What is the Lutheran understanding of Galatians 5?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josephback

Guest
Greetings all. I once had a priest tell me that Galatians 5:6 was a summary of the Catholic position on justification. I know that Galatians and Romans are big with Lutheranism so I was just wondering how this was seen within it. Is “faith formed in love” [fides caritate formata] opposed to faith in the finished work of Christ as understood by the theology of Luther? If Christ did it all through substitutionary atonement, why do I still have to follow the Commandments?
 
josephback said:
Greetings all. I once had a priest tell me that Galatians 5:6 was a summary of the Catholic position on justification. I know that Galatians and Romans are big with Lutheranism so I was just wondering how this was seen within it. Is “faith formed in love” [fides caritate formata] opposed to faith in the finished work of Christ as understood by the theology of Luther? If Christ did it all through substitutionary atonement, why do I still have to follow the Commandments?
Click to expand...
As a start, here is Luther’s commentary about Galatians 5:6
Code: 
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.
Click to expand...
I’ll let others decide if this defines “faith formed by love”.
 
JonNC said:
As a start, here is Luther’s commentary about Galatians 5:6

I’ll let others decide if this defines “faith formed by love”.
Click to expand...
Jon,

Does agape love animate the soul of faith in Lutheranism or follow after it? Fides caritate formata refers to the first.
 
josephback said:
Jon,

Does agape love animate the soul of faith in Lutheranism or follow after it? Fides caritate formata refers to the first.
Click to expand...
Well, it is pretty clear that Luther rejected faith formed by love. He would have said, as I understand it, that love is actually law, and law requires perfection (Luther quotes James on the point: "The Apostle James says, “‘For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.’”.) Since perfect adherence to law is impossible, he are justified by grace through faith, apart from works of the law. Christ himself alludes to this in Matthew 22: “36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
That doesn’t mean works are not important, as Luther’s commentary on Galatians proves. In response to Galatians 5:12 , he responds:
THE DOCTRINE OF GOOD WORKS
Click to expand...
Now come all kinds of admonitions and precepts. It was the custom of the apostles that after they had taught faith and instructed the conscience they followed it up with admonitions unto good works, that the believers might manifest the duties of love toward each other. In order to avoid the appearance as if Christianity militated against good works or opposed civil government, the Apostle also urges us to give ourselves unto good works, to lead an honest life, and to keep faith and love with one another. This will give the lie to the accusations of the world that we Christians are the enemies of decency and of public peace. The fact is we Christians know better what constitutes a truly good work than all the philosophers and legislators of the world because we link believing with doing.
Click to expand...
Clearly, love, charity, good works are necessary in the life of the regenerate, and followes faith, in Luther’s view.

Jon
 
Ditto to everything that Jon wrote and posted.

I would only add a historical-grammatical note to remain mindful of verse 1, which sets the following verses in context. If proof-texts are extracted from the chapter without proper context, not only are we being ignorant of Scripture’s meaning, we’re also making Paul contradict himself. So let’s read verse 1:
It is for freedom Christ set us free; stand firm, therefore and do submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Click to expand...
What Paul is saying is that Law (including perfect love, as Luther explained) is no longer required of us to be justified. He is also saying that because we are justified (freed from the yoke of the Law), we, the regenerate, should follow the Law (verse 13). Lutherans are not Antinomians.

Galatians 5:1 was my confirmation verse. I love it for its clear statement on Justification and its equally clear instruction to avoid sin and the temptation of yoking oneself to Law.

Side note: Roman Catholics recognize that Paul would contradict their view of Justification if verse 1 were true. So the Douay-Rheims version removes Χριστός from the Greek-to-English so it reads merely:
Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage.
Click to expand...
So, who’s doing the emancipating here?
 
steido01 said:
Ditto to everything that Jon wrote and posted.

I would only add a historical-grammatical note to remain mindful of verse 1, which sets the following verses in context. If proof-texts are extracted from the chapter without proper context, not only are we being ignorant of Scripture’s meaning, we’re also making Paul contradict himself. So let’s read verse 1:
What Paul is saying is that Law (including perfect love, as Luther explained) is no longer required of us to be justified. He is also saying that because we are justified (freed from the yoke of the Law), we, the regenerate, should follow the Law (verse 13). Lutherans are not Antinomians.

Galatians 5:1 was my confirmation verse. I love it for its clear statement on Justification and its equally clear instruction to avoid sin and the temptation of yoking oneself to Law.

Side note: Roman Catholics recognize that Paul would contradict their view of Justification if verse 1 were true. So the Douay-Rheims version removes Χριστός from the Greek-to-English so it reads merely: So, who’s doing the emancipating here?
Click to expand...
Did Jesus not say “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart?”
 
James248 said:
Did Jesus not say “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart?”
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I totally understand your question. Is this a semantics thing? The use of the English word “yoke?” If that’s all, it’s carrying a different meaning. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus is simply saying, ‘Be my disciple [and receive everything that comes with it].’ He’s not saying “I’m only carrying this cross for some of your sins, so you better get yourself justified by your works.” (Sorry if I’m understanding you wrong.)

If you mean that Christians are now free to observe the Law in love, sure. Lutherans call that the Third Use of the Law.
 
steido01 said:
I’m not sure I totally understand your question. Is this a semantics thing? The use of the English word “yoke?” If that’s all, it’s carrying a different meaning. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus is simply saying, ‘Be my disciple [and receive everything that comes with it].’ He’s not saying “I’m only carrying this cross for some of your sins, so you better get yourself justified by your works.” (Sorry if I’m understanding you wrong.)

If you mean that Christians are now free to observe the Law in love, sure. Lutherans call that the Third Use of the Law.
Click to expand...
Yeah. 😃

Really cleared up a lot. No. Seriously.

Catholic teaching is that salvation is God working through us. But we still have to cooperate with His grace. That is where faith working through love comes in.
 
James248 said:
Yeah. 😃

Really cleared up a lot. No. Seriously.

Catholic teaching is that salvation is God working through us. But we still have to cooperate with His grace. That is where faith working through love comes in.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t argue with that, with the caveat that we are incapable of cooperating without grace. We lack the capability to decide to cooperate on our own
 
JonNC said:
I wouldn’t argue with that, with the caveat that we are incapable of cooperating without grace. We lack the capability to decide to cooperate on our own
Click to expand...
Yep,

As a wise and holy man once prayed, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and we are restful until we rest in Thee.”
 
steido01 said:
Side note: Roman Catholics recognize that Paul would contradict their view of Justification if verse 1 were true. So the Douay-Rheims version removes Χριστός from the Greek-to-English so it reads merely: So, who’s doing the emancipating here?
Click to expand...
The New American Bible (a Catholic Bible) has the portion you say is omitted from the Douay-Rheims. Are you sure it isn’t a matter of the manuscript chosen for translation and variance? To my understanding the Douay-Rheims was translated from the Vulgate.
 
josephback said:
The New American Bible (a Catholic Bible) has the portion you say is omitted from the Douay-Rheims. Are you sure it isn’t a matter of the manuscript chosen for translation and variance? To my understanding the Douay-Rheims was translated from the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
Know what? I can admit when I’m wrong. I didn’t look closely enough at the Douay-Rheims. This is my error, and I wish I could delete the relevant portion of my post above. :o

The missing words are attached to the previous verse, which falls into the previous chapter. If someone were reading chapter-by-chapter (like I did) it would appear to be a willful mistranslation. But if the book is read altogether, it can be read in a way that retains Paul’s meaning, even if the sentence is spliced between chapters. Further proof that context always matters.

Yes, I believe you’re correct; it’s the Vulgate’s Latin that affects the Douay-Rheims here.

Apologies all around from me.
 
JonNC said:
I wouldn’t argue with that, with the caveat that we are incapable of cooperating without grace. We lack the capability to decide to cooperate on our own
Click to expand...
Which is why we have free will. But the ability to choose is given to us by God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top