Faith Alone as Viewed from the Other Side of the Tiber

"So according to some of our Protestant friends when Saint James says that faith with out works is dead, he really means "the kinda faith that has not works" without works can't save you. Does this give anybody else a headache? Wouldn't it just be easier to accept what is written by Saint James at face value that faith (not the dead kind as Calvinists claim) without works is dead, instead of John Calvin and others waving their fingers deftly so the reader comes away believing the opposite of what Scripture actually states?" [source]

Answer... using the same method:

So according to some of our Roman Catholic friends when Saint Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory” he really means salvation is also of works. Does this give anybody else a headache? Wouldn't it just be easier to accept what is written by Saint Paul at face value that salvation (not that  Trentian idea of the infusion of grace producing good works) is through faith and not of works,  instead of Roman Catholics waving their fingers deftly so the reader comes away believing the opposite of what Scripture actually states?

The point of course is that both what James says and what Paul says needs to be exegeted according to the contexts. Presenting a caricature of either position doesn't do anyone any good.

Addendum

Here's an interesting quote from Calvin... no wait, from John of Damascus:

"For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV.9].

Misunderstanding Luther on Faith and Works

I stopped over at Catholic Answers and found the following comment left about my paper, Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology:

I think James Swan errs in thinking Luther's thought processes were always consistent and therefore if he said works are necessary in one place, we must assume he always has this in mind in another. In this article, he essentially says when Luther said "sin boldly" it was "hyperbole" correct? However, I am off-hand familiar with at least one other exhortation of Luther's that supports the interpretation that Luther really had no problem with someone "sinning boldly." That quotation is:

"And here Paul speaketh not of the ceremonial law; for he sacrificed in the Temple, circumcised Timothy, shaved his head at Cenchrea. These things had he not done, if he had been dead to the ceremonial law, but he speaketh of the whole law. Therefore the whole law, whether it be ceremonial or moral, to a Christian is utterly abrogate, for he is dead unto it. Not that the law is utterly taken away nay, it remaineth, liveth, and reigneth still in the wicked." (Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 1535) [source]

I'm not infallible, so it is possible I made an error. I don't think I have though in my article. I went through Luther's letter to Melanchthon and advice to "sin boldly" thoroughly. While it's true Luther wasn't always consistent (he himself admits this), you'll find he's very consistent on what he means by faith and works throughout his Reformation career.

As to hyperbole, Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and his statement to Melanchthon is a perfect example. Luther doesn't write analytical theology. He writes profound verbose sentiment driving one to think deeply.The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” isn't so difficult to grasp. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.” The "sin boldly" statement is a perfect example. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

The response:

Please understand, James. I did read over your article. I was not convinced of your conclusions that he was consistent on this matter, however. True you can find citations of Luther praising works. But there is the existence of a number of other citations in context (like the one I mentioned from Galatians earlier... in which he belittles works. Or how he believed conscience was the devil trying to drive the soul to despair... I don't think Luther was always consistent (including on this matter) and I don't see reason to dismiss occasions in which he spoke rather clearly in my opinion to the detriment of works done in grace. [source]

The quote in question from Luther's Commentary on Galatians (cited above) in the same context states:

By this we may plainly see, that there is nothing here for us to do only it belongeth unto us, to hear that these things have been wrought and done in this sort, and by sure and confident faith to apprehend the same. And this is the true formed [and furnished] faith indeed. Now, when I have thus apprehended Christ by faith, and through him am dead to the law, justified from sin, delivered from death, the devil and hell, then I do good works, I love God, I give thanks to him, I exercise charity towards my neighbor.But this charity or works following, do neither form nor adorn my faith, but my faith formeth and adorneth charity. This is our divinity; which seemeth strange and marvellous, or rather foolish, to carnal reason: to wit, that I am not only blind and deaf to the law, yea delivered and freed from the law, but also wholly dead unto the same.

This statement is in perfect harmony with the outline of Luther's theology in my paper. It appears to me Luther isn't being understood when he speaks of works, law, and faith. If he was being understood, Luther's Galatians Commentary would not have been cited incorrectly. Sometimes one needs to read beyond that which one intends to quote, or actually understand what an author is saying before quoting. When it comes to a person standing righteous before God, for Luther, the Law is powerless to achieve this. Only Christ was able to do this, and by faith, his work of keeping the law becomes mine. If I think my keeping the law can justify me, I'm doomed to failure. As Paul says, "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16).

The response:

I'm not the only student of religious studies who reads his Galatians commentary that way, so there is no need to personally attack my capacity to read. Yeah, Luther thought works are a nice bonus to thank God for being so nice. We understand that.But the question begged is: how does the statement about the moral law being "utterly abrogate" to the Christian fit in with the outline of your paper? [source]

I wasn't trying to insult you, but I don't think you understand what Luther is saying. It's one thing to disagree with what he is saying, it's quite another to say he wasn't consistent in his Galatians commentary on faith, works, and law. You said my paper on Luther is in error because of your quote from the Galatians Commentary. I've demonstrated it isn't.

The question isn't begged. If for Luther, Christ fulfills the law perfectly, and his righteousness is taken hold of by faith, then the law, as a means to eventually justification, is done away with. It's a useless endeavor as a means to be justified. It's a complete waste of time in regard to the "chief doctrine" of justification.

"When we have taught faith in Christ this way, then we also teach about good works. Because you have taken hold of Christ by faith, through whom you are righteous, you should now go and love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks to Him, preach Him, praise Him, confess Him. Do good to your neighbor, and serve him; do your duty. These are truly good works, which flow from this faith and joy conceived in the heart because we have the forgiveness of sins freely through Christ." [LW 26:132 (Commentary on Galatians)]

"We concede that good works and love must also be taught; but this must be in its proper time and place, that is, when the question has to do with works, apart from this chief doctrine. But here the point at issue is how we are justified and attain eternal life. To this we answer with Paul: We are pronounced righteous solely by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law or by love. This is not because we reject works or love, as our adversaries accuse us of doing, but because we refuse to let ourselves be distracted from the principal point at issue here, as Satan is trying to do. So since we are now dealing with the topic of justification, we reject and condemn works; for this topic will not allow of any discussion of good works. On this issue, therefore, we simply cut off all laws and all works of the Law." [LW 26:136 (Commentary on Galatians)]

"Thus we must learn to distinguish all laws, even those of God, and all works from faith and from Christ, if we are to define Christ accurately. Christ is not the Law, and therefore He is not a taskmaster for the Law and for works; but He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This is grasped by faith alone, not by love, which nevertheless must follow faith as a kind of gratitude. Therefore victory over sin and death, salvation, and eternal life do not come by the Law or by the deeds of the Law or by our will but by Jesus Christ alone. Hence faith alone justifies when it takes hold of this, as becomes evident from a sufficient division and induction: Victory over sin and death does not come by the works of the Law or by our will; therefore it comes by Jesus Christ alone. Here we are perfectly willing to have ourselves called “solafideists” by our opponents, who do not understand anything of Paul’s argument." [LW 26:137 (Commentary on Galatians)]

Disagree with Luther all you want, but at least treat him fairly. Read him carefully, like you would one of your own favorite theologians. Disagree with an actual point of theology at least properly interpreted.

Windsor's treatment of Ephesians 2:8-10

Scott Windsor's more recent post on the question of Ephesians 2 is meant to be a response to some interaction we've had about this post I did some time ago. Let's see how it's gone so far.

Rhology: Notice how, again, "works" appears TWICE in the psg. You're proposing that "not as a result of works" = works of the OT Law, while "created in Christ Jesus for good works" is something totally different? Even though they appear one sentence of each other?"
--sw: Yes, but not absolutely. "Works of the Law" CAN be "good works" if one is in the State of Grace FIRST.

This is applying an RC gloss after the fact. Where does the Eph 2 psg give us that idea?
And it doesn't answer the question I've raised. Once again:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Just for ease of understanding, so we're all on the same page, this is the problem I'm contending Mr Windsor encounters here:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works of the OT Law, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works of the OT Law, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

If this is inaccurate, why? Show me why from the text.
You had said: It is a command to perform "good works" and the context is specifically opposing 'works of the Law.' and You are mixing "good works" with "works of the Law" again.

It is your position that mixes the two, not mine. In my view, "works" in Eph 2:9-10 refers to any activity that one might otherwise expect to be meritorious towards one's good standing with God, something that God would want us to do. Said works don't save us - they are for those who are "created in Christ Jesus" (ie, born again believers) to do. Not in your view. In your view, you make an arbitrary distinction and make the first "works" into "works of the OT Law". So, why not the 2nd "good works"? You yourself said:

And this fact is made crystal clear by verse 15: 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace...

So why isn't the 2nd "works" also "works of the OT Law"? You're arguing that the OT Law is in the context, after all. We need to get this question answered clearly before we go anywhere else.

Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?

Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...

Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.

"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)

"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)

"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)

We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?


Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.

Was "Alone" alone previous to the 16th Century?

To coincide with my aomin post, here's a Roman Catholic scholar on the historicity of using the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 :

"In 3:28 Luther introduced an adverb not found in the Greek ('only through faith' or 'through faith alone'); the vocabulary of sola fides had existed in the Latin church writers before Luther, but his addition in Rom heightened the theological contrast with James 2:24: 'A person is justified by deeds/works, not by faith alone.' "- Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to The New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997) p.567, footnote 22.

Luther on the Epistle of James...Revisited

I've written a lot on Luther's opinion on the Epistle of James and the canon . I've asserted that Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. This is something beyond dispute. I have found though that those who chastise Luther on his rejection of James tend to ignore the many statements in which he questions the book because of authorship. For Luther, the book was not written by an apostle, but rather by a later Christian. He repeats this often, and also notes others before him did as well.

Luther detractors tend to focus on his statements asserting a contradiction between James and Paul. The most popular passage comes from his preface to the book of James. Luther states: “In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]."

Protestants have had a cogent harmonizing solution between Paul and James for quite some time. The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a non-saving dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead... I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I! But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. James describes a living and saving faith, as opposed to a dead faith.

Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. It may be surprising though to some that Luther was actually aware of a harmonization between James and Paul, and even at times uses it.

In Luther's Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.

In The Sermons of Martin Luther [2:2:308], Luther offers the harmonizing solution quite clearly:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.

But here's the citation that provoked this blog entry. Recently I've been reading Luther's early Commentary on Romans. Here's a very interesting passage:

Here the question arises: How can a person be justified without the works of the Law, or how can it be that justification does not flow from our works? For St. James writes: 'We see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jas. 2:24). So also St. Paul: "Faith . . . worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6); and: "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. 2:13). To this we reply: As the Apostle distinguishes between the law and faith, the letter and grace, so also he distinguishes between the works resulting from these. He calls those deeds "works of the Law" that are done without faith and divine grace, merely because of the law, moved either by fear of punishment or the alluring hope of reward. But works of faith he calls those deeds which are done in the spirit of (Christian) liberty and flow from love to God. These can be done only by such as are justified by faith. Justification, however, is not in any way promoted by the works of the Law, but they rather hinder it, because they keep a person from regarding himself as unrighteous and so in need of justification. When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith. But what he says is that it is faith alone that justifies, regardless of works. Justification therefore does not presuppose the works of the Law, but rather a living faith, which performs its proper works, as we read in Galatians 5:6 [Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75].

In the Luther's Works version of his Commentary on Romans, Luther gives a rather lengthy and curious explanation of James, somewhat different than anything stated above:

The question is asked, “How can justification take place without the works of the Law, and how by the works of the Law can there be no justification, since James 2:26 clearly states: ‘Faith apart from works is dead’ and ‘a man is justified by works,’ using the example of Abraham and Rahab (James 2:23–25)?” And Paul himself in Gal. 5:6 speaks of “faith working through love,” and above in chapter 2:13 he says that “the doers of the Law will be justified before God.” The answer to this question is that the apostle is distinguishing between the Law and faith, or between the letter and grace, and thus also between their respective works. The works of the Law are those, he says, which take place outside of faith and grace and are done at the urging of the Law, which either forces obedience through fear or allures us through the promise of temporal blessings. But the works of faith, he says, are those which are done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of God. And the latter cannot be accomplished except by those who have been justified by faith, to which justification the works of the Law add nothing, indeed, they strongly hinder it, since they do not permit a man to see himself as unrighteous and in need of justification.

Here is an example. If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers. It is the same way with the righteous, good, and holy works which are performed either without or before justification. For just as this layman does not become a priest by performing all these functions, although it can happen that he could be made a priest without doing them, namely, by ordination, so also the man who is righteous by the Law is actually not made righteous by the works of the Law at all, but without them, by something else, namely, through faith in Christ, by which he is justified and, as it were, ordained, so that he is made righteous for the performance of the works of righteousness, just as this layman is ordained a priest for the performance of the functions of a priest. And it can happen that the man who is righteous by the Law does works which are more according to the letter and more spectacular than the man who is righteous by grace. But yet he is not for this reason righteous but rather may actually be more impeded by these works from coming to righteousness and to the works of grace.

Another example. A monkey can imitate the actions of people, but he is not a man on that account. But if he should become a man, this doubtless would not take place by virtue of these actions, by which he has imitated a man, but by some other power, namely, God’s; but then having become a man, he would truly and rightly perform the actions of a man.

Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works.

But if faith justifies with its own works, but without the works of the Law, then why are heretics regarded as beyond justification, since they also believe and from this same faith produce great and sometimes even greater works than the other believers? And all the people in the church who are spiritually proud, who have many and great works which also surely proceed from faith, are such people also unrighteous? Does something other than faith in Christ with its good works seem to be required for justification?

James answers the question briefly: “Whosoever … fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (2:10). For faith is indivisible. Therefore it is either a whole faith and believes all that is to be believed, or it is no faith, if it does not believe one part. The Lord thus compares it to one pearl, to one grain of mustard, etc. Because “Christ is not divided” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13), therefore He is either completely denied in one unit, or else He is completely affirmed. He cannot be at the same time denied in one word and confessed in another. But heretics are always picking out one thing or many from those which are to be believed, against which they set their minds in their arrogance, as if they were wiser than all the rest. And thus they believe nothing which is to be believed and perish without faith, without obedience toward God, while still in their great works, which are so similar to the real ones. They are not different from the Jews, who themselves believe many things which the church also truly believes. But one only does the thought of their own proud heart oppose, namely, Christ, and thus they perish in their unbelief. So also every proud man in his own mind always opposes either the precept or the counsel of him who is correctly guiding him to salvation. Since he does not believe this counsel, he likewise believes nothing, and his entire faith perishes because of the tenacity of one thought. We must always humbly, therefore, give way in our thinking, lest we stumble over this rock of offense,34 that is, the truth which in humility stands against us and opposes our own thinking. For since we are liars, the truth can never come to us except as an apparent adversary to what we are thinking, for we presume that we think the truth, and we wish to hear and see as truth only that which agrees with us and applauds us. But this cannot be.

The works of all of these men, therefore, are the works of the Law, not of faith or of grace, indeed they are opposed to and in conflict with faith. Thus justification not only can but must take place without them, and with the apostle must “be counted as refuse for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:8). [LW 25: 234-236]

Now of course, one must be very careful with Luther's early works, as the last passage from his work on Romans shows. Luther was not yet at his full understanding of justification that he became famous for. The early statements though are very intriguing.

Even though Luther knew how to harmonize James and Paul, it may be the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. Further, I do recall reading of Luther's disdain for his Catholic opponents repeatedly quoting the book of James to him. This indeed provoked him, but I wonder why he didn't simply fight back with something similar to the above.

The Roman Plan of Salvation

I know that johnMark has already posted this a while back, but it's due for a repost. Or a riposte.

To me it seems to explain really well, but I'd be interested to know what our Romanist friends think of it.

(Click to expand)











Peace,

Rome offers a plenary indulgence

I'd like to note this in relation to what took place at the Svendsen-Pacwa debate during the Audience Questions section.
(Edit in green text)
Father Pacwa, answering an audience question...
Question: "Please comment on the view of today's Vatican regarding the selling of indulgences in history."

Pacwa (almost verbatim): "The Vatican hasn't said anythg about selling indulgences b/c it was condemned earlier in the C of Trent. There was abuse of selling of indulgences and the reason that Vatican didn't say anythg was b/c it's not being done."

First of all, that's awesome for our RC friends. In particular I'd love to know why such goodies as plenary indulgences are only granted from time to time rather than all the time. And why the RCC doesn't just go all the way and become Reformed, where the one sacrifice of Christ provides for a true plenary indulgence. As to the former, I wonder if Indulgentiarum Doctrina has anything to say?

In my review, I noted that Fr Peter Stravinskas disagreed w/ Pacwa's assertion, and apparently the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is coming down somewhere near Stravinskas' side as far as I can tell. So I guess here we have a problem between Stravinskas and Pacwa, and it leads to a few questions:

1. What is the difference between buying an indulgence with money and buying one with stuff you do?
2. Is this not demonstrative of disunity among RC clergy? (I know Mateo wouldn't agree that this is a big deal, but he's not the majority opinion so far as I've seen.)

Pretty good stuff. Either way, I hope all the Roman Catholics who can will take advantage. I sure would.
And what good fortune to die just a few hours after hooking one of these dandies!
I'm gonna go ahead and post screen shots of the article here b/c another link I found turned out to be dead just hours after I saw the article that links to it.

Tim Staples keeps the commandments!

It's not easy listening to Matt Slick discuss with Tim Staples, but I got thru round three recently. I left a comment too, which led a (I believe) Roman Catholic fellow-listener to write me an email. I won't reproduce his email to me, but it had to do with his assertion that, no, really, good Christian people CAN keep 7 or so of the 10 Commandments, at least most of the time. And a few other related questions flowing out of the podcast. I reprint here the relevant parts of my response to him:


Let me share with you sthg I've noticed - where sin and man's sinfulness is downplayed, grace is by necessity downplayed as well.
One place that definitely occurs is in the RCC. You're not really all THAT bad, you haven't broken the _th commandment, or at least only a few times in your life, etc.
And your sin and resulting distance from God is not such that you can't get there by any of your own efforts. No, no, no, God's grace ENABLES us to DO some things to get there, to provide some atonement for our own sin whether by penance that we do or by Purgatorial sufferings. All that to say, we add to Christ's atonement in order to be saved.
It's terrifying! If I must rely on partly myself to get to Heaven, I'll never make it!

Tell you what, let's examine what you/Tim say about the 10 Commandments. You say that we should be able to keep the 1st 7 commandments w/o too much trouble.

From Ex 20:3-17 -

Commandment #1 - "You shall have no other gods before me.

-Have you ever put ANYthing before your devotion to God?
Of course you have. Every time you sin in ANY way you do so.

Broken? Check.

#2 - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am(D) a jealous God,(E) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

- Why does God say He's jealous in this cmdmt? It's b/c this is about putting material things before God Himself! Ever done that? Ever preferred a material thing over God? Ever lusted after a material woman?

Broken? Check.

#3 - "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

-Ever used God's or Jesus' name as a curse?
Ever proven yourself unworthy of bearing the name "follower of Christ" by your actions? (ie, ever sinned?)

Broken? Check.

#4 - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...

-Is your devotion and faith in Jesus Christ complete and full so that you NEVER trust in anything other than Him?
(This is the interpretation of the Sabbath from the book of Hebrews.)

Broken? Check.


#5 - "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

-Have you ALWAYS honored them? NEVER grumbled? NEVER disobeyed?

Broken? Check.

#6 - "You shall not murder.

-Ever been angry with someone? Ever called them a derogatory name? hated?
(See Jesus' interp of this in Matthew 5.)

Broken? Check.


#7 - "You shall not commit adultery.

-Ever looked at a woman with lust? (Matthew 5)

Broken? Check.



Etc.
Be honest - NO ONE can fulfill the law. Not even a little. Galatians 3 says that this is the whole point of the law - to demonstrate to us by our inability to keep it even a little the fact that we need to fall on God's grace IN TOTAL. Yes, we are THAT low. Yes, God's grace is THAT wonderful!
You say you haven't broken any of those 1st 7? That is self-righteousness and a lie. Please, repent before God. Tell Him that you are relying on Him and Him alone to bring you to heaven, to forgive your sin, that you can do NOTHING.

Finally, Tim was being incredibly inconsistent when he talked about "but when I do fall, there's forgiveness."
1) In RC dogma, you have to DO PENANCE to ACHIEVE that forgiveness. That's not by grace at all! "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Romans 11:6
2) God's standard is not "pretty good, not breaking 7 of the 10 most of the time"; it's PERFECTION. You can't EVER get there.
3) The whole point of the law, as I said, is to point out our inability. Not to try to make us think we can do it ourselves!

I hope you'll consider what I've said here. Please repent and ask God for forgiveness for your pride.

True Peace to you,

Works that Justify

Discussions with online Catholics around justification can get confusing, especially Catholics who are former Protestants. The confusion comes when certain Catholics try to minimize the works portion of their justification and emphasize the faith only portion of justification ("initial justification"). The intent seems to be to convince others that Protestants and Catholics are actually not that different with regards to their doctrines on justification (the Reformation was apparently a big misunderstanding).

I was, however, able to find other online Catholics who are more upfront about their works in justification:

“The Catholic Church teaches that although faith is critically important, it only begins the process of justification, a process which also has a middle and an end. Justification is not a single event of faith alone, nor are works merely the fruit of such faith, but a process whereby the individual grows in justification by his faith and good works, a growth which can be retarded, or even terminated, by faithlessness and bad works, ending in damnation.

… If Paul lifts the doing of works for obtaining eternal life to such a height as he does in Rom. 2:6-10, what, then, can we conclude about Paul’s understanding of works in relation to justification? The conclusion must be that works are necessary for justification, and, in fact, are one of the principle determining factors in whether or not one obtains salvation. We say this with the proviso that Paul outrightly condemns works done from boasting with a view toward obligating God to pay the worker with salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5).” Robert Sungenis


“In any event, if one wishes to use the language the Bible uses, one would say that one is justified by faith apart from "works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), but not by "faith alone," apart from works (Jas. 2:24).” James Akin


“But we Catholics insist that James 2:14–26 shows that works are more than mere evidence of faith. Works actually justify. James is speaking about works growing out of faith. If works of faith are not a part of our justification, then it is hard to understand why James would say, as he does, that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (Jas. 2:21). You may remember how Paul said that Abraham was not justified by works but by faith. Paul means that Abraham was not justified by keeping the Old Testament law, while James means that Abraham was justified by doing a work that grew out of his faith in God.” Catholic.com

Jesus can't justify Himself

CrimsonCatholic has responded, and while I find his response quite foreign-sounding (which is probably my own fault), he said sthg that concerns me a GREAT deal. How ironic that I started out questioning the legitimacy of the link between Christology and justification, and now I'm following that trail! Oh well...

-Even a perfect human can't justify himself, not even Jesus, so the notion that Jesus saved us through His perfect obedience is likewise Pelagian.

I actually once heard a charismatic pastor trying to defend the idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues - "Jesus was born saved!" Strange to hear the same repeated by a Roman Catholic!

So, a few questions to flesh out the most important thing CC said here:
1) Why would a perfect human need to be justified? Do you mean b/c of the original sin?
2) If #1 is b/c of original sin, how could a perfect human exist at all?
3) If #1 is b/c of original sin, that human wouldn't be perfect, right? He'd have sin, wouldn't he? And therefore not be perfect?
4) Did Jesus have original sin?
5) Why would Jesus need to be justified?
6) If Jesus did not save us thru His perfect obedience, then why does the Scripture say this?
Heb 5:7-8 -

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. 8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation...

And especially,
Rom 5:18-20 -

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more...

7) Was it not, then, Jesus' actions that provided salvation for fallen humanity? If not, what?
8) Related to #7, are not Christ's passion, crucifixion, and resurrection actions that were performed in obedience to the eternal plan of God?

'Course, anyone is welcome to chime in. If you're RC or EOx, I'd also like very much to know your estimation of what CrimsonCatholic has said.

Linking justification with Christology

CrimsonCatholic has raised an interesting point and I'd like to ask a question about it, for discussion.
It began when Lucian made this interesting (and, uncharacteristically, not off-the-wall) comment:

I think it highly unwise to try to understand the Biblical concept of redemption, save through the prism of the Person of the Redeemer Himself: the God-Man Jesus Christ. ...I think there are at least 4 (possible options for a salvation concept) 1) 100% God, 0% man. 2) 100% man, 0% God. 3) X% God, (100-X)% man. 4) 100% God, 100% man.

A little later on, I wrote a post that ended up in 120+ comments where I contended that Ephesians 2:8-10's use of the two "works" provides unequivocal support for the idea of Sola Fide.
CrimsonCatholic stopped by and offered his thoughts, repeated in a recent post at his blog.
Here is what he said:

You once said that you rejected the idea that works could be both 100% God's and 100% man's, one of four options, because that option pertained to Christology and not justification.

In light of v. 2:10 and the rest of the book of Ephesians (espec. vv. 1:9-10, 22-23 and ch. 3), do you truly believe that Paul's doctrine of justification and Christian works is not Christological? And if the dichotomy between divine works and human works is false in Christ, why is it not false for those in whom Christ is working as well? Moreover, in the work of Christ, what cause do we have to boast of ourselves? (Compare Rom. 3:27 with Rom. 15:17-18, Gal. 2:20, Phlp. 2:13.)

So, leaving aside the fact that I also dealt with his question about boasting (which went unanswered), the central statement seems to be that, since Christ Himself is 100% God and 100% man, so must we regard our justification as 100% by the grace of God and 100% by the works of man.
This is interesting on several levels, really. My answers at the time were here and then here as a reiteration.

Eph 2:10 tells us that Christ created us for good works. Eph 2:8-9 tell us that it's apart from works that we are saved by grace thru faith. These works are the same works; the ones in v. 10 that don't save us in v.9 are what we do after we're created in Christ Jesus. Any distinction I make is what is made in the text; indeed, I'm forced into it. Nobody has yet dealt with that here.
What I hear you saying seems to me to be similar to the common RC argument about the Assumption of the BV Mary, that it "would be fitting" for Christ to show the honor shown to Enoch and Elijah to His mother as well. Ergo, she was assumed. Game, set, match.
Here, you seem to be saying that since Christ was 100% God and 100% man, it is fitting that our salvation might be 100% God and 100% man as well. But how can we justify that connection biblically? It's a just-so story, b/c *you* think it would be fitting that it be that way. But God apparently disagrees.

Just a sidenote - we don't find our doctrine in "linkages" that could be seen in between biblical passages when obvious statements are made about the same, such as Eph 2:8-10 and Rom 4:6-8. This is a hallmark of Roman Catholic apologetics, as the way they go about defending the Assumption of Mary demonstrate.

CrimsonCatholic's argument would seem to require that Christ working in us is like God working in Christ and hence the works are the same. To make his argument work it would need to be modified to 100% God + 100% (perfect) man. We do not qualify for the second half and hence we are unable to contribute to our justification. Only Jesus fills that holy place. But the Roman Catholic may object that it is Christ's work in us, so it is still God's work. But how can you meaningfully say that it is not our works when we used our hands and mouths to do the works even if they were from God's work in us? The works Jesus does in us are our works too, just as the works God did in Christ were Christ's works too.
Also, that response fails miserably in taking into account just how bad the human is. He doesn't seek to do good. He doesn't want to. He hates the light. This "100% man" thing would lead to our utter damnation, by logical consequence.

Now, CC's argument seems to me to be similar to:

• Since Jesus is the High Priest, then we are also co-high priests because we are in him.
• Since Jesus is the Mediator, then we are co-mediators in him.
• Since Jesus is at the Right Hand of the Father, we are also at his right hand.
• Since Jesus is the King of Kings, we too are king of kings.
• Since Jesus worked for our salvation, we too work for our salvation in him.
  

It is taking Jesus' uniqueness and distributing it inappropriately to the redeemed. I think it is a tighter argument if you say that it is appropriate to use the God-man as a prism to interpret salvation but CC's approach fails because it generalizes from the unique God-man to humanity, which is a major problem.

But I want to ask a different question as well: Why choose Christology as the link to justification?

Here's an example: Why not link justification to the Trinity? Is not the Trinity a direct consideration in the justification of the sinner?
Instead of justification being 100% by grace (from God) and 100% by works (from men) (as Christ), why not 100% from God the Father, 100% from Jesus Christ, and 100% from the Holy Spirit?
Another example: Why not link justification to the resurrection of Lazarus? It was 100% of Jesus.
Another example: Why not link justification to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? It was Trinitarian as well.
So I'd ask CrimsonCatholic and anyone else who is so inclined to defend that linkage in preference to the other examples posted.

Posted for Christ's Glory,

Luther Listens To the Staples / Slick Radio Discussion

Galatians 3:11 "Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the Law; for the righteous shall live by faith."

Another argument, derived from the testimony of the prophet Habakkuk. It is a very weighty and a clear authority that Paul sets against all the statements about the Law and works. It is as though he were saying: “What need is there of a long debate? Here I am producing a very clear testimony of the prophet, at which no one can carp: ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ If by faith, then not by the Law, because the Law is not by faith.” And Paul interprets the term “faith” in its exclusive and antithetical sense.

The sophists, ready as they are to evade the Scriptures, carp at this passage as follows: “ ‘The righteous shall live by faith,’ that is, by a faith that is active, working, or ‘formed’ by love. But if it is an unformed faith, it does not justify.” They themselves have made up this gloss, and with it they do injury to this passage. If they were to call “formed” faith the true and theological or, as Paul calls it, the νυπόκριτος faith (1 Tim. 1:5), which God calls faith, then this gloss of theirs would not offend me. For then faith would not be distinguished from love; it would be distinguished from a vain idea of faith, as we also distinguish between a counterfeit faith and a true faith. A counterfeit faith is one that hears about God, Christ, and all the mysteries of the incarnation and redemption, one that also grasps what it hears and can speak beautifully about it; and yet only a mere opinion and a vain hearing remain, which leave nothing in the heart but a hollow sound about the Gospel, concerning which there is a great deal of chatter. In fact, this is no faith at all; for it neither renews nor changes the heart. It does not produce a new man, but it leaves him in his former opinion and way of life. This is a very pernicious faith, and it would be better not to have it. A moral philosopher is better than such a hypocrite with such a faith.

If they were to distinguish between a “formed faith” and a false or counterfeit faith, their distinction would not offend me at all. But they speak of faith formed by love; and they posit a double faith, namely, formed and unformed. This noxious and satanic gloss I cannot help detesting violently. “Although infused faith may be present,” they say, “which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as well as acquired faith, which we ourselves produce by our many acts of believing, nevertheless they are both unformed and must be formed by love.”  According to their opinion, faith by itself is like a picture or a beautiful thing in the darkness, which is perceived only when light, that is love, reaches it. And so love is the form of faith, and faith is merely the “matter” of love. In this way they prefer love to faith and attribute righteousness, not to faith but to love. For that by virtue of which something is what it is, is the same thing, only more so. Therefore when they do not attribute righteousness to faith except on account of love, they are attributing nothing at all to faith.

In addition, these subverters of the Gospel say that even infused faith, which has not been received by hearing or produced by any actions but has been created in man by the Holy Spirit, can coexist with mortal sin, and that the most wicked men can have it; and therefore, they say, if it is alone, it is vain and completely useless, even if it should perform miracles. Thus they deprive faith of its task and give this to love, so that faith amounts to nothing at all unless the “form,” namely, love, is added to it. According to this malignant figment of the sophists, faith, that miserable virtue, would be a sort of unformed chaos, without any work, efficacy, or life, a purely passive material. This is blasphemous and satanic; it calls men away from Christian doctrine, from Christ the Mediator, and from the faith that takes hold of Christ. For if love is the form of faith, then I am immediately obliged to say that love is the most important and the largest part in the Christian religion. And thus I lose Christ, His blood, His wounds, and all His blessings; and I cling to love, so that I love, and I come to a moral kind of “doing,” just as the pope, a heathen philosopher, and the Turk do.

But the Holy Spirit knows how to speak and, as the sophists wickedly imagine, could easily have said: “The righteous shall live by a formed faith.” But He purposely omits this and simply says: “The righteous shall live by faith.” Therefore let the sophists go hang with their wicked and malignant gloss! We want to retain and to extol this faith which God has called faith, that is, a true and certain faith that has no doubts about God or the divine promises or the forgiveness of sins through Christ. Then we can remain safe and sure in Christ, the object of faith, and keep before our eyes the suffering and the blood of the Mediator and all His blessings. Faith alone, which takes hold of Christ, is the only means to keep us from permitting this to be removed from our sight. Therefore this malignant gloss must be repudiated, and this passage must be understood of faith alone.

Source: Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther's works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (26:268). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. pp.268-269

NOT as a result of works

The usual Roman Catholic claim regarding the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10 was recently repeated, that the works by which we are not saved are works of human invention and/or are works of the now-obsolete Old Testament law. I'd like to devote a post to dealing with this by itself. This is mostly, ISTM, an exegetical question.

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Now, let's be clear - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone.
As for this passage, let us note how the ***same*** good works that God has prepared for us to do are the same works that are *NOT* the cause of our salvation. So if the 1st "works" are works of human invention or of the OT Law, then why isn't the 2nd "works" the same?

How can this be (pardon the pun) justified in the RC view?

Killer Lutherans (Part Two)

A few days ago I posted a section of dialog with A Roman Catholic on Killer Lutherans from 2005. I usually hate blog posts or web pages in dialog form, but i'm trying to track down some of the many discussions i've been in over the years.

Here is another snippet:

GW: I will presume in good faith that Luther would have been "intolerant of BTK"

Yes, Luther had a high standard of moral order. A cursory reading of any good Luther biography would bear this out (I suggest Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand (New York: Mentor Books, 1950). For instance, Luther did not think highly of those who promoted societal chaos, like the Anabaptists. Luther also believed that God had given government civil authority over those who broke the law. Luther says,

“…God has established civil authority, to sit in judgment not only on life and
death but also on matters of minor importance. Thus magistrates are to punish
the disobedience of children, theft, adultery, perjury, in short, all sins which
are forbidden in the second table of the law… God has instituted civil authority
and placed the sword into its hand that license may be curbed, lest savagery and
other sins grow out of bounds.”

“Temporal government is ‘the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil’ (Rom.13:4). For since the world will not let itself be drawn by words so that general peace and harmony is sustained and wantonness prevented, severity must be used, and people must be kept from sin by force. If a thief will not quit his stealing, let him be hanged on the public gallows. Then one is protected against him. If a malicious scoundrel wants to harm everybody as he pleases and wants to beat and stab at the provocation of a word, let justice be meted out to him at the place of public execution. Then he will no longer disturb one’s peace; he will no longer beat or stab anybody. The executioner will nicely keep him from doing that.”

Thus, your “good faith” should rest in assurance. Luther would not have treated the crimes of BTK lightly. Luther worked very closely with the authorities (ah, too close at times). Indeed, Mr, Radar would have been executed, and Luther wouldn’t have had a problem with it.

GW: … some of Luther's quotes appear to suggest that the incongruence between BTK's profession of faith and his deeds would not affect his justification before God. That's what I'm trying to investigate.

A basic understanding of Luther’s concepts of law/gospel, the two kingdoms, the two kinds of righteousness, faith and justification are crucial to your endeavor. Perhaps spending some “off line” time at a good college library researching these aspects of Luther’s theology would help your investigation. For instance, I spend a lot of time reading books by Roman Catholics, simply because I want to know why they believe what they believe from their perspective. To understand Luther, you have to be willing to want to understand him from his perspective.

GW: …Now, you may judge that Rader's words were not "the words of a Christian who is saved by faith alone," but our source is merely a short newspaper excerpt.

Nothing in your original post from Radar suggested he was a Christian. Recall what you offered from Radar: “I expect to heal and have light and then, hopefully, someday, God will accept me.” These words by Radar betray a complete misunderstanding of justification by faith alone. One does not need to “heal and have light” before being accepted by God. One is accepted by God because Christ has bore the entirety of their sins, and they are completely justified by placing their faith in Christ’s work. They stand, not healed, but spiritually reborn in the light. This is quite different then what Radar has said in the quote you provided.

GW: What we do know is that Rader is a life-long Lutheran and that he professes to be a Christian.

Simply because one belongs to a visible church does not mean that same person belongs to the invisible church. This distinction was taught by Luther, Calvin, as well as Augustine. Augustine held the invisible church is the true and full number of the elect (there are some who are elect that are never Catholic, and there are some Catholics that are not elect). He argues the true Christian can be found inside and outside the true church, but the elect are to be found substantially within the church. Within the visible church though are those who are not Christian. I would place BTK’s Lutheran church membership in this category.

GW: That being the case, I presume that Rader believes himself to be "saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone." You may judge that Rader is not a member of the Church (because of his deeds?), but we should accept based on his profession that he *believes* himself to be a Christian--and we know that he believes this within the Lutheran tradition/sect.

I meet many people who are members of churches who are clueless about the gospel. I meet many folks who rely on their works, rather than Christ’s work. Simply because one claims to have faith doesn’t mean they have saving faith. For instance, James describes a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, chances are, that faith is a dead faith (c.f.James 2:17). James then describes a true example of dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not.

GW: If Rader confesses his sins with true contrition of heart, his sins will be imputed to Christ and he will be accepted by God. If Rader does NOT repent/confess these sins with true contrition, he will be rejected by God. Men have to confess their sins on an ongoing basis in order to be "forgiven" of them and "cleansed from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9).

I am a Protestant, and this is not Protestant theology. It is true that Christians are to confess their sins, and indeed God will “purify us from all unrighteousness.” As Christians grow in sanctification, Christ works in our lives to reveal our sin and transform us into his image. 1 John 1:9 describes sanctification, not justification.

Recall Luther: If one is really to be honest about one’s sins, one should spend countless hours confessing them. And then about a minute after one is done, a new sin will occur. Read 1 John 1:8- “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” Read 1 John 1:10- “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” See also Paul’s daily struggle with sin in Romans 7.


GW: Luther, in his "rhetorical flights," was prone to say things that contradict scripture. The admonition to "sin boldly" knowing that "No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" is just plain bad theology and practice. You never admonish a person to sin boldly, and if committing one murder is wicked in God's eyes, committing 1000 murders is even worse.

Your opinion, not fact. Was prone? You’ve offered only one or two quotes from Luther’s written output (which was thousands upon thousands of pages- Collected works span 60+ volumes in German, 50+ volumes in English). The job of a reader is to learn to read authors in their contexts, and to be particularly aware of identifying such things like hyperbole. If you like analytical writing, stay away from Luther. Read Aquinas. Read Calvin. I actually glean much insight from Luther’s “sin boldly” comment, because I’ve taken the time to understand Luther.

GW: Sins are forgiven when one confesses and forsakes them (1 Jn 1:9). We're not Universalists here--there is no automatic forgiveness apart from repentance. So, if a professing Christian commits a murder, he *must* confess that sin with true contrition to be "cleansed from all the unrighteousness" accrued in the act of the sin (1 Jn 1:9). And if such a man then repeats the murder 999 more times, it shows that the prior repentance was not genuine at all. Therefore, such a man is not at all yet clean of his unrighteousness before God (and he has heaped on ever more unrighteousness with an additional 999 murders).

Luther admits that works *must* be present for "faith" to be "living" (that agrees with Catholic teaching), but then in the same breath Luther somehow says we are not saved by "works" (that's a contradiction).

Your comments reflect a misunderstanding of justification and sanctification. The context of 1 John 1 is not justification, but rather sanctifaction. Again you are taking a statement from Luther out of context, analyzing it in a way it was not intended. Luther would agree with you that a mass murderer who committed 1000 murders while claiming to be a Christian is not a Christian. There is nothing internally inconsistent with the quote from Luther on faith and works. Luther is describing saving faith, as opposed to dead faith. See James 2.

Protestants believe in total salvation by works…..the work of Christ who fulfilled the law in perfection. This work of Christ is imputed to me. I am saved by placing my faith in Christ and his work, totally. On the other hand, the gift of faith that has been given to me by God (Eph 2:8-9) is a living faith, that shows itself by works. None of those works I do contribute to my justification, at all. This is not Catholic teaching, I’m sure.

GW: If Christ taking away the sin of the world means that Christ takes away our *sinfulness* as St. John taught (1 Jn 3:5-7), then Luther's words about "even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day" is a contradiction. If Christ has taken away one's sins, one doesn't commit fornication and murder at all, much less a thousand times a day (2 Tim 2:19; Eph 5:3-5; 1 John 1:6, 2:3-11, 2:29, 3:5-12, 3:15, 4:8, 5:18.). So even if this was just a "rhetorical flight" by Luther, it is still poorly stated at best and bad theology at worst.

You left out this part of the quote: “Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner." Luther’s point is the infinite value of Christ’s atonement and how each sin we commit is dreadful, nothing more, nothing less. Question for you: your comments indicate you do not believe in substitutionary atonement. Is this true? Second, what does 1 Peter 1:17-21 mean then?

GW: Thanks, James, for your comments on that Luther quote cited above. Now, the only problem I have with the statement is that it appears to create a radical dichotomy between one's conscience and one's deeds. Do you agree that Luther is doing this? I mean, people *should* be bothered by their sins. It's part of examining oneself to see if one is in the faith (2 Cor 13:5; 1 Cor 11:27-32; 2 Pet 1:10-11). We know men by their fruits--fruits tell us something about the state of the tree (Lk 6:43-46).

Actually, Luther felt very strongly about the law. In Luther’s Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. In the Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments. In the reciting of the Ten Commandments along with the Apostles Creed, one hears both law and gospel at the beginning and ending of each day.

Summary:
GW strongly implied that BTK expressed a belief in justification by faith alone, and held a strong saving commitment to this truth. I found that quite hard to fathom, but there was no way I was going to try to track down interviews with BTK in order to verifiy my hunch.I think Lutherans should be outraged by any who would link Luther's theology to some sort of justifiable serial killing because of Justification by faith alone. It definately didn't sit well with me, even as a topic to "discuss" with any seriousness. Simply, it provoked me. It's basically the same charge that Luther's Justification by faith alone is a license to sin. Roman Catholics began making this charge against Luther early in the Reformation. Thankfully, most modern day Catholic historians realize this is totally mistaken and slanderous. As i've read and studied Luther's theology and life, i've been shown time and again the theology of the cross. I realize that relying soley on Christ's work is easy to read and say, but very difficult for people to really grasp without the work of the Spirit.

Killer Lutherans (Part One)

“There have been at least two mass murderers over the last 36 years who have been pretended to be devout Lutherans. John Emil List from New Jersey was a devout Lutheran who murdered his Mother, Wife and his 3 Children in 1971 and was not apprehended until 1989. Dennis L. Rader of Kansas was also a devout Lutheran who is one of the worst mass murderers in Kansas history and who was apprehended last year.”

This CNN moment was posted over on the CARM discussion boards. I was in a very similar discussion (specific to BTK) with a Roman Catholic back in 2005, found here. Here is a selection of the dialog:

GW: I have been trying to learn about Luther's view of sin as it relates to BTK Killer Dennis Rader (a leader of a Lutheran Church).

Interesting. Hopefully you've uncovered that Luther would have been very intolerant of BTK.

GW: From a recent CNN article, the mass murderer stated, "People will say that I'm not a Christian, but I believe I am." About his long-term plans, he said, "I expect to heal and have light and then, hopefully, someday, God will accept me." (CNN: "BTK Sentenced to 10 Life Terms" - August 18, 2005

In either Lutheran or Reformed terms (in other words, Protestant terms), these are not the words of a Christian who is saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. God accepts sinners because their sin is imputed to Christ. One does not need to first "heal and have light" (whatever that means). Christ's active and passive work makes a sinner acceptable to God.

GW: Rader is a Lutheran

Simply because one belongs to a visible church does not mean that same person belongs to the invisible church. This distinction was taught by Luther, as well as Calvin, as well as Augustine.

GW: and I couldn't help but think of some of Luther's head-turning statements about grave sin and justification

Before looking at these statements, understanding Luther on sin and justification is not really so hard to do. Countless books have been written on Luther's theology. If you really want an in-depth answer, go get a copy of Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. Also helpful is the anthology, What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. You can look up countless topics, and read Luther word for word. If Dennis Radar provoked you to think about certain statements from Luther, hopefully these recommendations will provoke you to do some further research. The truth about what Luther actually held is not difficult to track down.

GW: "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. ...No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521.)

First, Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style. He doesn't write analytical Puritan theology. He writes profound verbose sentiment driving one to think deeply. In the quote you've selected, the underlying point is no sin can separate a Christian from Christ and his atonement (Biblical examples- recall David: conspirator to murder; Peter: denied Christ with cursing). The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points” [Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 29.

Secondly, it's important to remember context. Whom is this quote written to? It's written to Melanchthon, Luther's close friend, someone quite familiar with Luther's theology. Melanchthon understood Luther's sharp division between law and gospel. By the way, do you know what Luther means by law and gospel? It is a fundamental presupposition needed to understand his theology. I dare say if someone doesn't understand what Luther means by law and Gospel, one does not understand Luther...at all.

Thirdly, Luther is exhorting Melanchthon: the amount or kind of sin one does is not relevant to salvation. Salvation is totally by grace. Whether you've sinned a little or lot, the work of Christ covers those sins, making one acceptable to the Father.

Luther's point is not to sin boldly, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for. Secondarily, Luther says that one's sins should not burden them to the point in which they think they have not the work of Christ, for no sin will seperate a Christian from the infinite work of Christ.

The big question though, did Luther exhort people to sin? Is Luther an antinomian? Absolutely not! Luther continually exhorted and expected people to perform good works. ‘Faith,’ wrote Luther, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’. Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes: “{Luther} also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith." Here is a great quote from Luther:

"We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.You ask, perhaps, what are the good works you are to do to your neighbor? Answer: They have no name. As the good works Christ does to you have no name, so your good works are to have no name."

I commend this entire sermon to your reading from which this quote was taken.

GW: "AND ALSO..."I know I have committed many sins, and I continue to sin daily. But that does not bother me. You have got to shout louder, Mr. Law. I am deaf, you know. Talk as much as you like, I am dead to you. If you want to talk to me about my sins, go and talk to my flesh. Belabor that, but don’t talk to my conscience. My conscience is a lady and a queen, and has nothing to do with the likes of you, because my conscience lives to Christ under another law, a new and better law, the law of grace." -- Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 2, Verse 19

An excellent quote. Luther at his best! Luther believed that Satan continually threw one's sins in one's face to get one to doubt the work of Christ. To combat this, Luther often mocked Satan by saying, "Oh that sin? well here's some you've forgotten." By mocking Satan, Luther defeated Satan. Now, the law also points out one's sins. the law invokes a demand with a burden that can crush us. But the good news is that God says He is our Father, that He is our God, protector-provider, Lord and Savior. It is His gift to us of being His child. In the above quote, Luther brings sharp attention to the paradox of law/Gospel: "my conscience lives to Christ under another law, a new and better law, the law of grace." In other words, the law can no longer condemn the Christian- it has been fulfilled in Christ, a perfect savior.

GW: On the face of it, it appears that the BTK Killer might actually be within the bounds of Luther's ideas on justification.

An Inflammatory statement. By the quote from BTK you provided, it is obvious he knows nothing of the gospel, nor did he live his life to serve his neighbor. His life did not show the fruit of sanctification. Luther would have recognized this easily. Luther would have probably had him banished, or given to the authorities for execution.

GW: "Certainly, BTK did not commit 100 murders, much less 1000 in a single day as Luther said. And, BTK claims to be a Christian who hopes to be accepted by God

If you take statements of hyperbole analytically, you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding Luther. Luther was exhorting a Christian who daily struggled with sin to trust in the work of Christ. Luther was not giving mass murderers license to kill.

GW: Is it me, or is BTK a good Lutheran, theologically speaking?

It's you. You don't understand Luther.

GW: "BTK appears to have "faith alone" as Luther taught, and he also seems to suffer within his "flesh."

I haven't seen anything from BTK that suggests this.

GW: "But Luther dicotomized these so that one's grave sins didn't matter so long as one professed Christ in word, as BTK clearly does.

No, Luther didn't do this. Luther’s doctrine of justification implied works as a fruit of justification, and Luther was no libertine seeking excuses for low morality.

GW: Help me understand if Luther really believed that stuff he said about sinning boldly and committing 1000 murders a day and still being firmly in Christ

I must say sorry if i've come across harshly. Luther has been a very important theologian in my life. To have his proclamation of the gospel linked to BTK gets me a bit.