Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther

[Duane1966]

This quote comes up every once in a while, it used to come up more, but the collective unconscious of the Internet has shifted. “Seems” is a good choice of words. Actual Catholic scholarship (Grisar, Paulus) has shown this quote was from a less-than-accurate compilations of Luther’s sermons published during Luther’s lifetime, and that after it’s publication, this very quote was edited out of the text. In the 1528 version, the sermon now states that Scripture did not say anything about the conception of Mary.

This 1522 quote is not reflective of Luther’s later lack of emphasis on Mary. You may find a few statements like this from Luther early on in his career, but they dissipate as his life went on. For instance, consider this statement from 1532, just 10 years later:

Perhaps. I’m not familiar with Lutheranism enough to know if there’s a doctrinal statement saying that Mariology is a matter adiaphoron for Lutherans. I know that Luther came to a strong position in regard to the adoration of the saints, particularly Mary. Given Luther’s strong emphasis on the First Commandment, I would Luther would probably question motives in regard to Lutherans developing a Mariology.

One could take the viewpoint that the further down the road he got, the more lost he became.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

So if I am an atheist and I do charitable works, does that mean I have faith?

No , faith produces works , Not the other way around , secondly , faith is a gift from God created in people’s hearts by the word and sacraments , third people who have faith may reject Christ , atheists are not saved by doing works , people are justified by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Duane1966]

No , faith produces works , Not the other way around , secondly , faith is a gift from God created in people’s hearts by the word and sacraments , third people who have faith may reject Christ , atheists are not saved by doing works , people are justified by grace alone through faith alone.

So we can agree that faith alone does nothing. Not sure about faith producing works, as works can be done by someone who has no faith. So it is obvious to me that faith and works are two separate entities, if you have one but not the other, you are in trouble. Will you post the book, chapter, and verse that says grace alone, and faith alone?

24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

How come St. James says not by faith alone and you say faith alone? Should I listen to you, or him?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

For the other five:
patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/08/top-ten-remarkable-catholic-beliefs-of-martin-luther.html

Well, Luther was a Catholic priest, he would keep some Catholic beliefs. However, his beliefs got much better the more he went forward. For example he jettisoned purgatory and attempted to wean people off veneration of Mary by the 1530s.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

So we can agree that faith alone does nothing. Not sure about faith producing works, as works can be done by someone who has no faith. So it is obvious to me that faith and works are two separate entities, if you have one but not the other, you are in trouble. Will you post the book, chapter, and verse that says grace alone, and faith alone?How come St. James says not by faith alone and you say faith alone? Should I listen to you, or him?

No , faith alone does save If put in The atonement of Jesus , works are the fruit but do not save , James was referring to dead faith that has no evidence AFTER salvation , faith is passive , but after salvation it produces works , and it’s amazing how you tried to twist my comments, I literally just stated that love and works don’t save and that only faith saves , Nd yet you somehow switched what I just said .

 

[Duane1966]

No , faith alone does save If put in The atonement of Jesus , works are the fruit but do not save , James was referring to dead faith that has no evidence AFTER salvation , faith is passive , but after salvation it produces works , and it’s amazing how you tried to twist my comments, I literally just stated that love and works don’t save and that only faith saves , Nd yet you somehow switched what I just said .

Please give me the verse where faith alone saves?

 

[Duane1966]

From St. James:

22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”l 24See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also **justified by works **when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?m 26For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

There are many people who are taught that faith is all they need and walk by there brother in the gutter, they say they have faith in Jesus, and read their bibles. All I know is I have yet to see saved by faith alone in bible, nor did any of the ECF’s believe that. Protestant historian Alistair McGrath said you will not find one Early Church Father who believed in sola fide, that it was a novel invention of Luther

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Eph 2:8-9 , Gal 2:16 , Rom 3:27 and 28 , Luke 18:9-14 , Luke 23:39-43 , Gen15:6 , Rom 10-9-10, Rom 6:23 , Rom 3:21-22, Rom 4:1-5, Rom4:9-12,Gal5:2-5,Rom 4:13-24,Gal 3:2-3 just to name a few .

 

[Duane1966]

Not one of those verses say saved by faith alone do they?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Not one of those verses say saved by faith alone do they?

They say faith without works ,I.e faith alone , then faith produces works after conversion .

 

[Duane1966]

They say faith without works ,I.e faith alone , then faith produces works after conversion .

Then by your own words you are not saved by faith alone, for the faith MUST produce works, or it is no good. But once again, works is quite clearly not a subset of faith, since an atheist can do works and not have any faith. The very word alone means by itself. If you have faith alone, meaning you do no charitable acts, will you be saved?

Taken from this website:catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-James.htm

Errors with these interpretations:

Paul is not talking about “good works” in the sense of “charitable acts”; rather, he says “works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 3:2-12; Rom 3:28), which refers to the Jewish/Mosaic laws on circumcision, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.
When James says “works,” he means acts of charity = care for widows, orphans & the poor, love for neighbors, etc. (James 1:27; 2:8; 2:15-16)

Paul is not opposed to "good works" or "charitable actions"; he sees them as necessary consequences (although not the foundation) of authentic Christian living (see Gal 5–6; Rom 12–15).
     Conversely, James is not opposed to faith; he presupposes it, and then stresses that authentic faith must be put into action (James 2:14-26).

Paul is not talking primarily about our "faith in Jesus," but rather the "faith of Jesus" in God (i.e., Jesus' own trusting in God; see Gal 2:16, 20; Rom 3:22, 26); based on this foundation, our faith in God/Jesus is a necessary (but secondary) response.
     In contrast, James does mean people’s faith, primarily believing in God (2:23) but also believing in Jesus (2:1).

Paul does not presuppose the same definition of "faith" as James does; for Paul, "faith" means "trusting" God, or "entrusting oneself" to God's plans (Rom 4:3-22).
     For James, "faith" is more of an intellectual assent to theological truths, e.g., "believing that God is one" (2:19; even demons can "believe" in God's existence).

Paul did not write the word "alone" in Rom 3:28; Martin Luther was the one who added the word "allein" in his German Bible translation.
     James does not write "by works alone" but stresses "not by faith alone"; he maintains that **both have to go together.**

The bold is what the Church has always taught.

And again I add that not one ECF believed in sola fide the way Luther did.

 

[pablope]

Well, Luther was a Catholic priest, he would keep some Catholic beliefs.

However, his beliefs got much better the more he went forward. For example he jettisoned purgatory and attempted to wean people off veneration of Mary by the 1530s.

And do you think this is a postive developement?

When he jettisoned purgaroty…does it mean then there is no purgatory anymore?

So calling the Pope the anti-Christ a positive development then?

 

[pablope]

He did not hold to philosophical expressions of the real presence - transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc. - but he did hold to the doctrine of the real presence.

And his idea of SU is not a philosophical construct or expression?

He was not opposed to Eucharistic adoration, though he did oppose the Corpus Christi procession.

 

[pablope]

First off , he opposed Mary’s sinlessnes , and opposed prayers for the dead , second ALL Protestants believe works are fruits of faith , we and Luther just believe works do not save .

So Luther knows better than the Church council that sat together, and discerned the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So do you think Luther was guided by the Holy Spirit in opposing Mary’s sinlessness?

 

[steido01]

Why? Is there anything wrong with doing this [the Corpus Christi processions]?

When Christ instituted the Sacrament, His instructions were, “Take, and eat.” He did not say, “Take, parade around, and don’t actually eat it.”

Since he opposed it…then Lutherans are opposed to it too, then?

Generally, yes, for the same reason: fear of God and respect for His Sacraments. We don’t take Baptismal water to water our church lawns, or fill community swimming pools. Same deal. Misuse of the consecrated Body and Blood outside of the prescribed Sacrament can be interpreted, whether intended or not, as sacrilegious in the worst case, or silly-superstition in the best.

Edit: Those Lutherans who do practice it generally do it as an extension of the Liturgy of the Sacrament, and generally just process around the church. I do not know of any Lutheran churches (in America, anyway) that process around town like Catholic churches sometimes do.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

So Luther knows better than the Church council that sat together, and discerned the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So do you think Luther was guided by the Holy Spirit in opposing Mary’s sinlessness?

He was guided by the Holy Scriptures in rejecting Mary s sinlessnes , and he believed in Mary s perpetual virginity .

 

[pablope]

He was guided by the Holy Scriptures in rejecting Mary s sinlessnes , and he believed in Mary s perpetual virginity .

Really…so can you show how the Scriptures guided him in rejecting Mary’s sinlessness?

A Church council also settled on Mary’s being sinless, which is tied to the Perpetual virginity.

So again…would Luther know better than a Church council on Mary being sinless?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

And do you think this is a postive developement?

Absolutely yes.

When he jettisoned purgaroty…does it mean then there is no purgatory anymore?

Not at all. I don’t think it ever existed in the first place.

So calling the Pope the anti-Christ a positive development then?

Yes.

 

[truetofaith]

Please give me the verse where faith alone saves?

I keep going to the thief on the cross…he didn’t have time to do any works, he just had faith that Jesus would remember him when He entered His Kingdom.

 

[Duane1966]

I keep going to the thief on the cross…he didn’t have time to do any works, he just had faith that Jesus would remember him when He entered His Kingdom.

A Catholic would see works all over the place.

From this website:lauramcalister.com/2012/11/07/what-about-the-thief-on-the-cross/

First up, the passage in question:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43)

But did the Thief really not have any good works?

Look more closely at what the good thief did. First, he rebuked a sinner, someone who was railing against Jesus. Second, he accepted responsibility for his own sin. Third, in the midst of all these people in agony, he turns to Jesus and in front of all these accusers says “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom”. He confessed Jesus Christ as a king when everyone else abandoned him. This thief had both faith and good works, by which we are saved through grace.

– Scott Hahn, Seven Last Sayings of Jesus

Most Protestants wouldn’t consider these works really… they’re just faith being expressed, right? So are they works or not?

From a Catholic perspective, the answer is definitely yes. When Catholics speak of faith, they mean it in the specific sense of belief, “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed…” Anything we do, therefore, isn’t faith. It should be an expression of – and motivated by – faith but it isn’t faith itself. And clearly, the Thief does stuff: he acknowledges his sin, rebukes a sinner and proclaims Jesus as the Saviour of sinners.

Now in this case, the Catholic doesn’t have to prove from this text that these works contributed to the Thief’s salvation. The text itself is silent on how the Thief is saved; it only affirms that he is. But to use this text as an argument for faith alone (sola fide), the Protestant needs to prove that there are no works evident whatsoever. Otherwise we’d just have another example of someone who had faith and did works and we’re no clearer about what did (or didn’t) save them.