Martin Luther, OSAS

[steido01]

Read the former pope’s writing closely. Benedict is restating the Tridentine doctrine of justification as the process of being infused with the righteousness of Christ. A man is just, under this scheme, only when righteousness truly inheres in him.

The key Lutheran and Protestant doctrine of imputation, and the Christian’s consequent simul iustus et peccator condition, is thus excluded.

I won’t get into the finer points of how Lutherans typically explain the imputation of righteousness, because it is more nuanced than simply covering a ball of dung with snow. Indeed, a transformation of sorts does occur within the repentant sinner, and it is purely God’s doing.

Instead, I’ll just point out that Pope Emeritus Benedict is brilliant. I count him among the greatest theologians of our time. The man knows what he’s saying and chooses his words intentionally. If he wanted to be unmistakably clear about an infusion of God’s will into Man’s, he could and would have. Yet he never uses that word, nor any of the usual verbiage typically associated with it. Instead, he repeatedly states “It is Christ… It is Christ… It is Christ… who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices.” Why does he never mention specifically our human will doing God’s will? Why continually refocus back to the sufficient work of Christ? Yes, he speaks of a “transformation,” but he does so, at least by my reading, in the same way that a Lutheran might - after the Holy Spirit has begun his good work of Faith – even going so far as to say that it is Faith Alone (which cannot help but do good works) that justifies!

Now, I recognize Benedict to be a deep thinker who frequently writes over most of the heads in his audience. It’s entirely possible I’ve managed to include my own noggin and entirely missed his point. Or it’s possible I’m thinking too wishfully. I’m also not saying this is the most clear expression of justification, at least as a Lutheran would have it. But I’m convinced that Benedict, who grew up around Lutherans and is more familiar with Lutheranism than any pope before him, who once called Confessio Augustana “Catholic,” knew precisely what he was saying (and omitting) when he held this public audience. There are ways to discuss justification that permit Lutheran-Catholic agreement, and this may be one. I’ll happily accept correction.

 

[Indifferently]

So many compromised Protestants on this forum. Am I the only person here who truly holds to the doctrine of sola fide and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner? Benedict is an intelligent and intellectually honest man, but his teaching is very far from the Protestant gospel. Justification in Protestantism is forensic. For Benedict it is not. For the JDDJ it is not. Read R. C. Sproul’s book *Are We Together? *for more on this.

Benedict states very clearly that justification is being made righteous. If I believed that, or if anyone could convince me of that, I’d repent of the Reformation and become a Roman Catholic immediately.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I have just finished reading for the second time,“Martin Luther”, by Erik Erikson. This was prompted by two incidents in a Protestant Church in which I have been involved with for 20 years, although a born and raised Catholic.
Although Erikson may have gone too much on a limb with his psychological delving into the probable roots of Luther’s rebellion having to do with his skewed relationship with an over-domineering father, one cannot ignore the facts on the table. He did set in motion a very destructive process starting from the Peasants’ Revolt in which about 100,000 died. The point was that he as many revolutionaries are wont to be, reckless in opposing established powers and turning out to be arch-reactionary in his case, siding with the nobility.
I mention this because his pious writings about faith as was quoted previously rings hollow when he as a person and leader was an exceedingly disreputable person.
One of the two incidents had to do with the preacher, who himself is well-informed, talking favorably about Luther. I didn’t say anything about the book but is it possible that Luther had been so whitewashed as to cause a vast intellectual dissonance in Protestant circles? This reminds me of another certain prophet who 1300 years ago who also broke as many rules possible having to do with good conduct and personal moral hygiene.
I mean would anyone buy a used car from such people, much less a new religion?
The other had to do with another speaker who divided up the congregation into two sides, saying as an allegory, that one side could not move to the other. The saved would remain so and the unsaved, just that. When he asked if it were possible for the saved to be come unsaved, I piped up that it is possible by rejecting the faith.
I want to tie this up with Luther’s confidence in his being saved and other Protestants who really believe they can do anything they please and still hold to an insurance policy. Some of which was very bad behavior by other Protestants more than 20 years ago to my family and also some clergy in the Catholic Church that I had the misfortune of being mistreated by them.
The writings that I have found about his use of “alone” in Romans does not correspond to the Greek and most English translations do not have it. This little addition has made a vast difference in mentality and perception, it seems to me.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I want to tie this up with Luther’s confidence in his being saved and other Protestants who really believe they can do anything they please and still hold to an insurance policy. Some of which was very bad behavior by other Protestants more than 20 years ago to my family and also some clergy in the Catholic Church that I had the misfortune of being mistreated by them.
The writings that I have found about his use of “alone” in Romans does not correspond to the Greek and most English translations do not have it. This little addition has made a vast difference in mentality and perception, it seems to me.

Lutherans do not believe in “once saved always saved.” We believe that you can most certainly lose your salvation. Faith is a gift, sustained by God in the Word and Sacraments. If you reject Grace, you’re toast.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

That might be true officially, but how did some people get the idea that being saved was “it”? Frankly, I think this causes some circuitry in the brain to misfire as judging by the behavior of those who actually believe it. I think we need to be watchful until death and be prepared at any time for that. janet

 

[steido01]

The writings that I have found about his use of “alone” in Romans does not correspond to the Greek and most English translations do not have it. This little addition has made a vast difference in mentality and perception, it seems to me.

On the contrary, most English translations do have it. That it’s absent from the Catholic Douay Rheims translation is not so surprising, although Pope Benedict XVI, a German-speaker like Luther, did not think the Reformer’s use of “alone” was unwarranted:

[T]o the Christians of Rome [Paul] reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis.
…
[O]ur common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.

-Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, November 19, 2008

 

[zamyrabyrd]

On the contrary, most English translations do have it. That it’s absent from the Catholic Douay Rheims translation is not so surprising, although Pope Benedict XVI, a German-speaker like Luther, did not think the Reformer’s use of “alone” was unwarranted:

Hi, I have the King James in front of me which is older than most modern translations but early enough to be associated with the Church of England:
Romans 3:27-28 “…By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
The confusion may very well come from conflating good works with observances of the Law. This was a very present concern at the time of Luther and in particular having to do with his monastic observances, as though going through the motions would guarantee salvation.
Without making this distinction an error can be made that you can be saved and just do anything you like, it’s OK. Some people actually believe that.

 

[steido01]

Hi, I have the King James in front of me which is older than most modern translations but early enough to be associated with the Church of England:
Romans 3:27-28 “…By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
The confusion may very well come from conflating good works with observances of the Law. This was a very present concern at the time of Luther and in particular having to do with his monastic observances, as though going through the motions would guarantee salvation.
Without making this distinction an error can be made that you can be saved and just do anything you like, it’s OK. Some people actually believe that.

Hi Janet,

I think you’re right to be concerned. It’s tragic that some people actually think they can do whatever they want without consequence. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that Luther was not one of those people. In fact, anyone who believes that is not Lutheran.

 

[Stilldreamn]

That might be true officially, but how did some people get the idea that being saved was “it”? Frankly, I think this causes some circuitry in the brain to misfire as judging by the behavior of those who actually believe it. I think we need to be watchful until death and be prepared at any time for that. janet

John Calvin, 1509-1564, was a proponent of OSAS. He was not Lutheran, but his teachings are present in the Reformed, Presbyterian and certain other churches. “Protestant” is a very generic term that really says little about shared beliefs. “Non-Catholic” would be just as good - covers a LOT of ground.

And yes, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, too - trusting in the mercy and promise of Christ.

And I’m a “Janet” too

 

[Contarini]

What is Martin Luther’s view of salvation?

1. I have read that the addition of faith “alone” in scripture was appropriate at least within the context of the German language,

That was Luther’s argument: that “allein durch den Glauben” was just the proper way of saying “through faith and not works.” I find that explanation a bit dubious, but not being a native speaker of sixteenth-century German I am somewhat at a disadvantage in contesting Dr. Luther’s point. Clearly Luther’s theology did influence his translation choice, though it wasn’t simply a matter of “adding words to Scripture” as some Catholics claim.

and that Pope Emeritus Benedict VI said that Luther was not wrong for doing so. So when Martin Luther said “sola fide” he didn’t mean this as a collective term of faith/hope/charity that would normally make it acceptable for Catholicism right, so Martin Luther’s sola fide really means the modern day form of “faith alone” in protestant circles?

I’m a bit confused by what you mean here. For one thing, there isn’t one meaning of “faith alone” in Protestant circles. What you have in mind is probably the standard “Baptistic” meaning, and certainly Luther would disagree with that on a number of counts. But Calvinists have a different view, Lutherans another one (obviously closer to Luther’s own view, though shaped by post-Luther debates), Wesleyans another, Anabaptists another, arguably Restorationists another (the last three being on a continuum toward a more “works-oriented” view of salvation), and so on.

So let’s get back to Luther. What Luther meant by “faith alone” was that human beings are declared righteous and accepted by God solely on the basis of their acceptance of Christ’s righteousness by faith. Good works have no role whatever in this “justification.” In that sense it would be true to say (as Luther infamously said in a 1521 letter) that you could commit adultery 100 times a day and it wouldn’t affect your justification.

But the other side of the coin is that for Luther faith is always going to come along with love. Always. He rejected the medieval distinction between “unformed faith” and “formed faith.” Unformed faith is no true faith at all. It’s just an opinion about religious matters. The only faith that is a gift of God is the faith that comes along with charity. Faith doesn’t need to be “formed” by love–it is a living, powerful thing that automatically produces love. So a believer is always going to do good works and isn’t going to want to sin. In his later years Luther realized the need to qualify this a bit and explicitly taught (in the Galatians commentary) that a person who gave into the works of the flesh over a period of time would lose faith and eventually go to hell. (And that answers your second question: no, Luther did not believe in eternal security.)

Here’s another way of putting it. Protestants believe in sola fide (justification by faith alone) but not sola fides (faith that exists on its own). Catholics are the other way round. Faith can exist on its own, and when it does it doesn’t justify. Only when love is added is a person declared righteous by God. Protestants (in the classical sense, Lutherans and Reformed alike–and most later Protestants too) agree that faith without love does not justify. But unlike Catholics, they don’t think such a thing is possible.

Hence, the real difference as I see it is in preaching. A Protestant preacher addresses a congregation of “professing Christians” many of whom may not be practicing the faith with the message,“Repent and belief the Gospel.” A Catholic preacher assumes that a similar congregation already has faith, so the message will be, “Go to confession and get back in a state of grace.” The end result desired is the same: faith that works through love. And Scripturally, I think the Catholic view is very defensible (1 Corinthians 13 especially supports it). But practically, the Protestant view seems to produce more transformation of life (not talking about the saints here but about the shift from a nominal, legalistic practice of the faith to one fueled by living faith), which is why so many former Catholics say that they “weren’t really Christians” until they became Protestants, whereas most Protestants who become Catholic were devout Christians before their “conversion.”

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Hi Janet,

I think you’re right to be concerned. It’s tragic that some people actually think they can do whatever they want without consequence. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that Luther was not one of those people. In fact, anyone who believes that is not Lutheran.

Read “Martin Luther” by Erik Erikson and then get back to me.
Apparently he was one of those people who said anything he liked.
If my old computer didn’t crash this week I would send you some articles about his potty mouth. janet

 

[Contarini]

As for the differences between Luther and later Protestant views (especially the Pietist/Baptist view common in American evangelicalism), there are several important ones:

1. Free will. Luther did not believe in free will and understood faith not as a “decision for Jesus” but as a gift of God that enables us to receive God’s forgiveness.
2. The sacraments. Luther tied justification to the sacraments. Baptism is when we first receive the promise of God’s forgiveness, and faith looks back to baptism, not to some moment of conversion. Luther used to say to the devil, “I am baptized” in moments of temptation. The Eucharist is the ongoing means by which we receive forgiveness through Christ’s Body and Blood (as you probably know, Luther believed in the Real Presence). And while Luther’s theology of confession wasn’t the same as the Catholic one (doesn’t have to be to a priest in apostolic succession, doesn’t have to list all mortal sins, etc.), and while he backed away in his later years from calling it a sacrament in the strict sense, he always taught that confession to another Christian, preferably an ordained minister of the Gospel, was an important means of grace, particularly through the declaration of God’s forgiveness in the words of absolution. The argument you often hear from modern Protestants that sacraments are “works” would have had no traction at all with Luther.
3. The issue of eternal security that you brought up. As you suggested, this originated with the Reformed tradition. It goes back beyond Calvin (as pretty much all Calvin’s ideas do–he was not an original thinker but a brilliant synthesizer). Early Reformed theologians, such as Zwingli, believed that only the elect ever have faith and are born again. In fact, Zwingli believed that faith is just the automatic response of an elect person to hearing the Gospel. Elect people who die without hearing the Gospel are saved anyway, because election is really what saves people. Furthermore, these theologians sometimes used language suggesting that the elect, before regeneration, have “sparks” within them which make them godlier than other unregenerate people. (Even Calvin suggests this, actually.) A case could be made that the early Reformed doctrine of eternal security had a lot in common with Gnostic and Cathar views, in which some people just have an inbuilt spark of the divine that other people lack. This contrasts with the orthodox Augustinian view that God sovereignly elects some people from the “mass of condemnation,” and that these people are no different from other sinners intrinsically. Calvin (prefigured by Bucer in his 1536 commentary on Romans) brought Reformed soteriology more into line with Lutheran teaching, but predestination remained more closely linked to justification than it was for Luther or Augustine, and thus eternal security remained part of Reformed teaching.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Read “Martin Luther” by Erik Erikson and then get back to me.
Apparently he was one of those people who said anything he liked.
If my old computer didn’t crash this week I would send you some articles about his potty mouth. janet

Why do you put so much stock in a book by a psychologist rather than a historian?

And what on earth does his potty mouth have to do with anything?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

John Calvin, 1509-1564, was a proponent of OSAS. He was not Lutheran, but his teachings are present in the Reformed, Presbyterian and certain other churches. “Protestant” is a very generic term that really says little about shared beliefs. “Non-Catholic” would be just as good - covers a LOT of ground.

No, it isn’t, because it includes the Orthodox.

Protestant is a necessary term, but we need to realize that it is a large umbrella term and doesn’t imply a lot of doctrinal agreement.

Edwin

 

[zamyrabyrd]

As for the differences between Luther and later Protestant views (especially the Pietist/Baptist view common in American evangelicalism), there are several important ones:

1. Free will. Luther did not believe in free will and understood faith not as a “decision for Jesus” but as a gift of God that enables us to receive God’s forgiveness.
2. The sacraments. Luther tied justification to the sacraments. Baptism is when we first receive the promise of God’s forgiveness, and faith looks back to baptism, not to some moment of conversion. Luther used to say to the devil, “I am baptized” in moments of temptation. The Eucharist is the ongoing means by which we receive forgiveness through Christ’s Body and Blood (as you probably know, Luther believed in the Real Presence). And while Luther’s theology of confession wasn’t the same as the Catholic one (doesn’t have to be to a priest in apostolic succession, doesn’t have to list all mortal sins, etc.), and while he backed away in his later years from calling it a sacrament in the strict sense, he always taught that confession to another Christian, preferably an ordained minister of the Gospel, was an important means of grace, particularly through the declaration of God’s forgiveness in the words of absolution. The argument you often hear from modern Protestants that sacraments are “works” would have had no traction at all with Luther.
3. The issue of eternal security that you brought up. As you suggested, this originated with the Reformed tradition. It goes back beyond Calvin (as pretty much all Calvin’s ideas do–he was not an original thinker but a brilliant synthesizer). Early Reformed theologians, such as Zwingli, believed that only the elect ever have faith and are born again. In fact, Zwingli believed that faith is just the automatic response of an elect person to hearing the Gospel. Elect people who die without hearing the Gospel are saved anyway, because election is really what saves people. Furthermore, these theologians sometimes used language suggesting that the elect, before regeneration, have “sparks” within them which make them godlier than other unregenerate people. (Even Calvin suggests this, actually.) A case could be made that the early Reformed doctrine of eternal security had a lot in common with Gnostic and Cathar views, in which some people just have an inbuilt spark of the divine that other people lack. This contrasts with the orthodox Augustinian view that God sovereignly elects some people from the “mass of condemnation,” and that these people are no different from other sinners intrinsically. Calvin (prefigured by Bucer in his 1536 commentary on Romans) brought Reformed soteriology more into line with Lutheran teaching, but predestination remained more closely linked to justification than it was for Luther or Augustine, and thus eternal security remained part of Reformed teaching.

Edwin

Thanks for setting out the salient points. I suppose it is between Luther and God what the consequences of being a renegade priest were. I am not sure about disconnecting sacraments from works in the theology of Luther, if faith alone were all one needs.
For what it’s worth, a conscience is inbuilt in every human being. Whether they heed it is another thing. I don’t have the quote by Augustine but he did recognize non-Christians being that way not of their own fault, as having righteousness. I do think however there is a qualitative difference when one is saved. The Bible begins to make sense.
This is a real stumbling block in trying to explain the Bible or Christianity to those who are on the outside. As Paul said what seems folly to the Greeks is wisdom.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Why do you put so much stock in a book by a psychologist rather than a historian?
And what on earth does his potty mouth have to do with anything?
Edwin

Starting from the latter, would make him a disreputable person, in my opinion.
Admittedly, looking at Luther’s life from the angle of psychology is not the total picture but there is plenty of history in that book. And it is not the only source I derived information about him. More than that, I believe he was very insecure after he realized he opened a veritable Pandora’s box.
Some people believe that transition to local rule could have been achieved without the American Revolutionary War. Likewise, if enough people were concerned about the abuse of indulgences, this could have been solved in house, a speculation of course but with considerably less carnage than that which ensued in the next century or so up to 1648. Janet

 

[rcwitness]

We try to be precise when discussing it (to a fault, at times). Works have a whole LOT to do with salvation. We are saved for the purpose of doing them. They have nothing to do with justification, however - which is only one slice of salvation. That us given to us freely by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

I can appreciate the efforts from genuine Catholics and Lutherans to find the common language that defines our saving faith. Like JonNC mentioned that the common ground would be Grace. We need to always remember that God´s Grace makes our salvation possible. He initiated life in us since he is the eternal Spirit who has willed children unto Himself.

However, part of this “being born” to God, if you will, demands a response to God´s will which requires relying on the gift of faith. This is a living faith which is challenged of the new Christian and requires cooperation/participation.

Your statement in the red flat out contradicts James 2:24

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

When I open my heart to Catholic Teaching, I do so in the same way I open my heart to the Holy Scriptures. In this way, I can look at James statement and Teaching meaning that, though it takes faith to see and know what Gods will is, it demands putting on Jesus and working. It has nothing to do with meeting God half way, or doing my part and He will do His part. It means that out of God´s goodness and not because we were faithfull or earned life, He freely chose to suffer in His Son in order for us to walk in righteousness.

 

[steido01]

Starting from the latter, would make him a disreputable person, in my opinion.

Well, then we better discount just about every theologian and cleric of the time. Borgias and Medicis especially.

 

[Stilldreamn]

No, it isn’t, because it includes the Orthodox.

Protestant is a necessary term, but we need to realize that it is a large umbrella term and doesn’t imply a lot of doctrinal agreement.

Edwin

Absolutely right. I did think about that - I didn’t mean to overlook the Orthodox! I tend to think in capital “C” Catholics and capital “O” Orthodox as opposed to “catholic and orthodox.” Thanks for the correction.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Well, then we better discount just about every theologian and cleric of the time. Borgias and Medicis especially.

A disreputable person can say some words of truth. Saints, on the other hand have consistency of behavior.