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
And yet, you ignored the evidence in my post #218 that once God saves a man, he is Eternally Saved. You also ignore what tares posted to you as well. Here's a question for ya': Does God throw perfected people into hell?
You mean like Balaam? Did he want to repent and follow God.
That would have been his point...these intersections with God were times we didn't repent..God was there..but by Wesleyan theology,eithor you did not recognize it at the time or you chose to ignore it .Eithor way you did not choose to repent..Calvin's would be they did not "want" to repent in spite of Gods presence
Woody did you ever stand in a large room of unsaved people and wonder how it is they can so clearly ignore God and His will?
It is beyond my understanding..you are right....no "want" there...
WHOA!!! Where did you ever get the idea that Luther stopped believing in "the presence of Christ in the Eucharist"? He never did! In fact, I would even rephrase what you say in a stronger way that can leave no doubt about what is meant by "the presence of Christ": "What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ." And that's a quote from Luther's Small Catechism!
There is hardly anything stronger or clearer in all of Luther's theology than his teaching on the Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood, particularly against the Zwinglian/Reformed representational view--and this was after what you call his "split" from Rome. (Actually, Luther didn't "split" from the Church. It was Rome that had been "splitting" from the catholic faith for centuries, and it was the Pope who kicked out Luther in 1520.) Luther's most extensive writing on the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the Sacrament came in the mid-to-late 1520s.
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.
Lutherans--I mean, authentic, confessional Lutherans--are not "protestants" in that regard. We don't play leapfrog. In fact, if you read our confessions (The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church), we contend we are teaching nothing new but rather what has always been taught in the church catholic. We frequently cite the Fathers who taught the same thing.
The Rev. Charles Henrickson
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
I think a lot of the Baptist/Bible (i.e. Zwinglian) Christians have a misunderstanding of why the earliest Reformers had the ideas that they did on Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I've heard it put that Luther "held out a fig leaf" of compromise with the Roman church on this--on the contrary, he had a fully developed Biblical rational for his positions on the 2 sacraments--based on God's word, not any political considerations.
One thing that one should be careful of though is not to lump Calvinists/Reformed/Presbyterians with the Zwinglians--being one I know our views are not as strong as Luther's, but certainly more than the fully representational/memorial views on the subject by Zwinglian Baptists & Bible (etc.) Protestants. As an evangelical Presbyterian my pastor has always described the sacraments in terms of God's covenant--symbols and much MORE (without defining how much more) than symbols--significantly different from how Zwinglians see them.
Since most American evangelical Christians are Zwinglian in belief (whether they know it or not), its good for them to see the Biblical basis of orthodox Lutheran (go LCMS!!!) teachings.
Maybe you can help me out here, isnt Luthers teaching one of 'co or consubstatiation'? and not transubstantiation?
You are right, I chose my words too hastily, Luther was thrown out, and I believe rightly so, although there were certainly some shenanigans going on in the church.
Thanks for your reply.
Since this is an easy one, I'll give it a try: Luther's teaching on the Lord's Supper is called "consubstantiation" here described in the Lutheran Small Catechism:
The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and St. Paul write: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: "Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me." In the same way also he took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins," shows us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: "forgiveness of sins."
Who receives this sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words "for you" require all hearts to believe.
It should be noted that Luther felt so strongly about this doctrine he was unwilling to comprimise on it with the other large German speaking protestant groups, namely the Zwinglians. This was done at a great political price, preventing a Protestant unified front...at a time when the physical survival of the "Evangelical" religion and its adherents was still in doubt. One should never accuse Luther of compromising for the sake of politics.
My question for the Lutheran scholars here is in what way is consubstantiation different from the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation?
Since Rome has taught very little, authoritatively, "in this area," you have absolutely no grounds for saying this.
Here's what Rome insist on:
I can defend every one of those claims from Scripture, and I can slap down any Scripture you bring up by way of objection.
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.
I'm not sure what you think we need to reconcile. As I stated, for the unjustified man to be brought to repentance and conversion requires a gift of grace (what theologians call "actual grace," as distinct from "sanctifying grace," which justifies). That verse is completely in agreement with Catholic teaching; in fact, a Catholic who denied it would be in a state of material heresy.
It's been my observation that most Calvinists have a very distorted idea of what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue. That's probably because most Catholics have a confused idea of what their own church teaches on it. However, the teachings are quite clear as far as they go. The whole issue is mysterious, as we should expect it to be. The kernel of Calvin's error was to try to turn a mystery into a machine, as though he could understand God! St. Paul said that God's ways were inscrutable. He was right; Calvin was wrong.
For more information, I recommend this article.
Maybe you can help me out here, isnt Luthers teaching one of 'co or consubstatiation'? and not transubstantiation?
I'll let Luther speak for himself as to what he teaches regarding the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament:
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.
--Small Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar
Or similarly:
Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.
It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.
With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.
--Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar, 8-14
Now, Cap'n, as to "consubtantiation": I presume you mean by that Aristotelian, philosophical term (Lutherans tend not to use the language of "consubstantiation," "transubstantiation," "substance" and "accidents") the fact that Luther says, "under the bread and wine" or "in and under the bread and wine." But note that that is not the main thing in this sacrament. The big deal, and the thing that Luther emphasizes, is that it is the body and blood of Christ!
As to the medieval Roman teaching of transubstantiation, I will let the "Second Martin," Martin Chemnitz (1522-86), address that one:
Is the bread changed into the body of Christ, so that it altogether loses its own substance?
The particular character of this Sacrament requires that there be two distinct things or substances which, joined by sacramental union, make one complete Sacrament, even as in the one person of Christ there are two complete and distinct natures. For all antiquity uses this comparison. But Paul mentions bread and wine also after the blessing, 1 Co 10:16; 11:27. Likewise the fathers also taught the same. In order to testify that they do not approve the papistic transubstantiation, they also usually used these terms, namely that in, with, and under the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are present, offered, and received.
--Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion (Translation published by Concordia Publishing House, 1981)
Sproul writes (emphasis mine):
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.
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.
The question is this:
Where in Scripture does God EVER declare anything which is not either already true or is simultaneously accomplished by the very act of God making that declaration?
In Genesis, do you read "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and so light was forensically declared to exist, although everything was still pitch-dark."?
No.
When God told the children of Israel to eat the Passover lamb, because that night he would execute judgement upon the gods of Egypt, did he really mean that judgement would be forensically declared to have been executed on the gods of Egypt, while in fact nothing had really been done about the situation?
No.
When God told David, "I will build you a house," -- meaning an everlasting dynasty through the kingship of the Messiah -- did he really mean, "I will forensically declare that I have built you an everlasting dynasty. Nevertheless, no such thing will actually exist: it is a legal fiction."?
No.
When Jesus said, on the cross, "It is finished," does that really mean, "I have forensically declared this to be finished, although clearly it really isn't."?
No.
Sproul's position -- which accurately reflects Luther's -- amounts to saying that God forensically declares a falsehood. Sproul practically admits it in the passage I quote above!
The God I worship is truth. His word is more real than any reality I know. To posit some sort of separation between God's word in declaring a man righteous and God's gracious act in making that man righteous is heresy bordering on blasphemy.
And to that I can respond only: Let God be true and every man -- every man, be he Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Sproul, or John Paul II -- be a liar.
Out of curiosity, are there any Eucharistic miracles in the Lutheran Church?
All have profited from this man. The present day Roman Catholic Church would not be as "human" today were it not for the Reformation.
No! To me the mystery is not in man's want to not repent and ignore God. We have more than enough scripture that I can simply accept on faith that it is so:
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about. And they heard the voice of the LORD God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.I often ask myself what was so damning in Eden that we all together became unprofitable (Psalm 14 - my recent meditations). Even though I can accept it on faith because it is clearly stated in the Bible, this is the question I ask. And I do know something intimate about my sin, His glory, and the Terror of the Lord.
The unjustified man is, as St. Paul writes, "dead in his sins" and requires a gift of actual grace through the Holy Spirit to respond to God's calling by repentance, faith, and salvation. (NB: This was stated explicitly by both the 2nd Council of Orange and the Council of Trent. It is de fide Catholic teaching and it is material heresy for a Catholic to deny it.)
Ok!
The damnation of the reprobate is earned by their sins.
Ok!
God ardently desires the salvation of all and the damnation of none, and grants to each man sufficient (but not necessarily irresistable) grace to save his soul.
Absolutely wrong! You are misreading verse and totally ignoring others. For God to ardently desire the salvation of all men everywhere without exception means that He will spend eternity with all His desires not met. This is a shaky foundation upon which to stand for how can I satisfy myself in the Lord when He cannot satisfy himself.
However, God is free to desire something more than the salvation of an individual, and in many (perhaps all) cases, he does: he desires that they be saved as free agents who can refuse his offer of salvation if they so choose. Note that being "free to refuse" does not imply the converse, that the unjustified man is "free to choose" God apart from God's choice of him. He isn't; see above.
Since this wierd statement is dependent upon the one above, I'll simply wait for you to trot your verses and explainations out.
This is a good question, and it requires a good answer--even though I think it is a very big (general) answer, to a very big (general) question.
I'm not a Bible scholar, so I'm not going to insert proof texts, but I think one could find dozens there...along with knowledge that God's people understood God declaring something true now...when to them it really was not yet, as part of daily existence.
First of all we have to ask how does God see and know what is true. God is eternal, and sees things eternally. Jesus' blood paid the price of sin for everyone who believes...that's an orthodox statement, something that can be accepted by Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Christians alike. Meaning 2000 years ago at the cross--everyone's sins, past (the OT saints) present (those fearful and then unfaithful disciples), and everyone who's believed and followed Christ since--had his sin completely washed away at the cross. So before we ever were born...or sinned at all...it was paid for. Strange, and hard to ponder, I agree, but this is what Holy Scripture teaches, and what orthodox Christians have always taught. I'm giving this fundamental example to show the timelessness of God...His work although effective in our time, is really beyond our time too.
Now why all this philosophical gobblygook, to try and show in Scripture "where... does God EVER declare anything which is not either already true or is simultaneously accomplished by the very act of God making that declaration?"
Very simple:
The Old Testament sacrificial system.
Think about it, orthodox theology has always held (until some way out, admittedly Protestant, dispensationalists denied it) that the Bible teaches Jesus' sacrifice was what the lambs, bulls, doves, and goats sacrificed for sin, and peace offerings, had always looked forward to...but not accomplished, EVEN THOUGH GOD CLEARLY DECLARED FORGIVENESS THROUGH THOSE O.T. ANIMAL SACRIFICES.
Those repeated sacrifices...every day...and on some days by the hundreds...were not enough, in and of themselves, to cleanse from sin. If Jesus had not come, and completed the Law--including the sacrifice, in His own blood, those O.T. saints never could have seen Heaven, as their faith, in the animal sacrifices, was really looking for God's provision--which was, though they did not know it, in Christ Jesus' life and work on the cross.
So logically, every time in the O.T. when God forgave them...through the sacrifice, offered after genuine repentance, God was declaring something as true, which was NOT already true, and not made true by His declaration. From the O.T. time standpoint, forgiveness was not a fact yet...YET is the big word. But also it was true they had been forgiven, as God would in the future surely do what He had promised--from Gen. 3:15 (speaking to the devil)"it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," onwards.
So the whole of the O.T. sacrifices can be cited as places in Scripture where God declared something true, which wasn't yet...(but would be, based on His integrity) nor was it accomplished by fiat at His word.
In the same way every Christian is seen by God as having the perfection of Christ (as we will, someday--and in a sense as God sees it NOW in His time) even though, from our finite in-time perspective, we are all far from perfect and complete. God loves us, just as He loves Jesus, and how in character, united in Him, we will someday be.
Jesus paid it all.
And Amen!!!
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.