[Apologetics] Re: Three Anti-Social Doctrines of Luther

[Stuart D. Gathman]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Marty Rothwell wrote:

> If all you say about Luther is true, then why did he ever leave the Church?

Because he was an antagonistic SOB, and so were some of his enemies.

> Do I understnad you to say that Luther's and Catholicism definition of faith
> are identical!?  

NO!!  You missed the point completely!  It is because their definitions
are completely different that both sides do not understand what the
other is saying.  OTOH, your next sentence suggests that what you really
meant to say was that I am saying their *concepts* were similar
although different words were used.

> Why then did Luther feel he had to create a whole new
> doctrine on justification by faith alone to critique the notion of faith +
> works, if all he meant was faith alone = faith + works?  What idiot alive
> then couldn't have seen that the only thing going on was a battle over
> words?

Because Luther had never understood the Gospel in the words the that Church
was framing it at the time.  Millions of others were not getting it
either - the classic vocabulary was not working for large portions of
the Church.  When he finally "got it" - it was with a new vocabulary.
His new description of the old old story meant spiritual freedom for so many
who were in bondage to "dead works" (as opposed to the "living works" 
actually preached by the Church, but not understood).  No wonder they
were willing to burn at the stake rather than recant their new 
relationship with the Living God - just as Thomas Merton was willing
to be executed by Henry VIII rather than deny the truth.

It would have taken a wise individual to realize that a failure of the
Church to communicate the Gospel, did not necessarily mean that the
Church had a false Gospel.

I an not a historian, but I suspect there were some individuals who realized
this - but were shouted down with all the underlying political movement
in Germany to become independent of the Pope.  The Reformation became
the tool of a political revolution.

> Why did Luther reject James if he didn't think James clearly disagreed with
> his new concept of justification?

Because Luther had a definition of "faith" in mind (fide formata) that was
incompatible with the sense in which it is used in James (fide informis).
Later, after he cooled down and realized that words are often used in 
different senses in different contexts, he grudgingly allowed James back in.

> I know that we have a Lutheran - Catholic understanding of justification
> now, but we never could have done it with Luther himself, because Luther had
> different beliefs than Lutherans do now.

I do not think the beliefs are much different.  I think that Luthers 
antagonistic personality and the political situation (not to mention
some corruption in the Church) made rational discourse difficult.

> I understand that many things between Catholic and Protestants can be
> resolved once you understand the terms, but to say that deep down Luther had
> the same concept of justification as Catholics (and even Lutherans today) is
> just incorrect.

You haven't convinced me.  The Luther quotes resonated very strongly
with me, and I recognized their truth.  For that, I thank the writer
of the Luther article.  I had only heard the "sin boldly" phrase taken
out of context before.  It makes perfect sense in context.

-- 
	      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.