Sola Fidae

[Masoncameronmay]

I recently listened to a debate between John Matingoni, and an independent Anglican over the issue of “sola Fidae”. In this debate John was supposed to be arguing for salvation invoking works, and the Anglican argued salvation was by faith alone. I thought the debate was silly because in the end neither of them were saying what the other was accusing them of. That is…John wasn’t saying salvation was by works alone, and the Anglican wasn’t saying faith alone equalled anarchy. In the end John conceded that to get into heaven required the mercy of God through Jesus Christ…exactly the position of the Anglican. So what’s the difference? It seems as though both parties are merely reacting to a false perception of the others position?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve never heard of John Matingoni (is he supposed to be a Catholic?). You identify his debate opponent only as an “independent Anglican.” I am a former Anglican, and I have no idea what that term means (although I could propose a number of definitions, and would have once numbered myself among them). Strictly speaking, an “Anglican” is a member of the Church of England, whose “pope” (supreme monarch) is the current English monarch (presently Queen Elizabeth-2).

 

[Verbum]

Hi Mason,

We are saved by faith and baptism. This gives us the ticket to heaven. But we have to make our way there. That is “works”. If we stray off the path of salvation, there is forgiveness available. I don’t think an Anglican would disagree with that.

By the way, it’s sola fides.

Verbum

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mason,

We are saved by faith and baptism. This gives us the ticket to heaven. But we have to make our way there. That is “works”. If we stray off the path of salvation, there is forgiveness available. I don’t think an Anglican would disagree with that.

By the way, it’s sola fides.

Verbum

Neither would a Lutheran.

Jon

 

[toaslan]

Join Date: February 15, 2013
Posts: 1
Religion: Associate reform

Sola Fidae

---

*"…In the end John conceded that to get into heaven required the mercy of God through Jesus Christ…exactly the position of the Anglican. So what’s the difference? " *

The big divide between the Catholic and all Protestant positions on faith/works as works bear on salvation has to do with the efficacy of works. The Catholic position is that works really contribute to one’s salvation: they are not merely a sign of saving faith, or a natural result of it. They are bone of its bone.

When the Protestant asks a Catholic, Are you saved? the Catholic may stumble for an answer. The reason is, it’s not a Catholic question. The best we can answer is, “Yes, I was saved at my baptism; yes, I am being saved every day as I respond to God’s graces in my life; yes, I will have been saved when I die in His friendship.”

A Catholic way to put the theme is, “A man is saved by grace through faith lived out in love.” Always for Catholics it’s the and/and, not the either/or. And this is the structure of God’s infinite mercy on us.

Hope this helps.

 

[Soonerpoppy]

Didn’t see the debate, but I’d like to offer for your consideration Matthew 25: 31- 46 as a simple explanation to the argument against sola fides. The judgement of the sheep and the goats is an object lesson for doing works as well as faith. I wold appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[JonNC]

Didn’t see the debate, but I’d like to offer for your consideration Matthew 25: 31- 46 as a simple explanation to the argument against sola fides. The judgement of the sheep and the goats is an object lesson for doing works as well as faith. I wold appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Sola fide does not teach one need not do good works. Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[toaslan]

Didn’t see the debate, but I’d like to offer for your consideration Matthew 25: 31- 46 as a simple explanation to the argument against sola fides. The judgement of the sheep and the goats is an object lesson for doing works as well as faith. I wold appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Hi, Soonerpoppy,

I agree that’s a fit quote. The problem is, there are numerous scriptural quotes saying works are essential to salvation, and there are also numerous quotes saying, “just believe.” Overbalancing in either direction causes falsity: the non-Catholic world takes positions at both extremes of the works/faith apparent divide all the way up to hair-splitting distinctions in the middle. Lacking the principle of unity, a source divinely enabled to teach as one organic truth the apparently contradictory passages, Protestants have separated from the parent church and then from each other to the tally of thousands of denominations and counting.

Meanwhile, the Catholic world adheres to the constant teaching: salvation is by grace. It is by grace, through faith lived out in love. It’s the classic Catholic and/and. The Church has studied and taught this down through the ages, in all its nuances and depth, finally in all its mystery.

 

[toaslan]

Regarding Luther’s teaching, “…i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God.”: It is an historical fact, incredible as it seems, that Martin Luther inserted the word “alone” into his translation of sacred scripture, so as to have St. Paul say we are saved by faith alone, when St. Paul in that passage says instead merely, we are saved by faith. Obviously, Luther felt that Paul wasn’t clear enough, and that he, Luther, could improve the sacred text. While the word “alone” was removed in later printings of Luther’s translation (as an obvious error), the overbalanced falsity is a historical fact and underlies the Protestent division today.

We might notice the one and only place in the New Testament where the words “faith” and “alone” appear joined together. It is in the teaching that “man is not saved by faith alone” in James. This of course makes James a “gospel of straw” derided by Luther who put a word on St. Paul’s tongue to make the opposite case.

The Catholic position is that God’s grace is effective. He cannot live within a man without that man actually, really, unequivocally being changed. When God says, let there be, there IS. God’s word does not go out to no effect; His breath changes the one breathed upon. When we are baptized, we are made new; we are graced as in God’s life animating us. That is how we are truly really adopted into His family–not a legal label, but organically embedded in His family, truly His children and heirs to our Father’s Kingdom

Therein lies the Catholic sacramental world, for the sacrament is the sign of the grace it actually causes in (rather than somehow legally imputes to) the soul. In sum, the Catholic position is that man’s free living response to the grace offered is organic to the grace: a mystery indeed, but that is the Christian faith lived under His Mercy.

 

[JonNC]

=toaslan;10369779]Regarding Luther’s teaching, "…i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God.": It is an historical fact, incredible as it seems, that Martin Luther inserted the word “alone” into his translation of sacred scripture, so as to have St. Paul say we are saved by faith alone, when St. Paul in that passage says instead merely, we are saved by faith. Obviously, Luther felt that Paul wasn’t clear enough, and that he, Luther, could improve the sacred text. While the word “alone” was removed in later printings of Luther’s translation (as an obvious error), the overbalanced falsity is a historical fact and underlies the Protestent division today.

That odd, as my copy of Luther’s German translation has “allein” in Romans 3:28. Where Romans 3:28 does not have “alone” is in English translations. Luther’s use of “allein” has to do with translation from Greek. The use of “alone” in the English isn’t necessary. Luther was quite sure that St. Paul was clear, but Paul didn’t speak German.

We might notice the one and only place in the New Testament where the words “faith” and “alone” appear joined together. It is in the teaching that “man is not saved by faith alone” in James. This of course makes James a “gospel of straw” derided by Luther who put a word on St. Paul’s tongue to make the opposite case.

Yes, the words together appear in James, and properly so, since James was speaking to the regnerate, and about the law. So, of course he would emphasize the necessity of works. That’s a good thing. It is also true that he did not speak much of Gospel, as Paul does. And this is the point of Luther’s oft-misquoted and misrepresented phrase " book of straw" (not gospel of straw). In Luther’s view, since James does not speak much about Gospel, it was not of an apostolic nature. The question of authorship had been a dispute for centuries before Luther, and this dispute regarding James was not new. Nevertheless, Luthers says that, even though rejected by the ancients (Eusebius for one), he praises it for emphasizing the law.

If one is to accuse Luther of putting a word on Paul’s tongue, then every translator is guilty, since Paul did not speak many of the modern languages one finds the Bible in.

The Catholic position is that God’s grace is effective. He cannot live within a man without that man actually, really, unequivocally being changed. When God says, let there be, there IS. God’s word does not go out to no effect; His breath changes the one breathed upon. When we are baptized, we are made new; we are graced as in God’s life animating us. That is how we are truly really adopted into His family–not a legal label, but organically embedded in His family, truly His children and heirs to our Father’s Kingdom

Amen.

Therein lies the Catholic sacramental world, for the sacrament is the sign of the grace it actually causes in (rather than somehow legally imputes to) the soul. In sum, the Catholic position is that man’s free living response to the grace offered is organic to the grace: a mystery indeed, but that is the Christian faith lived under His Mercy.

Amen. The understanding that Justification is imputed would not exclude necesity of a growth in grace, even a theosis if you wish.

Jon

 

[toaslan]

That odd, as my copy of Luther’s German translation has “allein” in Romans 3:28. Where Romans 3:28 does not have “alone” is in English translations. Luther’s use of “allein” has to do with translation from Greek. The use of “alone” in the English isn’t necessary. Luther was quite sure that St. Paul was clear, but Paul didn’t speak German.

This is Greek to me. To put it in other words: Luther used a qualifier which in English means “alone” so that the text read “faith alone” instead of just “faith.” Just how you do this in German I don’t know–maybe you can give us the German text both including Luther’s original translation, and the corrected translation, omitting the qualification, which appeared in subsequent printings of his translation?

Yes, the words together appear in James, and properly so, since James was speaking to the regnerate, and about the law.

Not so. James was speaking to the same people St. Paul was addressing: all the followers of Christ and whoever has ears to hear.

It is also true he did not speak much of Gospel, as Paul does.

unclear

And this is the point of Luther’s oft-misquoted and misrepresented phrase " book of straw" (not gospel of straw). In Luther’s view, since James does not speak much about Gospel, it was not of an apostolic nature.g

Yes, sorry, “book of straw,” which you must understand is sacrilegious to Catholic sensibilities. Luther also referred to St. James as “Jamie.” By contrast, the Catholic Church accepts the entire New Testament as divinely inspired–no one part more or less inspired than another.

The question of authorship had been a dispute for centuries before Luther, and this dispute regarding James was not new.

Hardly. The canon of scripture was set in stone by the Church officially by the end of the 4th Century (private opinions aside)–and that final decision was simply a reconfirmation of official lists drawn up previously. All of Christendom received the same bible–the modern Catholic set of books–as divinely inspired, until Martin Luther. Luther changed the canon of the Old Testament, and tried to do so with the New–and tried to “clarify” St. Paul–all to support his doctrinal novelties.

Nevertheless, Luthers says that, even though rejected by the ancients (Eusebius for one), he praises it for emphasizing the law.

The Church accepted it, and that’s what matters. We look to see what the Pope, and/or, the Pope in Council with the Bishops, defines on a matter in order to know what Catholicism holds. Any one man’s opinion–such as Luther’s–is merely that. Further, we do not see that St. James is “emphasizing the law” (a way to label and dismiss his teaching as inferior); rather, we are reminded by James that to belong to Christ is to live the beautitudes taught by Christ.

If one is to accuse Luther of putting a word on Paul’s tongue, then every translator is guilty, since Paul did not speak many of the modern languages one finds the Bible in.

Contrariwise. A good translator keeps his opinion out of the work: to make an honest job he needs to transfer from one language to another with precision and without bias. A bad translator alters the meaning according to his bias. The latter is what Luther did

The understanding that Justification is imputed would not exclude necesity of a growth in grace

Catholicism tends to be uninterested in the distinction made by Protestantism between salvation and justification. Anyway, to be clear: If I impute something to my neighbor, that thing still may or may not be true of him. E.g., I may say he is a miser, but he may be instead a secret philanthropist. Further, the language is “legal imputation,” even more hollow when speaking of the Father’s handling of us. To legally impute that a man is such and such is far less real and much more “legalistic” than for a man to BE such and such.

Our God is not a lawyer to legally impute anything to us. Instead He is a much more wonderful thing: He is our Father, whose life breathes in His children, who are thereby actually (far other and more than legally) transformed into new creations in Him.

Luther likedned Christians to dunghills covered with snow: we remain disgusting filthy wretches but when covered by faith in Christ, God the Father looks only upon Christ’s white purity and we slide by undercover. But the dung remains dung. The dung depends on the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness to get by.

Sad and not so. Christ’s righteousness really and truly permeates the believer’s being, recreating him at baptism, changing him from infinitely guilty to truly a fellow child of the Father.

Catholicism holds man is truly, really, effectively made new in baptism, renewed and reinvigorated through the other Sacraments. Man is thereby freed from the inherited guilt of Original Sin and the guilt of personal sins, we are animated by the indwelling breath of God in every moment giving us the strength we need to fully depend on Him and freely to do His will as we go along.

The difference between the two views is, indeed, enormous.

 

[JonNC]

=toaslan;10371170]This is Greek to me. To put it in other words: Luther used a qualifier which in English means “alone” so that the text read “faith alone” instead of just “faith.” Just how you do this in German I don’t know–maybe you can give us the German text both including Luther’s original translation, and the corrected translation, omitting the qualification, which appeared in subsequent printings of his translation?

The qualifier isn’t in the English, in any translation that I know of. I don’t speak German, but I have read Luther’s explanation. One can accept or reject Luther’s explanation of translation from Greek into German, as they choose, but he was quite clear that this was a matter of translation.

Not so. James was speaking to the same people St. Paul was addressing: ** all the followers of Christ **and whoever has ears to hear.

Many of Paul’s lettersd are written to followers of Christ. It certainly is true that James’ focus is on law.

unclear

His focus was on law.

Yes, sorry, “book of straw,” which you must understand is sacrilegious to Catholic sensibilities. Luther also referred to St. James as “Jamie.” By contrast, the Catholic Church accepts the entire New Testament as divinely inspired–no one part more or less inspired than another.

I suspect some might consider Eusebius sacriligeous, as well, since he classified it as antilegomena, or disputed.
On the Jamie thing, was he referring to the saint, or to the book? Luther did not believe the authorship to be James.

Hardly. The canon of scripture was set in stone by the Church officially by the end of the 4th Century (private opinions aside)–and that final decision was simply a reconfirmation of official lists drawn up previously. All of Christendom received the same bible–the modern Catholic set of books–as divinely inspired, until Martin Luther. Luther changed the canon of the Old Testament, and tried to do so with the New–and tried to “clarify” St. Paul–all to support his doctrinal novelties.

To say that all of Christendom received the same canon just isn’t historically accurate. I won’t get into the fact that Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils, or that the Orthodox canons of scripture vary from the western Church. I will instead reference the fact that Catholics, including Luther contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, by his words, thought the dueterocanon to be outside the canon. Catholics had the liberty to dispute books (hence the name Antilegomena) up until Trent.

B]The Church accepted it, and that’s what matters. We look to see what the Pope, and/or, the Pope in Council with the Bishops, defines on a matter in order to know what Catholicism holds.

Well, of course you do, and you should, and I respect you for that. I would be disappointed if you didn’t.

Any one man’s opinion–such as Luther’s–is merely that. Further, we do not see that St. James is “emphasizing the law” (a way to label and dismiss his teaching as inferior); rather, we are reminded by James that to belong to Christ is to live the beautitudes taught by Christ.

I don’t see it as a way of making it inferior at all. Christians need to be reminded that the second part of “You should love the Lord your God…” is “and your neighbor as yourself.” I give thanks that James gives us guidance on living a godly life.

Contrariwise. A good translator keeps his opinion out of the work: to make an honest job he needs to transfer from one language to another with precision and without bias. A bad translator alters the meaning according to his bias. The latter is what Luther did

I could contend that Catholic translators into German, if they didn’t include “allein” did exactly the same thing.

Luther likedned Christians to dunghills covered with snow: we remain disgusting filthy wretches but when covered by faith in Christ, God the Father looks only upon Christ’s white purity and we slide by undercover. But the dung remains dung. The dung depends on the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness to get by.

I have yet to find the source for the pile of dung thing, but we do in fact believe that we remain sinful (not unlike Paul’s complaint that the good he would do he does not, etc). None of that means that we must live out our faith, and grow in His grace.

Sad and not so. Christ’s righteousness really and truly permeates the believer’s being, recreating him at baptism, changing him from infinitely guilty to truly a fellow child of the Father.

I don’t dispute this. Luther didn’t either.

Catholicism holds man is truly, really, effectively made new in baptism, renewed and reinvigorated through the other Sacraments. Man is thereby freed from the inherited guilt of Original Sin and the guilt of personal sins, we are animated by the indwelling breath of God in every moment giving us the strength we need to fully depend on Him and freely to do His will as we go along.

And why do you think we believe any different?

Jon

 

[toaslan]

The qualifier isn’t in the English, in any translation that I know of. I don’t speak German, but I have read Luther’s explanation. One can accept or reject Luther’s explanation of translation

I begin to think you are repeating somebody else’s bullet points. It is amazing to me that you think your above response enough in re the intentional bending of Scripture towards one’s bias. All one need do to see what Luther actually did, rather than read anti-Catholic spins on what he did, is google “Martin Luther’s Original German Translation” and up come myriad pools of research. Here is a slice of the very first one I clicked on, found on a page of a decidedly anti-Catholic author (source:www/bible-researcher.com)

The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the insertion for the sake of clearness. (39) But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), “by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (“nicht durch den Glauben allein”).** It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article**, and characterized the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” because it had no evangelical character (“keine evangelische Art”).
He therefore insisted on this insertion in spite of all outcry against it. His defense is very characteristic. “If your papist,” he says, (40) “makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so, and says: Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges.” Then he goes on in the style of foolish boasting against the Papists, imitating the language of St. Paul in dealing with his Judaizing opponents (2 Cor. 11:22 sqq.): “Are they doctors? so am I. Are they learned? so am I. Are they preachers? so am I. Are they theologians? so am I. Are they disputators? so am I. Are they philosophers? so am I. Are they the writers of books? so am I. And I shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they can not. I can translate; which they can not … Therefore the word allein shall remain in my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys (Papstesel) should get furious and foolish, they shall not turn it out.” (41)
The Protestant and anti-Romish character of Luther’s New Testament is undeniable in his prefaces, his discrimination between chief books and less important books, his change of the traditional order, and his unfavorable judgments on James, Hebrews, and Revelation. (42) It is still more apparent in his marginal notes, especially on the Pauline Epistles, where he emphasizes throughout the difference between the law and the gospel, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and on the Apocalypse, where he finds the papacy in the beast from the abyss (Rev. 13), and in the Babylonian harlot (Rev. 17). (43) The anti-papal explanation of the Apocalypse became for a long time almost traditional in Protestant commentaries.(boldface added for emphasis)

Scripture warns we may not change even one word of scripture. Here is a one word change. Luther insisted upon the one word–it meant his world to him. He was right about its importance. It also means the world to the Catholic faith. It split the whole world of Christianity into two parts to this day. That you have no energy for this matter is curious, provided of course that you are actually interested in the truth.

I bolded the bit in the exerpt to highlight the fact that Luther saw it was impossible to reconcile the two contradictory statements, the point being: he saw them as contradictory–that is, he took them to be contradicting each other about the same thing. He saw them both speaking of the same thing, Faith (notice the same exact German word for faith is used in each phrase). Not *one kind of faith *as opposed to
another kind of faith. This latter distinction has since been crafted to rescue Protestantism from the difficulty which Luther tried to solve another way, by kicking James out of the bible and/or by “strengthening” Paul.

The unadorned literal statements by both the inspired authors are, “you are saved by faith,” and “you are not saved by faith alone.” Catholicism reads both statements as written; she ponders the difficulty trusting they make sense taken together, and thereby finds, in any language, her doctrine of salvation by grace.

I will next do your simple homework for you again by finding your dung doctrine for you.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I recently listened to a debate between John Matingoni, and an independent Anglican over the issue of “sola Fidae”. In this debate John was supposed to be arguing for salvation invoking works, and the Anglican argued salvation was by faith alone. I thought the debate was silly because in the end neither of them were saying what the other was accusing them of. That is…John wasn’t saying salvation was by works alone, and the Anglican wasn’t saying faith alone equalled anarchy. In the end John conceded that to get into heaven required the mercy of God through Jesus Christ…exactly the position of the Anglican. So what’s the difference? It seems as though both parties are merely reacting to a false perception of the others position?

I did not see/read the debate, but the number one problem with 99% of Protestant-Catholic debates on salvation is that each side doesn’t understand the Catholic position well enough to make the proper distinctions and thus show the real problems. Too often, both sides end up envisioning a Protestant view of salvation, and whether the Protestant view of salvation is by faith alone or faith plus works. This is typically why there is no real progress.

The main problem with the Lutheran-Calvinist (i.e. historic) Protestant view of Salvation is that it is based on Nestorianism-Pelagianism, which means their theology is ultimately built on an unintentional rejection of the Trinity. Once that becomes clear, then everything becomes clear.

 

[JonNC]

=toaslan;10378494]I begin to think you are repeating somebody else’s bullet points. It is amazing to me that you think your above response enough in re the intentional bending of Scripture towards one’s bias. All one need do to see what Luther actually did, rather than read anti-Catholic spins on what he did, is google “Martin Luther’s Original German Translation” and up come myriad pools of research. Here is a slice of the very first one I clicked on, found on a page of a decidedly anti-Catholic author (source:www/bible-researcher.com)

Someone else’s bullet points are irrelevent. Let me know if I challenge you personally, and I will stop.

Simply being anti-Catholic does not mean pro-Lutheran, or pro-Luther. Luther’s letter on translation, after his sarcasm and outright anger against Esmer for using Luther’s translation as his own, says the following:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Scripture warns we may not change even one word of scripture. Here is a one word change. Luther insisted upon the one word–it meant his world to him. He was right about its importance. It also means the world to the Catholic faith. It split the whole world of Christianity into two parts to this day. That you have no energy for this matter is curious, provided of course that you are actually interested in the truth.

Two worlds? That was done long before Luther. Luther’s was a translation, not a transiliteration.

I bolded the bit in the exerpt to highlight the fact that Luther saw it was impossible to reconcile the two contradictory statements, the point being: he saw them as contradictory–that is, he took them to be contradicting each other about the same thing. He saw them both speaking of the same thing, Faith (notice the same exact German word for faith is used in each phrase). Not *one kind of faith *as opposed to
another kind of faith. This latter distinction has since been crafted to rescue Protestantism from the difficulty which Luther tried to solve another way, by kicking James out of the bible and/or by “strengthening” Paul.

Where is James “kicked out”? I see this all the time, but I have seen not once in Luther’s own words that he wanted to “kick James out”. He preached from James regularly long after the Reformation. He included James in his translation (strange thing to do if you want to kick it out). But even if he did, what difference does that make? It is not “out” of any translation of the Bible. His support for James, authorship notwithstanding, was stronger than Eusebius’.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

The unadorned literal statements by both the inspired authors are, “you are saved by faith,” and “you are not saved by faith alone.” Catholicism reads both statements as written; she ponders the difficulty trusting they make sense taken together, and thereby finds, in any language, her doctrine of salvation by grace.

And so do we. We know they work together. Lutherans are well ware of the necessity of good works. Our confessional documents say so.

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. **Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins. **

I will next do your simple homework for you again by finding your dung doctrine for you.

Your condescension is unprovoked, and not in keeping with charitable dialogue.

Jon

 

[toaslan]

JonNC,

“Snow-covered dunghills”, as I find by googling, turns out to be one of the more polite versions of the phrase as used by Luther. The expression is current in both Catholic and Protestant circles, favored as an expression of his that “says it all.” In it Luther encapsulates the essence of his huge mass of verbiage on the point.

The phrase itself is said by renowned Luther scholar Eric Gritsch to appear in Luther’s “Table Talks.” Professor Gritsch is on record (see socrates58.blogspot.com) to that effect. Maybe someday I will go through these “Talks” as some sort of horrendous penance and comb out the exact phrase. Suffice to say, the phrase is accepted as originating from Luther by both sides and likewise accepted as both fair and usefully descriptive of Luther’s position.

Here is Luther talking in the same vein: “I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer” [LW 34: 184].

A book on sale now by prominent Protestant James White called “The God Who Justifies” has a chapter devoted to Luther’s Dunghill (see onceuponacross.blogspot.com where the chapter is excerpted), taking the phrase per common usage to draw out and illustrate Luther’s innovation.

These few bits are already quite enough to show the phrase was rightly used. You are welcome.

 

[toaslan]

Simply being anti-Catholic does not mean pro-Lutheran

I didn’t say or imply it did; that was not the point.

Two worlds? That was done long before Luther.

The reference was to the historically recorded effect of the Protestant Reformation upon Christendom. I know it lessens Luther’s responsibility for destroying unity if there was no unity, but if you see the forest and not the trees, there was a united Christendom and all Christians were Catholics, until Luther showed everybody how it’s OK to change the bible–and it that’s OK, what isn’t.

Where is James “kicked out”?

I said wanted to and tried to. Luther tried to kick James out of the Bible, along with other books; just as he did do with, for example, Maccabbees in the OT (Maccabbees teaches prayer for the dead: Luther embraced additional other grounds to remove from the list of sacred scriptures this divinely inspired book of the bible). James contradicted Luther on sola fide, so Luther found additional reasons why James should be de-canonized as well, meanwhile sacrilegeously downgrading and belittling the divinely inspired letter of James as a “book of straw”, and as “Jamie.” These and many more instances of Luther “improving” the bible are simply well known historical facts. They are givens with which you yet argue.

I have seen not once in Luther’s own ewords that he wanted to “kick James out”.

This is what is known as quibbling.

He preached from James reTEgularly long after the Reformation. He included James in his translation (strange thing to do if you want to kick it out).

I think we can think of reasons–and see from the historical record–why Luther ended up leaving James in place, and devoted himself instead to explaining James away…

But even if he did, what difference does that make?

What a good question! I’m happy you mentioned this point, so we get to talk about the meat of the matter.

So, the difference it makes is: The uproar over James brings into sharp focus Luther’s doctrine as contrasted to Catholic doctrine. It also shows he took authority over scripture, since we see how comfortable he is with inserting “alone” into St. Paul, proposing to exile James to some second-class appendix along with Revelation, etc. His treatment and attitude toward sacred scripture constitute red flags.

his support for James, authorship notwithstanding, was stronger than Eusebius’.

Why don’t we leave this fellow Eusebius and his private opinions out of it? Also why don’t we leave out this “authorship notwithstanding”–if the Catholic Church does not dispute the authorship (and Hers is the only opinion that counts anyway, as it’s Her book) then let it be as we have received it for 2k years.

Lutherans are well ware of the necessity of good works.

Yes, everybody says good works are necessary; they have to admit it in some sense or other, given James. It’s the “sense in which.”

I’ll try to lay it out briefly. Catholicism says that in man good works and faith are essentially cooperative. Insofar as a believing man responds as appropriate to grace in the living of his life including the last moment of life, he is saved; and saved by his graced response. Insofar as he does not respond in the living of his life to the grace offered, that far is he not saved. Movement of mind or feelings are in themselves not salvific, for the whole being of a man must move toward Him. A deliberate living embrace of the beautitudes, for example, would fit the needed obedience of faith to grace.

Your condescension is unprovoked, and not in keeping with charitable dialogue

Sorry I got impatient. Maybe it would help if I expressed the provocation: it is provoking when one’s interlocutor denies the historical record and turns the conversation into quibbling. It is provoking when there is insistence on putting things just one and only one way, and denial of fair and common parlance.

Pax.

 

[JonNC]

=toaslan;10383457]I didn’t say or imply it did; that was not the point.

I know, but the point needed to be made. Often those who are anti-Catholic tend to be anti-Lutheran as well, in large part because of our sacramental beliefs, etc.

The reference was to the historically recorded effect of the Protestant Reformation upon Christendom. I know it lessens Luther’s responsibility for destroying unity if there was no unity, but if you see the forest and not the trees, there was a united Christendom and all Christians were Catholics, until Luther showed everybody how it’s OK to change the bible–and it that’s OK, what isn’t.

There was not a united Christendom. That was my point. It isn’t an excuse, however, for the disunity that occurred in the west as a result of the Reformation, which the Catholic Catechism rightly says, men of both sides were to blame. Luther claims that, other than the fact that translation is not transliteration, he did not change the bible.

I said wanted to and tried to. Luther tried to kick James out of the Bible, along with other books; just as he did do with, for example, Maccabbees in the OT (Maccabbees teaches prayer for the dead: Luther embraced additional other grounds to remove from the list of sacred scriptures this divinely inspired book of the bible). James contradicted Luther on sola fide, so Luther found additional reasons why James should be de-canonized as well, meanwhile sacrilegeously downgrading and belittling the divinely inspired letter of James as a “book of straw”, and as “Jamie.” These and many more instances of Luther “improving” the bible are simply well known historical facts. They are givens with which you yet argue.

And I say he did not. If he didn’t want James in the NT, he would not have tanslated it, and included it. This is also true of the duetercanonical books - translated and included. If you have a complaint about Luther’s translation, it probably ought to be his inclusion of The Prayer of Mannassah.

This is what is known as quibbling.

It is not quibbling. If we are to be fair to historical figures, whether we like them or not, we need to express what they did and believed by the historical record and by their words.

I think we can think of reasons–and see from the historical record–why Luther ended up leaving James in place, and devoted himself instead to explaining James away…

How does he explain it away? You’ve changed the claim now. He left it in place because, 1) it was a part of the historical text of scripture, and 2) he says he praises it, though he does not think it written by an apostle, and he wasn’t the first to think this.

Luther’s prefaces (the one regarding James only appears with his first publication in 1521), reflect only his thinking, but his thinking was not in a vacuum. He took a position which was permitted by the Catholic Church at the time prior to Trent.

What a good question! I’m happy you mentioned this point, so we get to talk about the meat of the matter.

So, the difference it makes is: The uproar over James brings into sharp focus Luther’s doctrine as contrasted to Catholic doctrine. It also shows he took authority over scripture, since we see how comfortable he is with inserting “alone” into St. Paul, proposing to exile James to some second-class appendix along with Revelation, etc. His treatment and attitude toward sacred scripture constitute red flags.

And Eusebius lists these as Antilegomena, or disputed. Luther had the privilege, like every other Catholic prior to Trent, to dispute them in the same way. This is historical fact. As for “allein”, again this is not unknown in the history of the Church. there are a number of ECF’s who speak of justification as by faith “alone”. If these are “red flags” for him, then they are red flags for the ECF’s as well.
Again, there is no English translation with “alone” in Romans 3:28, because unlike German, it isn’t needed in the English.

Why don’t we leave this fellow Eusebius and his private opinions out of it? Also why don’t we leave out this “authorship notwithstanding”–if the Catholic Church does not dispute the authorship (and Hers is the only opinion that counts anyway, as it’s Her book) then let it be as we have received it for 2k years.

We cannot leave Eusebius out of it because he is an important writerin the history of the Church. We can’t leave any of the history of the Church “out of it”. That, ISTM, is the error many protestants make, even some Lutherans.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Yes, everybody says good works are necessary; they have to admit it in some sense or other, given James. It’s the “sense in which.”

I’ll try to lay it out briefly. Catholicism says that in man good works and faith are essentially cooperative. Insofar as a believing man responds as appropriate to grace in the living of his life including the last moment of life, he is saved; and saved by his graced response. Insofar as he does not respond in the living of his life to the grace offered, that far is he not saved. Movement of mind or feelings are in themselves not salvific, for the whole being of a man must move toward Him. A deliberate living embrace of the beautitudes, for example, would fit the needed obedience of faith to grace.

I don’t believe this expresses the difference between us exactly. I posted a portion of the Formula of Concord that expresses, essentially, this. Moved by grace, and guided by the Spirit (who provides us strength for growth in grace through word and sacrament), we are bound (not simply certain to, but required to) to live a godly life, obey His commands, care for the least of His children, and do the good works He has placed before us to do.
Where we, perhaps, differ, is how we account these works in terms of merit.

Sorry I got impatient. Maybe it would help if I expressed the provocation: it is provoking when one’s interlocutor denies the historical record and turns the conversation into quibbling. It is provoking when there is insistence on putting things just one and only one way, and denial of fair and common parlance.

Apology accepted. I denied nothing regarding Luther’s use of “dung”. What I said was I’ve seen no proof that he actually used that phrase, and “Table Talk” isn’t always reliable because Luther did not write it; it was written by those who heard him. It certainly isn’t far-fetched that he did say something to tha effect, considering his penchant for hyperbole.
Aside from the crass nature of the phrase, the expression does imply the Lutheran belief that we are, at once, saint and sinner, and that that terndency for sin - concupiscence - remains in us until death. It does not express well our understanding that we are to grow in grace, and yes respond to that grace by striving to live the godly life.

Additionally, if my responses to you were lacking in clarity, or seemed uncharitable, which may have raised a level frustration on your part, I too apologize.

Pax.

And also with you.

Jon

 

[Church_Militant]

I recently listened to a debate between John Matingoni, and an independent Anglican over the issue of “sola Fidae”. In this debate John was supposed to be arguing for salvation invoking works, and the Anglican argued salvation was by faith alone. I thought the debate was silly because in the end neither of them were saying what the other was accusing them of. That is…John wasn’t saying salvation was by works alone, and the Anglican wasn’t saying faith alone equalled anarchy. In the end John conceded that to get into heaven required the mercy of God through Jesus Christ…exactly the position of the Anglican. So what’s the difference? It seems as though both parties are merely reacting to a false perception of the others position?

Is this the debate you’re talking about? It’s John Martignoni and he is indeed Catholic.
Debate: Sola Fide (Are We Saved by Faith Alone?)

A debate on salvation between John Martignoni and Dr. James Saxon

You might also wanna see Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone