Posted on 02/02/2015 8:15:08 AM PST by Morgana
It is no secret that Martin Luther eliminated all works as having anything to do with our justification/salvation. In what most call his “greatest work,” The Bondage of the Will, Luther commented on St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves… For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all.
Paul’s point in saying justification is a free gift was not to eliminate works as necessary for salvation in all categories. Men must, for example, choose to open the free gift (see II Cor. 6:1). St. Paul was answering “Judaizers”—believers in Christ who were attempting to re-establish the law of the Old Covenant as necessary for salvation in the New. This was tantamount to forfeiting Christ, or rejecting the free gift, because it represented an attempt to be justified apart from Christ. Paul says, in Galatians 5:4-7 and 2:18, those Christians who were being led astray in this way had “fallen away from grace” precisely because they were attempting to “build up again” the law that had been “torn down” through the cross of Christ.
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth (Gal. 5:4-7)?
For St. Paul, any works done either before entering into Christ or apart from Christ profit nothing. But works done in Christ are a different story. Before Christ, unregenerate men are “dead in trespasses and sins,” and “by nature children of wrath,” as Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1-3. But after entering into Christ, Phillipians 4:13 says, “I can do all things in [Christ] who strengthens me.” And according to Romans 2:6-7, “all things” includes meriting eternal life.
A Compounding Problem
Unfortunately, Luther’s error did not cease with bad exegesis of St. Paul. As is so often the case, one error leads not just to one more but to a litany. For example, Luther was so consumed with the notion that man can have nothing to do with his own salvation—no works—he claimed any belief that man must actively cooperate in salvation at all to be equivalent to a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. In one of his sermons, Luther declared:
[Catholics] know very well how to say of him: I believe in God the Father, and in his only begotten Son. But it is only upon the tongue, like the foam on the water; it does not enter the heart. Figuratively a big tumor still remains there in the heart; that is, they cling somewhat to their own deeds and think they must do works in order to be saved—that Christ's person and merit are not sufficient. . . . They say, Christ has truly died for us, but in a way that we, also, must accomplish something by our deeds. Notice how deeply wickedness and unbelief are rooted in the heart.
Saying man must “accomplish something” in Christ does not deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; it merely states, in agreement with St. John no less, that man must, among other things, “walk in the light” of Christ in order for Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice to become efficacious in his life:
If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin… If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:7-9).
Notice, we must walk, and we must confess.
The errors continue in The Bondage of the Will when Luther takes the next logical step by declaring man’s will to be absolutely passive when it comes to salvation; and consequent to that, he expressly denies the truth of man’s free will. This again follows logically from the principle of "no works," meaning there is nothing we can do, leading to two-for-one errors.
So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it.
Luther’s famous notion of simul justus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) is another error rooted in leaving man completely out of the equation when it comes to his own justification. It means, in effect, man's justification is accomplished extrinsic to him. God declares a man just via a divine, forensic declaration—a legal fiction—rather than the biblical notion of a real inward transformation that makes him truly and inwardly just (cf. II Cor. 5:17).
Moreover, if it is grave error to acknowledge man has a causal role in his own salvation, claiming other members of the body of Christ have a role would be equally errant. There goes an essential element of the communion of saints. St. Paul obviously did not get the memo here, because he wrote: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (I Tim. 4:16).
There are many other errors we could add to this litany of Lutheran misstandings, but what I would argue to be Luther’s most egregious errors came as a direct consequence of his denial of free will. Think about it. If you deny free will, but you also teach that at least some people will end up in hell—and Luther did just that—then it necessarily follows that God does not will all to be saved. This is logical if you accept Luther's first principles. The problem is it runs contrary to plain biblical texts like I Tim. 2:4: “God wills all to be saved” (see also II Peter 3:9: I John 2:1-2), and Matthew 23:37, which records the words of our Lord himself:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets. . . . How often would I have gathered your children . . . and you would not!
Interestingly enough, in The Bondage of the Will, Luther attempts a response to this last text that becomes quite telling:
Here, God Incarnate (sic) says: “I would and thou wouldst not.” God Incarnate (sic), I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit he offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.
So what is Luther’s response to Jesus’ obvious willing all to be saved? Certainly, he would acquiesce to the Master and acknowledge God's universal salvific will, would he not? After all, Jesus Christ is, in one sense, the will of God manifest in the flesh. Unfortunately not. Luther claimed Christ's human knowledge to be lacking when it came to understanding "God's secret will of Majesty," which led our Lord's human will to find itself in opposition to the divine will. Poor Jesus. If he only knew what Luther knew.
We could multiply texts like “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), or “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27) that render this kind of thinking untenable. We could talk about the Hypostatic Union. But that would go beyond what we can do in this short article.
In the final analysis, we see here in Martin Luther the old addage, error begets error, painfully pellucid. What began in denying man has anything to do with his own salvation ends with problems Christological stretching from here to eternity . . . literally.
The basic disagreement here is not whether a Christian will do good works, but whether those good works are necessary to receive salvation. Even James does not claim that doing good works is necessary to receive salvation - rather, one who has already received salvation will be compelled by the change in his/her heart to do the good works of ministering and caring for others as Christ commanded. That is, the good works are an external evidence of an internal experience that has already occurred. This is where the disagreement with the Catholic Church over the nature of good works occurs.
Or do you think that a Buddhist monk that spends his entire life serving the poor and needy, but never accepts Christ as his savior, will be saved by his good works? Or that the sinner who repents and accepts Christ just before his death, without time or opportunity to perform any good works will be lost?
“Probably until the day after you stop using the word “Papists”.”
Ridiculous and childishly liberal. Whatever term is used will always become perjorative.
Slow becomes retarded. Retarded becomes special, special becomes challenged, challenged becomes differently-abled.
The Negro became colored, colored became black, then black became African American, African American became People of Color, People of Color became People of African Origin,,,
But all are simply trying to describe one common trait. So Papist is as good as Roman Catholic, follower of the Pope, loyalist to the Papacy, etc. It serves to sort them from other Christian sects.
“Ridiculous and childishly liberal. Whatever term is used will always become perjorative.”
Really? Call me a Catholic then.
“**Perhaps Luther made it to heaven after all.**
I sincerely doubt it.”
And in a nutshell, THAT is why Catholic threads are known as propaganda, seen as hostile to all other Christians, and resisted here on FR.
Even the Papacy as reflected in the last several have not embraced the view that only Catholics go to heaven. Are you in schism?
May I quote James to you?
No where does Jesus (or James )say or imply that one is saved by works.
The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if I say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ... but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.
This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Well, I’d take a look at James. Says something about faith without works is dead. I’m taking the meaning to be that works are a sign of having faith. They don’t make you saved, but are a characteristic of having faith.
You’re passage brings up rewards once we get there. They will be passed out accordingly.
Question I have for you is can you loose salvation once it is received?
“Really? Call me a Catholic then.”
That’s not accurate in all places. And it feeds into the delusion that the Roman Church is THE all inclusive, final, and full church of Christ on earth.
So additional descriptors are called for. For example the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that claim unbroken apostolic succession from the early Church and identify themselves as the Catholic Church.
(Full disclosure: I am an orthodox Missouri Synod Lutheran.)
I agree with you; the works we perform are demonstrative of the thanks we show for the mercy and grace poured out on us by God and the manifestation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We can only do them through God’s grace and the Spirit’s presence.
In trying to understand he differences between the RCC and my confession, I am often struck by how much the RCC must explain things to a point of nearly removing the need for faith. Isn’t enough to believe that God somehow allowed Jesus to be born free from original sin, without the gyrations of making Mary sinless and perfect through an Immaculate Conception? Another: Isn’t Jesus’ death enough to allow us directly into heaven and keep us from the pain and suffering of a purgatory?
This article makes some interesting points but it appears to me that Mr. Staples does what his church does: complicates things by making assumptions. Luther DID believe in Free Will, but understood that as sinners, the only free will we have is the will to do evil. Until the Holy Spirit enters in, we are rotten to our core. No “spark of the divine” exists in us. We’re all bad.
Some will argue semantics on both our parts, but before they do , they must realize that our sinful nature creates an equation that is completely unbalanced We can choose, but will only choose evil. ONLY through the Holy Spirit can we be called, enlightened and sanctified. We are unable to ACCEPT His call (the Baptist view). As long as we don’t actively reject grace, it comes to us and works faith through the intervention of the Holy Spirit because the love of God overcomes the evil with which we are filled. We are spiritually blind, dead, and enemies of God, prior to our Baptism, so much so that our Baptismal Rite includes an exorcism. (”Come out and make room for the Holy Spirit.”)
The good works we do are RESULTS of our salvation, NOT a means of gaining it. (in even some small way).
This “Jesus does it all” idea is demonstrated in the icons so dear to Rome. Look at the old icons and notice where Jesus is gripping the sinner as He delivers him from Hell. Jesus is holding the sinner’s wrist! The sinner’s hand faces down, showing that he has nothing to do with being saved; Jesus does it ALL.
I can’t think of a faith more similar to that of a child than this!
God’s blessings!
And my point is that if someone has negative views towards another, ANY term they use towards the negative target will soon become a perjorative. Then the word must be changed to soothe hurt feelings. The process begins again and again because the issue was never really the word itself. I was the negative way in which the subject is viewed by the speaker.
“Question I have for you is can you loose salvation once it is received?”
OSAS is a Protestant doctrine. It is not an orthodox Christian doctrine. Protestants argue over this themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQXsb7TFHo
OSAS is not protestant doctrine. I have been one my whole life and have never heard of that outside of this forum. I think it was something made up by catholics to attack others with.
“That’s not accurate in all places.”
It is for all Catholics. Place isn’t as important as person of you’re talking to a person. No Catholic will mind being called a Catholic.
“For example the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that claim unbroken apostolic succession from the early Church and identify themselves as the Catholic Church.”
No. Eastern Orthodox are happy to be called Orthodox. You wouldn’t refer to them as “Patriarchists” now would you? Some Orthodox might prefer to be called Orthodox Catholics - but I’ve never encountered such a person and that still doesn’t mean they would be called Catholic.
If faith without works is dead to Catholics, why do you believe in death-bed salvations? A life-long child molester finally repents minutes before he dies, and he is saved - right? What were his works again? oh right, molested kids.
“OSAS is not protestant doctrine.”
Yes, it is.
“I have been one my whole life and have never heard of that outside of this forum.”
I have - and I am not one.
“I think it was something made up by catholics to attack others with.”
Two Protestants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mahXVPEXN8
Another Protestant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz1bF3TXB1Y
It’s a Protestant thing.
I take it, then, you are not a Papist? Is not Peter the rock your institution claims to be built upon, the first Pope of a succession down to the present Argentinian Marxist one, Bogdoglio?
Is this not the main premise your institution is known for in the world, your succession of Popes?
Has not your interpretation of Matt. 16:13-19, your alleged proof for your succession of Popes, always been the root cause of Protestant dissent? Protestants interpreting Jesus Christ as the “rock” in the Matt. 16 passage, the true church built upon him, with Christ the head of his church, rather than Peter and your succession of Popes...the Papacy.
The term “Papacy,” thus, has always been at the heart of the RCC vs Protestant issue. Why then act like it is not? “Papacy” is no derogatory term, face the truth, it defines precisely what you are known for in the world. Your succession of Popes is the Papacy.
Yep that is true, and any one who simply will not do anything he tells us to do such as give some one who is thirsty a drink of water obviously does not believe in him.
Pretty much the way I see it.
“If faith without works is dead to Catholics, why do you believe in death-bed salvations?”
Your question makes no sense because it is based upon the premise that God is weak and trapped - something I could never agree on.
“A life-long child molester finally repents minutes before he dies, and he is saved - right?”
Ultimately that is for God to decide, not me or you.
“What were his works again? oh right, molested kids.”
So you believe God is weak? Or that His grace is weak?
Have you never read the Bible? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+20%3A1%E2%80%9316%3B&version=RSVCE
There’s only one way to be saved - by Christ’s grace. All who are saved by His grace will go to Heaven. Some will co-operate with God’s grace their whole lives, others only on their death-beds. The Vineyard Owner provides what is needed. We do not provide it to ourselves.
We are not perfect beings, so salvations is another thing on the list that we can screw up? Should I forget it and be done? Help me understand a little.
Not sure why God would give us an un-perfect gift that can be taken back? I would have thought the Son’s blood would have caused a permanent washing for everything past, present and future? Is it a one time deal where you screw up and you get kicked off the bus?
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.