None of those who cry out, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

NAB LUK 6:43

Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not put into practice what I teach you?" *

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

Hello James,

I am still waiting to here your response to the fact that Protestants just made up their own definition to Jesus’ biblical word “believe”. The Protestants have created on their own a false definition, anti and opposing to Christ’s true meaning and use of the biblical term “believe”.

Hi Steve,

A few things.

#1. My “Columbo” hat is at the cleaners. In other words, I have no idea what you’re attempting to put forth.

#2 Are you making up your own meaning of the word “believe” or are you relying on someone else’s made-up definition?

#3 Are you relying on your own fallible interpretation of scripture, or do you have official alleged infallible interpretations of all the Bible passages you use?

Have a nice Day.

James Swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Steve,

A few things.

#1. My “Columbo” hat is at the cleaners. In other words, I have no idea what you’re attempting to put forth.

#2 Are you making up your own meaning of the word “believe” or are you relying on someone else’s made-up definition?

#3 Are you relying on your own fallible interpretation of scripture, or do you have official alleged infallible interpretations of all the Bible passages you use?

Have a nice Day.

James Swan

Hello Jim,

I will give you a little review. I suggested that it was more important that we discuss Jesus teachings on what we must do to go to heaven. You implicated that you, possibly many Protestants, don’t believe that Jesus taught very much at all on what we must do to go to heaven. This is supprising to me. What on earth do you and other Protestants think Jesus was teaching about? Gardening? Cooking? Fishing? What?

You switched back to seeing St. Paul’s discussions on “Justification” as being more important than Jesus’ teachings on what we must do to go to heaven.

Then, as if you had hard evidence to prove some Protestant point, you stated “If though you insist on applying a faulty method of intepretation, please explain John 6:28-29-”
"Then they said to him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them and said, “This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

So please give us your Protestant definintion to Jesus biblical word “believe”. I have given scriptures which point us in the direction that Jesus word “believe” means to do what God tells you to do. Believers are those who do the will of God as instructed by Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Now what is your definition to God’s word “believe”.

You stated “I believe that in order to read the Bible properly, one must go to those specific passages of Scripture that speak the most fully and clearly on a particular doctrine.”
So please show us the scripture you are using for your definition to Jesus biblical word “believe”.

TertiumQuid:

Originally Posted by Steven Merten
*Hello James, *
Better than going to verses which discuss “justification” would you not agree that it would be better to go to Jesus’ scriptures which teach us what we must to to go to heaven. Would you not agree that, in the great scheme of things, it is going to heaven by doing what Jesus teaches us to do to go to heaven, which is to love God, that superceeds all other things, including understanding “justification”?

No Steven, I wouldn’t agree to that and here’s why: I’m not sure about you, but I believe the real mastermind behind the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit. Thus, all the words of Scripture are equally vital and important. The Holy Spirit is just as much behind Romans 3 & 4 as He is behind the “red words of Jesus.”
This is probably the reason we will never have any type of fruitful discussion: I believe that in order to read the Bible properly, one must go to those specific passages of Scripture that speak the most fully and clearly on a particular doctrine. In the case of justification, that place in Scripture where this is discussed in the greatest length, and also the clearest is Paul’s letter to the Romans. Clear passages of scripture that spend the most time on a doctrine interpret the others. Interesting note, Catholic apologist Steve Ray writes, “The 'Protestant principle” of Scripture interpreting Scripture, is not a Protestant innovation at all. It has been taught and practiced from the earliest years in the Catholic Church, as a short review of the Church Fathers’ writings and the subsequent teaching of the Church clearly demonstrates" (Upon This Rock, 263-264).

Now, indeed Jesus mentions salvation, and he says things about works. However, if you want to read what God the Holy Spirit wrote about justification, I suggest you go to Romans. The overwhelming majority of the book deals with this subject…

…
If though you insist on applying a faulty method of intepretation, please explain John 6:28-29-

"Then they said to him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them and said, "This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
I put the words of Jesus in red especially for you.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Steven,

No need for review. I must say I stand amazed at your ability to put everything I say into “Steven-speak”. That is, you interpret my words to say things I never said, and then rewrite my words to say what you want them to. This **greatly decreases ** my desire to want to interact with you, or spend time looking at anything you have to say. It seems to also to be a strong reason why Edwin bailed out on your comments. I am similarly tempted to shake the dust from my feet and leave.

Regardless, With a little help from a friend:

"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.

James Swan