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
I was the only one who did. Sad, huh? And some of those people claim to be Protestant. Bumping for Luther and Calvin!
What a wonderful testimony! One faithful woman is bringing her whole family to the Gospel.
I can only second what you say. In the various cities where we have lived, we have belonged at various times to Methodist (only a very few congregations of this denomination any longer have anything to do with the Gospel), Free Methodist, Mennonite Brethren, Baptist and (now) Covenant churches. In each instance, we chose the individual body of believers -- not the denominational affiliation -- based upon its faithfulness to the simple, straightforward teachings of the Gospel as we have received it in the New Testament. Any organization of men is subject to error and corruption, but the Gospel is not.
Your advice to Jim is solid -- Rock-solid.
For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will-- (Eph. 1:4,5)
Hmmmmm...the meaning of the above two sentences sound a lot alike.... Could it be that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, and the other original Reformers believed what the Bible taught here? By your definition, all these men would qualify as "hard shell" Calvinists--even though the famous 5 points were not fully elucidated until 100 years later in the Cannons of Dort.
In comparison to this, when a Christian is baptized is a minor point.
I have been a LCMS member my whole life. Every time there is a Luther thread, we always get bashed. Yet it was Christ's (and Luther's) desire that we quit fighting and turn to the Lord for our salvation. Luther, as a monk, knew that the common people did not know the Word of God. They did not, for the most part, speak Latin, and they had to rely heavily on the priest's interpretation of the Word.
Let me put it another way. Can any of you imagine a televangelist as the only person who understood the Bible, and you had to rely on him for the meaning of the Word?
Luther was human. God used him to make His Word known to the common people of Germany. It is God whom we should praise when we remember the reformation, not Luther. Luther wanted the focus on the Triune God and His plan for salvation.
Differeneces over religious doctrine are unimportant only if you assume religious doctrine is unimportant.
Although it had secular followers and results, the Reformation was impelled and made possible only by those "unimportant" differences--people don't risk being burned at the stake for less important differences.
Excuse me, what are you talking about?
God doesn't TAKE away anyone's salvation, people lose it all on their own. Yes, all humans including Christians will always sin in the flesh, but their is a difference between sinning unwillingly and willingly.
And maybe you should take your own advice and read the NT.
Guess what? Even after you die and are accepted in heaven YOU can still LOSE your salvation. I know what the bible says, and don't need a formal "expert" to tell me what it means.
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb..." Luke 1:41
"and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth." (Luke 1:15)
"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him. "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, "`From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise'?"(Mat. 21:16)
The Bible and Christ Himself would seem to contradict you here, wouldn't they? (more evidence against abortion, by the way...)
So what kind of garbage does RickyJ calim (sic).
Homer
RCIA, Week 12
Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God's word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three:
"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying."
--Small Catechism: Sacrament of Holy Baptism
You are so wrong.
Yes, God predestined people to salvation before the foundation of the world, but he only did this because he already knew who would accept his offer of internal salvation before he made anything. God knows everything and nothing can be hidden from him, so of course God knew who would accept him and who wouldn't even before he made us.
However, this does not mean that WE know who will accept him and who will not. That is why we are commanded to preach the gospel to all creatures.
A baby cannot understand the gospel therefore they can't be baptized. Further more a baby doesn't need to be baptized, because they are not at the age of accountability and are therefore sinless before God. I have no idea why Catholics can't understand this.
Well, formulating the neat little construct and then finding proof-texts to support it is precisely what got them in trouble.
In their defense, the greater evil of their moment (and of the previous 1000 years) was the roman catholic church and they felt they needed an intellectual defense which insultated the 'salvation/damnation' decision entirely away from the decision of men in order to defeat the corruption of the RCC. Perhaps so. (Remembering that no one could read the Bible for themselves at that time; the RCC had seen to that.]
Now that we have the Gospel in our hands and in our language, it is obvious that the construct is irreconcilable with the "whosoever will" of the Gospel. So, while we owe the reformers a great debt for freeing us from the RCC, Christ speaks through the Bible to every heart and those who accept His offer will be saved. It is clear beyond doubt that He -- the Giver of Life -- excluded no one from His offer -- not one.
I claim no garbage. I accept the spoken word of God written by the prophets and not some man's religion.
Neither could answer the questions. They didn't know, and yet the ministers of their churches thought that they were at 'the age of consent.'
Should the one little girl be baptized again? I don't think so. Baptism is what God does for us. We, even as adults can't fathom His love for us.
I mean salvation can't be ALL due to God? He can't hog all the glory, can He? It's impossible to have a free choice and for God to choose His elect, like the Bible clearly teaches, isn't it?
I mean it may be 99% due to Him, but I've got my 1% to contribute, right? And I'm sure I'll get it right...won't mess up...will I?
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.