Martin Luther: Similar to Judas?

[AugustTherese]

(Besides, half of the anathema you posted doesn’t even apply to Lutherans, who do believe that one can choose --via free will-- to refuse the gift!)

But, according to the Formula of Concord and Martin Luther, you do not believe that you can choose – via free will – to accept the gift! That is not an eternal covenant, but an eternal coercion against our endowed liberties.

 

[steido01]

Why do you seek independence from God? Do you not know Him to be good? Why do you fear the conformance of your will to His own?

Acceptance of the gift is itself part of the gift! When someone hands you a gift, you didn’t get the gift because of something you did (else it ceases to be a gift; it becomes payment).

 

[AugustTherese]

Why do you seek independence from God? Do you not know Him to be good? Why do you fear the conformance of your will to His own?

Acceptance of the gift is itself part of the gift! When someone hands you a gift, you didn’t get the gift because of something you did (else it ceases to be a gift; it becomes payment).

Beautiful! However, that’s not how I read the Formula of Concord.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I’m not Lutheran, but perhaps this will help, based on other discussions. steid01 is welcome to correct me.

What Luther wrote is not and is never authoritatively Lutheran. You cannot extract excerpts from his writings to get a better understanding of Lutheran thought. You can look at Lutheran confessions and statements to understand what Lutherans believe, and then work backwards to understand Luther. It sounds backwards but it is not.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Peace be with you

And also with you.

Praise you for an irenic statement.

At the time of the Reformation there were many reform movements in the Catholic Church all over Europe. It seems a Catholic error is to portray Luther as the sole one causing trouble. Had he never lived, the Reformation would have happened with other people. People had been calling for reformation for a long time.

The Reformed do not consider Luther as in any sense a theological forbear, as Reformed thought welled out of other reform movements in other places, I think notably northern France and parts of Switzerland and the Rhineland. Far from Wittenberg. People were in communication and ideas were exchanged, and it is impossible to tell exactly where what idea originated. Everyone thought there needed to be clerical reformations, for example. People met the abuses they encountered and recommended improvements. These fell on deaf ears in Rome, as the popes had no interest in reform.

Luther got a lot of attention because he was very forceful in his rhetoric. There are ample opportunities to use some of his choice sayings against him, ignoring both his sarcasm and hyperbole.

Maybe I am using the words ecumenism and reconciliation incorrectly, one restricted to the Orthodox and the other to the Lutherans? In any case many Catholics here are rejecting the results of the last 100 years of Catholic scholarship on Luther, which is more than puzzling to me.

 

[JonNC]

steido01:

Why do you seek independence from God? Do you not know Him to be good? Why do you fear the conformance of your will to His own?

Acceptance of the gift is itself part of the gift! When someone hands you a gift, you didn’t get the gift because of something you did (else it ceases to be a gift; it becomes payment).

Beautiful! However, that’s not how I read the Formula of Concord.

You read it wrong, then. And how you read it is irrelevant since you are not Lutheran.

But, according to the Formula of Concord and Martin Luther, you do not believe that you can choose – via free will – to accept the gift! That is not an eternal covenant, but an eternal coercion against our endowed liberties.

So, this sounds a whole lot like you believe you can accept God without grace. You believe Pelagianism!
You believe that "original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. "
This is obvious by what you say.

Or, maybe I should allow you to state what you believe instead of me telling you what you believe.
In the same manner, maybe you should allow Don to state what he believes as a Lutheran.

 

[AugustTherese]

You read it wrong, then. And how you read it is irrelevant since you are not Lutheran.

Then, how should I read it? Are you suggesting I have to be Lutheran to properly understand Lutheran doctrine?

AugustTherese:

steido01:

Why do you seek independence from God? Do you not know Him to be good? Why do you fear the conformance of your will to His own?

Acceptance of the gift is itself part of the gift! When someone hands you a gift, you didn’t get the gift because of something you did (else it ceases to be a gift; it becomes payment).

Beautiful! However, that’s not how I read the Formula of Concord.

You read it wrong, then. And how you read it is irrelevant since you are not Lutheran.

But, according to the Formula of Concord and Martin Luther, you do not believe that you can choose – via free will – to accept the gift! That is not an eternal covenant, but an eternal coercion against our endowed liberties.

So, this sounds a whole lot like you believe you can accept God without grace. You believe Pelagianism!
You believe that "original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. "
This is obvious by what you say.

Or, maybe I should allow you to state what you believe instead of me telling you what you believe.
In the same manner, maybe you should allow Don to state what he believes as a Lutheran.

Since when were we discussing what individuals personally believe and/or disbelieve?! I merely quoted verbatim the Formula of Concord and showed how it denies free will, hence the Canon I posted from Trent. I did not presume that anyone ascribes to what the FOC states, but responded with only what the Lutheran Confessions confess to believe. This was only because of a previous comment being made: “Firstly, Lutherans do not deny free will”. Yes, Lutherans, via their confessions, do deny free will in as much as “it does nothing whatever and is merely passive” as the FOC clearly states and as the Council of Trent clearly anathematizes.

For you to presume that I believe in Pelagianism I have to wonder if you read my posts. I’ll post it again:

“If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.” - Canon 4, Session VI, Council of Trent

Please reread the bold text, the exact text I posted in 58/66 and tell me again that I believe in Pelagianism.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Praise you for an irenic statement.

At the time of the Reformation there were many reform movements in the Catholic Church all over Europe. It seems a Catholic error is to portray Luther as the sole one causing trouble. Had he never lived, the Reformation would have happened with other people. People had been calling for reformation for a long time.

The Reformed do not consider Luther as in any sense a theological forbear, as Reformed thought welled out of other reform movements in other places, I think notably northern France and parts of Switzerland and the Rhineland. Far from Wittenberg. People were in communication and ideas were exchanged, and it is impossible to tell exactly where what idea originated. Everyone thought there needed to be clerical reformations, for example. People met the abuses they encountered and recommended improvements. These fell on deaf ears in Rome, as the popes had no interest in reform.

Luther got a lot of attention because he was very forceful in his rhetoric. There are ample opportunities to use some of his choice sayings against him, ignoring both his sarcasm and hyperbole.

Maybe I am using the words ecumenism and reconciliation incorrectly, one restricted to the Orthodox and the other to the Lutherans? In any case many Catholics here are rejecting the results of the last 100 years of Catholic scholarship on Luther, which is more than puzzling to me.

Thank you,

Multiple saintly priestly orders grew out of the Church (not Protestant) reformation’s, that still thrive today.

Martin Luther, lost his chance of sainthood in the Catholic Church, had he taken a different route to bring about reformation instead of a direct change to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition, which can never be changed. Discipline should of been Martin Luther’s clarion cry. His Augustinian Disciplines in scriptural study, would of greatly helped the Church who’s Church members were becoming literate.

Although we may have lost Martin Luther’s Augustinian disciplines of scriptural study and theology. We gained a lot of piety from the examples of the Saints who came out of the reformation.

In my opinion, I would much rather hear the Word of God in Liturgy from a Celibate Catholic Priest, who has vowed his life to Jesus and His Church, without any attachments to the secular world.

As far as commentaries from Catholic theologians on Martin Luther’s theology. Suffice it to say, Many great Church writings came out of the reformation from the councils of Trent (which finally closed the bible canon of books), Vatican I and II. The documents from Vatican II are still being studied by our theologians and doctors of the Church. As Martin Luther learned the hard way. The Catholic Church is Rock, she is not subject to change. Her disciplines and small “t” traditions are subject to change, but this change comes about very, very slowly.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=“AugustTherese, post:69, topic:450605, full:true”]

Then, how should I read it? Are you suggesting I have to be Lutheran to properly understand Lutheran doctrine?

By listening to what Lutherans tell you they believe, just like non-Catholics should understand Catholic teaching by what Catholics say. It is called common courtesy.

Please reread the bold text, the exact text I posted in 58/66 and tell me again that I believe in Pelagianism.

Oh, I don’t believe for a moment that you accept pelagianism. I’m just accusing you of it because you are contradicting what Don says he believes, telling him he believes something else. What’s good for the goose, and all that.

Here is Augsburg XVIII, the Roman Confutation, and the Apology. All in part (because of the too restrictive character limit)
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil.
The Confutation, in part:
To Article XVIII.

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God.
This confession is received and approved. For it thus becomes Catholics to pursue the middle way, so as not, with the Pelagians, to ascribe too much to the free will, nor, with the godless Manichaeans, to deny it all liberty; for both are not without fault.
And the Apology, in part :
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

67] The Eighteenth Article, Of Free Will, the adversaries receive, although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case. They add also a declamation that neither, with the Pelagians, is too much to be granted to the free will, nor, with the Manicheans, is all freedom to be denied it. 68] Very well; but what difference is there between the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold that without the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God’s commandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can merit grace and justification by works which reason performs by itself, without the Holy Ghost?

The part I highlighted is interesting, where Melanchthon equates Catholic belief to Pelagianism. You’re doing the same in reverse.
Simply accept what Don says and discuss the differences in Catholic and Lutheran belief without misrepresentation.

 

[AugustTherese]

By listening to what Lutherans tell you they believe, just like non-Catholics should understand Catholic teaching by what Catholics say. It is called common courtesy.

Sure, I respect that to a certain point. That can surely backfire on you when individual Lutherans, as well as individual Catholics, can and do pervasively misrepresent their confessions and Councils, respectively. That is exactly why I quoted the FOC and only the FOC. I did not post what I thought the FOC stated, but simply what itself stated.Then, usually what happens when I quote Lutheran Confessions, more than not, is individual Lutherans having to defend themselves against the explicit errors and contradictions, and therefore their own Confessions are even up for grabs and open for interpretation considering there is not one magisterial and ecclesial authoritative figure to safeguard your own teachings.

I was a Confessional Lutheran for 25 years of my life before reverting to the Catholic Church. For you to presume my ignorance of Lutheran Confessions, etc. simply because you presuppose I am an ignorant and naive cradle-Catholic is overly-presumptuous and unfair. Not only that, but I would hope you would give me the common courtesy of being able to read and interpret what Lutherans believe and confess without having to be one, regardless of what I believe and confess. Your words make it seem like the only way I can truly understand Lutheran doctrine is solely by listening to a bona fide Lutheran, even though I will get a variety of interpretations depending on the sect/synod that Lutheran belongs to.

The part I highlighted is interesting, where Melanchthon equates Catholic belief to Pelagianism. You’re doing the same in reverse.
Simply accept what Don says and discuss the differences in Catholic and Lutheran belief without misrepresentation.

Actually, I am not. You are quoting a position, a claim by Melancthon in his own words; if anything, he is entirely entitled to believe and claim what he wants, and that is his affair. What would be “the same in reverse”, would be for you or Don to quote an Ecumenical Council or the CCC in verbatim, like I did the FOC. Notice, Melancthon’s words are a mere claim without any substantial evidence of where the Catholic Church promulgates, “[W]ithout the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God’s commandments”. Those are his words and remain his words because you nor anyone else will find those words in Catholic teaching.

I did not tell anyone what they believe! I, again, merely quoted the FOC. Lutherans, inasmuch as they hold to the BOC, do not believe in free will. If you do not believe what the FOC promulgates regarding free will, then great, come home!

 

[JonNC]

Sure, I respect that to a certain point. That can surely backfire on you when individual Lutherans, as well as individual Catholics, can and do pervasively misrepresent their confessions and Councils, respectively.
So, you are accusing Don of intentionally misrepresenting confessional Lutheranism. What do you perceived or imagine his motives for lying to be?

That is exactly why I quoted the FOC and only the FOC. I did not post what I thought the FOC stated, but simply what itself stated.Then, usually what happens when I quote Lutheran Confessions, more than not, is individual Lutherans having to defend themselves against the explicit errors and contradictions, and therefore their own Confessions are even up for grabs and open for interpretation considering there is not one magisterial and ecclesial authoritative figure to safeguard your own teachings.

Did you quote them in the context of the BofC? Did you take into consideration the CA and its apology, as I quoted it? There are no errors or contradictions, as least as far as a Lutheran is concerned. What they have had to do is defend their confession against an intentional misrepresentation of it.

I was a Confessional Lutheran for 25 years of my life before reverting to the Catholic Church. For you to presume my ignorance of Lutheran Confessions, etc. simply because you presuppose I am an ignorant and naive cradle-Catholic is overly-presumptuous and unfair.

I’m not accusing you of being ignorant of the confessions. I am saying you are being polemical, and misrepresenting them.

Not only that, but I would hope you would give me the common courtesy of being able to read and interpret what Lutheran’s believe and confess without having to be one, regardless of what I believe and confess. Your words make it seem like the only way I can truly understand Lutheran doctrine is solely by listening to a bona fide Lutheran, even though I will get a variety of interpretations depending on the sect/synod that Lutheran belongs to.

That is exactly what I am telling you, and I will not offer you equal footing with a Lutheran on the interpretation of their confessions, unless you are willing to submit your understanding to what Lutherans tell you.

I did not tell anyone what they believe! I, again, merely quoted the FOC. Lutherans, inasmuch as they hold to the BOC, do not believe in free will. If you do not believe what the FOC promulgates regarding free will, then great, come home!

Actually, you did, and it is very disingenuous. And as Don has pointed out, you’ve done it before.

 

[AugustTherese]

Did you quote them in the context of the BofC? Did you take into consideration the CA and its apology, as I quoted it? There are no errors or contradictions, as least as far as a Lutheran is concerned. What they have had to do is defend their confession against an intentional misrepresentation of it.

I’m not accusing you of being ignorant of the confessions. I am saying you are being polemical, and misrepresenting them.

That is exactly what I am telling you, and I will not offer you equal footing with a Lutheran on the interpretation of their confessions, unless you are willing to submit your understanding to what Lutherans tell you.

Actually, you did, and it is very disingenuous. And as Don has pointed out, you’ve done it before.

Exactly how and/or where am I misrepresenting anything? Exactly how and/or where am I telling anyone personally by name what they believe? Exactly how am I being polemical? Exactly how am I misrepresenting anything? Show me, where?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Did you quote them in the context of the BofC? Did you take into consideration the CA and its apology, as I quoted it? There are no errors or contradictions, as least as far as a Lutheran is concerned. What they have had to do is defend their confession against an intentional misrepresentation of it.

I’m not accusing you of being ignorant of the confessions. I am saying you are being polemical, and misrepresenting them.

That is exactly what I am telling you, and I will not offer you equal footing with a Lutheran on the interpret;ation of their confessions, unless you are willing to submit your understanding to what Lutherans tell you.

Actually, you did, and it is very disingenuous. And as Don has pointed out, you’ve done it before.

Exactly how and/or where am I misrepresenting anything? Exactly how and/or where am I telling anyone personally by name what they believe? Exactly how am I being polemical? Exactly how am I misrepresenting anything? Show me, where?

Example:
“But, according to the Formula of Concord and Martin Luther, you do not believe that you can choose – via free will – to accept the gift!”

You don’t believe it, either, unless you are Pelagian. Go back and read the Confutation about this very point. As Don, pointed out, you leave the implication here that Lutherans believe that it is by coercion, and that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace.

 

[AugustTherese]

You don’t believe it, either, unless you are Pelagian. Go back and read the Confutation about this very point. As Don, pointed out, you leave the implication here that Lutherans believe that it is by coercion, and that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace.

I never once said that Lutherans, insofar as their Confessions promulgate, believe “that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace”!!! I am well aware that they do! What they do not promulgate and conscientiously and willfully reject, is that moved by God’s arousal and prompting we are given the capability to cooperate in obtaining the grace of justification, namely, by the prompting of actual grace, we by our free will can choose to allow God to justify us. The FOC states that the “[will] does nothing whatever and is purely passive”.

I honestly do not believe you are fully reading my posts and are reacting on pure emotion, with all due respect, making this discourse more and more futile as it progresses. I mean that in the most gentle and tender way possible.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You don’t believe it, either, unless you are Pelagian. Go back and read the Confutation about this very point. As Don, pointed out, you leave the implication here that Lutherans believe that it is by coercion, and that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace.

I never once said that Lutheran’s, insofar as their Confessions promulgate, believe “that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace”!!! I am well aware that they do! What they do not promulgate and conscientiously and willfully reject, is that moved by God’s arousal and prompting we are given the capability to cooperate in obtaining the grace of justification, namely, by the prompting of actual grace, we by our free will can choose to allow God to justify us. The FOC states that the “[will] does nothing whatever and is merely passive”.

I honestly do not believe you are fully reading my posts and are reacting on pure emotion, with all due respect, making this discourse more and more futile as it progresses. I mean that in the most gentle and tender way possible.

You have implied it. I have read the posts. And I’ve watched you do it before.
If you want to agree that Lutherans and Catholics believe differently regarding how we come to faith and justification, regarding our role in it, then we agree. But you said that Lutherans reject free will. They do not.

 

[MaryT777]

What was the main point of Luther’s book " Bondage of the Will?" I read it and admit to not fully understanding all of it. It seemed to me Lutherans do not believe in FREE WILL the way Catholics do.

My understanding of the Lutheran thought is God does “all the work” as we are dung heaps covered with snow and have no free will to do so ON OUR OWN . How can that be free will.? I almost converted to the LCMS and I studied quite a bit of the doctrine with a LCMS Pastor well educated with a Master’s in Exegesis of Scripture.

I told him from a Catholic viewpoint the LCMS view sounds like single predestination. Good chooses some (because we without the will can not do it of our own choosing) but not others.

So the obvious question to me is:
Why does God choose to save some but not others? They can damn themselves but not yet cooperate by free will in assenting to Faith?

I asked him bluntly and he said “Make no mistake there are GRAVE differences between the LCMS and the RC’s on free will.”

To imply the thought on consenting to the Faith is of man’s choosing in the LCMS is similar to to the Catholic view if that is was you were trying to say is misleading to me.

Any comment would be appreciated.

Blessings.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

You don’t believe it, either, unless you are Pelagian. Go back and read the Confutation about this very point. As Don, pointed out, you leave the implication here that Lutherans believe that it is by coercion, and that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace.

I never once said that Lutheran’s, insofar as their Confessions promulgate, believe “that free will is not in play in our ability to reject grace”!!! I am well aware that they do! What they do not promulgate and conscientiously and willfully reject, is that moved by God’s arousal and prompting we are given the capability to cooperate in obtaining the grace of justification, namely, by the prompting of actual grace, we by our free will can choose to allow God to justify us. The FOC states that the “[will] does nothing whatever and is merely passive”.

I honestly do not believe you are fully reading my posts and are reacting on pure emotion, with all due respect, making this discourse more and more futile as it progresses. I mean that in the most gentle and tender way possible.

You have implied it. I have read the posts. And I’ve watched you do it before.
If you want to agree that Lutherans and Catholics believe differently regarding how we come to faith and justification, regarding our role in it, then we agree. But you said that Lutherans reject free will. They do not.

Yes, they do! Do you honestly think that the Council of Trent decreed Canon 4 (regarding justification) just for kicks? The Lutheran Confessions DO believe in free will only inasmuch as rejecting God’s calling and grace, they DO NOT believe in free will as to accept (by God’s actual grace) God’s calling and grace, hence they reject free will. Hence, my comments regarding coercion of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not justify us against our will, that is not love but bondage. (Caps only for emphasis)

To declare you are only free to reject, but not free to accept, is a distortion of free will. So, if it makes you feel better, you believe in your definition of free will; but, as noted, to say that we are purely passive and do nothing regarding God justifying us, that is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ, with all due respect; hence, the anathema sentence of using that language.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, they do! Do you honestly think that the Council of Trent decreed Canon 4 (regarding justification) just for kicks? The Lutheran Confessions DO believe in free will only inasmuch as rejecting God’s calling and grace, they DO NOT believe in free will as to accept (by God’s actual grace) God’s calling and grace, hence they reject free will. Hence, my comments regarding coercion of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not justify us against our will, that is not love but bondage. (Caps only for emphasis)

To declare you are only free to reject, but not free to accept, is a distortion of free will. So, if it makes you feel better, you believe in your definition of free will; but, as noted, to say that we are purely passive and do nothing regarding God justifying us, that is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ, with all due respect; hence, the anathema sentence of using that language.

I don’t care what Trent canon 4 says. Trent doesn’t define what Lutherans believe, anymore than you do.
Lutherans do not believe that one’s heart is moved against their will. One has the right to reject grace. From the Lutheran perspective, to say that free will gives us the freedom to reject grace is NOT a distortion of free will. It is a definition of free will. It might be different than the Catholic position, but it is not a rejection of free will, as the Catholic Confutation states.

 

[AugustTherese]

I don’t care what Trent canon 4 says. Trent doesn’t define what Lutherans believe, anymore than you do.
Lutherans do not believe that one’s heart is moved against their will. One has the right to reject grace. From the Lutheran perspective, to say that free will gives us the freedom to reject grace is NOT a distortion of free will. It is a definition of free will. It might be different than the Catholic position, but it is not a rejection of free will, as the Catholic Confutation states.

Sure, “it is a definition of free will”, but it is not the full definition of free will. You make it sound like the Catholic Church cannot detect heresy and therefore cannot determine what any ecclesial community confesses to believe. Being free of error gives Her all the more lucid perspective of false teachings and how they do not come from Our Bless Lord. If you, the Lutheran Confessions, and/or anyone else confesses that we cannot by the prompting of actual grace choose to accept God to justify us, then the “free will” you claim to believe isn’t holistically free, but halfway enslaved to God forcing justification on us. If you cannot, by actual grace, choose to allow God to justify you, then how come not all men are justified considered God wants all men to be saved?

 

[JonNC]

Sure, “it is a definition of free will”, but it is not the full definition of free will. You make it sound like the Catholic Church cannot detect heresy and therefore cannot determine what any ecclesial community confesses to believe. Being free of error gives Her all the more lucid perspective of false teachings and how they do not come from Our Bless Lord. If you, the Lutheran Confessions, and/or anyone else confesses that we cannot by the prompting of actual grace choose to accept God to justify us, then the “free will” you claim to believe isn’t holistically free, but halfway enslaved to God forcing justification on us. If you cannot, by actual grace, choose to allow God to justify you, then how come now all men are justified considered God wants all men to be saved?

It is quite the full definition for Lutherans. I’m not making any statement about what the CC can or cannot detect. That’s not to say I don’t think the CC has errors. It does. I think where we have a difference is you want to define for Lutherans what they believe, and I have no interest in defining for Catholics (or Lutherans now that I am not one) what they believe.
I have been on this forum for a long time. I have benefited greatly from hearing what Catholics tell me their beliefs are. I have no interest in telling them what they believe. I have also had Catholics who with charity and courtesy accept what Lutherans and others believe, then proceed to discuss the differences in beliefs. I have also experienced Catholics (and others) intend to tell others what they believe. The latter do nothing to advance dialogue.