Which group believed in Faith alone before Luther?

[AugustTherese]

Wrong. You’re twisting Luther. In this comforting letter to his close friend Phillip Melanchthon, Luther is assuming that genuine repentance is taking place after those sins (as his ol’ Phillip, being himself a polyglot with decades of experience in biblical study, would also have understood, and you would too if you actually read the correspondence. Phillip was feeling like his sins were too great to be forgiven).

“Luther is assuming that genuine repentance is taking place after those sins.”

Interesting. I thought genuine repentance meant to “sin no more”, as Our Lord instructed and commanded, as opposed to “sin, and sin boldly”. To “assume” something on behalf of Luther in which neither his words nor the context even accidentally allude to, is seemingly dishonest to me. If to “sin, and sin boldly” intrinsically means “genuine repentance is taking place after those sins”, then I have absolutely no attempt of rebuttal.

Obviously, unrepentant sin causes the Christian to fall from Grace. But if you think that God will not forgive that murderer or adulterer, even if the sinner’s repentance is genuine, then you’ve just condemned ever person who has ever lived to eternal death – all are murderers and adulterers in the heart. Is there a sin too great for God to forgive? Too wretched for Christ to bear on the Cross? What meek god do you worship?

No, mortal sin causes the Christian to fall from grace; “unrepentant sin” keeps him/her there. As for your insinuations, they merely beg the question while concurrently attempting to set up a straw man. To put words in my mouth, so to speak, immediately discredits your position, no offense. Not only that, but if your implications carried some weight, I still would be in no position to “condemn” anyone; I, nor God, condemns anyone. Your retort, “What meek god do you worship”, is self-indicative of where your heart really seems to be.

Ah, now we’re getting into the name-calling. Whatever makes you feel better about leaving your old communion, dude.

I did not “name-call” anyone and/or their moral state! What I did was call someone’s works/words what there really are. And, it does NOT make me feel better about anything; it is a sad and heart-breaking reality how many souls get lost (no, I am NOT implying you) because of what certain doctrines may cause people to do, or not do.

He inserted the German word “allein” because that’s what the text there means. Words get added in translation because translation is an art, not a science. Hopefully this doesn’t cause too much of an existential crisis for you, but:

Interesting; I wonder why John Wycliffe did not insert the word ‘alone’ in his transliteration if it was so abundantly apparent. No, this is not a “crisis” for me; it is no longer my affair, but what is sad is how many think it is not a concern or “existential crisis” for them.

Why do Roman Polemicists continue to trot out this flimsy “gotcha” bit? Luther is obviously saying ‘be a sinner’ in the sense of ‘confess your sins!’ Even Roman Catholic leaders have acknowledged this.

“Why do Roman Polemicists” - and you accused me of name-calling!? If Luther “obviously” meant that “be a sinner” meant to “confess your sins”, I can no longer help here.

 

[JonNC]

I think i have read this before…it depends on what is meant by “merit”…or how we protestants understand the word “merit,”

 

[AugustTherese]

…Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true…

You very, very seemingly, deliberately omitted the absolute and most important portion of that quote!

Let me finish it for you:

“…if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”. Intentional cherry-picking will not help here.

• Pope Benedict XVI, GA, 2008

 

[AugustTherese]

…Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true…

You very, very seemingly, deliberately omitted the absolute and most important portion of that quote!

Let me finish it for you:

“…if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”. - Pope Benedict XVI, GA, 2008

Intentional cherry-picking will not help here.

 

[JonNC]

You very, very seemingly, deliberately omitted the absolute and most important portion of that quote!

Let me finish it for you:

“…if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”. Intentional cherry-picking will not help here.

• Pope Benedict XVI, GA, 2008

Correct.

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 believe it is quite possible that Pope Benedict had this commentary on Galatians 5:6 when he made that statement.
But this is an excellent example not everything is always stated. Sometimes the details are assumed, such as in Luther’s letter that you have consistently misrepresented, even after correction.

 

[steido01]

Interesting. I thought genuine repentance meant to “sin no more”, as Our Lord instructed and commanded, as opposed to “sin, and sin boldly”.

Luther is saying precisely what Christ says! Are you even reading the actual letter? In literally the same sentence, he says, “but confess Christ more boldly.” He’s telling Melanchthon, not to despair – that there is Good News, a Gospel for him!

Here’s the context: M. had been writing to Luther about how he feared he wasn’t really a Christian because he kept falling back into the same sins. Luther offers true Christian counsel and consolation, telling M. that he’ll never be perfect in this life, and that Christ was perfect for them. It’s depressing how you’re taking something that is sweet, sweet Gospel and contorting it to mean something so sinister. You truly do not understand the context here. Perhaps this article can help you.

No, mortal sin causes the Christian to fall from grace; “unrepentant sin” keeps him/her there.

You’re straining at gnats here. Repeated, unrepentant sin becomes mortal sin. In any case, the distinction has no bearing on our discussion. Mortal sin or unrepentant - both are damnable. The point stands: God is capable of forgiving even the person who murders millions. Even some of the wicked Nazi leaders repented of their sins, regretted their actions and received communion before their deaths. And God forgives me, the most wicked sinner of all.

As for your insinuations, they merely beg the question while concurrently attempting to set up a straw man.

Insinuations? No, my dear friend. These are real questions. If god cannot forgive any sin, then he is not god at all. God can forgive any sin. Indeed, He forgave them all.

To put words in my mouth, so to speak, immediately discredits your position, no offense.

Wise words to heed, there.

Interesting; I wonder why John Wycliffe did not insert the word ‘alone’ in his transliteration if it was so abundantly apparent.

You say transliteration, but I think you meant translation. Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate. Luther translated from the closer-to-the-originals Greek. I’m not sure why you think a Lutheran should care what Wycliffe translated, seeing as he wasn’t Lutheran.

You very, very seemingly, deliberately omitted the absolute and most important portion of that quote!

Let me finish it for you:

“…if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love”. - Pope Benedict XVI, GA, 2008

Intentional cherry-picking will not help here.

Ha! By all means, please include it. I only shaved the sentence for the crescendo into a bolded end. But please, by all means, explain that the Lutheran concept of faith (which must be sincere and perform good works in love) is indeed the sort of faith the good Pope was referring to!

 

[AugustTherese]

Correct.

I believe it is quite possible that Pope Benedict had this commentary on Galatians 5:6 when he made that statement.
But this is an excellent example not everything is always stated. Sometimes the details are assumed, such as in Luther’s letter that you have consistently misrepresented, even after correction.

"Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.

This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, “that our sins are covered,” and that “God will not lay them to our charge.” Sin is not held against us for Christ’s sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.

After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works" - Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 2:16

“We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and NOT the article of JUSTIFICATION.” - Ibid

Do you see the blatant dichotomizing of works and faith in the realm of justification here?

“Faith trusts in God and is never wrong. Charity trusts in men and is often wrong” - Ibid, Galatians 5:10

This above quote could be slightly taken out of context, but, nonetheless, it is still a dangerous thing to write when exhorting the necessary elements regarding justification.

As for this quote:

“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 absolutely love what Luther says here, except perhaps for the very last sentence. I do not know what he is trying to say exactly, but I get the impression that he may be alluding to being justified by faith before God, while being justified by works of charity before men; in which is a prevalent doctrinal error that has crept into Protestant communities.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

A fair and reasonable assessment.

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:

​

Thank you for offering some insights about Luther, though I still think we are saying two separate things. It seems to me Justification and then sanctification proceeding the justification is unique to Luther. I could be wrong but the whole reformation scheme of salvation represents a new interpretation of how things ought to be when I compare it to the Church fathers.

It still seems to me there is this crucial difference between Sanctification and Justification in the Lutheran view of things. The latter is more important since it is what saves the individual eventually and not any amount of personal holiness (though that is the result). I don’t see this sort of dichotomy in the fathers as I pointed out in my previous post. They don’t qualify their statements about good works or not sinning as if it were a separate category from our justification, they only ever speak to the absolute necessity to do what is right in all things, be that faith or works.

I would be interested if the Lutherans or Protestants here could make a case in the fathers for their understanding salvation as they do. I don’t think that can be the case but rather salvation as Luther and Calvin understood it is the result of a dialogue and forcing the issue to be the define rather than be vague about it. I would ask, if the fathers did not hold to a Lutheran view, as I maintain, what does that mean for Lutheranism or any kind of Protestant tradition? Are Luther’s views on salvation less important or more?

 

[AugustTherese]

Luther is saying precisely what Christ says! Are you even reading the actual letter? In literally the same sentence, he says, “but confess Christ more boldly.” He’s telling Melanchthon, not to despair – that there is Good News, a Gospel for him!

Don (if I may), “to sin boldly” so that we can “confess Christ more boldly” is neither Christian nor Scriptural, with all due respect. Saint Paul explicitly condemns such a notion: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1,2 NKJV. You can provide me all the “context” you desire, but to suggest to sin boldly in order to provide an opportunity to confess Christ more boldly, is completely backwards.
No offense, but the “context” argument cannot bail Luther’s words out every time he makes a doctrinal error.

You’re straining at gnats here. Repeated, unrepentant sin becomes mortal sin. In any case, the distinction has no bearing on our discussion. Mortal sin or unrepentant - both are damnable. The point stands: God is capable of forgiving even the person who murders millions. Even some of the wicked Nazi leaders repented of their sins, regretted their actions and received communion before their deaths. And God forgives me, the most wicked sinner of all.

I did not mean to digress, but only to clear up your implications that I somehow believed in a “meek god” that is incapable or unwilling to forgive mortal sin. In fact, I absolutely agree with you in that the greater the sinner, more the right they have to Our Lord’s mercy. Remember, you brought this up insinuating that I somehow did not grasp or believe in the ineffable amount of mercy Our Lord has for grave sinners.

Insinuations? No, my dear friend. These are real questions. If god cannot forgive any sin, then he is not god at all. God can forgive any sin. Indeed, He forgave them all.

“IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 NKJV (Emphasis added)

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 NKJV

God did not forgive all sin, i.e. ‘objective justification’. He PAID for all sins, or DIED for all sins, or REDEEMED all sins; but forgiveness requires repentance. And, according to the Scripture I quoted, we need to confess our sins for Him to forgive us, otherwise we will die in our sins; you cannot die in your sins that have already been forgiven.

Ha! By all means, please include it. I only shaved the sentence for the crescendo into a bolded end. But please, by all means, explain that the Lutheran concept of faith (which must be sincere and perform good works in love) is indeed the sort of faith the good Pope was referring to!

Don, please, I am not naive; regarding the article of justification, your confessions do NOT teach that faith “must perform good works in love”; regarding sanctification, perhaps, but not justification. Now, if you personally believe that “faith must perform good works in love” regarding justification and sanctification, then please come home as soon as you can!

 

[MaryT777]

Don (if I may), “to sin boldly” so that we can “confess Christ more boldly” is neither Christian nor Scriptural, with all due respect. Saint Paul explicitly condemns such a notion: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1,2 NKJV. You can provide me all the “context” you desire, but to suggest to sin boldly in order to provide an opportunity to confess Christ more boldly, is completely backwards.
No offense, but the “context” argument cannot bail Luther’s words out every time he makes a doctrinal error.

I did not mean to digress, but only to clear up your implications that I somehow believed in a “meek god” that is incapable or unwilling to forgive mortal sin. In fact, I absolutely agree with you in that the greater the sinner, more the right they have to Our Lord’s mercy. Remember, you brought this up insinuating that I somehow did not grasp or believe in the ineffable amount of mercy Our Lord has for grave sinners.

“IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 NKJV (Emphasis added)

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 NKJV

God did not forgive all sin, i.e. ‘objective justification’. He PAID for all sins, or DIED for all sins, or REDEEMED all sins; but forgiveness requires repentance. And, according to the Scripture I quoted, we need to confess our sins for Him to forgive us, otherwise we will die in our sins; you cannot die in your sins that have already been forgiven.

Don, please, I am not naive; regarding the article of justification, your confessions do NOT teach that faith “must perform good works in love”; regarding sanctification, perhaps, but not justification. Now, if you personally believe that “faith must perform good works in love” regarding justification and sanctification, then please come home as soon as you can!

Sometimes I wonder if the LCMS Lutherans posting here try to “Catholic up” their confessions. I almost converted to the LCMS and I was taught works were not remotely necessary for JUSTIFICATION and that our good works were “filthy rags” as is in the Bible.

I also did not understand there to be absolutely ANY assent on our part to Faith but it was pure working of the Holy Spirit.

It was also noted that Catholics taught a false gospel of works righteousness, including works as to be necessary to salvation.

This pastor had a class of 10 and I was one of 3 Catholics. He was very knowledgeable about the Faith obviously and had a Master’s in Biblical exegesis. He said there is a common misunderstanding among Catholics that because the liturgies can appear to “look/be” nearly the same the doctrines are alike.

He said he wanted us to know this was not remotely true that t there were grave and significant differences in doctrine so we did not convert without knowing the teachings.

Catholic Theology and LCMS theology are miles apart in reality.

Mary

Just a thought.

 

[Peter_J]

I am surprised to hear this from someone about to enter the Catholic Church, that these fathers of the Council did not understand the situation. I think Catholics believe the Holy Spirit will work regardless and produce perfect results, even if the bishops in their assembly are clueless.

You just reminded me of something: when Dr. Scott Hahn converted to RCism, one of his Protestant friends tried to dissuade him. After the conversation he admitted that he couldn’t find an error in Hahn’s thinking, but added that we wasn’t worried because he was sure it wouldn’t be long until the Pope excommunicated Hahn for being too scriptural!

 

[steido01]

Don (if I may),

Please do. I prefer the use of first names. It helps to remind folks that we’re real people who are speaking in quiet voices and not faceless avatars shouting in a hallway.

“to sin boldly” so that we can “confess Christ more boldly” is neither Christian nor Scriptural, with all due respect. Saint Paul explicitly condemns such a notion: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1,2 NKJV. You can provide me all the “context” you desire, but to suggest to sin boldly in order to provide an opportunity to confess Christ more boldly, is completely backwards.
No offense, but the “context” argument cannot bail Luther’s words out every time he makes a doctrinal error.

This is not a doctrinal error. The only error here rests in your misinterpretation of the text. Luther would never tell M., a fellow theologian, to sin. Not only would that have been an error, it would’ve been against everything Luther ever wrote (Think about that for a moment. Would Luther, who knew more about the Epistle to the Romans than few before or since, and who wrote commentaries about that very verse, suddenly have gone against absolutely everything he had previously taught? Dude, his commentaries are so rich that they’re even used by one of my local Catholic priest friends in his bible studies. The argument that Luther contradicts all of his previous writings this one time is beyond foolish.), not to mention just bad advice. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT LUTHER IS SAYING.

I’m not sure you read the link in my last post. So I’ll try one more. Read this. It explains the context. It also includes a quote from an article that was once posted by Catholic Answers (the very group that runs this site!), “[Luther] never declared a good life unnecessary. His “pecca fortiter sed crede fortius” (sin boldly but believe still more firmly) was not meant to be an encouragement to yield to sin without scruple. He intended simply that however great a sinner one may be, granted repentance, he can be justified solely by faith.”

Now you have it from your fellow Roman Catholics. Luther is not saying “Go sin! nothing matters! Everything is forgiven! Be hedonistic!” What Luther is saying is; “Boldly admit you are a sinner! Repent, for you have been gifted forgiveness!”

All of Lutheranism has understood what Luther meant by this.
Books have used it for their titles.
Podcasts, too.
Academics have taken it on as their mottos.
Service groups as their rallying cries.
Pastors regularly comfort their sorrowful with it.
Bonhoeffers of the world have used it to fight evil by explaining that Grace, although free, is not cheap.

**Now what is more likely? **

1. 
   *]That all these Christians have reveled in some wicked man’s self-contradictory excuse for sin?
   *]Or that you, a well-meaning new convert looking to justify his departure from his old faith, found this quote taken out of context by some anti-Lutheran polemicist on some anti-Lutheran listicle with anti-Lutheran intentions about some “50 Reasons That’ll Totally Convince Those Blind Lutherans That Their Namesake Was A Hell-Bound Heretic,” discovered some incredible truth we’ve all been missing for 500 years?
   
   Look, we disagree on things as Lutherans and Catholics. The basic idea that sin is bad and should be avoided is not one of them.
   

   I did not mean to digress, but only to clear up your implications that I somehow believed in a “meek god” that is incapable or unwilling to forgive mortal sin. In fact, I absolutely agree with you in that the greater the sinner, more the right they have to Our Lord’s mercy. Remember, you brought this up insinuating that I somehow did not grasp or believe in the ineffable amount of mercy Our Lord has for grave sinners.

   I was explaining why Luther said that God can forgive even one who repents of “murder a thousand times over,” which you erroneously tried to say was because Luther required merely “intellectual assent,” and not actual repentance. Luther is simply saying the most catholic teaching of all to a grieving friend: God forgives all sinners who repent, even you.
   

   “IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 NKJV

   Amen. These are the words all Lutherans recite in our Confession and Absolution rites. These are the words that Luther implies and assumes his reader would know.
   

   God did not forgive all sin, i.e. ‘objective justification’. He PAID for all sins, or DIED for all sins, or REDEEMED all sins; but forgiveness requires repentance. And, according to the Scripture I quoted, we need to confess our sins for Him to forgive us, otherwise we will die in our sins; you cannot die in your sins that have already been forgiven.

   Either Jesus forgave all sins on Calvary or He did not. He did; yet individuals may still choose to reject that forgiveness.
   

   Don, please, I am not naive; regarding the article of justification, your confessions do NOT teach that faith “must perform good works in love”; regarding sanctification, perhaps, but not justification. Now, if you personally believe that “faith must perform good works in love” regarding justification and sanctification, then please come home as soon as you can!

   But you are misinformed. The Lutheran Confessions clearly state that love and charity are the fruits of faith. If faith is not working love, it is dead. It is no faith at all.

 

[steido01]

I almost converted to the LCMS and I was taught works were not remotely necessary for JUSTIFICATION and that our good works were “filthy rags” as is in the Bible.

I also did not understand there to be absolutely ANY assent on our part to Faith but it was pure working of the Holy Spirit.

True, with respect to Justification itself. Sanctification, however, which comes about because of our Justification, includes our works. Those works increase our faith.

It sounds like you were blessed with a good pastor who wanted you to know the differences before making any decisions. I am glad he took time to catechize, and that, presumably, your faith in Christ has grown through the experience.

 

[MaryT777]

True, with respect to Justification itself. Sanctification, however, which comes about because of our Justification, includes our works. Those works increase our faith.

It sounds like you were blessed with a good pastor who wanted you to know the differences before making any decisions. I am glad he took time to catechize, and that, presumably, your faith in Christ has grown through the experience.

Yes, it was a “beginner’s class” so we did not really delve deep into sanctification. I appreciate your comment regarding such.

He was a wonderful Pastor and my time in the LCMS was met with many wonderful people who some are still friends albeit after a 2 year journey I went “home to Rome”

Blessings,

Mary.

 

[Tomyris]

I would be interested if the Lutherans or Protestants here could make a case in the fathers for their understanding salvation as they do. I don’t think that can be the case but rather salvation as Luther and Calvin understood it is the result of a dialogue and forcing the issue to be the define rather than be vague about it. I would ask, if the fathers did not hold to a Lutheran view, as I maintain, what does that mean for Lutheranism or any kind of Protestant tradition? Are Luther’s views on salvation less important or more?

Calvin and others read the Fathers extensively - you will find Calvin’s works full of references to the Fathers. When the Reformers deemed Catholic practice and theology corrupt, they went East and they went back in time to see what had been said.

That being said, when their findings were presented to the Orthodox, the Orthodox said, “nope”. And a charge made against Calvin is that of being highly selective in the quotes he used to back up his theology. But he was widely read, amazingly widely read.

I have found an assumption on CAF that the Reformed (Swiss Reformation) are somehow some kind of offspring of Luther. Calvin was significantly younger, so it seems believable. But the differences between the Reformed and the Lutherans are profound.
One pastor I had expressed it as if there was a dresser full of drawers. The Lutheran took out a drawer and removed a few things and put the drawer back. The Reformed dumped the drawer on the bed and put a few things back and then put the drawer back. That is the difference in mindset. Luther and Calvin could not agree on the Eucharist. I think they were close on some other issues when they sought unity, but it was not to be had.

From my readings the Fathers were dealing with other things, like the Trinity and Christ’s nature, to nail down justification and sanctification. Both Catholics and Reformed point to the Council of Orange, a full millennium before the Reformation if I remember correctly, as embodying their theology on justification.

So the Reformed don’t point to Calvin or Luther as their theological source but to the Scriptures, and after that, the Fathers’ understanding of Scripture. In third place is Calvin. We don’t really pay much attention to Luther, not to slam him, but we don’t. I have heard more about Luther here than in the whole rest of my life.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Calvin and others read the Fathers extensively - you will find Calvin’s works full of references to the Fathers. When the Reformers deemed Catholic practice and theology corrupt, they went East and they went back in time to see what had been said.

That being said, when their findings were presented to the Orthodox, the Orthodox said, “nope”. And a charge made against Calvin is that of being highly selective in the quotes he used to back up his theology. But he was widely read, amazingly widely read.

I have found an assumption on CAF that the Reformed (Swiss Reformation) are somehow some kind of offspring of Luther. Calvin was significantly younger, so it seems believable. But the differences between the Reformed and the Lutherans are profound.
One pastor I had expressed it as if there was a dresser full of drawers. The Lutheran took out a drawer and removed a few things and put the drawer back. The Reformed dumped the drawer on the bed and put a few things back and then put the drawer back. That is the difference in mindset. Luther and Calvin could not agree on the Eucharist. I think they were close on some other issues when they sought unity, but it was not to be had.

From my readings the Fathers were dealing with other things, like the Trinity and Christ’s nature, to nail down justification and sanctification. Both Catholics and Reformed point to the Council of Orange, a full millennium before the Reformation if I remember correctly, as embodying their theology on justification.

So the Reformed don’t point to Calvin or Luther as their theological source but to the Scriptures, and after that, the Fathers’ understanding of Scripture. In third place is Calvin. We don’t really pay much attention to Luther, not to slam him, but we don’t. I have heard more about Luther here than in the whole rest of my life.

So do you think the doctrine of salvation in Protestantism is the logical outgrowth of the theology of those before the reformation leading to it’s crystallisation in the Lutheran or Reformed confessions? Sort of like how we might look at the second and third century ante Nicene writers and not see a clear language of Trinitarianism but definitely the emergence of what would later be in the fourth century Trinitarian theology.

 

[AugustTherese]

I’m not sure you read the link in my last post. So I’ll try one more. %between%

Here are some quotes from the link you sent me. I provided Scripture for some, and then my view on the last two.

It will be established that Luther held good works to be the result of living faith.

 

[JonNC]

Don, please, I am not naive; regarding the article of justification, your confessions do NOT teach that faith “must perform good works in love”; regarding sanctification, perhaps, but not justification. Now, if you personally believe that “faith must perform good works in love” regarding justification and sanctification, then please come home as soon as you can!

1. We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.

bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#III.%20The%20Righteousness%20of%20Faith%20Before%20God.

 

[Peter_J]

I have found an assumption on CAF that the Reformed (Swiss Reformation) are somehow some kind of offspring of Luther.

When I was a boy they told me “Don’t believe everything you hear.” (Maybe they would have added “on the internet” if it had existed then.) That isn’t to suggest that every thing is wrong, of course – for example there may be truth to what you just referenced. But that doesn’t change the general principle.

 

[JonNC]

As for this quote:

“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 absolutely love what Luther says here, except perhaps for the very last sentence. I do not know what he is trying to say exactly, but I get the impression that he may be alluding to being justified by faith before God, while being justified by works of charity before men; in which is a prevalent doctrinal error that has crept into Protestant communities.

No, he is reiterating what Christ says in Matthew 22. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.”

Good works (charity) is not a matter of merit, but of love.