Posted on 06/19/2009 10:03:34 PM PDT by dangus
Praise God, that we are saved by grace alone. Works without faith are utterly without merit. This is not merely a Protestant notion.
Such has been the persistent teaching of the saints throughout the ages. Yet a whitewashing of Martin Luther has led to many people, even Catholics, fundamentally misunderstanding the Catholic Church's criticism of him.
Please understand that what I write here is no ad-hominem attack on Luther for any purpose, including the slander of Protestantism. Attacking the moral character of Martin Luther is gainless, for no-one supposes Luther to be imbued with the gift of infallibility. But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes. Further, given the whitewashed history of Martin Luther, it is imperitive to remember the context of the Catholic Church's language and actions, which seem terribly strident, presented out of the context.
The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.
This is not Luther's position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.” (Letter to Melanchthon, 1521) "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).
As such, it was not necessary to avoid sin. “If grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” In fact, the way to conquer sin, he taught was to indulge it: “The way to battle a tempting demon was to “in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him.” Even the greatest sin was permissible, so long as one believed in Christ.: “Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)
These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress. And his comments that peasants were born to be cannon fodder is horrific in light of the deaths of 100,000 peasants in a rebellion of which he spoke, “I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head... My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it.” (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299)
Such beliefs are not incidental to Luther; they are a major part of the reason for many princes siding with him against the Catholic church. Without such support, his movement would have no base. But he also appealed to their financial motives, arguing that they had no obligation to fight Muslims. In fact, Luther preached that Islamic domination was superior to Catholicism. His horrors at the excesses of Rome were pure fiction, aimed at weakening Rome's military strength. His lies are betrayed by his ignorance of Rome's geography. (He mistakenly thought that the Vatican was built on one of the seven hills of Rome, an assertion he'd make time and time again in asserting that the Papacy was Babylon.) Again, the context is horrifying: Belgrade fell in the very same year as the Council of Worms, 1521. By 1529, the Islamic horde had reached Vienna.
Luther even attacked the Holy Bible, itself. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, those words exist only in the Letter of James. So, Luther sought to have that book struck out of the bible. At the Council of Worms, he was shown how the 1st Letter of Peter refers to purgatory, how Revelations depicts the saints in Heaven praying for the souls below, how James explicitly states that “faith alone is dead, if it has not works.” Later Protestant apologists offered alternate explanations for these difficult passages, but Luther simply declared that they were false: “Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool “
His violence to the Word of God was worse still regarding the Old Testament. In condemning the Ten Commandments, he said Moses should be “damned and excommunicated; yea, worse than the Pope and the Devil.” Yet this man argued that the bible alone was authoritative?
When confronted by the Catholic church over his statements, Luther never disavowed these statements, or claimed they were exaggerations, or apologize for putting his foot in his mouth. Instead, he boasted, “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me.”
Thus, the Catholic church was in the position of defending Western Civilization militarily against the Islamic horde, when an outrageous heretic preached all manner of hatred against it, instigating insurrection, and leading political forces to align against it. In doing so, he attacked not only the Church, but the historical and biblical under-pinnings of the bible. Could there be any wonder that the church responded harshly? Luther is dead, and he has never been held to be infallible or sinless. This is not an attack on him, but a defense on the Catholic Church, which he assailed.
It's 1529. The Muslims are in Bavaria. There's a madman boasting that he's responsible for 100,000 dead peasants, and he sides with the Turks. Can you really say that the Church treated him too harshly?
You wrote:
“How does the selection of what’s MANDATORY work?”
I’ll simply answer your question with a question since you ignored the rest of my response: Who decided on the canon of scripture and why are you obligated to follow that decision?
You wrote:
“And I suppose that TITHEing is MANDATORY?”
The 10% Tithe was incumbent upon Jews of the Old Testament era - and Jesus expected Jews to fulfill the requirements of the old law before the time of His sacrifice on the cross. See Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, for instance.
Christians are required to support the spread of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:11-14), but not necessarily to donate a specific level of say 10% of their income. Always keep in mind 2 Corinthians 9:7.
I thought you were the Teacher here...
I'm glad you notice that LAW was given to the JEWS and that CHRISTIANS are NOT obligated to follow it.
but not necessarily to donate a specific level of say 10% of their income. Always keep in mind 2 Corinthians 9:7.
Now... back to that Sabbath thing and how we know WHICH old JEWISH laws still apply and whether CHRISTIANS are to followm them.
You wrote:
“I thought you were the Teacher here...”
Between the two of us, I ceratinly am. But I am powerless to instruct a student who ignores her homework.
You wrote:
“I’m glad you notice that LAW was given to the JEWS and that CHRISTIANS are NOT obligated to follow it.”
Notice? That’s an odd word to use. You imply it was unknown to me before. You are mistaken.
“Now... back to that Sabbath thing and how we know WHICH old JEWISH laws still apply and whether CHRISTIANS are to followm them.”
Sabbath thing? We were discussing the sabbath? I honestly don’t recall that. I think it is up to you to prove such a conversation ever actually took place in this thread between you and I.
I also already made clear what you need to do. You asked questions and I answered them. Time for you to do the same.
You’ll have to do two things:
1) Answer this already asked question: “I’ll simply answer your question with a question since you ignored the rest of my response: Who decided on the canon of scripture and why are you obligated to follow that decision?”
2) Show me where we were conversing about the sabbath in this thread.
When you fully respond to those two stated things, I’ll be more than happy to answer your still outstanding question and continue this conversation.
“How does the selection of what’s MANDATORY work?”
Well, to start with, you read the entire Bible. You offer communal living and tithing as your examples. Communal living was practiced by the church for a time in Jerusalem, but not elsewhere - and other versus such as 2 Thess 3 say,
“6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”
For tithing, 2 Corinthians 9: “ 6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. 9 As it is written, “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever.”
Most of the Christians I know use 10% as a good rule of thumb for a starting point, but most also give more than that - if not to the church, then to charity.
If something is mandatory, it is usually obvious.
“16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
I don't like LEADING questions: who said I was OBLIGATED to follow the selection?
Circular logic.
You wrote:
“I don’t like LEADING questions: who said I was OBLIGATED to follow the selection?”
I’m not surprised you made this choice. When the going gets tough, Elsie avoids the questions. Just as I thought.
You wrote:
“Circular logic.”
Not at all.
She is sinless because we teach it.
True, 'we' were not; but 'we' were talking about LAW; right?
And is NOT Sabbath worship part of it?
You wrote:
“She is sinless because we teach it.”
She is sinless because she is sinless.
You wrote:
“True, ‘we’ were not; but ‘we’ were talking about LAW; right?”
Answer my question first.
“And is NOT Sabbath worship part of it?”
Answer my question first. Show some integrity and actually answer the question I put to you.
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.
For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of ‘79.
There is nothing unreasonable about the gospel’s demand for a commitment to Christ also requiring a corresponding commitment to the Catholic Church which He founded beginning with Peter, the rock.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=307597
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/immacula.PDF
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq41.html
Yes it DOES!
(MY mistake in calling you a MORMON was due to the fact you can spin BETTER than one!)
'Just' and 'righteous' does NOT equate to SINLESSness; no matter what 'authority' says so.
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.