Luther's Reformation Breakthrough (by Church History, Historical Theology Professor Ryan Reeves, Gordon-Conwell Seminary)
Dr. Reeves summarizes Luther's Breakthrough on Justification by Faith Alone:
Dr. Reeves then goes back to explain the 95 Theses:
I confess I have not had time to post much over the past year, but I wanted to have a link of some of the best that I consider that James Swan has put together in the apologetic issues of Roman Catholic claims against Luther.
Summary of some links that I have found the most helpful articles of James Swan on Luther and the Reformation and apologetics of answering some of the main Roman Catholic common claims against Luther.
Luther Added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 ?
Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification in Latin
More on McGrath and the "theological novum" comment & Roman Catholic claims
Luther's comment on James as "an Epistle of Straw" (Part 2) (links back to Part 1, see below)
Luther's comment on James (Part 1)
An Excerpt from James Swan's excellent research on Martin Luther's "Epistle of Straw" comment:
4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”
The most frequent charge against Luther’s view on the canon is his opinion on the book of James.[50] Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[51]
Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.
An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[52] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[53] For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[54]
On the Bondage of the Will and Luther's response to Erasmus
Resources on Justification by Faith Alone
Addendum:
Another excellent one by James Swan that should be mentioned:
Who Owns Church History?
Resources on Justification by Faith Alone
Addendum:
Another excellent one by James Swan that should be mentioned:
Who Owns Church History?
Posts
8 comments:
Thanks Ken! I've appreciated your support over the years, as well as all your efforts, particularly in regard to Islam.
You are welcome James! Thanks for all your excellent research and finding answers to so many myths and half-truths and things taken out of context by skeptics and Roman Catholics, etc.
Re: Faith Alone
Ken...I wrote last year and did not get an answer, so I would like to press the point in light of all the justification articles. In the book of Galatians, we see Paul cursing those who would seek to add even one thing to the gospel; namely, circumcision. Now Mr. Luther said to Zwingli, "We hold the belief of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church....we acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers" (Page 563).
https://books.google.com/books?id=kFU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=is+the+body+of+jesus+in+one+place+at+a+time&source=bl&ots=f4kku7dDu3&sig=WdD-l_KLKxzPNeXAo2EDe3PX81g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7o7UwuXRAhUJ5WMKHeQrAzgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20body%20of%20jesus%20in%20one%20place%20at%20a%20time&f=false
While I do agree with Luther that we are saved by the merits of Christ alone, it is hard to escape the fact that his addendum to the gospel (namely, swallowing the Eucharist) is on the very same level as the requirement the Galatians were proposing. Certainly all Christians will get to heaven with an imperfect theology; however, in light of 2 Cor 11:4, there certainly is such a thing as crossing over into, "another jesus and another gospel", and I fear Mr. Luther clearly crossed that line, essentially nullifying faith ALONE in Christ for salvation.
I am quite positive that to believe Christ is metaphysically present... "in some way"... via a piece of bread is no more necessary for salvation than there is a man in the moon. Considering that he sees EVERYTHING and is thus EVERYWHERE anyway (Psalm 139:8, Jer 23:23, Zech 4:10, Matt 18:20, Acts 17:27), makes the vague Lutheran demand that he is "somehow" present, a glaring addendum to the gospel which Paul would surely and consistently have to reject if he were alive today.
So my question is, do you think Luther was saved or not? If so (and I presume you do), how do you justify this addendum to the gospel?
When did you write last year?
Point me to it.
Maybe James Swan would like to help out. (accuracy of that source / book that you linked to; and 2. also - James, feel free to add your thoughts on how that fits with the theology of justification by faith alone and the point he is making about Galatians.
It seems to be that Luther was too harsh on Zwingli at the time.
They were all coming out of Roman Catholicism and so, there are a lot of mistakes, inconsistencies, and a lot of things that Luther could not let go of that was deeply ingrained in his own mind and the whole culture as a whole of the Medieval synthesis, and Roman Catholic culture with man-made traditions from, say 600 AD onward were the worst.
Me, as a Baptist (credo-baptism), the original formers could not let go of infant baptism, IMO. But that's ok, (it is not a salvation issue) I love the unity we have at things like www.T4G.org (Presbyterians, Baptists, dispensationalists, Reformed continualists, etc.)
Most likely, Luther at that time, did not consider that an "addition", but probably the way we view sanctification and sound doctrine that comes later after conversion, as evidences of true faith. For example, some one who says that they trust in Christ alone, etc. but then later says, "well, I don't believe in the virgin birth", that would be in indication that they were never really saved / justified initially.
For example, though we are justified at the point of time at conversion (repentance and faith in Christ), if someone says, (after profession of faith, repentance, etc.) "But I refuse to get baptized or join a local church" - then that is indication that as far as we can know, because we cannot see the heart, that person's faith is probably not real, or they will see their error as they read the Bible and seek to join a church and be baptized.
Zwingli was killed in a battle just a few years later after his disputation with Luther in 1529. (killed in 1531)
So, there is a sense in which the issues at that time have a context, and we would have to know how the later Lutherans answer that question.
What do the Bible Believing Lutherans today (from after Luther and beyond) say about that? (like the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod)
Beyond those initial thoughts, I don't know.
It seems to me that Luther was too harsh on Zwingli at the time.
I merely meant to say that I submitted my question on this site, but I may have been confused as to who I directed it to.
Anyway, further clarification (which you wanted in the form of what Lutherans believe today) is found in the
The Small Catechism:
What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins," show 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 [emphasis mine] the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: "forgiveness of sins."
https://quizlet.com/133475540/the-small-catechism-the-sacrament-of-the-altar-flash-cards/
My response to the above is Mr. L is making an unwarranted and unbiblical distinction between "the words" (which designate the ACT of Christ giving himself in sacrifice shortly thereafter at Calvary) and the ACT of ingesting the bread, BOTH being required for salvation. The true Christian must say NO! Christians (but of course!) believe the Lord's words, but if we are to stay within the safety harbor of Scripture, we must conclude that eating the bread and wine were merely symbolic of his body and blood to be given at Calvary, being a simple memorial, period, end of story. Notice that Luther nullifies his own "faith alone" theology by saying you must believe
1) Christ's words....(note: WE DO!)....
2) ALONG WITH eating the Eucharist...(Note: We DENY).... it, according to him, being essential for salvation.
I read what you said about his being too harsh on Mr. Z, but this harshness translates into another gospel (to me, anyway). If he was merely "harsh", I would expect to see some change before he died, but as far as I know, it does not exist. Hence, we are left with a very glaring addendum to the gospel, which makes it "another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, and thus, no gospel at all, akin to the error of the Galatians as I previously stated. As you know, those who believe in the cross-work of Christ are SAVED. We partake of the elements out of obedience to his command, but not ***FOR*** salvation. If what Luther was saying were true, the question naturally arises, "how many times would you have to swallow the bread to make sure you're saved?" ANSWER? The Bible doesn't say! Consequently, it is NOT necessary for salvation because all one needs to know for salvation is contained in the Text (i.e., the engrafted word is able to save your soul, per James 1:21 & 2 Tim 3:15-17). So while it doesn't give me any pleasure to say so, Luther's position on the Eucharist must be abandoned because it is illogical and unbiblical. Perhaps the Lord will look at the "big picture" of the man on that final day, and for this error, it will fall under one of his works that are simply burned up -- for which he will receive no reward, but "he himself will be saved" per 1 Cor 3:15-17.
Yes I believe Luther was a true Christian, in spite of his inconsistencies on the Lord's supper and infant baptismal regeneration, (and the sins of his infamous writing against the Jews)
May the Lord have mercy on us all when we are tempted to become imbalanced.
I'll admit to only skimming through these comments (time issues). First, I don't recall the earlier comment, and also, while I allow anonymous comments, I may not respond to them, simply because....they are anonymous.
The following is based on notes I took many many years ago from lectures given by Robert Kolb.
-begin notes-
The issue comes down to trying to understand Luther from Luther's perspective. In his theology, the Word of God came in different forms. First, the "Word" was made flesh. Then, it came in these other forms-
1. The preached Word: The oral Word is preached for the forgiveness of sins. This is the purpose and function of the gospel.
2. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: God gives promises through His baptismal Word, and God also comes with His Word of mercy through the sacraments.
3. Confession and absolution: Luther called this the “power of the keys.” It is the power to retain and remit sins.
4. The mutual conversation and consolation of Christian fellowship.
For Luther, the real presence was important because of his underlying presuppositions. First, Luther believed the Scriptures should be interpreted literally, even when the literal interpretation demands the sacrifice of our reason. Luther also presupposed that God uses selected elements of the created order to convey His recreating Word and its gift of life. The God who created all things use all things as He wills.
It was also important to him because he found a strong comfort and important consolation in the face of sin and Satan, and he did not want to give this up. He connected Christ’s presence in his body and blood with the assurance of His presence in every form of the Word.
-end Kolb notes-
Now, I don't expect this answer to be satisfying, but I think it's an important lesson for each of us to consider if there's something we don't understand about why a person thinks or does a particular thing. I don't claim to be an expert at it, but one of my theological goals is to try to understand a person's theology from their perspective before I comment on it. I probably picked this up from years of listening to James White's debates. He painstakingly prepares for debates by reading everything from the other side.
So have you really tried to understand why Luther had the view he had on the Lord's Supper or are you having a knee-jerk reaction? I live somewhere in-between trying to understand and . If you want to really disagree with Luther on the Lord's Supper, I suggest first trying to understand his position.
Post a Comment