Was Martin Luther Wrong?

antithesis.com ^ | 10/31/01 | R. C. Sproul

[AnalogReigns]

There is no such thing as merit;
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 Wrong with Luther?

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

[CCWoody]

My young sons, too, are wont to misbehave, but I work to correct them, not to lobotomize them, which is akin to the utterly false sola fide view of salvation.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, tell me, can a person accept Christ in his heart as Lord and Saviour, then reject Christ, then accept Him again?

[CCWoody]

He didn't answered me either. So, let me ask this: How did you come into Christ's hands to begin with?

[RnMomof7]

I really have to wonder about some people's motives and desperate need to assault another's denominaton. FWIW, I think you are both very, very wrong about infant baptism but unlike you I don't make a habit of nitpicking fellow believers. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I don't believe that there will only be Lutherans in Heaven. Perhaps your time would be better spent pleasing God than berating His childre

There was no intent to insult you or the Lutheran church..just a statement of my belief..it was actually directed at my friend Winston. But I stand by my observation that there is no scripture to indicate that there is a regenerative grace in Baptism..

[RnMomof7]

Hmmm! From the little I've read of both Calvin and Wesley, I'd say that Wesley denied Total Depravity (or man's total want to not repent), Regeneration as an act prior to man's confession of Christ with His lips, and that Salvation was fully (I'd say solely) of God.

No Wesley believed man was totally unable to respond to God because of the sin of Adam..He saw that it was necessary for God to intervene with His Grace if man were ever to hear and respond to the gospel. The difference in the theologies is IMHO primarily on the type and manner of grace

As Winston said Wesleyans see the grace as a general gift giving all men the ability hear the gospel and then choose if they will respond to God ( a resistible grace)....but Wesleyans will tell you that outside of that grace there is NO way a man could hear and respond

I have some literature Wesleyan literature that refers to man's fallen state as depravity,and some were it is call total depravity..

[George W. Bush]

It is pure nonsense that Calvinism leads to not wresting with sin. God to a Calvinist church adn you will see that we hate sin more than most Arminians I can think of.

winstonchurchill is well-aware of these basic facts. They were explained thoroughly on the Calvinist threads. His tactic is unchanged.

You'll notice that he has now discovered Wesley's prevenient grace as his current vehicle to escape the relentless nature of God's Irresistable Grace. This is a new addition in his repertoire.

[RnMomof7]

I just hunted abit for a few of Wesleys words on the topic of the sin nature. I persent this just for information..

1. And this is certain, the Scripture gives us no reason to think any otherwise of them. On the contrary, all the above cited passages of Scripture refer to those who lived after the flood. It was above a thousand years after, that God declared by David concerning the children of men, "They are all gone out of the way, of truth and holiness; "there is none righteous, no, not one." And to this bear all the Prophets witness, in their several generations. So Isaiah, concerning God's peculiar people, (and certainly the Heathens were in no better condition,) "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores." The same account is given by all the Apostles, yea, by the whole tenor of the oracles of God. From all these we learn, concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is" still "evil, only evil," and that "continually."

2. And this account of the present state of man is confirmed by daily experience. It is true, the natural man discerns it not: And this is not to be wondered at. So long as a man born blind continues so, he is scarce sensible of his want: Much less, could we suppose a place where all were born without sight, would they be sensible of the want of it. In like manner, so long as men remain in their natural blindness of understanding, they are not sensible of their spiritual wants, and of this in particular. But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convinced, that "every man living," themselves especially, are, by nature, "altogether vanity;" that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

3. We see, when God opens our eyes, that we were before _atheoi en tOi kosmOi_ -- without God, or, rather, Atheists, in the world. We had, by nature, no knowledge of God, no acquaintance with him. It is true, as soon as we came to the use of reason, we learned "the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead, from the things that are made." From the things that are seen we inferred the existence of an eternal, powerful Being, that is not seen. But still, although we acknowledged his being we had no acquaintance with him. As we know there is an Emperor of China, whom yet we do not know; so we knew there was a King of all the earth, yet we knew him not. Indeed we could not by any of our natural faculties. By none of these could we attain the knowledge of God. We could no more perceive him by our natural understanding, than we could see him with our eyes. For "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal him. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Father revealeth him."

Interesting that this would on the surface to be more in line with regeneration HUH?

[George W. Bush]

Interesting that this would on the surface to be more in line with regeneration HUH?

I see your point.

Still, Wesley didn't really believe in regeneration solely by God. He required a general prevenient grace, just enough grace, as winston seems to agree, to allow each person to be responsible for his own decision for or against Christ but not enough grace to overpower or actually be decisive in conversion. So, a Wesleyan may even say that they believe in salvation solely by grace but it is the decision of an utterly corrupt and spiritually dead human being which determines his fate.

Calvinism does draw a sharp line of division here. There are truly two strains of theology that arise from the either the full affirmation or full rejection of the TULIP. There is no way to honestly escape the conflict. Each person has to study the Word to understand for themselves whether God really is sovereign in salvation or whether it is ultimately man who is sovereign in his salvation.

I think there is always a small spark of rejection of this most basic idea of Augustinian/Calvinistic thought. It does produce a profound humility in those who sincerely accept it, knowng how unworthy they are. This flies in the face of winstonchurchill's charge that it leads to an arrogance and indifference to sin or missionary efforts, clearly a libel against the history of Calvinistic congregations around the world ever since the Reformation.

[CCWoody]

No Wesley believed man was totally unable to respond to God because of the sin of Adam..He saw that it was necessary for God to intervene with His Grace if man were ever to hear and respond to the gospel. The difference in the theologies is IMHO primarily on the type and manner of grace.

So, was this prevenient grace applied at birth, or later in life?

[RnMomof7]

Still, Wesley didn't really believe in regeneration solely by God. He required a general prevenient grace, just enough grace, as winston seems to agree, to allow each person to be responsible for his own decision for or against Christ but not enough grace to overpower or actually be decisive in conversion. So, a Wesleyan may even say that they believe in salvation solely by grace but it is the decision of an utterly corrupt and spiritually dead human being which determines his fate.

I have no will to try to speak for Wesley on this.I have found it of interest that he shared with the reformation a view of the totally sinful ,fallen,depraved state of the natural man.. As I said when we started this discussion I think the matter of grace is the bottom line..and the question that each person that has heard and responded to the gospel must search their hearts .

Wesley believed that prevenient grace was resistible,where Calvinist teaching would say the grace of God is irrestible. I think this is where the question of free will comes in...can one ignore or refuse the grace of God? In all honesty I know I could not have "resisted " that moment.

So we get into a doctrinal quagmire here..and one I am choosing to stay out of..:>)

[mo'shea]

"So, tell me, can a person accept Christ in his heart as Lord and Saviour, then reject Christ, then accept Him again?"

Does the person who has accepted Jesus in his heart as Lord and Saviour retain the free will that God graced him with at birth to commit an act that is of sufficient egregiousness so as to endanger his ultimate union with Jesus? Does Jesus offer forgiveness to such a sinner? ...a resounding "yes" on both counts.

While our Lord wants us to love Him, He ultimately leaves it up to us to do so, because He knows that love not freely given is not love at all.

You have but to read some Christian history to learn that the pervertedly narrow interpretation of Scrpture that resulted in "sola fide" was non-existent until its invention by Martin Luther.

[RnMomof7]

Wesleyans believe that every man is born with a measure of Gods grace..and that grace is active during our lives and it keeps drawing men to God.But that man can continue to ignore or refuse the work of the grace

I have a book on Spiritual formation that talks about "intersections " with God. Moments in our history where we were aware of His presence in our lives.

Those would be considered a sign of God's work in sinful man..

[Cap'n Crunch]

Hello Mom,

Regarding post 222, we believe that Jesus instituted the Eucharist because of His words in scripture. Then the Apostles words in scripture, and the Apostles teachings outside of scripture, which they passed down to their disciples.

There are many quotes by the Apostles outside of scripture, quotes by the disciples of the Apostles, and quotes to the present day.

Even Martin Luther, until he completely split with the Church, believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I believe that part of the problem is protestants "leap frog" as Stephen Ray says, from the Apostles to the reformation, and completely ignore 1500 years of Christian history and teaching.

I think you owe it to yourself to read this history and teaching on your own, I mean, if Christs words are literal, alot of people are missing out on the Body of Christ, a tremendous gift.

Regarding catholics who are unchanged by Holy Communion or come out of Mass and are vile, well, I can only pray that the grace of God will open their eyes. Grace works in all of us differently. We will all be accountable for the words we use, catholic or protestant.

[RnMomof7]

Regarding Catholics who are unchanged by Holy Communion or come out of Mass and are vile, well, I can only pray that the grace of God will open their eyes. Grace works in all of us differently. We will all be accountable for the words we use, catholic or protestant.

I did not mean to be confrontive on this. I think most Catholics have a rather abstract view of Eucharist.They pay lip service to the "real presence" of Christ in the wafer...and may even go to communion with the most pious of intents..but as soon as Mass is over,so is their encounter with the living God. It is back to " real life"

I have come out of protestant services where people have heard the word of God preached without communion and seen more reverence than from people that believe the actual presence of God in in their body..physically indwelling them.(these are generalities here Capt...as we know many devote Catholics and irreverent protestants).

The belief in Eucharist is often the only thing that keeps many people Catholic..they disagree with much of the doctrine..would never say a rosery or light a candle..they get their spiritual growth brom bible studies....but they are unwilling to leave the Eucharist.

Capt..personally I think it is a misreading of scripture and superstition..and I dont think you and I will ever agree on it.

I grew up Catholic,I understand the attraction of Eucharist...I no longer believe in transubstantiation.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I didnt recieve your words as confrontational or demeaning, I viewed them (the actions of people after Mass) as part of our fallen human nature. I suppose that even though we may not let out a burst of obscenities after Mass perhaps we have done other things not observed by others, and only observed by God, such as in our thoughts.

Reminded me of the Gospel last week, the one of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee standing at the Altar and thanking God that he was not like other men, himself behaving self righteously, while the tax collector sat at the back of the church beating his breast and asking God to have mercy on him because he was a sinner.

I know this was not your intent and I'm just throwing my thoughts out for conversation.

I'm sorry to hear you no longer believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I'd like to ask if you've ever read all the 'evidence', such as the Fathers of the Church etc. (?)

[RickyJ]

FWIW, I think you are both very, very wrong about infant baptism but unlike you I don't make a habit of nitpicking fellow believers.

Well, if we're so wrong then why don't you show us where in the Bible it says to baptize infants?

I follow the Bible, not some man-made religion.

[RickyJ]

Satan belives in Jesus too, and we both know where he's going.

You can listen to preachers that preach things you like to here, but that does not make it true.

[RnMomof7]

I'm sorry to hear you no longer believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I'd like to ask if you've ever read all the 'evidence', such as the Fathers of the Church et

I believe the word of God is the ultimate 'evidence' .But then you knew that right?:>)

Sleep well Capt

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I offer the following explanation and biblical support for infant baptism:

Why are infants and young children baptized?

They are baptized for the same reason adults are baptized—because of the command and promise of God. What is promised in Baptism is given to all who receive it; therefore, infants and young children also have the promise of God. They, too, are made children of God. They, too, are included in the words "all nations" (Matt. 28:19). Jesus specifically invites little children to come to Him (Luke 18:15-17). But most important, as sinners, infants need what Baptism gives.

By His word, God created all that is seen and unseen. By His word, our Lord Christ called a dead man from the tomb (John 11:43-44). The unborn child, John the Baptist, leaped in his mother's womb when he heard the word of God (Luke 1:41-44). Why is there any doubt that in and through the Word and the promise of Baptism, God works a similar gift of faith in the infant? If we misunderstand Baptism to be our work, then we will always cast doubt on it. When we recognize that it is not our work, but God's gracious promise and work, we realize that infants are to be baptized and receive the treasures offered in and through Baptism.

Sadly, there are individuals and church bodies that deny Baptism to young children and infants. They do not believe that these little ones need what Holy Baptism gives. They do not believe what the Bible teaches so clearly, namely, that God saves us through Baptism. As a result of these false teachings, they deny both to themselves and to others the power, blessing, and comfort of Holy Baptism. That is tragic, for it is a most serious offense against God to deny what He plainly declares in His Word: "The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:39) and "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).

You may surely interpret differently, but your need to take a nasty tone makes me wonder what your purpose is. As for man-made religion..........did it ever occur to you that most people that belong to a particular denomination do so simply because they agree with its doctrine? If it is strictly Bible-based it is no different than you reading the Bible in solitude and taking from it what the Holy Spirit gives. Your need to pounce on the beliefs of others is an odd way of promoting yourself as a Christian. Why the big chip on the shoulder?

I believe in infant baptism but I really have no need to come here and rant at you because you don't or haven't baptized your children.

Lastly, I must ask why you and many others measure what God can do in man's terms. For those who believe baptism should happen at an age of accountability, what is that age? Is it written in the Bible that age X is the proper time? You know it doesn't and as the words above explain, baptism is from God and not our act. God must not adhere to a criteria that man has decided upon.

I don't intend to carry on this debate with you because it is your wish to argue. It's puzzling to me but maybe it is because you feel a need to validate yourself. That's too bad !!!! Consequently I won't reply to you anymore and have only posted this to address your question to me. Good-bye

[CCWoody]

I was trying to probe your understand of the Bible. Unfortunately for you, you are not very thoughtful with the Bible. Your beliefs need to be reconciled to the Bible and when they are shown to be in error (as I am about to do); you need to abandon them:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put Him to open shame.

Predestination is 100% Biblical as is free will. I understand both of them very well. The Calvinists position is correct:

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Moreover, whom He predestined, those He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified; and whom He justified, those He also glorified.

Rome is 100% wrong in this area. Your freewill beliefs have to be reconciled to this verse:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This verse shuts the door on your freewill understanding, but it is 100% compatible with my understanding, and the correct Biblical position, of freewill.

[CCWoody]

Wesleyans believe that every man is born with a measure of Gods grace..and that grace is active during our lives and it keeps drawing men to God.But that man can continue to ignore or refuse the work of the grace.

And yet, this inborn "grace" cannot overcome the Roman road:

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God.

They have all gone from the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

"Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit." "The poison of asps is under their lips," "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

"Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known."

"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

From what I've read, Wesley did not understand verses like these and his invention of prevenient grace at birth entirely misses the point. Man already possesses the will to repent and receive the knowledge of Truth through faith in Christ. This grace to give man the ability is irrevalent. Man already possessed this ability. The problem is in the want of man to repent. Man does not want to repent. Wesley never understood this, from what I've seen of his writings. He completely missed the point of such verses like this one I've quoted.

I have a book on Spiritual formation that talks about "intersections " with God. Moments in our history where we were aware of His presence in our lives. Those would be considered a sign of God's work in sinful man..

You mean like Balaam? Did he want to repent and follow God.