Posted on 10/31/2001 8:11:42 AM PST by AnalogReigns
There is no such thing as merit;What Was Wrong with Luther?
but all who are justified
are justified for nothing (gratis),
and this is credited to no one
but to the grace of God. . . .For Christ alone it is proper
to help and save others
with His merits and works.Martin Luther
Justification is conferred in baptism,
the sacrament of faith.
It conforms us to the righteousness of God,
who makes us inwardly just
by the power of his mercy.The New Catechism (of the Roman Catholic Church)
I have found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics.Billy Graham
Was Martin Luther Wrong?Since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, “by faith alone” (sola fide) has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity — and the way of justification the defining difference between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. But in recent years these differences seem to be increasingly ignored by evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, Charles Colson, Bill Bright and others. A noticeable trend has been developing.
Most so-called “Christian booksellers” carry books from both evangelical and Roman Catholic publishing houses, with little differentiation. A leading evangelical recording artist, Michael Card, recently recorded and toured with Roman Catholic monk/musician John Michael Talbot. Evangelicals and Catholics are found praying together, worshipping together, and studying the Bible together. While these things have not gone without criticism, their widespread acceptance has led a number of evangelicals to ask:
Whatever happened to the Reformation?
Was Martin Luther wrong, after all?
Or does it really matter?Today marks the 484th anniversary of Luther's famous posting of 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenburg — a move seen as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. It seems fitting, therefore, to ask this crucial question as we commemorate his revolutionary act. After all, to Luther it was the Gospel itself that was at stake... no less so today as then.
The gospel according to Rome is the "good news" that a sinner may be justified if he or she receives the sacraments, has faith, and cooperates with grace to the point of becoming inherently righteous. That justification is effective as long as the believer refrains from mortal sin. If the person loses justification by mortal sin, he or she may be restored to justification by the sacrament of penance. If the person dies not in mortal sin but with impurities, he or she can get to heaven after being cleansed in purgatory.
Was Luther wrong in standing against this "gospel"? If not, shouldn't the fact that so many evangelicals are acquiescing to Roman Catholicism disturb us?
Using the Bible as your guide — setting your emotions and prejudices aside, while engaging the mind — you be the judge...
Rob Schläpfer : Editor
editor@antithesis.com
What was the matter with Martin Luther? some might ask. The matter with Luther was a matter of the greatest possible urgency.
The matter with Luther was that sin matters.
The matter with Luther was that salvation matters,
ultimately and eternally.
Luther felt the weight of these matters to a degree few people, if any, have felt them in human history. These issues mattered enough to Luther to compel him to stand against the authority of church and state in a lonely and often bitter contest that made him Luther contra mundum. [=against the world]
Following the ancient Aristotelian form-matter schema, historians have pinpointed the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) as the material cause of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. It was the chief matter under dispute. Luther considered it "the article upon which the church stands or falls." At a personal level he understood that it was the article upon which he himself stood or fell.
Thus, since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the Gospel itself. Without sola fide one does not have the Gospel; and without the Gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters, because it has condemned an essential of the faith. Whereas at Worms Luther stood, at Trent Rome fell and remains fallen to this day.
The Character of God
The dilemma Luther experienced in the anguish of his soul was related in the first instance to his correct understanding of the character of God. One of the essential attributes of God (essential in that without it God would not be God) is his justice. The Scriptures clearly reveal that the God of heaven and earth is just. This means far more than that the judgment he renders is equitable. It is not only that God does what is just, but that he does what is just because he is just. His righteous actions flow out of his righteous character.
That God is eternally and immutably just posed for Luther (as it should also pose for us) the ultimate dilemma, because we are not just. We are sinners lacking the perfect justness of God. Our sin violates the supreme standard of righteousness found in God's character. This is the burden Luther felt so keenly, but which we tend to treat lightly. We are inclined to think that God is so merciful that his mercy will annul or cancel out his justice. We assume that God will grade us on a curve and that he is quite willing to negotiate his own righteousness.
As sinners with recalcitrant hearts, human beings have no fear of the justice of God, in part because they are ignorant of his law and additionally because, when they are aware of it, they hold it in contempt. We have all become, as Jeremiah said of Israel, like a harlot who has lost the capacity to blush (Jer. 6:15; 8: 12). We assume that our works are good enough to pass the scrutiny of God at the final tribunal. And we do this despite the apostolic warning that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Rom. 3:20).
People who consider themselves just enough in their own goodness do not tremble before the law and feel no need for the Gospel. For such, the matter of justification is not of great importance. It is merely a "doctrine," and to the contemporary church few things are deemed less important than doctrine. "Doctrine divides," we are told. "What matters is that we have a personal relationship with Jesus. The doctrine of justification doesn't save us; it is Christ who saves us."
Doctrines Unite
Certainly doctrines do divide. Certainly doctrines do not in themselves save us. Certainly we are called to have a personal relationship with Christ. However, doctrine also unites. It unites those who share one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And though doctrines do not save us, they correctly inform us of how we are saved.
It must be added, too, that having a personal relationship with Jesus does not save us unless it is a saving relationship. Everyone has a personal relationship with Jesus. Even the devil has a personal relationship with Christ, but it is a relationship of estrangement, of hostility to him. We are all related to Christ, but we are not all united to Christ, which union comes by faith and faith alone.
Luther understood what David understood when he asked the rhetorical question,
If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins,
O LORD, who could stand? (Ps. 130:3)
The question is rhetorical because no explicit answer is given. The answer is nevertheless obvious:
No one.
No one by himself can stand before a God who takes note of our iniquities, for we are all sinners. The problem is that the Lord does mark iniquities and promises to bring every one of them into judgment. Moreover, as long as we remain outside of Christ we are continually heaping up judgment against the day of wrath.
The only way an unjust person can escape the day of God's wrath is to be justified. Only the justified will stand in that day That is why the matter of justification is so vital. It is not a mere theological abstraction or a petty doctrine. The struggle of the Reformation was not a contest of shadowboxing, nor was it a tempest in a teapot. It is perilous to think it was much ado about nothing or simply a misunderstanding among theologians and clerics. To be sure there were issues that were confused and obscured in the heat of the debate. But it was crystal-clear that the core issue was the way of justification, and the two sides took not only differing positions but mutually exclusive and irreconcilable positions in the debate.
What Is Justification?
Justification refers to a legal action by God by which he declares a person just in his sight. The Protestant view is often described as "forensic justification," meaning that justification is a "legal declaration" made by God.
What is often overlooked in discussions about justification is that the Roman Catholic communion also has its version of forensic justification. That is, Catholics agree that justification occurs when God declares a person just. However, when evangelicals speak of forensic justification, the phrase is used as a kind of theological shorthand for sola fide, and what is tacit is the assumption that God declares people to be just who in themselves are not just. Rome teaches that God declares people just only when they are in fact just. They are declared to be just only if and when justness inheres within them. Both sides see justification as a divine declaration, but the ground for such a declaration differs radically.
Rome saw justification as meaning "making just," based on the Latin roots for the word justificare (Justus and facio, facere), which in Roman jurisprudence meant "to make righteous." For Rome, God only declares to be just those who have first been made just...
***
The differences between these two "gospels" is in grave danger of being lost in our day. Efforts to heal the breach between Rome and the Reformation have yielded confusion among many. The issue cannot be resolved by studied ambiguities or different meanings attached to the same words. The crucial issue of infusion versus imputation remains the irreconcilable issue. We are either justified by a righteousness that is in us or by a righteousness that is apart from us. There is no third way.
R. C. Sproul
Let me get this important doctrine straight. I can't accept Christ (and let Him work His salvation for me) because my 'will' in accepting Him would somehow taint God's power. BUT if I (and other reprobates like me) disobediently refuse to "... spread the truth, nobody can be saved."
That's what's wrong with Calvinism. The drawing power of love to accept Christ is 'too weak' and man-like and it taints God's power (so they say), but the driving necessity of 'obedience' is just necessary cooperation. Talk about turning the Gospel of Christ on its head. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were also long on 'obedience' and short on 'love.'
I'll take Jesus, thank you.
I respectfully disagree but will have to discuss it later since I have to leave. I will simply state that you again are relying on man's limited understanding and concluding what God can and can't do. Again it is God's baptism and His power knows no boundaries.
Finally, guessing what a Calvinist would or would not like to see added to the Gospel is not helpful. I don't want to tamper with the Gospel. Those I know don't want to tamper with the Gospel. All true Christians don't want to tamper with the Gospel. So please, limit your beliefs about what Calvinists want and don't want to what they profess they want and don't want.
Well, it was not his intention to divide the church but to bring them out of incorrect teaching. In any church, unity is good, but truth is primary. That is why the division came about. Both the RC's and Luther believed they were speaking/teaching the truth. First you have to decide which view is truth, then you can decide if he was right to do what he did. He only invited discussion, and for standing up for what he believed was truth (and of eternal impact) he was deemed a heretic.
He didn't want his "followers" to be called Lutheran either. He did *not* want to divide the church. This kind of thing goes on every day in churches across the land. Schisms occur for similar reasons. It happens because at least one party is incorrect. One can't decide whether it is right to stand by one's views even if it causes a schism, unless first one decides which view is right.
LOL!
OK, let me call you and raise you: "To believe that sprinkling (or pouring or dunking in) water on anyone is, apart from that person's personal assenting relationship with Christ, of any spiritual effect to that person is superstition and nothing more."
Baptism is valuable ONLY as an outward testimony of an inward transformation theretofore having occurred and nothing more. Period. [And, by the way, there are many ways to give that testimony other than baptism as well.] That's why Christ never baptized anyone.
John 3:5
Jesus answered Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God.
"The Church recieved from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit."-Origen 2nd century
Acts 19:4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
19:5When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inward transformation..it is a source of Gods Grace (as is the Lords supper)..
It is a sign to all that you have died and rose again with Christ....
Some churches use Baptism as a "sign" of membership in the community.I have no problem with that.But to attribute to it some supernatural ability to regenerate is totally unscripitual!
I make out of it that it is written 170 years after Christs death,without infallible scripitual support. I see it as self serving retrospect.
"In respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council...we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins-that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another (Adam)."-Cyprian of Carthage, martyred 258
I sense you are a warm-hearted Christian who would shy away from giving the Calvinist construct the pride of place given it by some of your fellows, so don't take offense.
Here's how Calvinism is vicious. Christ spent His earthly ministry inviting all He encountered (in an undifferentiating way -- so far as we can tell from the Gospel accounts) and castigating ONLY those who refused. Moreover, He singled out on several occasions a apecial status for 'little ones' -- innocent children. I take those as contextual truths.
Now along comes the construct and it neatly consigns the vast majority humanity to Hell (from the foundation of the world) without any opportunity to choose and including large numbers of children and even infants who never heard the Gospel.
Now, that, my friend, is a viciousness inconsistent with Christ and inconsistent with His express teaching. Were it otherwise, He would have threatened with a worse-than-millstone future those who hindered "only those of all these little ones who are predestined from the foundation of the world to be saved." And, BTW, such a statement would be deprived of meaning in any event since (if the Calvinist construct were true) there would be nothing His hearers could do to "hinder" the little children anyway.
The Calvinist construct is, in short, just that; a nifty little theological construct overlaid over the Gospel in an effort to answer a few questions we don't need to answer. But in doing so it turns the Gospel of Christ into something we cannot recognize -- a prideful, vicious, exclusive little club -- and the Saviour of Mankind into a befuddled prophet making pronouncements to all which He knows don't apply beyond a few.
You will pardon me, but I will take the Christ of the Gospels and the New Testament, not the Christ of the Calvinist construct. God bless.
I would say show me in scripture where baptism is a source of regeneration
I think we agree, but I am troubled by the first statement quoted above. It is not a source of God's grace. That is the RCC position and is wholly necessary for them to purport to "control" the "means" of grace.
It is rather a testimony to or, as you put it, a sign of God's grace, but no more.
Similarly, the Lords' Supper is a remembrance -- no more. "Do this in remembrance of me ...."
"I believe that I cannot come to my Lord Jesus Christ by my own intellegence or power. But the Holy Spirit call me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith,"
Not sure where you're getting that Martin Luther believed in a free will. I think the last we saw of free will was in the Garden of Eden before the Fall of man into sin.
to believe in His Son or not to, and even if believing in His Son, to nevertheless reject the salvation that His Son's blood offers.
Huh?
Sola Scripture unfortunately teaches in effect that believing by definition means relinquishing one's free will
Well surprise surprise... that's what the Bible says too. We can be slaves to sin or servants of righteousness. We are bought with a price, etc.
2 Timothy 3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
One thing ALL of Christianity agrees to is that scripture is infallible,so it must remain the basis for doctrine.
Revelation 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. 22:20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
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.