Posted on 06/19/2009 10:03:34 PM PDT by dangus
Praise God, that we are saved by grace alone. Works without faith are utterly without merit. This is not merely a Protestant notion.
Such has been the persistent teaching of the saints throughout the ages. Yet a whitewashing of Martin Luther has led to many people, even Catholics, fundamentally misunderstanding the Catholic Church's criticism of him.
Please understand that what I write here is no ad-hominem attack on Luther for any purpose, including the slander of Protestantism. Attacking the moral character of Martin Luther is gainless, for no-one supposes Luther to be imbued with the gift of infallibility. But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes. Further, given the whitewashed history of Martin Luther, it is imperitive to remember the context of the Catholic Church's language and actions, which seem terribly strident, presented out of the context.
The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.
This is not Luther's position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.” (Letter to Melanchthon, 1521) "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).
As such, it was not necessary to avoid sin. “If grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” In fact, the way to conquer sin, he taught was to indulge it: “The way to battle a tempting demon was to “in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him.” Even the greatest sin was permissible, so long as one believed in Christ.: “Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)
These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress. And his comments that peasants were born to be cannon fodder is horrific in light of the deaths of 100,000 peasants in a rebellion of which he spoke, “I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head... My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it.” (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299)
Such beliefs are not incidental to Luther; they are a major part of the reason for many princes siding with him against the Catholic church. Without such support, his movement would have no base. But he also appealed to their financial motives, arguing that they had no obligation to fight Muslims. In fact, Luther preached that Islamic domination was superior to Catholicism. His horrors at the excesses of Rome were pure fiction, aimed at weakening Rome's military strength. His lies are betrayed by his ignorance of Rome's geography. (He mistakenly thought that the Vatican was built on one of the seven hills of Rome, an assertion he'd make time and time again in asserting that the Papacy was Babylon.) Again, the context is horrifying: Belgrade fell in the very same year as the Council of Worms, 1521. By 1529, the Islamic horde had reached Vienna.
Luther even attacked the Holy Bible, itself. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, those words exist only in the Letter of James. So, Luther sought to have that book struck out of the bible. At the Council of Worms, he was shown how the 1st Letter of Peter refers to purgatory, how Revelations depicts the saints in Heaven praying for the souls below, how James explicitly states that “faith alone is dead, if it has not works.” Later Protestant apologists offered alternate explanations for these difficult passages, but Luther simply declared that they were false: “Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, 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 “
His violence to the Word of God was worse still regarding the Old Testament. In condemning the Ten Commandments, he said Moses should be “damned and excommunicated; yea, worse than the Pope and the Devil.” Yet this man argued that the bible alone was authoritative?
When confronted by the Catholic church over his statements, Luther never disavowed these statements, or claimed they were exaggerations, or apologize for putting his foot in his mouth. Instead, he boasted, “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me.”
Thus, the Catholic church was in the position of defending Western Civilization militarily against the Islamic horde, when an outrageous heretic preached all manner of hatred against it, instigating insurrection, and leading political forces to align against it. In doing so, he attacked not only the Church, but the historical and biblical under-pinnings of the bible. Could there be any wonder that the church responded harshly? Luther is dead, and he has never been held to be infallible or sinless. This is not an attack on him, but a defense on the Catholic Church, which he assailed.
It's 1529. The Muslims are in Bavaria. There's a madman boasting that he's responsible for 100,000 dead peasants, and he sides with the Turks. Can you really say that the Church treated him too harshly?
Actually, the religiously lazy make me sick across the board. If you believe in something it should be a regular part of your life.
We’ve watched our country drift lazily away from it’s foundations because too few were willing to vest themselves in their beliefs.
I mean pro-choice Catholics? Simply absurd on its face.
Babylon’s siren call is simply too much.
We agree on something!
We likely agree on lots of things. I don’t even agree with my wife on everything. ;-]
Best wishes.
I didn’t accuse you of “same ol’, same ol’. You do make claims that probably aren’t entirely justified by either the facts of history or current practice.
“In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther’s principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.”
While theologians may or may not agree with your summary of Catholic teaching - it certainly seems contrary to the practices of indulgences and penances - the common man of both Luther’s time & this one do not agree. If this means the Catholic position isn’t clear, then maybe Catholic Priests ought to examine what they teach.
The Filipino Catholics I’ve met most certainly believe in salvation by good works. I don’t know what it is called when Filippino Catholics whip themselves, or when it is done in Mexico, but it certainly doesn’t LOOK like forgiveness!
When Henry II donned sackcloth, walked barefoot thru Canterbury while being flogged by monks...he MIGHT have thought himself less than totally forgiven.
Luther’s attack on indulgences, as practiced, exploded across Europe because it resonated with common people’s understanding of common practice.
“In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory.”
I doubt I’m the only lay person who reads that passage and sees a conflict between “the guilt of sin is removed” and “there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice”. Frankly, it suggests that God needs to grow up. Either forgive, or don’t, but don’t claim to forgive and then punish. It sounds far too close to my wife saying, “I forgive you for what you said. Now go sleep on the couch...”
Psalms 103:
10 He does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities.
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
>> Well, anyone here, of any denomination, want to boldly step forward and claim sinless perfection for yourself? <<
Luther was discussing a grave sin of commission (adultery) when he wrote that. I doubt I’ll ever conquer my own concupiscence totally, but I can certainly tell you I can avoid adultery.
>> Can someone recommend a good OBJECTIVE biography of Martin Luther? Preferably one with some informative commentary on his place in history? <<
We’d have to agree on what the truth is to agree on what an objective biography would be.
>> While theologians may or may not agree with your summary of Catholic teaching - it certainly seems contrary to the practices of indulgences and penances - <<
Sola Fides is about the means of salvation. Indulgences never have anything to do with salvation. Pennances only ever do when they involve mortal sin, and then they are for reconciliation with the Church Militant (those on Earth).
>> The Filipino Catholics I’ve met most certainly believe in salvation by good works. I don’t know what it is called when Filippino Catholics whip themselves, or when it is done in Mexico, but it certainly doesn’t LOOK like forgiveness! <<
“Self-flagellation” is a suppressed piety in the Catholic church. Worshiping among Filipinos, I’m pretty sure they do not do the practice. (There are some wierd syncretic pagan practices, such as self-crucifixion, which make the news every Easter, but the Catholic Church works hard to put an end to this, since it is pagan, not Christian; I’ve never known of a single instance of it in America, and it would probably make the news, or certain Alex Murphy’s posts if it did.) The intent of self-flagellation is not for salvation or pennance, but for mortification (Rom 8:13, 1 Cor 9:27)
>> Luther’s attack on indulgences, as practiced, exploded across Europe because it resonated with common people’s understanding of common practice. <<
Luther’s attack on indulgences resonated across Europe because it promised to save a lot of princes a lot of money. Supporting the Catholic church meant supporting the war effort. Protestant princes never took up the sword against the Muslim, nor funded such efforts, which is why Protestantism has largely been unheard of in any of the lands which Islam invaded: Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Balkan states, Hungary, Austria, Poland, the Middle East, etc. Zwingli, Luther and Henry imposed their Protestantism from above; only Calvin and the Anabaptists can claim to have had support from the grassroots, and even they were most successful in lands where other Protestant leaders had opposed Catholicism from above (Knox’s Scotland, the Evangelischekirkes of Germany and the Germanic lowlands).
I don’t mean to overstate my case and assert Protestantism had no appeal among the masses, but that it was usually insufficient to gain critical mass or overcome state opposition (France certainly is a case where the state violently opposed Protestantism), unless the leaders of state promoted it, usually for fiscal reasons (Germany, England, Sweden).
FYI - The Manila Times from last spring - although it almost reads as satire, and I have no doubt but that the Catholic Church does not approve:
“The Department of Health (DOH) on Holy Tuesday strongly advised penitents to first check on the condition of the whip they will use before they lash their backs with it this Holy Week.
The department warned that dirty whips could lead to tetanus and other infections.
Health Secretary Francisco Duque 3rd said that since it is hard to discourage flagellants from whipping their own flesh, the best penitents can do is ensure that their whips are well-maintained.
In San Fernando City, Pampanga, some 23 penitents, two of them women, have signed up to reenact Christ’s crucifixion in three separate improvised Golgothas in the city. Four penitents were scheduled to have themselves nailed on the cross...The ritual has become a tourist attraction and merited a support of P250,000 from the city government.”
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/mar/19/yehey/top_stories/20080319top5.html
In all fairness, Protestants in the Philippines also encounter a deep-rooted spiritism that frustrates Pastors.
An ‘objective’ Martin Luther biography?
Hmmmm I knew of such once . . .
Long forgotten. Sorry.
Maybe Dr. E or friends do.
Like I said,
“There are some wierd syncretic pagan practices, such as self-crucifixion, which make the news every Easter, but the Catholic Church works hard to put an end to this, since it is pagan, not Christian; I’ve never known of a single instance of it in America, and it would probably make the news, or certain Alex Murphy’s posts if it did.”
>> An ‘objective’ Martin Luther biography?... Hmmmm I knew of such once... Long forgotten. Sorry... Maybe Dr. E or friends do. <<
Dr. E? *laugh* Like I said, you have to agree on what the truth is before you can agree on what is ‘objective.’
>> Oh, just for the record, in case you can’t discern, that painting above is called “The Ten Commandments.” <<
I missed this explanation, as you can probably tell. Looking it up, I find that the painter and Luther were friends since long before Luther’s break with Catholicism. It was painted in 1516. Hardly evidence of anything, other than Luther’s appreciation of the artwork of a personal friend. Besides, its context in the town hall, rather than a church, should tell you something. Presumably, he found the Ten Commandments a basis for civil law; antinomianism has to do with moral law, not civil law.
What about Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther?
I read it 35 years ago, and only remember it vaguely. From the Amazon reviews, I assume it has a Protestant slant, but that doesn’t mean a book can’t give more than one side of a dispute.
One interesting quote from a review: “Bainton quotes Luther: “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.”
Another that sounds interesting is Luther: Man Between God and the Devil.
http://www.amazon.com/Luther-Man-Between-God-Devil/dp/0300103131/ref=pd_sim_b_17
Good night, all!
Thanks thanks.
Hmmm... a biography named after a legendary quote he never actually said. Yeah, that’s going to challenge the conventional wisdom.
I also was raised Catholic, and in 8 years of Catholic school, we were never once encouraged to read a Bible, and you never ever heard the word Bible and study in the same sentence. Not once. Sure, we were read some of the stories in the Bible, but that all we ever got, just a few verses here and there.
I know of only just a few Bibles on the church property, one at the altar, and maybe a few of the nuns had them. There were never ANY Bibles in the pews, just that missal thing. We had one at home, but since we were never encouraged to read it, we never did or were even curious about it. In short it was big ripoff.
I am so blessed that the Lord opened my eyes in recent years.
“Luther was discussing a grave sin of commission (adultery) when he wrote that. I doubt I’ll ever conquer my own concupiscence totally, but I can certainly tell you I can avoid adultery.”
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
- Jesus, Matthew 5:28
or better yet... how’re you doing with this command from Christ? Fulfilling it all? Is any of your failure an act of commission?
“AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.” Mark 12:30
I rest my case. The whole race is guilty. Salvation doesn’t
mean we will be free of sin in this life.
In the same boat,
ampu
Here I go putting my foot in it.
First of all, FWIW, I have since leaving the church learned from a very traditional source that the correct Catholic position is that both faith and works are necessary for salvation, and that the position that you, dangus, are putting forward, is a Protestantized version.
Now to the gist of my post:
The whole "faith vs. works" thing arises from one cause: the traditional chr*stian understanding that obedience to G-d's commandments in the Torah, both moral and ceremonial, are now (since the advent of chr*stianity) without merit. Traditional chr*stians always contrasted "works" or "law" (the Torah) with "grace" (the moral commandments and rituals of chr*stianity).
Whatever his faults, Luther recognized a problem with this: it is inconsistent. If obedience to the Torah's commandments (whether Mosaic or Noachide, moral or ceremonial) is utterly without merit, then logically (qal vachomer) the laws and ceremonials of chr*stianity must also be without merit. After all, if observing Biblical commandments is utterly useless, how much more so the post-Biblical commandments of the chr*stian church?
Catholics here are caught in a trap of their own making, and they've been twisting themselves into a pretzel ever since the reformation to explain why Biblical commandments are vain and empty while chr*stian commandments are "channels of grace." And that's what "grace" means in liturgical chr*stianity--obedience to post-Biblical chr*stian commandments and participation in post-Biblical chr*stian ritual channels "grace" into the soul just as in Judaism obedience to the Torah channels holiness into the world.
In fact, the whole Pelagian controversy can be understood in this way. Protestants accuse Catholics (and Orthodox, to whom the label is much more appropriate) of Pelagianism for believing that obedience to chr*stian moral commandments and participation in chr*stian ritual channels grace into the soul (is "meritorious"). Yet by Catholic standards, Catholics cannot be Pelagian because their commandments are "the real deal," whereas the belief that continued obedience to pre-chr*stian Torah commandments is meritorious is "Pelagian." (Ironically, by Catholic standards Fundamentalist Protestants are Pelagian because the latter believe that, once J*sus takes an individual soul's place in hell, that soul automatically reverts to its natural state of being destined for Paradise.)
Lest it appear that I am playing favorites here (as FR's most notorious anti-Catholic), let me add that since Catholics aren't antinomians (like Protestants), at least they don't make the argument that the Torah was never meant to be obeyed in the first place but merely to trip people up so they'd be ready for Luther's Antinomian Loophole when it showed up. Of course, the Catholic claim that obedience to Torah was supposed to prepare Israel for the rituals of chr*stianity doesn't exactly work either.
Hmmmmm
Were you there?
Ummm...Protestants do not claim the Law wasn't meant to be obeyed, only that we all fail to do so. If it wasn't meant to be obeyed, then it could be ignored.
Romans 7
"12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.