Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[Mickey]

Absolutely. There is none good but God.

I am sorry. You are wrong. Everything God created is good.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am sorry. You are wrong. Everything God created is good.

It didn’t remain that way. The fallen angels were created good as well. They no longer are due to their rebellion. In the same respect, Adam and Eve were created good and we are not due to their rebellion and the fall of the entire creation into sin.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I will stop here because it is important to elaborate on the points you raise.

With regard to Calvin, he essentially said the same thing as Augustine; but it is always framed in a harsh manner by his detractors. For instance here’s a quote from Augustine:

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord.

-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 16

The underlined text clearly shows that Augustine did not believe saving grace was given universally. He believed some were saved to the exclusion of others. However, he does not say that God is positively responsible for the wickedness of the reprobate. He only states that by not giving the reprobate saving grace they do not and cannot have faith.

Well let’s look at this more closely. Augustine is saying:

a. faith is a gift.

b. that this gift of faith is not given to all.

I think there is general agreement on these two points. However, the great question is this:

Does the fact that faith is not given to some mean that those souls are ultimately doomed to perish?

And what about those to whom faith has been given, will they ultimately be saved? Augustine for example, says in a sermon to believers that,

“Not all who believe and are baptized are saved.”

Serm. 71:16, p. 255

And in another, again to believers,

“wipe out your sins by daily good works.”

Serm. 77:B:7:1, p. 336. He means here, venial sins.

And then there is this warning:

“Take care your putting things off doesn’t deprive you of what He promised to give you.”

S.87:8:3, p. 411

Sermons 51-94 (Works of Saint Augustine), Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 0911782850

amazon.com/Sermons-51-94-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/0911782850

What do you make of those statements?

 

[Reformed]

Well let’s look at this more closely. Augustine is saying:

a. faith is a gift.

b. that this gift of faith is not given to all.

I think there is general agreement on these two points. However, the great question is this:

Does the fact that faith is not given to some mean that those souls are ultimately doomed to perish?

And what about those to whom faith has been given, will they ultimately be saved? Augustine for example, says in a sermon to believers that,

“Not all who believe and are baptized are saved.”

Serm. 71:16, p. 255

And in another, again to believers,

“wipe out your sins by daily good works.”

Serm. 77:B:7:1, p. 336. He means here, venial sins.

And then there is this warning:

“Take care your putting things off doesn’t deprive you of what He promised to give you.”

S.87:8:3, p. 411

Sermons 51-94 (Works of Saint Augustine), Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 0911782850

amazon.com/Sermons-51-94-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/0911782850

What do you make of those statements?

Augustine is well received by Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants alike. Like the Apostle Paul, Augustine knew in part. He is not the standard of truth. Since Augustine was pre-reformation, I honestly believe Augustine would have been one of the Reformers and protestors in the 16th century. My two favorite Roman Catholic Christians are Augustine and Luther.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well let’s look at this more closely. Augustine is saying:

a. faith is a gift.

b. that this gift of faith is not given to all.

I think there is general agreement on these two points. However, the great question is this:

Does the fact that faith is not given to some mean that those souls are ultimately doomed to perish?

The are at least not predestined to salvation. What God does with unbelievers is ultimately between Him and them (however, verses like John 3:18 tell us the will be “condemned” and Augustine is in full accord with this).

And what about those to whom faith has been given, will they ultimately be saved? Augustine for example, says in a sermon to believers that,

“Not all who believe and are baptized are saved.”

Serm. 71:16, p. 255

I agree with Augustine

And in another, again to believers,

“wipe out your sins by daily good works.”

Serm. 77:B:7:1, p. 336. He means here, venial sins.

I disagree. Here is where the reformers begin to depart with Augustine. Good works cannot wash sin – but they can earn us a reward beyond salvation.

And then there is this warning:

“Take care your putting things off doesn’t deprive you of what He promised to give you.”

S.87:8:3, p. 411

Sermons 51-94 (Works of Saint Augustine), Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 0911782850

amazon.com/Sermons-51-94-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/0911782850

What do you make of those statements?

I agree with most of them – except the remark indicating that “works” can wash our sin (this would charge that the sacrifice of Jesus is not alone sufficient to atone for our sins, which is erroneous).

That being said the only similarity between Calvin and Augustine is on grace and predestination. Beyond that they split along the same lines as Protestants and Catholics do overall.

Catholics – as far as I can tell from participation on this board, believe works can atone for our sins – Protestants simply believe man is saved by grace through faith, and not by works.

However, we recognize that witness of faith is obedience and holiness. This is the fruit of the Spirit. One who is still living in sin is not walking in love and not living according to the Spirit but according to the flesh.

So while the result is for all practical purposes the same, I do find the Catholic approach problematic. If a person was a thief, alcoholic, and adulterer and one day came to Christ, but continued in this same lifestyle – we would say they were never really saved to begin with. They may have had a moment of actual faith and even an indwelling of the Spirit; but if they die in their sins we acknowledge they never could have been predestined.

The Catholic Church will say they can work off their sins. In other words they can somehow counterbalance their sin through deeds. This couldn’t be more far off base as far as I’m concerned.

There is no amount of works we can do to counterbalance our sins, which is why God sent Christ in the first place.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I am sorry. You are wrong. Everything God created is good.

Indeed, but it became corrupted. I like C.S. Lewis’ explanation of this:

There is no such thing as being bad for the sake of ‘badness.’ In other words badness is not a thing unto itself – rather it is corrupted goodness.

Maybe you’ll agree?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The Catholic Church will say they can work off their sins. In other words they can somehow counterbalance their sin through deeds. This couldn’t be more far off base as far as I’m concerned.

There is no amount of works we can do to counterbalance our sins, which is why God sent Christ in the first place.

Amen. And this is the dividing line between the Gospel of God and the religions of men.

Only in Christianity did God do all the good works necessary for salvation for us. Without this…grace is no longer grace.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Indeed, but it became corrupted. I like C.S. Lewis’ explanation of this:

There is no such thing as being bad for the sake of ‘badness.’ In other words badness is not a thing unto itself – rather it is corrupted goodness.

Maybe you’ll agree?

We must be able to say loudly and clearly, along with the Apostle Paul “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. (Rom. 7:18-19)”

 

[sola_scriptura]

We must be able to say loudly and clearly, along with the Apostle Paul “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. (Rom. 7:18-19)”

I agree with you (and of course Paul). What do you think of C.S. Lewis’ explanation?

I like Lewis (read Mere Christianity twice) but he is an Anglican; and they’re all over the place with regards to theology (some are practically Catholic, others are Calvinists, some are very Wesleyan, while others are liberal to the point of ordaining a gay bishop).

I also like N.T. Wright (another Anglican) but his book focuses on interpreting the coming kingdom and properly understanding heaven (not so much soteriology); and his observations seem pretty good (though I’m not sure I’m in 100% accord with Wright).

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with you (and of course Paul). What do you think of C.S. Lewis’ explanation?

I like Lewis (read Mere Christianity twice) but he is an Anglican; and they’re all over the place with regards to theology (some are practically Catholic, others are Calvinists, some are very Wesleyan, while others are liberal to the point of ordaining a gay bishop).

I also like N.T. Wright (another Anglican) but his book focuses on interpreting the coming kingdom and properly understanding heaven (not so much soteriology); and his observations seem pretty good (though I’m not sure I’m in 100% accord with Wright).

I don’t think it quite does justice to the reality of evil. It’s not a corruption of goodness, it’s an absence of goodness. In God’s eyes, if something is even partly evil it’s entirely evil.

As far as Anglicans go, I agree. They seem based on uniformity of worship versus uniformity of doctrine. I am not an N.T. Wright fan as to his horrible revisionism of Paul. Though he did some great work on the historicity of the resurrection.

If I weren’t Lutheran, though…I’d probably be a Continuing Anglican.

 

[LutheranDK]

There are plenty of non-Catholics here, who are eager to post all of the reasons why the Catholic Church is “wrong”, however, when asked this question (above), no response….gee, I wonder why?

I can tell you why, Jimmy. It’s because whenever you ask “non-catholics” a “question” it is invariably an attempt at bait, and the answer you give to the question I’ve quoted just proves that point. Not 10% of the times, not 50, but 100% of the times, and very, very few people will want to waste their time being baited.

Nice try, but this fish ain’t biting.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I don’t think it quite does justice to the reality of evil. It’s not a corruption of goodness, it’s an absence of goodness. In God’s eyes, if something is even partly evil it’s entirely evil.

As far as Anglicans go, I agree. They seem based on uniformity of worship versus uniformity of doctrine. I am not an N.T. Wright fan as to his horrible revisionism of Paul. Though he did some great work on the historicity of the resurrection.

If I weren’t Lutheran, though…I’d probably be a Continuing Anglican.

I actually haven’t read all of his work on Paul (if I remember correctly it was called a new perspective on Paul or something to that effect). I think I actually have it on pdf format just never got around to it. Frankly, Paul is pretty easy to understand for me. I like guys like Calvin because overall I agree with his rendering of the Pauline epistles (and scriptures overall) more than I agree with most others; but as I’m sure you have I started by studying the Bible and then began reading the works of men like Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Arminius, Luther, Calvin, Wright, etc.

With regard to Lewis’ view; I don’t think he saw corrupted goodness and absence of goodness as different in a real sense – however, I see your point & upon reflection I agree. I will say I think he was being more philosophical than theological in choosing those words. However, I firmly hold to Total Depravity. IMO to think we are not totally depraved is to be in a state of denial. We will only truly turn to God once we realize that we need Him for everything. Anything short of this total reliance on God just doesn’t fit the bill – I would call it (to borrow a term from Wesley) “almost Christian.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

I actually haven’t read all of his work on Paul (if I remember correctly it was called a new perspective on Paul or something to that effect). I think I actually have it on pdf format just never got around to it. Frankly, Paul is pretty easy to understand for me. I like guys like Calvin because overall I agree with his rendering of the Pauline epistles (and scriptures overall) more than I agree with most others; but as I’m sure you have I started by studying the Bible and then began reading the works of men like Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, Arminius, Luther, Calvin, Wright, etc.

What Wright does with Paul is to interpret his writings in Romans as devoid of reference to a systematic way of presenting the doctrine of justification and frames the entire epistle in way to say that Paul is primarily referring to tearing down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles. He makes the same mistake as Rome in interpreting “works of law” solely as Mosaic ritual custom as opposed to encompassing the entire moral/civic/ceremonial Law as traditional Protestantism has interpreted it.

His interpretation is essentially the same as the Federal Visionists and Semi-Pelagians. I would encourage you to read it if only to be able to refute it.

With regard to Lewis’ view; I don’t think he saw corrupted goodness and absence of goodness as different in a real sense – however, I see your point & upon reflection I agree. I will say I think he was being more philosophical than theological in choosing those words. However, I firmly hold to Total Depravity. IMO to think we are not totally depraved is to be in a state of denial. We will only truly turn to God once we realize that we need Him for everything. Anything short of this total reliance on God just doesn’t fit the bill – I would call it (to borrow a term from Wesley) “almost Christian.”

Absolutely. Total depravity must be defined as an article of faith. If one single iota of goodness remains in fallen sinners then the entire purpose of the covenant Savior is undone and Christ has died in vain. If we could, even by grace infused works, earn or merit justification, then Christ died in vain and God could have simply done away with an atonement and just provided a whole lot of moral guidance and nothing more. This is why none of the religions of man have a bleeding sacrifice. They don’t believe it necessary.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Augustine is well received by Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants alike.

Protestants, as far as I can tell, reject just about everything Augustine believed regarding the Church and the sacraments. They appeal to him almost exclusively for his theological opinions on predestination and little else.

Like the Apostle Paul, Augustine knew in part. He is not the standard of truth.

True, Augustine is not the standard of truth, but neither were the reformers. The Church, on the other hand, is the “pillar and foundation” of the truth. 1 Tim. 3:15

Since Augustine was pre-reformation, I honestly believe Augustine would have been one of the Reformers and protestors in the 16th century. My two favorite Roman Catholic Christians are Augustine and Luther

Well, I would just say that there are countless passages that could be brought forth to show the very real and substantial differences between the Fathers and the reformers. Here are a couple of examples. Speaking of St. James’ insistence on the necessity of faith and works, Augustine says:

When the apostle James was talking about faith and works against those who thought their faith was enough, and didn’t want to have good works, he said, You believe God is one; you do well; the demons also believe, and tremble. (Jas 2:19)

St. Augustine, Sermon 183:13:2, p. 343.

Sermons 151-183 (Works of Saint Augustine), ISBN 1565480074
amazon.com/Sermons-151-183-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480074

Preserved Smith gives a rather contrary view by Luther:

The often quoted condemnation of James as an epistle of straw is far better known than the more drastic things he said about it to his table companions:

Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. “Faith justifies” and “faith does not justify” contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.

Let us banish this epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except once at the beginning. I think it was written by some Jew who had heard of the Christians but not joined them. James had learned that the Christians insisted strongly on faith in Christ and so he said to himself: “Well, you must take issue with them and speak only of works,” and so he does.

He says not a word of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the text of all the other apostles. Moreover, he has no order nor method. He speaks now of clothes, now of wrath, jumping from one topic to another. He has this simile: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Mary, mother of God! He compares faith to the body when it should rather be compared to the soul. The ancients saw all this and did not consider the epistle canonical.

Luther’s marginal notes in one of his own Bibles are equally trenchant. To James 1:6, But let him ask in faith nothing wavering, he remarks:

“That is the only good place in the whole epistle.”

To 1: 21, Receive with meekness the engrafted word,

“Others engrafted it, not this James.”

To 2:12 ff.,

“What a chaos”

And to 2:24, Ye see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only,

“That is false.”

The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914, ISBN 0548231508, pp. 269-270.
books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=luther+james+%22some+jew%22&lr=#PPA269,M1

archive.org/details/lifelettersofmar00smituoft

Could any two people be further apart theologically, at least on this point of faith and works?

And whereas Augustine would defer to the authority of the one Church, Luther, on the other hand, claimed absolute authority for himself alone! Just listen to what he says here:

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven- to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [1 Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel.

For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s teaching and not mine.

Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/0800603397

---

I thought I’d include this letter of St. Peter Damian (1007-1072), an 11th century reformer for reference. Compare his attitude toward the apostolic See with those of any of the 16th cent. reformers.

Peter Damian to young King Henry IV (1050-1106), A. D. 1065 or 1066, Letter 120:

Here Damian exhorts Henry to use his sword against the disturber of the Church’s peace, Cadalus, the bishop of Parma, the antipope Honorius II (d. 1072): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadalus

“Certainly, whoever attempts to divide the holy Church should fear, as the Gospel has it, lest he too be divided, “Then the master will arrive on a day at which that servant does not expect it, at a time he does not know, and he will cut him in pieces, and give him his place among the unbelievers.” (Lk. 12:46). Moreover, of Peleg, the son of Eber, it was written, that “in his time the earth was divided” (Gen 10:25)… Pp. 388-389.

“Therefore, do not be a Peleg, dividing what was assembled, but be a disciple of Christ who puts together what was divided. Surely, those who succumb to the diabolical impulse to divide the Apostolic See would call to mind Dathan, Abiram, and Korah (cf. Num 16:1-3), and from their fall let them consider that their fate awaits also those who have pursued similar objectives. The former, to be sure, foster schism in the synagogue, while the latter plot division in the Church. And the reward of their schismatic misdeeds, with full knowledge will be buried in hell.” P. 389-390.

“Let that ancient dragon, Cadalus, take note. Let this disturber of the Church, this destroyer of apostolic discipline, this enemy of man’s salvation understand. Let him beware, I say, this root of all sin, this herald of the devil, this apostle of Antichrist. And what else shall I call him? He is the arrow drawn from the quiver of Satan, the rod of the Assyrian, the son Belial, “the son of perdition, who rises in his pride against every god, so called, ever object of men’s’ worship” (2 Thess. 2:3-4), the whirlpool of lust, the shipwreck of chastity, the disgrace of Christianity, the ignominy of bishops, the progeny of vipers, the stench or the world, the filth of the ages, the shame of the universe. Still more epithets for Cadalus can be added, a list of darksome names: slippery snake, a twisting serpent, the dung of humanity, the latrine of crime, the dregs of vice, the abomination of heaven the expulsion from paradise, the fodder of hell, the stubble of eternal fire.” Pp. 393-394.

The Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation, Peter Damian, letters 91-120, Catholic University Press, 1998, ISBN 0813208165

books.google.com/books?id=EhQEAAAACAAJ&dq=%220813208165%22&lr=

Page images (you may need to click on the small image first and then the larger one to read).

thumbsnap.com/vf/9mPPgZrK.jpg pp. 388-389
thumbsnap.com/vf/uh7PGG3o.jpg pp. 390-391
thumbsnap.com/vf/O56Umu9r.jpg pp. 392-393
thumbsnap.com/vf/BcGwTjmH.jpg pp. 394-395

---

“Through the intercession of his apostles, Peter and Paul, may He absolve you from all sin, and make you reign forever as fellow-citizens with him and his saints. Amen.

Peter Damian, Letter 100:35, vol. 5, p. 119

 

[sola_scriptura]

Protestants, as far as I can tell, reject just about everything Augustine believed regarding the Church and the sacraments. They appeal to him almost exclusively for his theological opinions on predestination and little else.

True, Augustine is not the standard of truth, but neither were the reformers. The Church, on the other hand, is the “pillar and foundation” of the truth. 1 Tim. 3:15

Well, I would just say that there are countless passages that could be brought forth to show the very real and substantial differences between the Fathers and the reformers. Here are a couple of examples. Speaking of St. James’ insistence on the necessity of faith and works, Augustine says:

St. Augustine, Sermon 183:13:2, p. 343.

Sermons 151-183 (Works of Saint Augustine), ISBN 1565480074
amazon.com/Sermons-151-183-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480074

Preserved Smith gives a rather contrary view by Luther:

The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914, ISBN 0548231508, pp. 269-270.
books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=luther+james+%22some+jew%22&lr=#PPA269,M1

archive.org/details/lifelettersofmar00smituoft

Could any two people be further apart theologically, at least on this point of faith and works?

And whereas Augustine would defer to the authority of the one Church, Luther, on the other hand, claimed absolute authority for himself alone! Just listen to what he says here:

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/0800603397

---

I thought I’d include this letter of St. Peter Damian (1007-1072), an 11th century reformer for reference. Compare his attitude toward the apostolic See with those of any of the 16th cent. reformers.

Peter Damian to young King Henry IV (1050-1106), A. D. 1065 or 1066, Letter 120:

Here Damian exhorts Henry to use his sword against the disturber of the Church’s peace, Cadalus, the bishop of Parma, the antipope Honorius II (d. 1072): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadalus

“Certainly, whoever attempts to divide the holy Church should fear, as the Gospel has it, lest he too be divided, “Then the master will arrive on a day at which that servant does not expect it, at a time he does not know, and he will cut him in pieces, and give him his place among the unbelievers.” (Lk. 12:46). Moreover, of Peleg, the son of Eber, it was written, that “in his time the earth was divided” (Gen 10:25)… Pp. 388-389.

“Therefore, do not be a Peleg, dividing what was assembled, but be a disciple of Christ who puts together what was divided. Surely, those who succumb to the diabolical impulse to divide the Apostolic See would call to mind Dathan, Abiram, and Korah (cf. Num 16:1-3), and from their fall let them consider that their fate awaits also those who have pursued similar objectives. The former, to be sure, foster schism in the synagogue, while the latter plot division in the Church. And the reward of their schismatic misdeeds, with full knowledge will be buried in hell.” P. 389-390.

“Let that ancient dragon, Cadalus, take note. Let this disturber of the Church, this destroyer of apostolic discipline, this enemy of man’s salvation understand. Let him beware, I say, this root of all sin, this herald of the devil, this apostle of Antichrist. And what else shall I call him? He is the arrow drawn from the quiver of Satan, the rod of the Assyrian, the son Belial, “the son of perdition, who rises in his pride against every god, so called, ever object of men’s’ worship” (2 Thess. 2:3-4), the whirlpool of lust, the shipwreck of chastity, the disgrace of Christianity, the ignominy of bishops, the progeny of vipers, the stench or the world, the filth of the ages, the shame of the universe. Still more epithets for Cadalus can be added, a list of darksome names: slippery snake, a twisting serpent, the dung of humanity, the latrine of crime, the dregs of vice, the abomination of heaven the expulsion from paradise, the fodder of hell, the stubble of eternal fire.” Pp. 393-394.

The Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation, Peter Damian, letters 91-120, Catholic University Press, 1998, ISBN 0813208165

books.google.com/books?id=EhQEAAAACAAJ&dq=%220813208165%22&lr=

Page images (you may need to click on the small image first and then the larger one to read).

thumbsnap.com/vf/9mPPgZrK.jpg pp. 388-389
thumbsnap.com/vf/uh7PGG3o.jpg pp. 390-391
thumbsnap.com/vf/O56Umu9r.jpg pp. 392-393
thumbsnap.com/vf/BcGwTjmH.jpg pp. 394-395

---

“Through the intercession of his apostles, Peter and Paul, may He absolve you from all sin, and make you reign forever as fellow-citizens with him and his saints. Amen.

Peter Damian, Letter 100:35, vol. 5, p. 119

Luther did have a hard time reconciling James with the rest of Scripture (particularly with the Pauline epistles). However, Luther did a wonderful job of reviving grace, which the church had moved away from (toward a Semi-Pelagian stance, that they had rejected centuries earlier at the Council of Carthage).

Calvin, the good jurist, took it the rest of the way. You are also right to say we reject everything Augustine had to say except for his wonderful work on predestination and grace. Other than those views Augustine was 100% in line with the RCC on things like Mariology, veneration, intercession, co-mediation, purgatory, etc. We reject all of those things outright and unapologetically.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Luther did have a hard time reconciling James with the rest of Scripture (particularly with the Pauline epistles). However, Luther did a wonderful job of reviving grace, which the church had moved away from (toward a Semi-Pelagian stance, that they had rejected centuries earlier at the Council of Carthage).

Did you read, really read, the words of Luther I posted above? He as much as called the sacred writer a liar!

Calvin, the good jurist, took it the rest of the way. You are also right to say we reject everything Augustine had to say except for his wonderful work on predestination and grace. Other than those views Augustine was 100% in line with the RCC on things like Mariology, veneration, intercession, co-mediation, purgatory, etc. We reject all of those things outright and unapologetically.

…along with the unity of the one Church - the “whole Christ” Augustine would say!

And there’s so much more to say in response. But it would help if I understood better where you are coming from. So let me instead just ask you these three simple questions if I may.

1. Do believe then that the Church was in error for fifteen hundred years??
2. Which is more sacred, the Bible or the Church (which is Christ)?
3. Are you open to a discussion of the reformers moral characters?

---

When the Monk of Wittenberg openly commenced his attacks on the Papacy, it became apparent how far the disorders just alluded to had prepared the way for his plans. It was clear that all the currents adverse to the Papacy were, so to speak, waiting for the coming of one man, who should unchain them with his powerful hand. Amongst those who hitherto had been faithful adherents of the Church, Luther found combustible material -social, moral and political - heaped up so high that a stunning result was not surprising.

Had there arisen a saint like St. Bernard, on whose words the world of the Middle Ages had hung, with the Divine gift of teaching and writing as the times demanded, who can say what course events would have taken? But Luther arrived on the scene with his terrible, mighty voice, pressed all the elements of the storm into his service, and, launching a defiance of which the world had never before heard the like, succeeded in winning an immense success for the standard he had raised.

Luther, Hartmann Grisar (6 vols.), 1913, volume 1, p. 56

 

[sola_scriptura]

Did you read, really read, the words of Luther I posted above? He as much as called the sacred writer a liar!

I skimmed it I admit … are you saying he called Augustine a liar? If so then I wouldn’t find that problematic, since beyond predestination and grace I disagree with Augustine. However, I will never say Luther was perfect (fortunately we don’t rely on the fallacy of perfect men).

…along with the unity of the one Church - the “whole Christ” Augustine would say!

And there’s so much more to say in response. But it would help if I understood better where you are coming from. So let me instead just ask you these three simple questions if I may.

1. Do believe then that the Church was in error for fifteen hundred years??

I guess it would be closer to 1,800 or 1.900 years at this point. This is a tenuous question; but I suppose an answer is owing. I think it largely began to veer off track beginning around the time of Irenaeus.

1. Irenaeus felt Christ did not die until He was much older than reported (building an entire theory based on Christ going through “every state of human life” – including old age). This is in part how he viewed Jesus’ significance (and not primarily to atone for sins since Irenaeus felt that God would have sent Christ even if Adam & Eve didn’t sin). He failed to understand the core significance of Christ – central to all Christians.
2. Ireneaus failed to understand the significance of the death of Christ, believing salvation came about through the incarnation.
3. Ireneaus failed to understand the concepts of the death or our former selves and rebirth in Christ (not to mention his many faulty typologies, like his incomplete understanding of the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15).

It was this man who gives us the idea of “apostolic succession”

1. Which is more sacred, the Bible or the Church (which is Christ)?

You think the institution of the RCC is “Christ”? Christ was the Ark of the New Covenant between God and man. In Him was and is the word. Scripture represents those words. Obviously a book is not God – however, they are His words.

Moreover, the church is not defined as you infer. It is the collective of the faithful in Him.

1. Are you open to a discussion of the reformers moral characters?

No because it cannot be a fair discussion – since I cannot openly discuss the moral character of the Popes, Catholic clergy (bishops and cardinals included), and even certain early RCC fathers. Why not keep it to theology?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I skimmed it I admit … are you saying he called Augustine a liar? If so then I wouldn’t find that problematic, since beyond predestination and grace I disagree with Augustine. However, I will never say Luther was perfect (fortunately we don’t rely on the fallacy of perfect men).

What I’m saying that is that Luther called the holy apostle James a liar! That ought to trouble all thoughtful Christians.

You say you don’t rely on the “fallacy of perfect men.” But you are willing to take the words of the reformers, men whose lives were anything but “perfect,” indeed, were exceeding scandalous! And at their word, you would overturn the sacred Traditions of two millennium! I’m reminded of the words of Erasmus:

It is scarcely credible how much the common people are attracted to Luther, and most educated people too.

Letter to Georgius Spalatinus, March 13, 1521.

The Correspondence of Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 8, Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, University of Toronto Press, 1974, p.167.
ISBN 0802026079, 9780802026071

google.com/books?id=A5-UBrlRNqwC&pg=PA167&dq=erasmus+luther++%22scarcely+credible%22&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U0CkVxWLO2cmpz1E5apKiGw9IkQbw

I guess [the Church has been in error] closer to 1,800 or 1.900 years at this point. This is a tenuous question; but I suppose an answer is owing. I think it largely began to veer off track beginning around the time of Irenaeus.

The Church, which Scripture calls the “pillar and foundation of the truth”, veered off the track?

Surely, if the Church had begun to err, the early Christians would have immediately spoken out against it! And what of the early martyrs? Would not they, who suffered unspeakable tortures and death for Christ, would not they have also stood up for the truth?!

Furthermore, God promised to be with his Church for all time.

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Amen. Matt. 28:20 KJV

The International Standard Version emphasizes Christ’s perpetual and abiding presence with his Church even better:

Teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you. And remember, I am with you each and every day until the end of the age.
bible.cc/matthew/28-20.htm

Now listen to Luther (you’ll see the relevance in a moment).

The Latin phrase, omnes generationes, I have rendered Kinds Kind — children’s children, although literally it means “all generations.” But that is an obscure expression, and many have been hard put to it by this passage to know how it can be that all generations shall bless her, since the Jews, the heathens, and many wicked Christians blaspheme her or scorn to call her blessed. They understand the word “generations” of the totality of mankind, whereas its meaning here is rather the line of natural descent, as father, son, grandson, and so on, each member being called a generation.

The Virgin Mary means to say simply that her praise will be sung from one generation to another, so that there will never be a time when she shall not be praised. This she indicates by saying, “Behold, from henceforth all generations, etc.” — that is, it begins now and will continue throughout all generations, unto children’s children.

Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat.

Luther’s Works, volume 21, Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat, 1956, Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, ISBN 057006421X, p. 324

amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/057006421X

Online here.

Luther is only noting what Scripture *unambiguously *teaches i.e., that the Blessed Virgin’s “praise will be sung from one generation to another, so that there will never be a time when she shall not be praised,” with the exception of course, of among others, those “many wicked Christians [who] blaspheme her or scorn to call her blessed.”

But ironically, according to Protestant logic, God would indeed that Mary be perpetually praised, and yet the gospel of His Son, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, this He would have lost for centuries, even as His mother was honored throughout those same centuries!

Dear God, what blaspheme!!

1. Irenaeus felt Christ did not die until He was much older than reported (building an entire theory based on Christ going through “every state of human life” – including old age). This is in part how he viewed Jesus’ significance (and not primarily to atone for sins since Irenaeus felt that God would have sent Christ even if Adam & Eve didn’t sin). He failed to understand the core significance of Christ – central to all Christians.

1. Ireneaus failed to understand the significance of the death of Christ, believing salvation came about through the incarnation.

1. Ireneaus failed to understand the concepts of the death or our former selves and rebirth in Christ (not to mention his many faulty typologies, like his incomplete understanding of the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15).

It was this man who gives us the idea of “apostolic succession”

This is too much to address at the moment. But regarding Irenaeus’ age, see this.
bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm

And Irenaeus didn’t give us the idea of apostolic succession, he was merely referring to the historical fact of it!

You think the institution of the RCC is “Christ”? Christ was the Ark of the New Covenant between God and man. In Him was and is the word. Scripture represents those words. Obviously a book is not God – however, they are His words.

What I “think” is not the issue. Nor whether the RCC is the true Church or no. My question was, and is, simply this:

Which is more sacred, the Bible, which, despite containing sacred words, is a book, or the Church, which is indeed Christ’s very body?

I should point out here that, for Augustine, as well as for the other Fathers, Christ’s union with his Church, with his bride, is so intimate, so profound, that it can rightfully be said of it,

“We too are Himself.”

– Augustine, Sermon 263A:2:2, On the Ascension of the Lord, Works, pt, 3, vol. 7, p. 223. ISBN 1565480597

amazon.com/Sermons-230-272-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480597

No because it cannot be a fair discussion – since I cannot openly discuss the moral character of the Popes, Catholic clergy (bishops and cardinals included), and even certain early RCC fathers. Why not keep it to theology?

Well, now, who says you can’t discuss the moral character of the Pope etc? I for one certainly wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever with such a discussion. Although I can understand why some Catholics might indeed very much want to shy away from discussing the *scandalous and shameful *lives of certain Catholic churchmen.

 

[sola_scriptura]

IMHO Irenaeus was wrong in many areas – beginning with the peculiar theory he asserted regarding Christ living until old age and salvation initiating at the incarnation (and not at His death and resurrection).

Here at least we can say Irenaeus was incontrovertibly wrong regarding doctrine. I’ve been studying Irenaeus quite a bit these last few weeks & he did have some peculiar notions regarding the Christian religion. At any rate I won’t harp on him.

That being said Luther was wrong about certain things, Calvin was a bit overzealous, etc. However, I would submit that Luther’s theology was less wrong than incomplete (although again he was also wrong about some things). He was unwilling to contemplate divine justice – and had a strong disdain for James. He felt (as many scholars do today I might add) that James was not in accord with Paul. In fact it is known that members of the church at Jerusalem slandered Paul (insinuating he wasn’t actually Jewish at all – but rather a Greek, and various other lies).

It is neither substantiated nor do I think true that James was involved in these slanders. However, it seems that for whatever reason Luther did not believe James ever really came to adopt the position of Paul (and eventually Peter). Obviously Paul preached salvation by grace through faith and not as a result of works. This is the one main theme reverberated through all the Pauline epistles. James makes reference to justification by works, which drew Luther’s ire. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think James was trying to refute Paul. Sometimes his tone almost seems to be confronting Pauline theology.

However, (after studying this issue over the last few days) I find PERFECT harmony between James & the Pauline epistles (frankly since I’m not Lutheran I never really disputed the epistles of James – but I heard a sermon recently that both gave me pause and made me take a harder look at James & my view is still the same).

For instance:

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created (James 1:16-18).

Here we see James affirming the message of Paul. Everything good comes from God (not of ourselves). God chose us (we did not choose Him). James even affirms the immutability of God.

Then James closes his first chapter with a call to holiness, but spoken in a very pragmatic way (not quite as poetic as Paul – but plain speak never gets an argument from me).

Then in his second chapter James begins by telling us we may not show favoritism; but then again affirming the message of predestination (see verse 5).

Then James begins his discourse about “faith and deeds” where the alleged tension begins (beginning at verse 14 in his second epistle). However, James merely talks about charity (not works of the law). For instance:

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

So I would submit there is no departure from Paul indicated in this discourse.

You have to remember, the epistles of James are a very short compilation of works. He was addressing believers specifically, whereas the context Paul wrote in was much broader. In fact James even closes chap. 4 by calling boasting evil – which again shows his accord with Paul.

Even where James states that turning a sinner away from the error of his ways will “cover a multitude of sins” James is in accord with both Paul and Peter (see 1 Pet. 4:8, 1 Cor. 13:4-13, Proverbs 10:12). The idea is “love” covers a multitude of sins.

However, James never disputes that this love comes from God and our very faith is given by God. He never disputes salvation by faith – here merely points out the fruits of faith, the fruits of the Spirit. I would say Paul elaborated much more than James. We are saved by grace through faith, not works. However, Paul never abrogate the words of Jesus or John who focused so much on love. To the contrary Paul wrote quite a bit on love, and did so in his trademark eloquent fashion.

Indeed James talks about the fruit of faith much more than how we acquire faith in the first place. We do not acquire faith through works, nor are we given faith and chosen by God because of our preexisting meritorious character traits. However, when we are chosen and given faith we are actually changed. Indeed the Spirit drives us to bear fruit through obedience and love. To summarize the message of James is LOVE, just like Christ, just like Peter, and just like Paul. That Paul delved deeper into more complex theological issues doesn’t detract from the basic message (in fact if I had to guess some of the reasons God chose Paul was because he was highly educated, had an excellent understand of the Old Testament, could speak both Hebrew and Greek, and had incredible zeal). Paul was able to draw out the Old Testament typologies better than his peers. He was able to show that Jesus fulfilled the law and testimony of the prophets.

Even though God has preordained everything, even the elect may stray and need to be retrieved by his or her brethren (this is not to say they may not persevere because the elect always persevere). The fact is sometimes God might allow the devil to try and sift a believer. He may do so to further humble that person and also to train his peers in love. We cannot search out the judgments of God; but we must know that even when bad things happen it is for a good reason.

Remember, everything is already completed by God. For Him, in His own reference frame (which transcends time) His work is done. At the same time God is present in our reference frame, answering our prayers. This is omnipresence (the idea is that God is not only present everywhere in the universe, but also present throughout time). This is also related to omniscience (the knowledge of God). These are both complicated topics – but they’re interesting and a wonderful way to understand the sheer, absolute, and all encompassing power of God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

However, (after studying this issue over the last few days) I find PERFECT harmony between James & the Pauline epistles (frankly since I’m not Lutheran I never really disputed the epistles of James – but I heard a sermon recently that both gave me pause and made me take a harder look at James & my view is still the same).

I think it’s important to note too that even if James was trying to contradict Pauline theology…his writing was under the superattendance of the Holy Spirit…which wouldn’t permit him to contradict what Paul had written and preached. Which may be part of the reason why it can very easily be harmonized with Paul.