Which group believed in Faith alone before Luther?

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t think there was any group which held to the consolidated and reflected upon theology of Martin Luther. I think rather there were strains which rightly reminded the Christian that it is due to Christ alone that we attain salvation yet often in the same breath there was an equal reminder to do good works or not be saved. Before Luther I simply don’t see a formally defined point of theology that constantly insists that the works we do are meaningless to our own salvation or welldoing. A good example might by Saint Mark the Ascetic’s: On those who Think that They are Made Righteous by Works: Two Hundred and Twenty-Six Texts.

I’ll quote a few:

1. Wishing to show that to fulfil every commandment is a duty, wherase sonship is a gift given to men through HIs own Blood, the Lord said: ‘When you have done all that is commaded you, say: “We are useless servants; we have only done what was our duty.”’ Thus the Kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants.
2. He who relies on theoretical knowledge alone is not yet a faithful servant: a faithful servant is one who expresses his faith in Christ through obedience to His commandments.
3. When we fulfill the commandments in our outward actions, we receive from the Lord was is appropriate; but any real benefit we gain depends on our inward intention.
4. Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfil the commands and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.
5. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves; on the other hand, those who do not serve him well are not given their freedom.

There is this sort of tension all throughout this work by Saint Mark and he doesn’t go to one extreme of Sola Fide or insisting that our works are what save us either. He holds both as necessary which I believe was the attitude of the church in general before Luther tore it asunder. It might be useful if people could find quotes regarding this topic from before the Reformation.

 

[steido01]

I don’t think there was any group which held to the consolidated and reflected upon theology of Martin Luther. I think rather there were strains which rightly reminded the Christian that it is due to Christ alone that we attain salvation yet often in the same breath there was an equal reminder to do good works or not be saved.

A fair and reasonable assessment.

Before Luther I simply don’t see a formally defined point of theology that constantly insists that the works we do are meaningless to our own salvation or welldoing.

Not to be nit-picky, but Luther never taught that good works could not benefit the believer’s well-doing or being – spiritually or otherwise. Good works can certainly be edifying for the believer’s faith. Furthermore, they’re demanded of believers. To say anything else is to misunderstand or mischaracterize Luther.

Luther taught merely that justification --the actual work itself-- was done by Christ, alone. Sanctification, the spiritual growth of the Christian which follows and flows from justification and is made possible only by the Holy Spirit working within the believer, is proven through good works. Yes, Lutherans believe in an “alien righteousness,” but it is not the only sort that Luther describes; faith truly does effect change within the regenerate, and that is what Luther calls a “second kind of righteousness” and “our proper righteousness.”

And, yes, this is what Lutherans today also teach. Snippets from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

…faith is the true knowledge of Christ; it uses the benefits of Christ, it renews hearts, and it precedes our fulfillment of the law.
…
To be justified means that out of unrighteous people righteous people are made or regenerated, it also means that they are pronounced or regarded as righteous

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think there was any group which held to the consolidated and reflected upon theology of Martin Luther. I think rather there were strains which rightly reminded the Christian that it is due to Christ alone that we attain salvation yet often in the same breath there was an equal reminder to do good works or not be saved. Before Luther I simply don’t see a formally defined point of theology that constantly insists that the works we do are meaningless to our own salvation or welldoing. A good example might by Saint Mark the Ascetic’s: On those who Think that They are Made Righteous by Works: Two Hundred and Twenty-Six Texts.

I’ll quote a few:

1. Wishing to show that to fulfil every commandment is a duty, wherase sonship is a gift given to men through HIs own Blood, the Lord said: ‘When you have done all that is commaded you, say: “We are useless servants; we have only done what was our duty.”’ Thus the Kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants.
2. He who relies on theoretical knowledge alone is not yet a faithful servant: a faithful servant is one who expresses his faith in Christ through obedience to His commandments.
3. When we fulfill the commandments in our outward actions, we receive from the Lord was is appropriate; but any real benefit we gain depends on our inward intention.
4. Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfil the commands and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.
5. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves; on the other hand, those who do not serve him well are not given their freedom.

There is this sort of tension all throughout this work by Saint Mark and he doesn’t go to one extreme of Sola Fide or insisting that our works are what save us either. He holds both as necessary which I believe was the attitude of the church in general before Luther tore it asunder. It might be useful if people could find quotes regarding this topic from before the Reformation.

How about one from Luther himself.

 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.

I frankly don’t see this as "extreme ".

 

[Cathoholic]

Nelka:

Until today I thought Luther started it. I guess people before him have believed all kinds of heresies so he isn’t unique only in that he propagated it so much to the world.

Apparently James is concerned at least SOME among the “twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (“the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”) might assert justification by faith alone.

JAMES 2:14-24 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 **Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? **22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that **a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

This warning was so stark, I am not aware of ANY person or group within Christianity that fell for a mere intellectual faith without works motif (for those who are able), at least until the Reformation came along.

 

[steido01]

I am not aware of ANY person or group within Christianity that fell for a mere intellectual faith without works motif (for those who are able), at least until the Reformation came along.

The polemical slander that Luther held to a “mere intellectual faith without works” is about as accurate as saying Roman Catholics worship Mary as a goddess – only, sadly, more widely believed by otherwise intelligent people.

Please do read what Jon and I have quoted and explained. Better yet, read the Lutheran Confessions themselves.

 

[Cathoholic]

From steido01 directed to me (Cathoholic).

The polemical slander that Luther held to a “mere intellectual faith without works” is about as accurate as saying Roman Catholics worship Mary as a goddess – only, sadly, more widely believed by otherwise intelligent people.

Actually steido01. I think it is YOU that need to go back and re-read posts (esp. this one).

I purposefully explicitly did NOT even mention Luther there (in my reply to the OP).

I have a lot of respect for JonNC, and JonNC’s theology. (We don’t always agree naturally)

Incidentally, I also have a fair amount of respect for you too.

It was out of that respect and due to JonNC’s past posts, that I explicitly did not name Luther (because I am not entirely sure what Luther meant in his writings).

But if you want to try to say that NOBODY said they were justified by faith ALONE in a mere intellectual sense at the time of the Reformation, I’m going to take issue with you.

And I get PLENTY of Bible-ONLY Christians that assert they are justified by faith ALONE in an intellectual sense today too.

You go back and re-read MY reply.

Apparently James is concerned at least SOME among the “twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (“the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”) might assert justification by faith alone. . . .

. . . This warning was so stark, I am not aware of ANY person or group within Christianity that fell for a mere intellectual faith without works motif (for those who are able), at least until the Reformation came along.

 

[Cathoholic]

steido01:

Luther taught merely that justification --the actual work itself-- was done by Christ, alone.

Then WHY do you need “faith” (I agree we need faith, but I might not agree with your “why”).

And when does faith enter into your justification?

What about the “work” of preaching? Isn’t THAT necessary. Or can you get saved without it?

You said:

Sanctification, the spiritual growth of the Christian which follows and flows from justification and is made possible only by the Holy Spirit working within the believer, is proven through good works.

But does it HAVE TO be? Do you NEED good works after you are initially justified?

Can you be justified WITHOUT sanctification?

Also . . .

Can you enter Heaven without sanctification?

How about “hope”? Do you NEED hope too? Or can one despair or presume and go to Heaven anyway?

Explain to me what you mean by “alien righteousness”? (I’d like to hear it from you directly or a salient quote).

 

[JonNC]

steido01:

Then WHY do you need “faith” (I agree we need faith, but I might not agree with your “why”).

And when does faith enter into your justification?

What about the “work” of preaching? Isn’t THAT necessary. Or can you get saved without it?

You said:

But does it HAVE TO be? Do you NEED good works after you are initially justified?

Can you be justified WITHOUT sanctification?

Also . . .

Can you enter Heaven without sanctification?

How about “hope”? Do you NEED hope too? Or can one despair or presume and go to Heaven anyway?

Explain to me what you mean by “alien righteousness”? (I’d like to hear it from you directly or a salient quote).

Martin Luther said “There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

 

[Contarini]

Until today I thought Luther started it. I guess people before him have believed all kinds of heresies so he isn’t unique only in that he propagated it so much to the world.

I saw a quote in the Haydock Bible today from St. Augustine.

It was part of the commentary for Matthew 23:15.

As we know St. Augustine was around before Luther.

Thanks.

I don’t think this teaching was the same as Luther’s by any means. Bear in mind that the heart of Luther’s teaching is a new conception of faith (one that, rightly interpreted, can I think be integrated into Catholic theology and which has been informally endorsed by recent Popes in phrases like “faith without love would no longer be an authentic Christian faith”). The folks Augustine has in mind probably believed, as many Muslims do, that anyone who had faith in the traditional Catholic sense of the word (acceptance of what God has revealed) would eventually be saved. Augustine writes about such people in his discussion of hell toward the end of City of God.

Augustine’s own teaching militates against faith alone in any form, because Augustine sees faith as a work and sees all truly good works as the fruit of God’s grace. So for him the meaningful distinction isn’t between faith and works but between grace and our own unaided efforts.

Luther’s version of “faith alone” presupposed Augustine’s theology even as it went beyond and even contradicted it.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

I purposefully explicitly did NOT even mention Luther there (in my reply to the OP).

You quoted someone who did, and your last sentence “…until the Reformation came along” seemed to follow a similar path of thought. I am happy to know I misunderstood your meaning. And yet, your second post makes me wonder if I had it right the first time?

I think we might better understand each other if we were familiar with the terms Luther used. Some salient quotes and useful context can be found **here **regarding “alien righteousness” and the process by which the Holy Spirit grows a believer’s own “proper righteousness” (which includes doing good works).

 

[AugustTherese]

The polemical slander that Luther held to a “mere intellectual faith without works” is about as accurate as saying Roman Catholics worship Mary as a goddess – only, sadly, more widely believed by otherwise intelligent people.

Please do read what Jon and I have quoted and explained. Better yet, read the Lutheran Confessions themselves.

In regards to JUSTIFICATION, Martin Luther absolutely and unambiguously held to a “mere intellectual faith without works”, hence ‘sola fide’. Just the fact that his works, and your previous comment, clearly attempt to dichotomize justification and sanctification proves that Luther and his followers confess to believe that JUSTIFICATION is a “faith without works”, and thus SANCTIFICATION is only the result, byproduct, and natural proof of that justifying faith through works. Hence, Lutherans confess an “alien righteous” (in regards to justification) being imputed to us and not an incarnate righteousness being infused in us:

“This is the wonderful righteousness that we are called righteous or such that we have righteousness. THIS IS NO DEED OR THOUGH OR ANYTHING IN US, rather it is WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF US in Christ, and it is truly ours through His favor and gift. And it is ours just as if we ourselves had achieved and acquired it” - (Weimar Ausgabe 46, 44, 34–38 (Reihenpredigten über Johannes 1–2 1538))

“For God accepts nothing else than His beloved Son who is wholly pure and holy in His eyes. Where the Son is, the Father sees Him and in Him He is pleased. Now the Son is apprehended NOT THROUGH WORKS, but through faith only, WITHOUT DEEDS and placed in the heart. Thus says God: The heart is holy because of my Son, who dwells there through faith” - (WA BR 9, 408, 56–61)

Caps only for emphasis

Scripture alone (NKJV), however, tells us there is no separation of justification and sanctification:

“But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” - 1 Corinthians 6:11 NKJV

Notice how “you were sanctified” precedes “you were justified”.

“He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” Titus 3:5-7 NKJV

Notice how sanctification (via Holy Baptism, i.e. washing of regeneration…) precedes “that having been justified by His grace”.

 

[steido01]

In regards to JUSTIFICATION, Martin Luther absolutely and unambiguously held to a “mere intellectual faith without works”, hence ‘sola fide’. Just the fact that his works, and your previous comment, clearly attempt to dichotomize justification and sanctification proves that Luther and his followers confess to believe that JUSTIFICATION is a “faith without works”, and thus SANCTIFICATION is only the result, byproduct, and natural proof of that justifying faith through works. Hence, Lutherans confess an “alien righteous” (in regards to justification) being imputed to us and not an incarnate righteousness being infused in us:

“This is the wonderful righteousness that we are called righteous or such that we have righteousness. THIS IS NO DEED OR THOUGH OR ANYTHING IN US, rather it is WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF US in Christ, and it is truly ours through His favor and gift. And it is ours just as if we ourselves had achieved and acquired it” - (Weimar Ausgabe 46, 44, 34–38 (Reihenpredigten über Johannes 1–2 1538))

Your points have already been addressed in this thread (did you read the link about the “second kind of righteousness?”), so I won’t bother explaining again why you are wrong.

Instead, I’d like to point something out for your benefit, on the off-chance you are still unaware: you are being utterly insulting to Lutherans when you attempt, incorrectly, to tell Lutherans what Lutherans believe.

This is not the first time nor even the first thread where you have done this, despite having been corrected by multiple posters from various denominations. Please stop presuming to tell Lutherans that we don’t understand our own beliefs. I’ve seen what happens on these boards when non-Roman Catholics presume to do the same regarding Roman Catholic belief. We can disagree charitably, without speaking untruths about each other.

 

[AugustTherese]

Your points have already been addressed in this thread (did you read the link about the “second kind of righteousness?”), so I won’t bother explaining again why you are wrong.

Instead, I’d like to point something out for your benefit, on the off-chance you are still unaware: you are being utterly insulting to Lutherans when you attempt, incorrectly, to tell Lutherans what Lutherans believe.

This is not the first time nor even the first thread where you have done this, despite having been corrected by multiple posters from various denominations. Please stop presuming to tell Lutherans that we don’t understand our own beliefs. I’ve seen what happens on these boards when non-Roman Catholics presume to do the same regarding Roman Catholic belief. We can disagree charitably, without speaking untruths about each other.

“Luther taught merely that justification --the actual work itself-- was done by Christ, alone. Sanctification, the spiritual growth of the Christian which follows and flows from justification and is made possible only by the Holy Spirit working within the believer, is proven through good works.”

These are your words that I referred to “your previous comment”. Your words, along with Luther’s, attempt to separate justification and sanctification. “Proven through good works” should belong in the category of justification (cf. James 2) and not solely, “Sanctification”. I am not trying to criticize your personal faith and/or Lutheran Confessions; but when you say your confessions are being misrepresented, they are not.

“you are being utterly insulting to Lutherans when you attempt, incorrectly, to tell Lutherans what Lutherans believe.”

That’s interesting, because, I quote verbatim from your confessions and/or from Luther and then either offer an explanation and/or questions, and instead of you attempting to show where I am incorrect, you merely just state that I am wrong and insulting.

“so I won’t bother explaining again why you are wrong.”

That’s the thing, you do not “bother”, rather, your words attempt to claim that I am misrepresenting what Lutherans believe and confess, without substantiating where exactly I am “wrong”. If you and/or your confessions teach that justification and sanctification are ‘and/both’ dogmatically, and not to be incorrigibly cast off in this ‘either/or’ dichotomy, then I would presuppose that you may just be on your way to Christian antiquity.

Just answer me these questions with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ (“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one”):

Do you, or your confessions, confess to believe that justification and sanctification occur simultaneously?

Do you, or your confessions, confess to believe that justification (before God) involves producing good works?

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

In regards to JUSTIFICATION, Martin Luther absolutely and unambiguously held to a “mere intellectual faith without works”, hence ‘sola fide’.

He believed that only faith plays a causal role in justification, yes. But this is not “intellectual faith” in the sense of the acceptance of some proposition, but trusting in Jesus’ victory over sin and death and the devil. This is an act that involves the whole person and always goes along with love and good works.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

That’s interesting, because, I -]quote/-] [pick and choose] verbatim from your confessions and/or from Luther and then either offer an [unfortunately uninformed polemical] explanation and/or [loaded “gotcha”-style] questions, and instead of you -]attempting to show where I am incorrect/-] [falling into my trap], you merely -]just state that I am wrong and insulting./-]

.This is how it appears from my perspective.
AugustTherese;14585710:

If you and/or your confessions teach that justification and sanctification are ‘and/both’ dogmatically, and not to be incorrigibly cast off in this ‘either/or’ dichotomy, then I would presuppose that you may just be on your way to Christian antiquity.

Speaking of either/or dichotomies, mustn’t we at least entertain the possibility that Justification and Sanctification can be described both on their own, and also in the context of how the former influences the latter?

Just answer me these questions with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ (“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one”):

Do you, or your confessions, confess to believe that justification and sanctification occur simultaneously?

Do you, or your confessions, confess to believe that justification (before God) involves producing good works?

Look, friend, when we “ask” a question with a desired answer in mind, and beginning with presuppositions foreign to the concept being discussed, we aren’t actually asking anything. We’re like the apostate bishop in C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, no longer asking questions in order to receive an answer, but rather asking questions like the serpent in a quest for control and to “be like God.” Ask an honest question, and you’ll receive an answer. Continue to ask “gotcha” questions, and I’ll remain unable to help you.

Something else to keep in mind is that the Reformers were not stupid men. They were steeped in the fathers and various schools of thought. Their theologies, naturally, reflected this deepness. Yes, one may find areas of ‘rational softness’ in every theological framework (the concept of an ‘infallible’ man who may err and whom no one can always definitively say for sure is speaking infallibly, for instance); but some forum in a tiny corner of the Internet is not going to be the source of a ‘golden bullet question’ that strikes the heart of Lutheranism. Anything short of Jesus’s skeleton leaves the Lutheran framework intact.

 

[AugustTherese]

He believed that only faith plays a causal role in justification, yes. But this is not “intellectual faith” in the sense of the acceptance of some proposition, but trusting in Jesus’ victory over sin and death and the devil. This is an act that involves the whole person and always goes along with love and good works.

Edwin

“but trusting in Jesus’ victory over sin and death and the devil”

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon XII

“This is an act that involves the whole person and always goes along with love and good works.”

Amen, amen! Well said, Edwin! Peace be with you.

 

[Tomyris]

Just to muddy the waters, since I am neither Catholic or Lutheran and likely to get this wrong anyway, I think justification and sanctification are separated only for analysis and actually refer to the same thing. In Reformed eyes, if one happens, the second does, if the second happens, the first did. If you are justified you will be sanctified; if you have been sanctified you were justified. I think somewhere I read that there is some confusion between what Catholics and Protestants refer to when they talk about justification.

Justification: initial, unilateral act by God declaring one forgiven. What God has declared clean is clean.
sanctification: ongoing process requiring human cooperation. Said cooperation is assisted by the grace of God, not unaided.

The whole thing is a singularity, from the outside it is all God at work. From the inside, you have to cooperate. And you will, because God will work mysteriously so that you freely do His will.

It is not naked faith, but faith clothed with works. That is a difference between how Catholics and Protestants see faith. It is only faith if works follow or accompany it, it is never mere intellectual assent.

 

[AugustTherese]

This is how it appears from my perspective.

Speaking of either/or dichotomies, mustn’t we at least entertain the possibility that Justification and Sanctification can be described both on their own, and also in the context of how the former influences the latter?

Look, friend, when we “ask” a question with a desired answer in mind, and beginning with presuppositions foreign to the concept being discussed, we aren’t actually asking anything. We’re like the apostate bishop in C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, no longer asking questions in order to receive an answer, but rather asking questions like the serpent in a quest for control and to “be like God.” Ask an honest question, and you’ll receive an answer. Continue to ask “gotcha” questions, and I’ll remain unable to help you.

Something else to keep in mind is that the Reformers were not stupid men. They were steeped in the fathers and various schools of thought. Their theologies, naturally, reflected this deepness. Yes, one may find areas of ‘rational softness’ in every theological framework (the concept of an ‘infallible’ man who may err and whom no one can always definitively say for sure is speaking infallibly, for instance); but some forum in a tiny corner of the Internet is not going to be the source of a ‘golden bullet question’ that strikes the heart of Lutheranism. Anything short of Jesus’s skeleton leaves the Lutheran framework intact.

Don, let me apologize for the impression that I left you. I am not trying to personally prove you wrong, insult your confessions, and/or trap you with “gotcha” questions. More importantly, I in no way want you to think that I am attempting to undermine your personal faith. Rather, I comment on these threads to expose and disclose things that were perhaps undisclosed or not mentioned beforehand. As a former Confessional Lutheran, my endeavor is to get people to ponder in a novel way regarding their doctrinal teachings that hopefully brings them to a more apostolic and primitive way of understanding the full deposit of faith, specifically through Sacred Scripture.

As for the last two questions I posed for you to answer, I honestly do not know how more “honest” I could be. If you choose not to answer them, no worries. However, please do not suggest that I am misrepresenting what Lutherans confess to believe without attempting to underscore the specific ‘error’ and to correct my misrepresentation. I know exactly what the BOC confesses to believe and teach, and I will always expose the inconsistencies and contradictions in the most ecumenical and charitable way possible, no offense.

Peace and love, Don!

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I read and it looks like what you are saying is that over time Luther’s opinion on Sacraments changed?

To my knowledge he died a sacramental Christian

He oculd not possible have died a sacramental Christian, since he was separated from the church, no sacraments could have been received by Martin Luther.

 

[JonNC]

He oculd not possible have died a sacramental Christian, since he was separated from the church, no sacraments could have been received by Martin Luther.

This isn’t even in line with Catholic teaching, AFAIK. If he received the Eucharist from an ordained priest who is as the art of the evangelical Catholic movement , at worst it would be valid but illicit, from a Catholic viewpoint.