Luther! Read Read!

[reen12]

Dear Contarini,

quote: Contarini

…and that blasted letter to Melanchthon comes up all the time . . . .

When that “blasted letter” comes up, deflect 'em, with

that old saw about Tetzel’s contribution to RCC legend

and song:

"As soon as the penny in the coffer rings,

so another soul from purgatory springs"

Gimme that* ol’* time religion.

---

I mean, it isn’t as if Martin was sitting around
the monastery, one day, and said:

“Say, I think I’ll break up Christendom.”

Tezel, call your office…

And for those who ask, again and again:
"But did Luther write, say, think…

tell 'em to *read *Luther, and then ask questions.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html

ccel.org/l/luther/

[If the Babylonian Captivity of the Church isn’t among
the writings, in the two threads, above, find it and
read it, is my contribution to this thread.]

NB: find Prelude to the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, at:

ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm#NB

To me, it’s like asking a Catholic to answer the
question: What did Thomas Aquinas say about X?

One question, fine.

A series of “challenges” as to what Aquinas wrote,
or didn’t write - without the questioner having read Aquinas,
would annoy me, no end.

Read Aquinas, and then offer challenges, is what I would say.

You’ve got a lot more patience than I do, Contarini.

Hats off to you, :tiphat:

reen

Come to think of it, my advice to read Luther, is a
“spin” on this thread title: **Luther! Read Read! **

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Edwin,

Contarini:

And as we know, Luther had scant regard for James (and unquestionably you can’t use James to refute Paul–James is clearly less central to the canon than Paul). Furthermore, you are assuming that James means by “faith” what Luther means by it.

You should not give the same weigth to St. Paul as you should give to Jesus. What James preaches is more in line with Jesus than St. Paul. You, and Luther, should be stating, “you cant use St. Paul to refute Jesus”.

If you read the Lutheran Catholic joint statement on Justification you will find that St. Paul is quoted or refferenced ten to thirteen times more often than Jesus. Almost all of Jesus major teachings on what we must do to go to heaven are left out of the Lutheran Catholic Joint Statement on how to go to heaven. There is a good reason that Jesus is, for all purposes, banned from this document. Jesus does not teach what Luther says, St. Paul means. Jesus teaches faith through works while Luther seperates the two.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The Protestant faith would fall on its face if they tried to support the foundation of their beliefs without using St. Paul whom they use at the expense of Jesus. The foundation of the Catholic Church is based on Jesus teachings while still using St. Paul’s writings.

The problem is that St. Paul is not reffering to God’s Commandments when he says “the law”. St. Paul is talking about the Pharisee created laws and the law of circumcision. Luther did not take St. Peter’s advise about St. Paul’s writings, "The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin."

Faith means doing what God tells you to do. Or, in other words, obeying God.

Believe Faith

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.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 JOH 14:14

"Anything you ask me in my name I will do. If you love me and obey the commands I give you." NAB MAT 21:22

"You will receive all that you pray for, provided you have faith."​

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.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jesus tells us that those who “believe” and put “faith” in John the baptist are entering into heaven. This does not make sence in Luther’s sence of the word faith and believe.

However, if faith means obeying God, then Jesus’ parable runs true. John the baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. John preached God’s will to the people. Those who obeyed God, by doing what He told them to do through John the Baptist went to heaven because they believed in, not in John the man, but his message which was God’s message. Those who believe in Jesus, by putting into works what God wills them to do, put faith and belief in Jesus.

Believe
Faith

---

NAB MAT 21:28 Parable of the Two Sons.“What do you think of this case? There was a man who had two sons. He approached the elder and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ The son replied, ‘I am on my way, sir’ ; but he never went. Then the man came to his second son and said the same thing. This son said in reply, ‘No, I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. Which of the two did what the father wanted?” They said, “The second.” Jesus said to them, “I assure you that **tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of **God before you. **When John came preaching a way of holiness, you put no faith **in him; but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did believe in him. Yet even when you saw that, you did not repent and believe in him.”
NAB GAL 5:6

In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.

NIV 1JO 5:3

This is love for God: to obey his commands.
​

**NAB 1TI **1:19

and hold fast to faith and a good conscience. Some men, by rejecting the guidance of conscience, have made a shipwreck of their faith,
NAB GEN 22:15

Again the LORD’s messenger called to Abraham from heaven and said: “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing - all this because you obeyed my command.”

NAB HEB 11:17

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac;
​

NAB JAM 2:14

My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing it? Such faith has no power to save one,

 

[Steven_Merten]

The Jesus vs. St. Paul debate.

The misunderstanding is that St. Paul is debating the law of circumcision and not the Law of God’s commandments. St. Peter warns us to be very careful when reading St. Paul’s writings. Martin Luther and the Protestants stumble right past St. Peter’s warnings to base the foundation of the Protestant faith on their misunderstandings of St. Paul’s writings.

St. Paul says,

Galatians 2:16

…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Jesus says,

NAB MAT 19:16

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

St. Paul’s writings were debating the law of circumcision and the Pharisee created Church laws and not God’s Law of the commandments.

NAB ACT 15:1

Some men came down to Antioch from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” This created dissension and much controversy between them and Paul and Barnabas.

NAB ACT 21:20

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have come to believe, all of them staunch defenders of the law. Yet they have been informed that you teach the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children, and to renounce their customs.”

**NAB PHI 3:5 **(St. Paul is speaking.)

I was circumcised on the eighth day, being of the stock of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew origins; in legal observance I was a Pharisee, and so zealous that I persecuted the church. I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the law. (GAL 6:13)

 

[Steven_Merten]

**NAB 1CO 7:19 **(St. Paul is speaking.)

Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.

**NAB ROM 2:13 **(St. Paul is speaking.)

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just.
NAB 2PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.

Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.

 

[reen12]

quote: Contarini

Luther’s distinction between law and grace is absolutely necessary from his point of view, because if we confuse the two we fall back from the relationship of sons to the relationship of servants, and we are back to trying to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

…because if we confuse the two [law and grace]*…
we are back to trying to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

*added by reen12

Exactly, Contarini.

The entire sacramental system of the RCC, treats grace
as a “commodity”, and, the reception of the sacraments
thus becomes consistent with a “works” mindset,
“pull[ing] ourselves up by our own bootstraps.”

That is: I DO this, and then I’m restored.

Juridical, not relational. Law, not grace.

Not grace poured out, because of the relationship [sonship],
but grace to be “had”, mediated by a juridical construct [sacrament]
-therefore, a “work” - courtesy of Luther’s brilliant insight.

In short, the game is up.

No longer will we be subject to the Law, but will, rather, enjoy sonship
…and the priviledges thereof, namely Grace, poured out through relationship.

The Church carries forward the Mass - as sacrifice.
Luther provided that which the Church* failed* to provide:
a Scriptural understanding of Grace.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith:
An excerpt from
“An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”
Luther’s German Bible of 1522
by Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith
from DR. MARTIN LUTHER’S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN.
Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63
(Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125]
August 1994

Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. Faith is not enough,'' they say, You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.’’ They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I believe.’’ That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn’t come from this `faith,’ either. Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words. Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they’re smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

(c)1983 by Saint Anselm Abbey. This translation may be used freely with proper attribution.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-write

reen12

 

[reen12]

[and]

Luther’s Tower Experience: Martin Luther Discovers the True Meaning of Righteousness An Excerpt From: Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Works (1545) by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Translated by Bro. Andrew Thornton, OSB from the “Vorrede zu Band I der Opera Latina der Wittenberger Ausgabe. 1545” in vol. 4 of Luthers Werke in Auswahl, ed. Otto Clemen, 6th ed., (Berlin: de Gruyter. 1967). pp. 421-428.

Translator’s Note: The material between square brackets is explanatory in nature and is not part of Luther’s preface. The terms “just, justice, justify” in the following reading are synonymous with the terms “righteous, righteousness, make righteous.” Both sets of English words are common translations of the Latin “justus” and related words. A similar situation exists with the word “faith”; it is synonymous with “belief.” Both words can be used to translate Latin “fides.” Thus, “We are justified by faith” translates the same original Latin sentence as does “We are made righteous by belief.”

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul’s Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: “The justice of God is revealed in it.” I hated that word, “justice of God,” which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust. But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant. I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: “The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith.’” I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: “The just person lives by faith.” All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God. I exalted this sweetest word of mine, “the justice of God,” with as much love as before I had hated it with hate. This phrase of Paul was for me the very gate of paradise. Afterward I read Augustine’s “On the Spirit and the Letter,” in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted “the justice of God” in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified.

(c)1983 by Saint Anselm Abbey. This translation may be used freely with proper attribution.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-write

reen12

 

[Hildebrand]

Contarini:

I have pointed this out ad nauseam, but it doesn’t stop the flood of happy Catholics rejoicing at the supposed fall of their brother in Christ.

So Luther believed that there were such things as mortal sins, sins which break off our relationship with God?

And Luther believed a person’s actions (works) did matter with respect to his salvation?

Or did Luther take the cop out position that the true Christians don’t commit mortal sins. Remember: “neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) And looking lustfully at someone is the sin of adultery and slandering makes you a slanderer. So true Christians have never looked lustfully at anyone after they were “saved”, nor have ever slandered anyone because they were apart of the predestined crowd that is rich, successful, and do not sin. Or is that Calvin, not Luther. Then what exactly does Luther believe?

You can’t have it all ways: living a good moral Christian life is necessary for salvation, your actions don’t matter (only faith does); Christians don’t sin, it doesn’t matter if Christians sin - Christ died for their sins; mortal sins don’t exist, there are sins that break off a person’s relationship with God… it goes 'round and 'round. I am getting dizzy.

 

[Hildebrand]

RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION:

cin.org/users/james/files/just_response_of_the_catholic_church_.htm

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION:

cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

 

[Assurance]

Hello all,

Just an invitation for those who want to better understand what Lutherans believe (especially regarding the question of assurance of salvation and how that contrasts with the Catholic position) to come over to this thread and check it out:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&page=2

I hope to get on here and catch up with the rest of you on this thread.

Peace in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[reen12]

quote: Hildebrand

RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE JOINT DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION:

cin.org/users/james/file…c_church_.ht m

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION:

cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

quote: reen12

The entire sacramental system of the RCC, treats grace
as a “commodity”, and, the reception of the sacraments
thus becomes consistent with a “works” mindset,
“pull[ing] ourselves up by our own bootstraps.”

That is: I DO this, and then

I’m restored.

Juridical, not relational. Law, not grace.

We are justified by Christ, not the “work” of the
Sacrament of Reconciliation. That difficulty, for Rome,
is referrenced in the paragraph below:

[See the link you provided, and the brief
reference to the Sacrament of Reconciliation: item #4]

cin.org/users/james/files/just_response_of_the_catholic_church_.htm

as well as #43 in the link you provided:

cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

The joint declaration was an effort to delineate what
Lutherans and Catholics hold, jointly.

It was not a facile attempt to paper over serious doctrinal
differences, in terms of the efficacy of the Sacrament of
Reconciliation, hierarchy, etc. [Again, see #43 in] :

cin.org/users/james/files/jddj.htm

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Here’s an article from First Things that repudiates

my understanding of Luther vis a vis “sacramentality.”

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9603/articles/yeago.html

[One likes to be fair. ]

Good grief! I’ve been reading additional material, and
it looks like I can hold Luther’s positon on justification,
but would stand with the Evangelicals on “sacramental
theology”.]

Hmmmm.

reen12

 

[Steven_Merten]

reen12:

In short, the game is up.

No longer will we be subject to the Law, but will, rather, enjoy sonship
…and the priviledges thereof, namely Grace, poured out through relationship.

The Church carries forward the Mass - as sacrifice.
Luther provided that which the Church* failed* to provide:
a Scriptural understanding of Grace.

reen12

Jesus tells us that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in heaven. How did they “play the game” as you call it. How do you believe Old Testament people went to heaven?

Do you believe that Abraham went to heaven via the law and not grace. Do you believe it is possible for someone to go to heaven outside of Jesus blood (Grace). Did Abraham go to heaven through grace or not?

NAB LUK 13:28

And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out. NAB MAR 12:18

Then some **Sadducees who hold there is no resurrection **came to him with a question …\…12:24 Jesus said: “You are badly misled, because you fail to understand the Scriptures or the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven. As to the raising of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living not of the dead, You are very much mistaken.”

 

[reen12]

Hi, Steven Merten

quote: Steven Merten

Jesus tells us that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in heaven. How did they “play the game” as you call it. How do you believe Old Testament people went to heaven?

Do you believe that Abraham went to heaven via the law and not grace. Do you believe it is possible for someone to go to heaven outside of Jesus blood (Grace). Did Abraham go to heaven through grace or not?

Do you believe that Abraham went to heaven via the law and not grace.

It is a Christian belief that Christ’s redemption goes backward
in time, and that Abraham was thus saved by
grace, not works.

Of course the fact that the Mosaic Law was centuries
down the road from Abraham, would make it a
tour de force for Abraham to “keep it”, and thus
be saved by “works.”

Israel followed the laws of the Covenant. God kept
His promise to them. Centuries passed, before
Israel even had a* concept* of the World to Come.
At the time of Christ, the Saddeucees still rejected
the idea of a life to come.

In other words, the concept of being “saved”, in
the Christian understanding of the term, is and was
unknown to Israel.

Again, the question you pose, IMO, is one which
fits in nicely with the juridical mindset, so prevalent
in the RCC.

Picture it! Abraham, Moses, Issac, Isaiah,
sitting in a kind of detention center…waiting
to be touched by grace…

The “gates” of Heaven were opened…

Or,

They were saved by grace, at death, because the
work of Christ, ontologically and metaphysically,
applies to them retrospectively, [as well as immediatley],
upon death.

Is it inconceivable that:
Each of them was loved by God *because *they kept the Law, and trusted in His promise.
Abraham went to God…because God loved him.

No terminological template needed. [law/grace].

As for: the game is over,
The New Covenant is not the Old Covenant.
If the RCC wishes to “play the Old game” [law vs. grace],
feel free.

The Mosaic Law did not,and does not,mean to Jews,
now or then, a “yoke” under which they are groaning,
and neither does it have a “propaedeutic” function - to them.

For them, the Law is good news. It is what God
gave them, when He made them His chosen people.

And that is why I maintain that the magisterium, over
the centuries, became a mirror image of rabbinic Pharisaism:
it finds itself at home in the Old Covenant, when
thinking of “works,” while maintaining that it
understands “grace.”

Abraham was saved by God’s love.
Relational, not juridical.
No “terms” of grace/law involved.

But then, that’s what happens when “grace” is
conceived of as a “commodity.”
It loses its connection with love.

Best,
reen12

BTW, the entire question turns on Original Sin.
There is no concept of Original Sin in Judaism.
So, no waiting around to have a “stain” removed.

 

[reen12]

Of course, there is a more concise and elegant

reply, to your question:

“He who lives in love, lives in God, and God in Him.”

Abraham loved God. God lived in him.

Abraham went home to God.

reen12

 

[sscandmocc]

Nothing makes a thread more interesting than the same verses reposted 25 times for the same premise. Gifted communicators some of you ain’t

 

[reen12]

Dear Steve Merten,

quote: Steve Merten

Believe it or not there still are Catholics who leave the Church for Luther’s garbage.

Charming.

reen12

 

[But_for_Grace]

reen12 - I would have to disagree with your assesment of the situation.

Mat 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Mat 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (DRB)

But we all know that we cannot keep the Law, that does not mean that we are not under obligation to it, for it is from God. Did not Paul tell the Romans…

Rom 5:20 Now the law entered in that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. (DRB)

Grace is proportioned to sin, sin proportioned to the law, thereby Grace is proportioned to the law in that the law is necessary for us to realize our sins. Further, Paul said…

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace. (DRB)

Now here is one of the great charges leveled against the Church, that they have resurrected the law for justification. This is not what the law is, the law is God’s statement to his people. Christians are now God’s people, protected and saved by his grace, and hence under obligation to the law in matters of morality. In the OT the law was not complete, Christ fulfills the law and makes plain what was hidden, therefor our understanding of the law is not that of the OT but that of the NT. This however does not release us from our obligation, for Paul goes on to say…

Rom 6:16 Know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death or of obedience unto justice. (DRB)

we are the followers of Christ because we obey him. This is the same as what Paul says further on…

Rom 7:2 For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (DRB)

Remeber that Paul uses the image of marriage as a metaphore for our relationship to God elsewhere (ephesians) therefor we understand that the woman is the Church and the Husband is God and since God cannot be dead, for Christ rose and liveth still, then the law still has force, not in the OT sence of bringing sin, but in the NT fulfillment by Christ which He promised to not pass away till the heavens and earth pass away.

But how can I say such things, for did not Paul say that we were dead to the law, true, but he also says by way of completing his coments upon the law…

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law. (DRB)

Thereby as way of closing did not Christ say…

Joh 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you. (DRB)

 

[reen12]

Good morning, But for Grace,

quote: But for Grace

Now here is one of the great charges leveled against the Church, that they have resurrected the law for justification. This is not what the law is, the law is God’s statement to his people. Christians are now God’s people, protected and saved by his grace, and hence under obligation to the law in matters of morality. In the OT the law was not complete, Christ fulfills the law and makes plain what was hidden, therefor our understanding of the law is not that of the OT but that of the NT. This however does not release us from our obligation…

Let me say that I think that your presentation is both
solid and concise.

And I wouldn’t even *begin *to offer a challenge to:

Christians are now God’s people, protected and saved by his grace, and hence under obligation to the law in matters of morality.

nor on:

…therefor our understanding of the law is not that of the OT but that of the NT.

but I will offer a complaint on:

…In the OT the law was not complete, Christ fulfills the law and makes plain what was hidden…

Is that Christ, speaking in the Synoptics, or Paul?

Help me out here, will you, But for Grace?
Sometimes I engage in debate for the sheer enjoyment
of the intellectual work-out same provides.

But every once in a while, I step back, and say:
“You know, for the life of me, I can’t figure out how
Paul got from what Jesus said, to his own theology.”

The theology of St. Paul is gorgeous…there is no
other word, to me, that would do it justice.

Elegant, in the theoretical sense. All points covered,
in a spectacular display of intellect and concision…
But how did he get there?

His interpretation of the Mosaic Law is something new
on earth. His fellow experts in the Law didn’t know
what he was talking about.
Burden? what burden?
Fulfilled? It was a category his own co-religionists
were dumbfounded by.
Propaedeutic? Says* who*? Did Jesus indicate that?

So that’s what I need help with.
Where, in the Synoptics, does Jesus state that he has
come to fulfill the Law?

The connection with the topic of this thread is this:
Lutheranism relys heavily on the letters of St. Paul,
in terms of justification and the certainty of salvation.

2 Peter urges me to heed the writings of St. Paul.

But where is the Synoptic evidence that demonstrates
that what Paul wrote is congruent with what Jesus said?

Thanks for your thought, But for Grace,

reen12