What is the purpose of good works?

[guanophore]

This post was removed from another thread where it was off topic.

That’s basically what I and many Protestants believe: We’re saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Any faith that is devoid of works is not saving faith. I think the major difference between Prots and Catholics is not whether works are necessary, but what works are necessary for.

I gotta tell you Koine, it just seems absolutely absurd to recite these “solas”. If you have to have five of them, then obviously they are not “alone”.

I would make a distinction, that we are saved by grace, a grace that is accessed through faith. Faith alone does not save us. Even faith exercised in good works, because if they are not done in the grace of Christ, they are of no eternal value.

I think what you are saying here is that you are in agreement with Catholics that a saving faith is a faith that works (faith without works is dead). As Catholics we find that many of our fundamentalist brethren stop reading at vs. 9, but we continue to read through v. 10:

Eph 2:8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, **created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. **

From reading your posts, it sounds like we are in agreement that the saved person’s lifestyle (way of life) should be one that demonstrates the good works (ergos hagios) that are produced by the same grace that saves us.

So it seems that our discussion may focus on the relationship of works to salvation?

Yes–for the purpose of earning salvation. That is what Protestants almost always mean when they say that works are of no value. When you press the issue further, I can almost guarantee they will admit that God does care about good works, and that good works are valuable, but not for meriting salvation.

I gather that you are from Calvanist theology, so we will have a disagreement about the nature of salvation. But I think we also might have a disagreement about the meaning of “merit”, and on that topic, may actually be closer in understanding.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have found many Protestants, including myself at the time, believed we were saved purely by faith in Christ, at the moment we prayed for him to come into our life. We all knew we sinned after that, stumbled if you will but we were saved so it was ok. Although, we never said it, we in practice agreed fully with Luther’s “sin and sin boldly statement”.

It was easy to believe this because we were in a highly biased context of believers in church. The people that did not go to church or fell away were out of sight and out of mind, and tossed into the unsaved group.

But didn’t these lapsed Christians pray authentically for Salvation once? If we can’t lose our salvation then why do anything but sin!

This may be combining Sola Fide with Once Saved Always Saved, but in my experience they went hand in hand, since sinning is a type if work, and admitting that negative works affected salvation caused their theology to crack a bit.

Anyway, in one conversation I had, I finally got through my Baptist friend when I put out there this hypothetical;

“You mean to tell me that no matter what I do good or bad, I can never lose my salvation”

“Yes that’s correct, find comfort in that!”

“So if Hitler had made an authentic sinners prayer early in his life, and then gone on to do what he did, then he may very well greet me at the Pearly Gates?”

…long pause…

"We’ll no…I mean… Let me get back to you "

 

[cargills112]

For me, doing good only leaves me with peace of mind and spiritual satisfaction. That is my only ultimate goal

 

[steve_b]

I gotta tell you Koine, it just seems absolutely absurd to recite these “solas”. If you have to have five of them, then obviously they are not “alone”.

So true

 

[Goya]

Apparently ‘good works’ = eternal salvation…

…because the number 1 Bible verse cited in support of sola scriptura, is 2 Tim. 3:16:

16* All scripture is inspired by God and ***is useful **for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

–yet behold what comes immediately after it, in verse 17:

…17so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, NAB.

So, apparently, since all scripture is inspired by God (or ‘God breathed’ according to some translations), and ‘useful for teaching, refutation, correction’… (‘profitable’ in some translations), so that 'one who belongs to God may be …equipped for every good work’–means that the Bible is sufficient to attain salvation…

…one must logically conclude/deduce that our seperated bretheren beleive that salvation may be merited, or earned, through good works.

Who knew?

(…and all the while they’ve been accusing us of championing the notion that one can earn salvation…oh, the irony… ).

btw: just to pre-emptively dispose of any potential confusion–John 3:16 is the most cited verse in support of sola fide, not ss.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;10774236]This post was removed from another thread where it was off topic.

I gotta tell you Koine, it just seems absolutely absurd to recite these “solas”. If you have to have five of them, then obviously they are not “alone”.

Of course, guan, you know that each “sola” is intended not to exclude another, but to exclude other things that might be included for that specific term.
We are saved by grace. Nothing saves without grace.
We are justified by faith. Faith justifies. Other things do not justify
Through the work of Christ. Only He is the Savior.

I would make a distinction, that we are saved by grace, a grace that is accessed through faith. Faith alone does not save us. Even faith exercised in good works, because if they are not done in the grace of Christ, they are of no eternal value.

Absolutely agreed.

Eph 2:8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, **created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. **

Echoed in the JDDJ

“In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

Jon

 

[guanophore]

 Apparently **'good works' = eternal salvation**....

Is that what you Catholic Catechism says?

…because the number 1 Bible verse cited in support of sola scriptura, is 2 Tim. 3:16:

This is a very poor piece of reasoning. You have stated a premise above, then state “because” followed by something that is irrelevant to your assertion.

--yet behold what comes immediately after it, in verse 17:

So, apparently, since all scripture is inspired by God (or ‘God breathed’ according to some translations), and ‘useful for teaching, refutation, correction’… (‘profitable’ in some translations), so that 'one who belongs to God may be …equipped for every good work’–means that the Bible is sufficient to attain salvation…

You did a masterful job of providing the Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective of this verse.

 one must logically conclude/deduce that our seperated bretheren beleive that salvation may be merited, or *earned*, through good works.

No, we must not.

The Catholic meaning of “merit” does not mean “earned”. Not amount of good works can “earn” heaven. We are saved by grace, through faith.

Who knew?  :)

(…and all the while they’ve been accusing us of championing the notion that one can earn salvation…oh, the irony… ).

I guess it is good you are amusing yourself.

btw: just to pre-emptively dispose of any potential confusion--John 3:16 is the most cited verse in support of sola fide, not ss.

Your whole post is full of potential confusion, most of it not related to scripture, but to reasoning. :hypno:

 

[JonNC]

I have found many Protestants, including myself at the time, believed we were saved purely by faith in Christ, at the moment we prayed for him to come into our life. We all knew we sinned after that, stumbled if you will but we were saved so it was ok. Although, we never said it, we in practice agreed fully with Luther’s “sin and sin boldly statement”.

It was easy to believe this because we were in a highly biased context of believers in church. The people that did not go to church or fell away were out of sight and out of mind, and tossed into the unsaved group.

But didn’t these lapsed Christians pray authentically for Salvation once? If we can’t lose our salvation then why do anything but sin!

This may be combining Sola Fide with Once Saved Always Saved, but in my experience they went hand in hand, since sinning is a type if work, and admitting that negative works affected salvation caused their theology to crack a bit.

Anyway, in one conversation I had, I finally got through my Baptist friend when I put out there this hypothetical;

“You mean to tell me that no matter what I do good or bad, I can never lose my salvation”

“Yes that’s correct, find comfort in that!”

“So if Hitler had made an authentic sinners prayer early in his life, and then gone on to do what he did, then he may very well greet me at the Pearly Gates?”

…long pause…

"We’ll no…I mean… Let me get back to you "

I suspect that Fr. Martin would have :banghead: at this misinterpretation of sola fide and his letter to Melanchthon.

Jon

 

[Goya]

guanophore;10782108]

Is that what you Catholic Catechism says?

No, of course not. Never suggested that it did–as clearly pointed out in the remainder of my post.

This is a very poor piece of reasoning. You have stated a premise above, then state “because” followed by something that is irrelevant to your assertion.

That wasn’t an ‘irrelevant to my assertion’–it was necessary foundation and prelude to my point–addressing what begins in/with 2 Tim 3:16, and concludes in v. 17–which I laid out afterwards. Hence it was basically still elaborating on the premise;

You did a masterful job of providing the Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective of this verse.

Well, actually I believe most of our seperated brethren would disagree. They usually neglect to mention verse 17–and its conclusion of “…good works”. My point was that if you don’t stop at verse 16, as there is no period there (yes, I know neither punctuation, nor ch/verse numbers weren’t added until the middle ages, but actually stregnthens the point)–and continue reading through v. 17, the net result of the two verses taken together, is basically:

***Scripture is God inspired…and useful for making men of God, capable of performing good works. ***

Point being–this verse–2 Tim 3:16–so beloved by protestants, so often cited as the first basis for sola scriptura–says nothing of the sort–unless that is, you figure that doing good works, is sufficient to attaining eternal salvation.

No, we must not.

It appears that the humor laden in my post, was completely lost on you. It was tongue in cheek; facetious; sarcastic. My interpretation of those contiguous verses, is logical–the protestant suggestion of the inference we should draw (i.e.–that 2 Tim 3:16 supports SS)–is illogical–unless it is completely isolated, and seperated from v. 17.

Do try and keep up, please…

The Catholic meaning of “merit” does not mean “earned”. Not amount of good works can “earn” heaven. We are saved by grace, through faith.

I said virtually nothing about the Catholic meaning. I have no idea why you even addressed it, unless–as I suggested above–the TIC nature of teh post, was completely lost on you–AND you read into my post, something that wasn’t even remotely implied, even taken as TIC.

I guess it is good you are amusing yourself.

Did I really need to address such an elementary point, dryly, seriously, and perhaps even antagonistically—rather than employing a little light heartedness, to develop teh same point? It was intended as Truth, wrapped in a little bit of fun. Not as an attack, nor did the post pretend to enlightenment, as a serious apologetic.

Your whole post is full of potential confusion, most of it not related to scripture, but to reasoning. :hypno:

I suppose it might have been–if you have no sense of humor, or if the TIC was lost on you–then sure, the logic would be incoherent. That’s kinda’ how sarcasm works.

My suggestion–go back to my original post–the one you dissected–and read it as a whole–understanding it as TIC (which btw, was tipped off by the and the ).

 

[Goya]

I suspect that Fr. Martin would have :banghead: at this misinterpretation of sola fide and his letter to Melanchthon.

Jon

Dr. Martin [Luther], I’ll grant you–“Fr. Martin”, I must take exception to, as he was defrocked. The very authority that granted him the prestige of that titular, stripped him of it. So if you’re going to draw attention to this title, it begs that we draw attention to the defrockment of same.

Secondly–JonS basically described ’once saved, always saved’—didn’t Dr. Martin Luther teach ‘once saved, always saved’? Isn’t that what he was saying, with*** ‘sin, and sin boldly’***? (even if intended TIC, wasn’t his point ‘once saved, always saved’?).

 

[Goya]

Follow up to my post to Guanophore:

Secondary point, was that our protestant brethren have historically been fond of accusing us (Catholics) of preaching salvation by good works.

Hence I was calling attention to a potential glaring duplicity–though my post remained TIC–because no protestant I have ever known, actually championed salvation by good works.

FWIW.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I suspect that Fr. Martin would have :banghead: at this misinterpretation of sola fide and his letter to Melanchthon.

Jon

He probably would. He saw it all unraveling even in his own time, and I understand many Lutherans don’t hold the Baptist Once Saved Always Saved View. You make an excellent point as to why Sola Scriptura is false, because these beliefs are supposedly taken straight from scriptura, and this is what my Evangelical and Baptist Church believed Sola Fide to mean. So we can’t even agree on what the Protestant tenants mean? Let alone the Bible.

You see when you are outside of the protections of the church founded by Christ, Satan can run amuck with doctrines.

“The tiresome devil begins to rage amongst the ungodly and to belch forth many wild and mazy beliefs and doctrines. This man will have nothing of baptism, that one denies the Sacrament, a third awaits another world between this and the Last Day ; some teach that Christ is not God ; some say this, some that, and there are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads ; no peasant is so rude but that if he dreams or fancies something, it must forsooth be the Holy Spirit which inspires him, and he himself must be a prophet.” -Martin Luther, to the Christians in Antwerp (April, 1525, " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 547 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 " Briefwechsel," 5, p. 151)."

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;10783137]Dr. Martin [Luther], I’ll grant you–“Fr. Martin”, I must take exception to, as he was defrocked. The very authority that granted him the prestige of that titular, stripped him of it. So if you’re going to draw attention to this title, it begs that we draw attention to the defrockment of same.

Luther was an ordained priest, and remained so until his death. You may take exception as you please.

Secondly–JonS basically described ’once saved, always saved’—didn’t Dr. Martin Luther teach ‘once saved, always saved’? Isn’t that what he was saying, with*** ‘sin, and sin boldly’***? (even if intended TIC, wasn’t his point ‘once saved, always saved’?).

Bottom line is this, from the Augsburg Confession:

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

Now Luther didn’t write the Augsburg Confession, but he certainly approved of it. It has been the teaching of Lutheranism from the time of the Reformation that justification can be lost. It is further emphasized in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which state:
*3. We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein. *

In no way does the comment in the letter to Melanchthon admit or support any such thing as perseverance of the saints, or OSAS.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;10783395]He probably would. He saw it all unraveling even in his own time, and I understand many Lutherans don’t hold the Baptist Once Saved Always Saved View.

I’m not sure of what you mean by “he saw it all unraveling”, but I will say that, in reading the clear statements in the Confessions, all, not many, Lutherans must reject OSAS, as OSAS is a false doctrine

You make an excellent point as to why Sola Scriptura is false, because these beliefs are supposedly taken straight from scriptura, and this is what my Evangelical and Baptist Church believed Sola Fide to mean. So we can’t even agree on what the Protestant tenants mean? Let alone the Bible.

Well, if disagreement in doctrine makes SS false, then the dispute on the primacy of the papacy between east and west has the same effect on Tradition and Scripture. Curiously, when one reads the Lutheran Confessions, there are regularly references to the ECF’s, so obviously their view of what sola scriptura is is suspect.

“The tiresome devil begins to rage amongst the ungodly and to belch forth many wild and mazy beliefs and doctrines. This man will have nothing of baptism, that one denies the Sacrament, a third awaits another world between this and the Last Day ; some teach that Christ is not God ; some say this, some that, and there are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads ; no peasant is so rude but that if he dreams or fancies something, it must forsooth be the Holy Spirit which inspires him, and he himself must be a prophet.” -Martin Luther, to the Christians in Antwerp (April, 1525, " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 547 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 " Briefwechsel," 5, p. 151)."

Excellent quote. It seems the radicals and Sacramentarians saw us then, and frankly see us now, as disturbingly catholic.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m not sure of what you mean by “he saw it all unraveling”, but I will say that, in reading the clear statements in the Confessions, all, not many, Lutherans must reject OSAS, as OSAS is a false doctrine

Well, if disagreement in doctrine makes SS false, then the dispute on the primacy of the papacy between east and west has the same effect on Tradition and Scripture. Curiously, when one reads the Lutheran Confessions, there are regularly references to the ECF’s, so obviously their view of what sola scriptura is is suspect.

Excellent quote. It seems the radicals and Sacramentarians saw us then, and frankly see us now, as disturbingly catholic.

Jon

Since you are not only Lutheran, but Lutheran Missouri Synod, I know that you have a much more traditional, and dare I say Catholic, view of theology. Your idea of Sola Scriptura is not the same as most of Protestantism, particularly all of the non denominationals, reformed, fundamentalist, Evangelicals, baptist, etc… The problem is that when that Magesterial Authority is traded for the Bible alone, then it becomes each individual church or person’s responsibility to figure it out for themselves. During Luther’s time, he was the authority for Lutherans. He was the “pope” of the Lutheran Church. Even boldly saying at one point,

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority. Which makes much more sense honestly, than Sola Scriptura. However, when people began to disagree with Luther, or followed Calvin or Zuigli, or just made their own path (Joseph Smith), there was no authority to say they were wrong in their interpretations, since they had the same supposed authority in the Bible as everyone else.

I am very curious as to what you think Luther’s letter to Melanchthon does mean if not at least an allusion to the idea of once saved always saved??

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;10784905]Since you are not only Lutheran, but Lutheran Missouri Synod, I know that you have a much more traditional, and dare I say Catholic, view of theology. Your idea of Sola Scriptura is not the same as most of Protestantism, particularly all of the non denominationals, reformed, fundamentalist, Evangelicals, baptist, etc… The problem is that when that Magesterial Authority is traded for the Bible alone, then it becomes each individual church or person’s responsibility to figure it out for themselves. During Luther’s time, he was the authority for Lutherans. He was the “pope” of the Lutheran Church. Even boldly saying at one point,

Oh, this just isn’t the case. Luther was in a manner of speaking a leader among the Lutheran reformers, he was not in any way a pope. There are lots of Luther’s writings which are not part of our belief system, and a lot there is. Luther, for example, has only three writings in the Confessions - the Small and Large Catechism, and the Smallcald Articles. Even his translation was a collaborative work

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority. Which makes much more sense honestly, than Sola Scriptura. .

No at all. It points to Luther’s penchant for sarcasm and hyperbole. In his letter he returns to the real reason for translating Roman 3:28 as he did.
"… 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.”

However, when people began to disagree with Luther, or followed Calvin or Zuigli, or just made their own path (Joseph Smith), there was no authority to say they were wrong in their interpretations, since they had the same supposed authority in the Bible as everyone else

That’s not the practice of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not individuals.

I am very curious as to what you think Luther’s letter to Melanchthon does mean if not at least an allusion to the idea of once saved always saved?

let’s remember, first, this is not a doctrinal statement, but a private letter to a learned theologian, who didn’t need all the theology of Confession, repentance, etc. laid out for him. They knew each other, and could imply these things.
I recently responded to this in post #43 in the below thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785167&page=3

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Oh, this just isn’t the case. Luther was in a manner of speaking a leader among the Lutheran reformers, he was not in any way a pope. There are lots of Luther’s writings which are not part of our belief system, and a lot there is. Luther, for example, has only three writings in the Confessions - the Small and Large Catechism, and the Smallcald Articles. Even his translation was a collaborative work

Come, now you don’t really think that was Luther’s intention even if it did play out that way .

Even so, though, I appreciate very much that you do not hold the Sola Scriptura View that was presented to me in my Evangelical upbringing. It is essential to have an authority to direct your interpretation of scripture, and theology, to safe guard the truths that were presented from the Apostles. We disagree on who this authority is, but at least you have one! My Evangelical FREE church prided itself on being FREE of Authority.

No at all. It points to Luther’s penchant for sarcasm and hyperbole. In his letter he returns to the real reason for translating Roman 3:28 as he did.
"… 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.”

Even, so I find this practice alarming as what was handed down to us by God was written in Greek/Hebrew and that is the authoritative scripture. I understand all of our translations are somewhat lacking, but every effort should be made to preserve the original IMO.

That’s not the practice of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not individuals.

As you understand it, but there are millions of other Protestants who would disagree with this statement.

let’s remember, first, this is not a doctrinal statement, but a private letter to a learned theologian, who didn’t need all the theology of Confession, repentance, etc. laid out for him. They knew each other, and could imply these things.
I recently responded to this in post #43 in the below thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785167&page=3

Jon

Thanks for the cross reference. I definitely understand your point on the letter and can see how that is certainly a plausible explanation, which makes sense. Unfortunately I am not the first one who got it wrong, if I have, Many Church founders over the last 500 years ran with a very different view point. Whether it originated with luther or the Anabaptists (likely), it was still allowed to flourish and propagate because the Church was split and divided, and the shield of authority was broken.

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;10785065]Come, now you don’t really think that was Luther’s intention even if it did play out that way .

Nah. I suspect he was held in such high regard among his colleagues (and perhaps some political leaders), he could have had it if he wanted it.

Even so, though, I appreciate very much that you do not hold the Sola Scriptura View that was presented to me in my Evangelical upbringing. It is essential to have an authority to direct your interpretation of scripture, and theology, to safe guard the truths that were presented from the Apostles. We disagree on who this authority is, but at least you have one! My Evangelical FREE church prided itself on being FREE of Authority.

Thanks.

Even, so I find this practice alarming as what was handed down to us by God was written in Greek/Hebrew and that is the authoritative scripture. I understand all of our translations are somewhat lacking, but every effort should be made to preserve the original IMO.

He felt that he was, that a transliteration would not have expressed the meaning of the text.

As you understand it, but there are millions of other Protestants who would disagree with this statement.

Well, yeah. That’s one reason we are not in communion with them.

Thanks for the cross reference. I definitely understand your point on the letter and can see how that is certainly a plausible explanation, which makes sense. Unfortunately I am not the first one who got it wrong, if I have, Many Church founders over the last 500 years ran with a very different view point. Whether it originated with luther or the Anabaptists (likely), it was still allowed to flourish and propagate because the Church was split and divided, and the shield of authority was broken.

Thanks. But not because of the Lutheran reformers. As I posted to Goya, the Augsburg Confession roundly condemns it.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks. But not because of the Lutheran reformers. As I posted to Goya, the Augsburg Confession roundly condemns it.

Jon

Maybe not directly because of the Lutheran reformers, but the Lutheran reformers opened up the idea of “reforming” the church by completely separating from it, and creating their own authority. This idea is what promulgated and spun out of control and continues to spin out of control today.

If only, despite the immense difficulties of the time, had the reformers worked fervently to reform the church from within, their fruit of their labor may not have been seen in their lifetime, but perhaps the fabric of Christianity today would look quite different…

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;10785366]Maybe not directly because of the Lutheran reformers, but the Lutheran reformers opened up the idea of “reforming” the church by completely separating from it, and creating their own authority. This idea is what promulgated and spun out of control and continues to spin out of control today.

No, you have to go back further than that, Huss, for example. Be that as it may, the idea that others broke off from the Church because of the division between the Lutherans and the Church is what I playfully call the lemming syndrome. I have little time for their theology, frankly, but Calvin and Zwingli were not lemmings, following blindly (yet not following at all).

If only, despite the immense difficulties of the time, had the reformers worked fervently to reform the church from within, their fruit of their labor may not have been seen in their lifetime, but perhaps the fabric of Christianity today would look quite different…

The thing is, Luther did work fervently. That’s what the 95 Theses was all about - working within the Church to end abuses and call questionable practices into the open. As the Catholic Catechism says, men of both sides were to blame. I think that is quite true.

Jon