[Apologetics] Three Anti-Social Doctrines of Luther

[Stuart D. Gathman]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Dianne Dawson wrote:

> http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6096

This article is not very helpful - it reads like a Michael Moore book.

> ...the first formal rejection on the part of Luther of the traditions and
> teachings of sixteen centuries of Christianity.

Luther was objecting to specific problems - not 16 centuries of Christianity.
Although his later invectives calling the Catholic Church the "spawn of Satan"
might understandably give this impression, "Church" meant "all those
mean officials teaching what sounds to me like false doctrine".

> "All our works," he said in his characteristic way, "are nothing more than
> worthless lice in an old unclean fur, since nothing clean can ever be made of
> it; in brief, since neither skin nor hair are any longer of value" (Erlangen
> Ed., XX. p. 159). Aside from its error and pessimism this doctrine contained
> cold encouragement for the Christian man and woman bent on the performance of
> social deeds which in the end would amount to nothing. Although prompted by
> the highest supernatural motives and the most burning love for God, they
> could not in the least, he held, be meritorious for heaven. 

All *our* works.  Luther's statement is almost straight from the Bible:
"All our righteousness is as filty rags."  Works "prompted by ... love for God"
are an entirely different thing.  Here, the confusion is over the
word "works".  The Bible distinguishes between "works" of the flesh and
"works" of the spirit - "wood, hay, stubble" vs. "gold, silver, and
precious stones".  The Catholic writer assumes that "works" by itself refers to
the latter, whereas Luther and Protestants assume that "works" refers to the
former - unless explicitly clarified.

> "Those pious souls," he said, "who do good *to gain the Kingdom of Heaven*,
> not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the
> impious.

First, the Kingdom of Heaven must invade your soul.  Only then can
works be "prompted by the highest supernatural motives and the most burning
love for God", and hence merit favor with God.  Attempting to gain God's
favor by doing good works in the flesh, without first submitting to His
salvation, is ignorance or open rebellion.

> In opposition to the Catholic salvation by good works, the Revolution has
> emphasized justification by faith alone. Some of the extreme Lutherans even
> asserted that good works were prejudicial to salvation. In doing this they
> emptied faith of its essence, and left it little else than a mere acceptance
> of the dogmas of their Church.

Here, confusion reigns over the word "faith".  Catholics read into 
"by faith alone" the meaning of "by intellectual assent alone".
Hence, they "emptied faith of its essence, and left it little else than a mere
acceptance of the dogmas of their Church."  Luther himself defined
saving faith as faith which is not alone - i.e., what Catholics call
faith plus works - or what Protestants would prefer to call "faith
proved by works".  And again - substitute "works of the flesh" for 
"good works" to understand what is being said.

> If, therefore, on the one hand, Luther doubtless often inveighs against sin
> in thundering terms, yet on the other he removes from it all real terror. The
> following passage surely is plain enough:

>> You see how rich the Christian is [i. e., the follower of Luther's
>> new-fangled Evangel] since even if he wished it he could not lose his
>> salvation, no matter how many sins he might commit, provided he will
>> believe.  No sin can bring about his damnation except unbelief alone. All
>> else is swept away by his faith the moment it returns and clings to the
>> Divine promises made to the baptized. 

Here, as above, the Catholic writer hears a completely different meaning for
the words "faith" and "unbelief".  No wonder that "Luther himself naturally
contradicts and refutes his new and monstrous dogma in many ways."  Because,
the new and monstrous dogma is in the mind of the hearer.  

> Luther wrote:

>> God does not save those who are imaginary sinners. Be a sinner and sin
>> boldly, but believe more boldly . . . It is sufficient that through the
>> riches of the glory of God we have known the Lamb which taketh away the sins
>> of the world. Sin would not tear us away from Him even though in a single
>> day we commit fornication and murder a thousand and a thousand times . . .
>> Pray boldly, for you are a very bold sinner. ("Briefwechsel," Vol. III, p.
>> 208.)

"Belief" for Protestants is trusting in God to the point of action.  If you
have sinned boldly, how much more is your need to get serious about
believing God - to show that faith to be living and not dead through
deeds of obedience, and through fervent prayer.

> Here is the blasphemous picture as Luther himself paints it:

>> When the stronger comes upon us and makes us his prey, in wresting us from
>> our former ruler, we become his servants and prisoners in such a way that we
>> wish and gladly do whatever he wills.

>> Thus the human will stands like a steed between the two. If God mounts into
>> the saddle, man wills and goes according to God's will, as the Psalmist has
>> it: "I am become as a beast before thee: and am always with thee." If
>> however the devil leaps into the saddle, man wills and goes as the devil
>> wills. It is not in his power to run to one of the two riders and offer his
>> services to him; but the riders themselves struggle with one another for
>> possession of the animal ("De Servo Arbitrio," Weimar Ed., Vol. XVIII, p.
>> 633).

Or as the "blasphemous" Apostle Paul paints it:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."

No doubt, however, the Catholic writer was thinking of:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his 
servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience
unto righteousness."

But that is because the writer is thinking of a believer's sanctification,
and not of the state of man prior to conversion.  Catholic doctrine agrees
that man is not capable of choosing good to the degree God requires until
his mind and heart are unshackled by the love of Christ.

I think Catholic readers need to do some mental substitutions when reading
Prostestants:

  "faith" = "Faith demonstrated by works of the Spirit prompted by love"
  "works" = "works of the flesh - wood hay and stubble"

But there is a real conflict implied in that last Luther quote, though the 
writer does not mention it.  The assumption of the writer is that Luther is
writing to the "converted", and that the hearers have been set free, and need
to "use their liberty to serve one another by love, rather than as an occasion
to the flesh."  But Luther has in mind hearers who are still in bondage to sin,
having never been set free despite having been baptized as an infant, and
growing up in the Church.

Just as the "once saved, always saved" controversy addresses the question:
How do you explain those who are apparently genuinely converted, but then turn
their back on God and are never seen to repent?

Here we must ask the related question: How do you explain those who are
properly baptized in the Church, but are apparently still living as slaves to
sin and not servants of Christ?  This is the "baptismal regeneration"
controversy.

Luther seems to be giving the "once saved always saved" explanation: those who
turn away were not truly saved.  This explanation logically requires those who
hold it to in turn reject baptismal regeneration - for there are those who are
baptized and turn away.

The Catholic explanation, on the other hand, is that the will set free
by God is so free as to be capable of "drawing back unto perdition".

The Catholic therefore sees those who are baptized as being already set
free from the bondage of sin.  Their focus is on using that freedom to
submit to God.  "Those who are baptized" would include just about everyone
in the time of Luther.  The only people "dead in sin" are those who have
"lost their salvation" by deliberately rejecting God.  Luther sees properly
baptized persons as possibly in need of regeneration.  That is as bad as those
rebaptizers!

Notice that many Protestants are in the "Lordship Salvation" camp along with
Catholics.  I believe, however, that "Once saved, always saved" is
incompatible with baptismal regeneration - unless someone can point
out a way to reconcile them.

-- 
	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.