Depends on your definition of “antinomian.” He always taught that faith would produce good works. But in later life he realized much more acutely the danger of people claiming to have faith and not producing good works–early on he seems to have been confident that he could just preach faith and good works would follow.
Question: would G.K. Chesterton approve of ignoring contexts?
I can understand if you stating that Max Planck’s idea of quantum theory developed and improved over time, or that Ernest Rutherford’s idea of the atom and the charged nucleus were initially good and improved upon by others - but, we are talking about our eternal salvation - not advances or maturation in the development of a particular theory. To the best of my knowledge, Luther never had the Divine Inspiration to break with the CC, never performed any miracles to indicate He was appointed by God to change the Work of Christ, and never rose from the dead to demonstrate that he was God’s Annointed. The empirical or scientific method has no place in Revealed Truth. God, in the fullness of time, revealed to mankind what He wants mankind to know. We don’t go individually to the lab to develop a new theory of Grace.
This, too, is confusing. The Word [capital “W”] of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1) and, yes, of course, God is infallible. But, is this what you mean? Or, do you mean the word of God (the Bible) is infallible? If the latter, then I think it might be clearer to say that the Bible is the inspired word of God written with the words of men. The books of the Bible were determined to be inspired - and therefor free of error - by the Catholic Church and this stood for 1500 years. To say that Lutherans do not regard Luther as infallible is nothing short of a truly dramatic statement about the person who attempted to change the Bible and made significant belief changes during his life time. This is the individual who appointed himself to replace the Successor of Peter - the one whom Christ appointed to lead the Church He would send His Spirit to guide and protect from error. And, by declaring for Luther, have you ‘bet the farm’ that Luther got it right and the Church of Christ got it wrong?
“Transformative” yes, it was that. But, maybe in the sense that a statement with an error can change the translation in a negative way. The idea that Faith Alone is the way we need to go is not a subject taught by Christ. The idea that Scripture Alone is the way to salvation - along with all of the individual interpretations (2Pet 1:20) just does not make any sense…at least to my way of thinking.
While I can understand a desire to distance one’s self or group from the failings of a leader - Catholics don’t usually sing about the personal piety of Alexander VI or Julius II , the real issue, at least as I appreciate the matter, are you on the right train, not what man is the engineer? Bear with me while I keep to this analogy: the tracks have been laid and they are in great shape, the Holy Spirit is really in charge so that no error can be taught involving Faith or Morals. There is no question about the train - Christ’s Church - arriving safely at the “Pearly Gates” as it final destination.
But is that what Luther had in mind when he put in the word “alone” ? We know for a fact that present Lutherans are not practicing doctrine for doctrine what Luther taught. What was Luther’s original understanding of “faith alone”? And if it was, as was stated above, “faith in charity, in love,” what was the point of adding “alone,” as this is what the CC was teaching?
This excellently wraps up neatly Luther and sola fide.
Well, for starters Luther claimed that his views on Scripture were simply those he had been taught at the University of Erfurt. So clearly he was working in continuity with late medieval scholasticism on some level, even if he was more radical than he recognized. The scholastics worked with the assumption that the Bible was the basic authoritative text for the study of theology, just as other disciplines had their authoritative texts (Aristotle for many philosophical topics, Donatus for grammar, and so on). That is why I have no use for the argument of some Catholic apologists that a text can’t be an “authority.” Heiko Oberman (who was the teacher of my own advisor) argued that the scholastic theological position was in continuity with one stream of thought from the early Church, which Oberman calls “Tradition I.” In other words, Scripture is materially sufficient and the final theological authority, but is interpreted with respect for the long tradition of Christian theology and exegesis. (So tradition is located primarily with theologians and is dependent on Scripture.) Many traditional Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, etc.) would say that this is their position. In contrast, Oberman argued, the canon lawyers tended to hold a view he called “Tradition II” (which he admitted also went back to the early Church, particularly Basil the Great). In this view, tradition is a parallel authority with Scripture and is identified primarily with the decisions of the hierarchy.
The issue is that Luther is responsible for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but not even he believed it.
Please elaborate.
Sorry about all of the questions… Let’s see on where to start…I now see what you are talking about. I certainly hope that my love of God and knowledge of His Word and His Church grow greatly in the time I have left on earth. At 62…I am not sure I have the 30 years you are addressing!
Don’t worry about the capitals, it is just that I was not sure what you meant. I have it now. Yes, all of the material in the Bible has been determined to be the Inspired Word of God. What makes this of interest is that the Catholic Church accomplished the work necessary to make that determination around the year 300 - or about 1200+ years before the Protestant Reformation. So, for the first 300 years there was not a complete ‘document’ called the Bible. There were the works of particular writers - but, not everyone who picked up a pen was inspired…some (like the Gnostics) were even into mischief!
Some Protestants say that good works are completely unnecessary to salvation, and in a way that’s true: we are saved, not because we do good works, but because of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. Our salvation is something that entirely comes from outside ourselves, and therefore is not dependent on anything we do, but is wholly, and solely the work of God in Christ Jesus. But can one truly say he is saved if his life produces no good fruit (works)? We are simul justus et peccator (forgive me if the spelling is incorrect). As long as we walk on this earth, we remain sinners, even though we are justified by grace through faith in Christ (see Ephesians chapter 2). But our lives must still produce the fruit which comes from walking in the Spirit of God. As Jesus said, “by their works you will know them.” That, I think, is the point James was making in his epistle. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his day preached against “easy believe-ism”). He taught that we, the Body of Christ, must embrace a theology of the Cross if we are truly His disciples. Jesus warned that those who follow Him would suffer for their faith, manifested by the works of their daily lives. If one has never suffered for being a Christian, perhaps he is not really a Christian.God bless
Fiddler’s post was spot on but it is “by their **fruit **you know them” not by their works…? Just thought I would post this quickly before rushing off toe Mass.
Here is something for you humble_in_doubt:Luther was nuts … I mean anyone who seriously believes in an invisible friend who mystically controls the universe and will give us an elusive paradise (but only if we suffer in this life, and we only get it after we die) has to be nuts right?
I notice you listed your Religion as: “Nothing”. May I ask what brings you to this Catholic site?Luther was nuts … I mean anyone who seriously believes in an invisible friend who mystically controls the universe and will give us an elusive paradise (but only if we suffer in this life, and we only get it after we die) has to be nuts right?
