Trashing Luther

[estesbob]

Amen to that - as they say, opposites attract.

One last point - I should modify my last sentence: “The Catholic and Lutheran essentially do the same thing - they just argue about how they got there” (and who does what).

The Catholic (rightly or wrongly) thinks the Lutheran is split - his human nature remains depraved; his spirit given by God’s grace performs his good acts. The Catholic on the other hand believes he is transformed by grace in his humanness (partially) and participates in his good acts alongside God. I personally don’t care either way. But I would swear there is transformation in some Luther passages - and not in others. I think this is debatable but I don’t think that my view here is “correct” in the eyes of either authoritative theological camp, “L” or “C”. Oh well…

Actually it is the Catholic Church that says they have split. There are profound theological difference between the Church and the Luther denomination-differences that can not be papered over by claiming they “get to the same place”

 

[JustaServant]

sigh
Anyone bother to read the article in OP?

 

[steido01]

sigh
Anyone bother to read the article in OP?

The author even “liked” a comment I put on First Things’ Facebook post on it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Actually it is the Catholic Church that says they have split. There are profound theological difference between the Church and the Luther denomination-differences that can not be papered over by claiming they “get to the same place”

sigh
I am aware of the position of the Catholic Church with respect to Lutheranism, thanks. My “split” refers to the “flesh” vs. “spirit” divide in humanity, not the broader “split” of Catholicism and Protestantism (Lutheranism).

My point about “getting to the same place” likewise has nothing to do with unifying or equating Lutheranism and Catholicism in any way shape or form. It simply refers to the fact that faith & works are essential for salvation to either side. (by this I mean that a Lutheran who does not produce good fruit (or works) does not have faith, hence is not saved.) Both faith and works are required for Lutherans and Catholics.
sigh

 

[Starwarsfan2]

sigh
I am aware of the position of the Catholic Church with respect to Lutheranism, thanks. My “split” refers to the “flesh” vs. “spirit” divide in humanity, not the broader “split” of Catholicism and Protestantism (Lutheranism).

My point about “getting to the same place” likewise has nothing to do with unifying or equating Lutheranism and Catholicism in any way shape or form. It simply refers to the fact that faith & works are essential for salvation to either side. (by this I mean that a Lutheran who does not produce good fruit (or works) does not have faith, hence is not saved.) Both faith and works are required for Lutherans and Catholics.
sigh

Works are required evidence but not for justification itself.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Works are required evidence but not for justification itself.

Correct. I am driving at the misunderstanding many Catholics have that “justification by faith” implies that Lutherans don’t have to do works to achieve eternal life. Works are “required evidence” of faith if you prefer - the lack of them means an individual does not have faith. Or as Luther says: “It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works.”

 

[JonNC]

Correct. I am driving at the misunderstanding many Catholics have that “justification by faith” implies that Lutherans don’t have to do works to achieve eternal life. Works are “required evidence” of faith if you prefer - the lack of them means an individual does not have faith. Or as Luther says: “It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without 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.

Faith that does not have works serves no purpose!

Jon

Jon

 

[FollowChrist34]

Faith that does not have works serves no purpose!

Jon

Jon

Nailed it.

:harp:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Correct. I am driving at the misunderstanding many Catholics have that “justification by faith” implies that Lutherans don’t have to do works to achieve eternal life. Works are “required evidence” of faith if you prefer - the lack of them means an individual does not have faith. Or as Luther says: “It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works.”

 

[FollowChrist34]

Why do I have this sinking suspicion that our joyful moment here celebrating neighborly love and harmony (and faith and works no less!) will not last on this thread…

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Why do I have this sinking suspicion that our joyful moment here celebrating neighborly love and harmony (and faith and works no less!) will not last on this thread…

Because others misunderstand faith alone , you don’t seem to misunderstand .

 

[MaryT777]

Why do I have this sinking suspicion that our joyful moment here celebrating neighborly love and harmony (and faith and works no less!) will not last on this thread…

It’s nice to have a moment of some commonality on the message board but in fact on a "corporate " level there is still a big theological difference between the interplay of faith and works.

The official LCMS website certainly states as such.

Q: What are the main theological differences between the theology of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church?

A: At the risk of oversimplification, and keeping in mind that individual Lutheran (and Catholic) theologians would undoubtedly disagree about the success of recent Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues in lessening or even “resolving” historic doctrinal differences between these two churches, listed below are what the LCMS would regard as some of the major theological differences between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church:
1.The authority of Scripture.
Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope, the church, and certain traditions of the church.
2.The doctrine of justification.
Lutherans believe a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or “infused with”) some “work” or “love” active within a Christian.
www.lcms.org

It would also be nice to see some joint statement on the doctrine of justification which we signed with the LWF (ELCA part of) but the LCMS did not sign.

So I don’t think our leaders would agree that the LCMS and RC church have really ironed out the differences between faith and works and are in any sort of agreement.

Thus there’s work to be done and a lot of it before we can say the L Church and the RC church are saying the same thing as they actually are not.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

It’s nice to have a moment of some commonality on the message board but in fact on a "corporate " level there is still a big theological difference between the interplay of faith and works.

The official LCMS website certainly states as such.

Q: What are the main theological differences between the theology of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church?

A: At the risk of oversimplification, and keeping in mind that individual Lutheran (and Catholic) theologians would undoubtedly disagree about the success of recent Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues in lessening or even “resolving” historic doctrinal differences between these two churches, listed below are what the LCMS would regard as some of the major theological differences between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church:
1.The authority of Scripture.
Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope, the church, and certain traditions of the church.
2.The doctrine of justification.
Lutherans believe a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or “infused with”) some “work” or “love” active within a Christian.
www.lcms.org

It would also be nice to see some joint statement on the doctrine of justification which we signed with the LWF (ELCA part of) but the LCMS did not sign.

So I don’t think our leaders would agree that the LCMS and RC church have really ironed out the differences between faith and works and are in any sort of agreement.

Thus there’s work to be done and a lot of it before we can say the L Church and the RC church are saying the same thing as they actually are not.

Mary.

Well, I agree that the Lutheran and Catholic communions still have this to iron out. I don’t think anyone is claiming differently. What one can say is that there is a much closer mutual understanding now than, say, 300 years ago.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Well, I agree that the Lutheran and Catholic communions still have this to iron out. I don’t think anyone is claiming differently. What one can say is that there is a much closer mutual understanding now than, say, 300 years ago.

Jon

I’d say with the LWF and ELCA Yes but we have a long ways to go with the Confessional Lutherans.

It would be nice to see further dialogue on the Faith/Works/Justification issues.

Mary.

 

[Peter_J]

POPE PRAISES LUTHER IN AN APPEAL FOR UNITY ON PROTEST ANNIVERSARY
Nov 5 1983

nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html

'Nuff said. I have no quibble with Saint John Paul II.

You forget that was 1983. At that point he didn’t have Internet discussion forums to enlighten him.

 

[Tomyris]

sigh
Anyone bother to read the article in OP?

I think if you look at a number of the first posts you will see people did read it. THEN the trashing of Luther started…

I read it. I think it is good to see someone carefully weighing and taking a nuanced position in the search for truth about Luther, rather than posting some of the same-old, same-old polemic broadsides that get echoed from thread to thread.

A wise man once said, “Love your enemies.” I think you can tell how much charity and grace some Catholics have by looking at how they treat Luther, whom they regard as an enemy.

 

[FollowChrist34]

You forget that was 1983. At that point he didn’t have Internet discussion forums to enlighten him.

So true, so true. I think if he were foolhardy enough to try that reaching out drivel to sleepy ole Luther today, an army of good e-Catholics would tell him to get the heck out of Dodge - blogs, tweets, e-petitions, possibly even a protest or two.

 

[MaryT777]

So true, so true. I think if he were foolhardy enough to try that reaching out drivel to sleepy ole Luther today, an army of good e-Catholics would tell him to get the heck out of Dodge - blogs, tweets, e-petitions, possibly even a protest or two.

Possibly, but I think the average Catholic in the pew doesn’t even think about Luther today.

Mary.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Possibly, but I think the average Catholic in the pew doesn’t even think about Luther today.

Mary.

I agree on that - they do seem to think about him on CAF though. Which has a good and a bad side. I am actually enjoying this thread.

Between you and me, I find it more than a little ironic though that I have more in common with Luther than I do with many Catholics in the pews, what is it 60% or something who don’t concur with teaching that Luther did??.. Go figure.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by estesbob
So first the church got a right for a few years , then it got it wrong for over a millennia , then Luther came along and got it right.? That presupposes a pretty Inept god does it not

Ask John Calvin.