Which group believed in Faith alone before Luther?

[AugustTherese]

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

No offense, but that is a false dichotomy. As mentioned before, if Jesus forgave all sins on Calvary, then Him saying, “for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” in John 8:24 would make no sense. How can one die in their sins that have already been forgiven on Calvary? To be forgiven one must repent and be absolved. Why would Jesus plead for His Father to forgive His executioners if their sins were being forgiven, not paid for, but actually forgiven on the very cross they were nailing Him to?

I also do not know what exactly you mean by, “Reject that forgiveness”. It would seem counterintuitive for someone with true contrition to repent and then immediately reject absolution.

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.

I agree, “If faith is not working love, it is dead”. However, I do not agree with, “It is no faith at all.” Just because something is dead, does not mean it does not exist, hence Saint James body and spirit analogy. When a person dies, their spirit leaves and what remains is a dead body. A dead body exists; just because it is dead does not mean it does not exist. Same with faith and works. If faith does not work through love, then the faith is dead; there still is faith, but it is dead, hence it is a demonic faith that lacks charity.

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” James 2:26 NKJV

Body without the spirit is dead, but still exists as a dead body. Faith without works is dead, but still exists as a faith that is dead. Make sense?

 

[AugustTherese]

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

EXACTLY!

 

[AugustTherese]

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.

“and the good works that follow, DO NOT BELONG TO THE ARTICLE OF JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD”

Notice in every single comment on this thread, that I carefully said Lutherans do NOT confess to believe in performing works of charity regarding the article of JUSTIFICATION.

Thank you, Jon!

 

[Contarini]

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.

Actually that’s pretty standard for Councils, in my opinion. I think it’s generally agreed that in the Christological controversies, accepting the dogmatic decrees of the Councils does not mean accepting that the Christians who rejected those Councils actually held the heretical views ascribed to them. Trent was, as Councils go, quite careful and accurate.

And no Catholic is bound to believe that the Councils produced “perfect” results, only that (in their dogmatic teaching) they produced results that were free from actual theological error. It’s quite possible to argue that they could have expressed themselves better, in a more nuanced way or whatever.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

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.

I am not sure what you mean here. I think you are talking about the beginnings of the Reformation. If so, I would respond that if Luther had never lived, the Reformation would have happened without him. People had demanded reform for a long, long time and the papacy was not interested. The German lands deeply resented their wealth getting siphoned south. There were deep social, cultural and economic rumblings.

If Luther had not lived, there might have been a more gentle reformation totally interior to the Catholic Church. His actions made every movement towards reform (and there were many) suspicious. The German princes would have found some other reason to stop paying taxes.

On the other hand, if Luther had not lived, the final break with Rome might have been a lot bloodier than it was, because someone who was even more of a firebrand (perhaps literally) might have led an army and sacked Rome. And a bleeding and exhausted western Europe might not have been able to turn the Ottomans at Vienna in 1529 - in the middle of all this. We might all be under Muslim rule if Luther had not lived.

But that is all speculation.

I tend to oversimplify things by saying that while the German reformation was about justification, the Swiss was more about giving God His due glory and not robbing Him of it by giving glory to Mary and the saints that was actually due to God. The radical reformation was more about personal interpretation of Scripture. They are fundamentally different. Sorry about the pun.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am not sure what you mean here. I think you are talking about the beginnings of the Reformation. If so, I would respond that if Luther had never lived, the Reformation would have happened without him. People had demanded reform for a long, long time and the papacy was not interested. The German lands deeply resented their wealth getting siphoned south. There were deep social, cultural and economic rumblings.

If Luther had not lived, there might have been a more gentle reformation totally interior to the Catholic Church. His actions made every movement towards reform (and there were many) suspicious. The German princes would have found some other reason to stop paying taxes.

On the other hand, if Luther had not lived, the final break with Rome might have been a lot bloodier than it was, because someone who was even more of a firebrand (perhaps literally) might have led an army and sacked Rome. And a bleeding and exhausted western Europe might not have been able to turn the Ottomans at Vienna in 1529 - in the middle of all this. We might all be under Muslim rule if Luther had not lived.

But that is all speculation.

I tend to oversimplify things by saying that while the German reformation was about justification, the Swiss was more about giving God His due glory and not robbing Him of it by giving glory to Mary and the saints that was actually due to God. The radical reformation was more about personal interpretation of Scripture. They are fundamentally different. Sorry about the pun.

Agree that the reformation happens even without Luther.

The printing press was already going and there was a demand to start distribution of Bibles.

And the Church has rightfully acknowledged wrong doing, but even if she were perfect in practice, it wouldn’t matter. Humans will be humans and separation was going to happen. Don’t see why Luther sometimes gets treated like a villain. I think he obviously meant well.

And the church has always had their own interior reformers such as the Jesuits. But Tetzel seemingly selling the grace of God outraged Luther to the point where he just wasn’t going to hang around unless the Church sort of renounced her authority to loose and bind. Never gonna happen lol

 

[MaryT777]

Agree that the reformation happens even without Luther.

The printing press was already going and there was a demand to start distribution of Bibles.

And the Church has rightfully acknowledged wrong doing, but even if she were perfect in practice, it wouldn’t matter. Humans will be humans and separation was going to happen. Don’t see why Luther sometimes gets treated like a villain. I think he obviously meant well.

And the church has always had their own interior reformers such as the Jesuits. But Tetzel seemingly selling the grace of God outraged Luther to the point where he just wasn’t going to hang around unless the Church sort of renounced her authority to loose and bind. Never gonna happen lol

Well said.

 

[JonNC]

“and the good works that follow, DO NOT BELONG TO THE ARTICLE OF JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD”

Notice in every single comment on this thread, that I carefully said Lutherans do NOT confess to believe in performing works of charity regarding the article of JUSTIFICATION.

Thank you, Jon!

My response was to your statement this: "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! "
Among the justified, faith must perform good works through love as Paul tells us in Galatians. Those good works do not justify, according to Lutheran teaching, but a faith that does not work through love, is not a saving faith.
So, under the article of justification, it is taught that faith must perform good works through love.

 

[MaryT777]

My response was to your statement this: "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! "
Among the justified, faith must perform good works through love as Paul tells us in Galatians. Those good works do not justify, according to Lutheran teaching, but a faith that does not work through love, is not a saving faith.
So, under the article of justification, it is taught that faith must perform good works through love.

Jon,

What then do you see at the difference between the Catholic teaching on justification and the Lutheran teaching?

The LWF (Lutheran World Federation) of course ironed that out with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

The confessional Lutherans did not sign it and actually many stated online (sorry no link now) it was a major step back for Lutherans.

Mary.

 

[Peter_J]

I am not sure what you mean here. I think you are talking about the beginnings of the Reformation. If so, I would respond that if Luther had never lived, the Reformation would have happened without him. People had demanded reform for a long, long time and the papacy was not interested. The German lands deeply resented their wealth getting siphoned south. There were deep social, cultural and economic rumblings.

If Luther had not lived, there might have been a more gentle reformation totally interior to the Catholic Church. His actions made every movement towards reform (and there were many) suspicious. The German princes would have found some other reason to stop paying taxes.

On the other hand, if Luther had not lived, the final break with Rome might have been a lot bloodier than it was, because someone who was even more of a firebrand (perhaps literally) might have led an army and sacked Rome. And a bleeding and exhausted western Europe might not have been able to turn the Ottomans at Vienna in 1529 - in the middle of all this. We might all be under Muslim rule if Luther had not lived.

But that is all speculation.

I tend to oversimplify things by saying that while the German reformation was about justification, the Swiss was more about giving God His due glory and not robbing Him of it by giving glory to Mary and the saints that was actually due to God. The radical reformation was more about personal interpretation of Scripture. They are fundamentally different. Sorry about the pun.

So just to be clear, the only part of my post that you’re responding to is the part where I said “there may be truth to what you just referenced” right? If not I’m quite confused.

That being said, that appears to be a good post (in part because it doesn’t just reference things on the internet). So thank you for that.

 

[steido01]

Jon,

What then do you see at the difference between the Catholic teaching on justification and the Lutheran teaching?

The LWF (Lutheran World Federation) of course ironed that out with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

The confessional Lutherans did not sign it and actually many stated online (sorry no link now) it was a major step back for Lutherans.

Mary.

Jon has spent more time on the JDDJ than I have, but in my view, the major fault of the document was not so much in the descriptions of Justification (Rome has circumvented Trent enough to be near-compatible with the Lutheran view - Pope Benedict XVI’s quotes in this thread perhaps the highlight of that shift). The biggest flaw was that it didn’t seek to first find common ground in the understanding of Man’s sinful condition. We still hold different views on Original Sin that influence the process of Justification.