Luther! Read Read!

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid**-**
(concerning post462)

This is an example of the logical fallacy, “post hoc ergo proctor hoc”- and at this point in this thread I am bewildered by your misunderstanding.

You were the one who said “I never met a Catholic who knew they were saved” while people like Assurance tell me how confident they are. Remember that parable you talked about where the man said “Lord have mercy on me a sinner”? That was according to Luther a single moment in time justification. I made the claim that a single moment in time justification doesnt make sense after you said “Luther taught that Christian faith was a living faith that showed itself by its works”, in otherwords, the person cant claim they are justified until they see the fruits. Where does FA stand when the person must wait to see fruits of good works?

Good works are motivated by love. See Romans 13:8-10. They were also prepared in advance for us to do by God. See Eph. 2. In other words, Christians were predestined to do them.

I agree they are motivated by love, but I dont know what you mean by predestined. Where they predestined in that God deemed them good works from the very start, or do you mean that we are programmed to do the works? In otherwords, is it the predestination which Calvinists claim, where free will really doesnt exist?

If one after professing faith in Christ continually lives a lifestyle contrary to that described in Romans 12-15, I would have to assume that person is not a Christian. In the same way, if I get married and take vows to love my wife but go on to live an active lifestyle that violates the marriage contract, it usually means I don’t really love my wife.

So Im confused on how Faith Alone can be believed. If you must wait and see the lifestyle then you cant conclude you are saved at that moment. In otherwords the person can have all the faith in the world, but if he goes home and goes against passages like Rm12-15 then all along he was not saved. It was a works based justification all along.

No.
“This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; (Heb. 5:13–14, Rom. 4:19–20, Matt. 6:30, Matt. 8:10) may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: (Luke 22:31–32, Eph. 6:16, 1 John 5:4–5) growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, (Heb. 6:11–12, Heb. 10:22) who is both the author and finisher of our faith. (Heb. 12:2)”

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

Protestants are assured by the sacraments that their sins have been forgiven.

I would like to ask you to stop using the word “Luther” unless you plan on doing your own research. I do not deny that Protestants have a different understand of sacraments. I’m just simply too weary to launch off into another direction with you. There comes a point in most “Luther” discussions in which I weary of continually doing the work necessary to explain Luther’s view and contrast it with the Roman Catholic Church. Luther did many writings on the sacraments. If you want to see a “painting” by Luther, go read Luther.

Fair enough, I will check into things like Luther’s Large Catechism before I post things on the sacraments.

I’m not sure what you mean.

I just cant wrap my mind around FA, I cant see how it brings such confidence if as you say it is a living faith that shows itself. I see that as a conditional salvation, ie, you can think you have faith, but if the faith doesnt show itself then it was dead.

You’ve missed the point. The Bible doesn’t record the good deeds of perfect people. It records God using sinful people for His purpose.

I never said it recorded the good deeds of perfect people, I said it was the good deeds of changed people who are also a model for us. Isnt part of His purpose that people stop sinning and change their ways?

good.

I said I agreed because I dont see any room in those passages for people concluding they are justified before they bring forth good fruit.

You haven’t thought critically about the sin nature in humans and the holiness and perfection of God, as well as the perfect work of Christ.

I have thought about the holiness and perfection of God, and taken it in relation to what Jesus demands. 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.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi Assurance,

Justification transforms the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness— sonship of God. It is the work of God alone but needs man’s free will to cooperate. Faith devoid of charity and good works is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity. Luther however added the word ‘alone’ to make faith—’ alone’ fit in with his views–His answer to this falsification was—Dr Martin Luther wants it that way.

It was Luther’s own state of conscience that gave birth to his ‘own’ and previous heretical views. He was tormented by his own sinfulness and found relief in the thought that man cannot overcome concupiscence, and that sin itself is a necessity. This thought naturally led him to a consideration of the fall of man and its consequences. In his opinion Original sin had so completely destroyed our likeness to God and our moral faculties in the natural order, that our will has lost its freedom regarding works morally good or bad. According to Luther we are consequently condemned to commit sin!

The Church however teaches that the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God, makes the soul truly just and holy in the sight of God.

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

God bless

Jan

 

[TertiumQuid]

In response to post 394:
Catholic Dude:

I have been more under the impression he was playing both sides of the aisle, but thats just me.

It is just you. You are caricaturing Luther’s position in order to not have to take it seriously. Throughout this thread, myself and others have repeatedly (to the point of ridiculousness) made Luther’s position on the relationship of faith and works explicitly clear. It seems to me, you want to be able to attack Luther for teaching antinomianism, but you hit the giant roadblock of Luther’s writings, which continually and repeatedly express a living faith that shows itself by its works, done out of a heartfelt gratitude to God rather than attempting to appease God for eventual salvation.
Catholic Dude:

Anyway, why does Luther continue to say “we at present teach faith alone saves” when he shows Luke, James and John dont talk like that?

Read in context. Luther says, “But before we take up the example and consider the terrible sentence, we must first notice that Luke here makes the impression as though righteousness came by works. For Luke is most accustomed to do this, as when we at present preach that faith alone saves, he observes that people are led to desire only to believe, and to neglect the power and fruit of faith. This John also does in his Epistle and James, where they show that faith cannot exist without works.”

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

Also where does Luke downplay faith?

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

The idea that a person can claim they are justifed at a single moment faith without works is totally destroyed if you have to turn around and look at their fruits. In that case you dont know if you have a “fictitious faith” or not you cant claim of your certainty of being justifed at any point in time. Think about it. Its like saying you dont know if you have a bug bite on your forehead, you can feel some kind of pain, but your not sure unless you look in a mirror. This is what Luther is saying, you know you have a bug bite because you feel it, but you dont know if you have one for sure unless you check.

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

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

-continued-
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

In response to post 394:
Catholic Dude:

I dont understand “twice justified”. If he is justified by Faith first at a single moment in time, then the “second” justification is not required.

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).
Catholic Dude:

I asserted that outward works prove nothing and cited by Luther:

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.
Catholic Dude:

I dont see where you addressed this. Its double speak. On one hand he says he sees the priests and nuns acting good, but then says he must know their heart to know if they are good or evil, then he ends by judging by works.

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.
Catholic Dude:

I dont know where it is right off the bat, but there are parts I quoted where luther trashes priests and nuns.

Throughout his writings. Also, see my paper that we discussed previously. I included this information.
Catholic Dude:

I didnt move out of context, rather I read ahead and showed that what Luther was concluding was not what Jesus had in mind.

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.
Catholic Dude:

As for part I quoted: who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

I addressed this point already. That being said, you have to decide whether or not Jesus is making a prescriptive or descriptive point, and this answer is based on one’s underlying theological paradigms. I choose the later while you choose the former. Only by comparing our systematic theologies as to who’s fits the Biblical evidence better will the final answer come forth.
Catholic Dude:

I dont recall saying that better works = greater reward. But there is truth to that.

Agreed.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[bekalc]

What I don’t care about Luther, was that Luther himself well He wasn’t listening to any else. I don’t think old Martin thought that one could live a sinful life, but the fact is that His words have been interperted so. (Look at once saved always saved.)

The same goes for Sola Scriptura, did Luther mean to throughout all Tradition? NO. But, that is what has happened. A part of me has a feeling that if Luther could have seen the many theologies/denominations that sprung up from his Reformation, that He might have changed his mind…

 

[TertiumQuid]

Response to post 395
Catholic Dude:

IF they are not separated then why does he trumpet the very term “faith ALONE”? that is very misleading as I have said time and time again.

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.

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).
Catholic Dude:

Im sure even he would be shocked of the state of protestantism, but he did open the door for that mess.

This is your opinion. This is my opinion: In regards to good works, Catholics fail often too. I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic outside of cyber-space that produces good works to benefit the neighbor. Where are they hiding? So, a statement like you made is not really relevant, but rather an opinion based on your feelings. Let’s try to avoid this shall we? It doesn’t benefit the discussion in the least. Your opinion my opinion- who cares?
Catholic Dude:

As for what the scholar says, Im not conviced thats what Luther believed.

The entirety of my paper proves it to be the case. ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm

In regard to the scholar Paul Althaus, you would be doing yourself a favor by getting his book The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). It is consider one of the standard texts on Luther’s theology. It would do your studies on Luther well to have this book. Just think, you wouldn’t have to rely on folks like me to get your information. You could read it from a scholarly source- and then you would save me a great amount of time. I wouldn’t have to be going over Luther 101 with you.
Catholic Dude:

What I do believe though is that more and more Protestants are thinking about these issues and modifying things little by little to conform with common sense and Scripture.

The position that both Luther and myself have advocated, namely that a living faith produces works as the result having peace with God, was the position taught by the Reformers. You can find it in Luther, Calvin, and the doctrinal standards (like the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, etc). The antinomian position that separates faith and works always creeps around, like heresy does.
Catholic Dude:

The term “Faith Alone” itself, the mere words are misleading. I dont remember the quote, but I remember Luther saying we have to be careful to separate faith and works, its in the early part of this thread somewhere.

I’m not about to go look for it. This thread is top heavy and cumbersome. If you want to discuss the quote, you find it and post it. It’s probably the case that Luther simply means to separate faith from works so that works are not to be misconstrued as meritorious.
Catholic Dude:

Go back and read what I said about that comment here. I was commenting on Luther’s comment on Abraham. I showed clear Scripture passages to refute Luther’s claim.

I responded to this in post 398. Regardless, Luke records Jesus saying, “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ ” So much for meritorious works.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[bekalc]

When we are talking about merits, we are talking about rewards which God says he will give us. However, as Francis de SAlle said since its the Holy Spirit working inside us, they are really the Spirit’s merits. Catholics also recognize that in the end its Trusting in Jesus and his merits.

But the problem with the Protestant view is the “peace with God thing.” IF someone according to Scripture can lose their salvation, than can they ever have the total assurance that leds to the peace with God stated? The Bible says fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Even Paul said “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

I think we can have peace with God and our works should result from peace with God, being in a right relationship with the Lord but no fear whatsover of the Lord, that’s not Biblical.

Its only fair to note to that Luther’s acecticism in the monastry, well the people around him thought He was nuts. They all told him that He should put child like hope in Jesus. Who loves him and desires to save him.

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

This is your opinion. This is my opinion: In regards to good works, Catholics fail often too. I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic outside of cyber-space that produces good works to benefit the neighbor. Where are they hiding? So, a statement like you made is not really relevant, but rather an opinion based on your feelings. Let’s try to avoid this shall we? It doesn’t benefit the discussion in the least. Your opinion my opinion- who cares?

You chastise someone for stating an opinion, and then you give your biased opinion, and then you state that opinions don’t benefit the discussion. So was it necessary to make your point by offering **your **opinion. Was your opinion relevant?

I can introduce you to many Catholics who benefit their neighbors by the fruit of their faith. Where have you been hiding?

Peace,
Mickey

 

[AJC]

angelmessenger:

Hi,

All these misconceived ideas concerning what the bible actually teaches arise from the fact that certain people think they can interpret the bible for themselves. God gave us a Church to do this–No one man can interpret the Bible it’s impossible!

The early Church knew the truth and fought against those who would try to distort this truth, (Heretics) We are still fighting the heresies of false teachings, (those who believe in Sola Scriptura) in doing this they are actually going against what the Bible teaches anyway!

God bless you

Jan

In fairness to Martin Luther even he acknowledged that personal interpretation leads to lack of authority and confusion. He said something to the affect that “Now every farmer in his shed with his own Bible is now his own Pope.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

bekalc:

When we are talking about merits, we are talking about rewards which God says he will give us. However, as Francis de SAlle said since its the Holy Spirit working inside us, they are really the Spirit’s merits. Catholics also recognize that in the end its Trusting in Jesus and his merits.

Hello bekalc,

Just curious. Did Francis de Salle discuss unbaptized non-Christians, who do not trust Jesus, preforming good works equal to those the Holy Spirit works through Christians?

TertiumQuid:

The position that both Luther and myself have advocated, namely that a living faith produces works as the result having peace with God, was the position taught by the Reformers. You can find it in Luther, Calvin, and the doctrinal standards (like the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, etc). The antinomian position that separates faith and works always creeps around, like heresy does.

Regards,
James Swan

Hello James,

Same question.

Did Luther discuss unbaptized non-Christians, who do not have “faith”, preforming good works equal to those the Holy Spirit works through Christians?

 

[Assurance]

Steve,

I have no time to read or write now, but I saw your remark about “my slippery tongue”. I may have to make crucial and fine distinctions sometimes, but your remark and uncharitable attitude saddens me.

Enough for now.

Love in Christ,
Assurance

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

Was your opinion relevant?
Mickey

Hi Mickey,

no it really isn’t, and that was my point. Re-read my post. I said,

“Your opinion my opinion- who cares?”

Take Care,
james

 

[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.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

Hello James,
Same question.
Did Luther discuss unbaptized non-Christians, who do not have “faith”, preforming good works equal to those the Holy Spirit works through Christians?

Yes, he discussed something like that. I suggest you go to your local college library and consult the 55 volume English edition of Luther’s works. Thus, you can write a paper on your findings for your website.

I’m sorry to have ignored most of your posts. More-a-less, you simply kept repeating the same things over and over. I actually usually spend quite some time when composing responses. Perhaps when my discussion with “Catholic Dude” comes to its eventual conclusion, i’ll go back and re-read your posts. If though, I spend the time to respond to you, and you simply quote the same Bible verses and make the same points, i’ll probably spend my time elsewhere.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

I’m sorry to have ignored most of your posts. More-a-less, you simply kept repeating the same things over and over. I actually usually spend quite some time when composing responses. Perhaps when my discussion with “Catholic Dude” comes to its eventual conclusion, i’ll go back and re-read your posts. If though, I spend the time to respond to you, and you simply quote the same Bible verses and make the same points, i’ll probably spend my time elsewhere.

Regards,
James Swan

Hello James,

It does get a little intense with all the scripture present, dosent it?

I accept your withdrawl, if that is your intention. This is the first time I have made a point by withdrawl of the debatee.

TertiumQuid:

I’m particularly hopeful that your material will further explain your interpetation of Luther, especially your comment:Steven Merten said: "Luther hates Christ’s teaching on this and elliminated Jesus teachings from his Lutheran theology" I can’t wait to see exactly what you actually read from Luther to substantiate this claim.I’m sure you would never just say this without doing research to prove it.

Luther****The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."
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.” NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.“Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.” NAB LUK 10:25**“Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus answered him:** "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

"You shall love the Lord your God
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”

NAB DEU 6:1

"These then are the commandments, the statutes and decrees which the LORD, your God, has ordered that you be taught to observe in the land into which you are crossing for conquest, so that you and your son and your grandson may fear the LORD, your God, and keep, throughout the days of your lives, all his statutes and commandments which I enjoin on you, and thus have long life. Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them, that you may grow and prosper the more in keeping with the promise of the LORD, the God of your fathers, to give you a land flowing with milk and honey." The great commandment. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. NAB DEU 5:9For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.“NAB DEU 7:9"Understand, then, that the LORD, your God, is God indeed, the faithful God who keeps his merciful covenant down to the thousandth generation toward those who love him and keep his commandments, but who repays with destruction the person who hates him; he does not dally with such a one, but makes him personally pay for it. You shall therefore carefully observe the commandments, the statutes and decrees which I enjoin on you today.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

Hello James,
I accept your withdrawl, if that is your intention. This is the first time I have made a point by withdrawl of the debatee.

Hi Steve,

If all you care about is winning a debate, we definately don’t have anything to talk about.

Regards,
James swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Steve,

If all you care about is winning a debate, we definately don’t have anything to talk about.

Regards,
James swan

Hello James,

What I desire is to give proper instruction to people on what Jesus teaches us to do to go to heaven. www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com Luther, your leader, opposes Jesus teaching on this. You just turned around and walked the other way when I present Luther and Jesus in opposition to one another on this issue. What else can I do except to accept your retreat? Can I force you to debate this incredibly serious flaw in Lutheran theology? Can I contiune to warn people who may be decieved by Luther who opposes Jesus teaching if you simply walk away? Of course you want to make your retreat, from overwhealming scriptures that oppose Luther’s teachings, look like my fault.

We both know that there are thousands of viewers on this thread. I just wanted the record to state that, when faced with overwhealming scriptural proof, you withdrew from the debate on Luther opposing Christ’s teachings on what we must do to share in everlasting life.

Peace,
Steven

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

Hello James,

What I desire is to give proper instruction to people on what Jesus teaches us to do to go to heaven. www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com Luther, your leader, opposes Jesus teaching on this. You just turned around and walked the other way when I present Luther and Jesus in opposition to one another on this issue. What else can I do except to accept your retreat? Can I force you to debate this incredibly serious flaw in Lutheran theology? Can I contiune to warn people who may be decieved by Luther who opposes Jesus teaching if you simply walk away? Of course you want to make your retreat, from overwhealming scriptures that oppose Luther’s teachings, look like my fault.

We both know that there are thousands of viewers on this thread. I just wanted the record to state that, when faced with overwhealming scriptural proof, you withdrew from the debate on Luther opposing Christ’s teachings on what we must do to share in everlasting life.

Peace,
Steven

Hi Steven,

As far as I can tell, your theology isn’t even Roman Catholic, it’s Pelagian. “keep the law and you will go to heaven” is not the Gospel, not even in Roman Catholicism.

Here’s a verse that doesn’t fit in your Pelagian theology

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.”

If you want to understand Justification go to the parts of Scripture specifically written about it, like Romans 3 & 4, or the whole book for that matter. Pelegianism never does this, because Paul speaks against it. He declares there is a righteousness of God apart from the law. “A man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Steven,

As far as I can tell, your theology isn’t even Roman Catholic, it’s Pelagian. “keep the law and you will go to heaven” is not the Gospel, not even in Roman Catholicism.

Here’s a verse that doesn’t fit in your Pelagian theology

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.”

If you want to understand Justification go to the parts of Scripture specifically written about it, like Romans 3 & 4, or the whole book for that matter. Pelegianism never does this, because Paul speaks against it. He declares there is a righteousness of God apart from the law. “A man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

Regards,
James Swan

hello James,

Glad to see that you changed your mind and decided to discuss the issue.

I do not know anything about this Pelegianism you talk about.

I believe that the only way to go to heaven is through the saving blood of Jesus. I believe that Jesus will judge us according to our conduct. Scripture tells us that obedience to God is love for God. It is those who love God, through obedience to God, who Jesus will judge into heaven through His blood.

So fire away. What do you think?

Peace,
Steven

P.S. I have to take my second grader to first communion class so I may be delayed in getting back to you. Please post away anyway. Thanks!

 

[hurst]

(First, please pardon me for only reading the first few messages of this long thread before posting something.)

Contarini:

…
If you were actually looking at this fair-mindedly, you sould notice that this was in a letter to a friend, not in a formal theological treatise. Luther knew that Melanchthon’s problem was scrupulosity, hence he engaged in rhetorical hyperbole. Technically speaking, he did mean what he said.

You have a point here. It does seem to me that he is basically saying that we should not try to deny or hide that we are sinners, for how can we be saved from sin if we don’t have any?

So yes, we need to be honest about our sins and not practice false modesty by hiding them from our confessor.

The question is, did he really limit this approach to this private communication? And did he limit this openess to a private confessor?

But it is abundantly clear from other writings that Luther didn’t think a person who trusted in Christ would wilfully commit serious sin.

Maybe not new ones, but what about existing bad habits? In what I have read on this issue, he openly encouraged others not to be bothered by their sins since God is greater than sin. No, more than that, he explicitly discouraged them from committing themselves to trying to live a holy life! For example, he told monks and nuns that their pursuit of holiness was unrealistic, for no one can be expected to control oneself that well. He convinced many to abandon the monasteries.

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.

He didn’t believe that grace was meant to ‘fix’ life while on earth. He had no hope that any of us would ever stop feeling sinful in this life. What we had to do was accept/believe what Christ accomplished for us, and that it would render its effect in the next life. He totally separated our life in the body from life of grace in the spirit.

He convinced many that there was no way they could avoid sinning, that it is not possible for man to observe God’s commandments, and that our best hope to avoid just punishment is that God would not hold it against us.

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.

But the Catholic Church teaches that God elevates our nature and sanctifies us in the body. Luther had a bad theology and was successful in spreading it.

Contarini:

… explain why you would take a rhetorical flourish in a letter as representative of Luther’s thought, rather than a considered opinion expressed in a formal Biblical commentary.

All I will say on this is that some 20 years ago when I was a student of Protestant thinking, I remember reading a book that mentions the point Luther makes about “sinning big”. It was a concept the author put forth on a theological basis. I think he used the scripture verse “Whatsover you put your hand to, do with all your might” as support. I believe the author was John White and the book was “Knowing God”.

So apparently, though I do not know where in Luther’s writings he wrote that, it is still being used among learned Protestants as a basis in teaching their religion.

hurst