Free Republic
Browse · Search		 Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The History of the Reformation…The Cowl (Part 6)
Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | December 5,2004 | Tom Browning

Posted on 12/04/2005 2:14:06 AM PST by HarleyD

Martin Luther entered the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits in Erfurt on July 17, 1505.1 He thought he was about to lose…he expected to lose…all contact with the outside world. He believed he was going inside never to come out again. His father believed his son had thrown his life away. But neither of those things was true. It was not, as Churchill would later say, the beginning of the end. It was rather only, “the end of the beginning.”

Luther was about to be forged in God’s furnace. He was about to be hammered out on God’s anvil. He was about to be fashioned into an instrument suitable for use in the hands of the Savior. He was about to be transformed from a timid little mouse into a roaring lion…or as Leo X would later say, a wild boar.

Now that kind of transformation is not the sort that ever takes place quickly. Men’s hearts can be changed in a moment but erasing habits and natural inclinations like the innate fear of other men takes longer….sometimes, much longer. That sort of transformation…that sort of work takes time. But that is never a concern to our God and it ought never to be a real concern or point of worry for any Christian. You see, Our God is a careful workman, a skilled craftsman. He is never in a hurry. He is never anxious about time. He invented time. Sometimes He brings men to maturity and events to fruition quickly but most of the time He is slow and methodical and when He is…we know that He knows what He is doing.

He will not…He cannot…be rushed.

I bring that up because when Luther entered the monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505, he was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg. He was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from shaking the world from a long, dark, dreamless sleep. Of course, in another sense Luther was a whole lifetime away from the door at Wittenberg and before Luther could be made up to the task…before Luther could become the kind of man God could use to start the Reformation…he had to be fashioned…fashioned into something much different than what he was.

Now I think there ought to be a word of encouragement in that for all of us.

Normally, when we believe the great events of life are acted out on a great stage. We tend to think the preparation for those involved was also acted out on a great stage. When we think of a men or women being fashioned to do great works we tend to think of great settings…we tend to think of something like a prince being prepared to lead his nation by being exposed to the wisdom and practices of a wise and kingly father…or we might think of a general being trained to lead an army by being exposed to the discipline and tradition of a West Point…but that is not always the tact our God uses. Sometimes, he uses humble settings and humble beginnings to make great men.

God allowed Moses to be trained to read and write in the courts of Pharaoh2 but Moses’ education took place on the backside of Horeb in the Sinai wilderness. It took place in a hostile environment and a time of isolation.

The Apostle Paul was raised in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel3 but his real education took place in the loneliness of the Arabian Desert.4

You see, God sometimes uses isolation and loneliness and sorrow to make a man or a woman fit for an important task.

That was the case with Moses, with David, with Paul and that was the case with Luther. Luther was about to be tossed into the forge of isolation and hammered out on the anvil of despair. And some of you have experienced the same kind of thing. Some of you are lonely. Some of you are poor or very nearly poor. Some of you are tired and yet God has given you the grace to endure and the reason for that is that He has something for you to do and for you to do what He wants to transform you into something different than what you are. And so…you are learning the lesson of the forge and the anvil.

That certainly was what was about to happen to Luther but he was unable to see it coming. He thought…he thought he was escaping from the cares of this life. Later, much later, Luther would write:

But that was years later. On July 17, 1505, Luther thought he was escaping the world. He thought going to enjoy peace and tranquility and a life of scholarship and contemplation. But God had something altogether different in mind. Go wanted to turn Luther into a man of steel. He wanted to make him impervious to criticism. He wanted to make him resistant to slander. He wanted to dull his sensitivity to the tirades of vicious and unprincipled men and the way He intended to do that was by making him a monk.

So on July 17th 1505, Luther started his journey toward becoming a monk.

Now I am making that point because simply applying and being accepted to a monastery does not make a man a monk. Not every one that sought admission was accepted. If a man was admitted, he was admitted on a trial basis as a “novice.” “Novices” were on trial or probation for a minimum of one year.

During that time, a novice’s commitment and suitability were evaluated carefully. Many men were turned out after their evaluation. Luther was not turned out. But he was not granted any sort of exception to the regular process on the basis of being a scholar either. He was first a novice…then a monk…and then a priest.

It is important to make that distinction because not every monk in the monastery was a priest.

Do you see what I mean?

Not every man in the monastery was a monk. Not every monk was a priest. There was a hierarchy. A man might remain a monk his whole life and never become a priest. Now, that would have been a little unusual but it happened. A man was first admitted a novice and then if approved allowed to take the vow of a monk. If he were approved to go on, he was allowed to become a priest.

Anyway, on July 17th, 1505, Luther was admitted as a “novice.” That meant that he had to start at the bottom and work his way up. That means he had to do all the regular grunt work regular “novices” undertook. He would have gardened. He would have worked in the kitchens. He would have cleaned latrines. But he would have also been instructed in how to pray, how to genuflect, how and when to prostrate himself, how even to walk…both novices and monks were required to walk about with their heads slightly bowed and their eyes pointed toward the ground.6

Novices wore clothing similar to that of the regular monks but it was distinguishable. They were not permitted to have visitors, to write or receive letters without permission, to care for the sick or to attend the regular gatherings of the monks without invitation. The first month in the monastery they were not permitted to speak at all. Their worlds were filled with isolation, study, confession and prayer.

Now what is so remarkable about the novice Martin Luther is that on July 17, 1505 he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He had no sense whatsoever of the glories of the doctrine of justification. He was a typical medieval Catholic and by that I mean he believed in a form of “works righteousness.” He subscribed to the popular theological maxim of the day which went like this, “Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam.” Translated it meant something like; “God will not deny his grace to the man who does his best.”7

It was the medieval equivalent of our own popular American phrase, “God helps those who help themselves.” And Luther subscribed to the whole idea…hook, line and sinker. That is, he subscribed to a view that God extends His grace to a sinner only after that sinner has done his best and the best a man could do in medieval Catholicism was to be a monk. In Luther’s view only the monks were wholly given over to God and because of their commitment to God they were much more likely to be delivered from God’s wrath.

Later, Luther would write:

Still for all the wrong-headed ideas Luther had about God and about righteousness God required to stand in His presence, God used the experience to make Luther the kind of man he wanted him to be. He did that not by adding embellishments but by stripping away everything that was not essential. I love the way D’Aubigne puts it:

Anyway, Luther endured his year’s probation. We don’t know the exact date of his being received as a monk but it was customary for the event to occur a year and day after becoming a novice. It is both funny and sad to read how the other monks resented him both as a novice and even later as a monk. They resented him because he was in every way their superior in terms of education. The Master’s Degree Luther had attained in philosophy was every bit the equivalent of a modern PhD. The other monks resented him and especially resented his love for study and for books and especially liked to drag him away from his books and to make him join them in begging for food. D’Aubigne writes this:

But as I said, he endured. Some say he was rescued by the prior of the monastery Johann Von Staupitz. At any rate, a year later, perhaps a year and a day…Luther would have been received as a full-fledged monk. The ceremony would have involved Luther being stripped of novice’s garments and being clothed in the habit designated by the order. He then would have then sworn an oath promising to live in poverty and chastity according to the rule of the Holy Father, Augustine and to render obedience to Almighty God, the Virgin Mary and the prior of the monastery.11 He would have then prostrated himself face down on the floor of the church in the form of a cross.12 He would have been sprinkled with water and would have been received as an innocent child fresh from baptism. The prior would have prayed:

Immediately afterward, Luther would have been raised up and would have joined his place in the choir. He would have been from that point on a fullfledged monk. He would have not been able to vote in the affairs of the monastery for another five years and he would have still had to report regularly an older monk. But he was a now a genuine monk and no longer a novice.

Luther returned his clothes to his family and sent his Master’s Degree ring back to the university. He had given up all contact with the outside world.

Luther was given his own room, which was called a cell. His cell was 10’2” x 7’10”, a luxurious 79 square feet.14 He had a bed, a small table, a chair, 2 woolen sheets, a pillow, a blanket and a Latin Bible. He slept in his habit.

I think it is difficult sometimes for us as Protestants this side of the Reformation to appreciate the nature of life in the monastery. It was endless and brutal time of mind-numbing routine interspersed with times of study, devotion and loneliness. Here’s what I mean. Beside all of the chores monks had to do and they had to do quite a few, they were required to pray the canonical hours. The canonical hours were prayers prayed during specific times of the day.

The day started somewhere around 4 AM with a prayer service called Matins. Matins included a series of prayers to Mary and the usual twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Maria’s.” At six a.m. there was the prayers was called “prime” because it was said during the first hour of daylight. There was another at nine a.m. That prayer was called “terce” because it occurred at the third hour and the prayer at noon was called “sext” being the sixth hour of the day. At three in the afternoon the prayer was called “nones” and at six p.m. it was called “vespers.” There was a time of prayer at bedtime, eight or nine p.m., called “compline.”15

All monks were required to pray the canonical hours. Only the theologians were allowed to pray their prayers privately. Everyone else prayed their prayers together and the prayers always included twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Marias.”16 By my count that means at least 175 “Our Fathers” and fifteen “Hail Mary’s” a day.

In addition to the canonical hours, they were required to attend Masses and say their Rosaries.

At the conclusion of the canonical hours they knelt and prayed the Salve Regina and the Ave Maria.18

Monks were also encouraged to pray the Psalter. Sometimes they were made to pray the Psalter as punishment for infractions within the order. Luther, of course, had the Psalter…that s, all of the Psalms memorized…but he later said that he had never prayed either the Psalter or the Lord’s Prayer properly in his life, which is remarkable considering how many times he prayed both.

If a monk was priest, he was, in addition, required to take his turn in saying Masses at the behest of paying sponsors and then, as I said, all of them were permitted to study, assigned manual chores and compelled to beg for their bread.

Luther said later that the rigorous asceticism very nearly killed him. He complained about stomach problems endlessly in his later life and he always believed his digestive track was ruined both by the many fasts practiced and the improper nutrition he received as a monk.20

Still, Luther was a very good monk. He tried to sleep without cover even on the coldest nights refusing to use the blanket given to him by the order because he believed his suffering was pleasing to God, perhaps even meritorious. He was faithful in his observance of the canonical hours but the reason for his faithfulness stemmed more out of fear that of gratitude. He lived in constant fear of God’s judgment. Once in September 1515, he had failed to say the canonical hours for the day because of conflicting responsibilities he had had with the graduation of several doctoral students at Wittenberg. During the night, he was awakened by the sound of an approaching thunder storm and fearing he was about to be punished, remember he had had a bad experience with a previous thunder storm, he got up in the middle of the night and caught up on his prayers.

Later in 1520, his teaching duties forced him to miss the recitation of the hours and he fell behind by a full a full quarter of a year. Luther decided to make the time to catch up by staying awake until he had caught up his prayers. D’Aubigne almost certainly referring to this particular event says that Luther stayed awake once for nearly for seven weeks non-stop trying to catch up on the canonical hours…and that the effort very nearly killed him. Now remember that was in 1520. He had nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg three years earlier in 1517. You can see that Luther’s own personal reformation did not occur all at once.

Later, Luther would write:

But it is at just that point that we must spend time if we want to understand Luther. You see, he was a good monk, a very good monk and yet he was constantly agitated and distressed over whether his righteousness or efforts at righteousness were enough. He longed for peace and assurance and yet the more he did the less certainty he felt. Each action that he took to gain peace or assurance only convinced him or at least caused him to question whether he was adequately fulfilling the obligations he had put upon himself in his vows.

He tormented his confessors, not out of any desire to make their lives miserable but rather out of a desire to adequately confess his sins. He was plagued with doubt and he felt the need to confess his sins fully. He often would leave the confessional and remember something and have to turn around and go back to a bewildered and beleaguered confessor. Once, Luther confessed his sins for six hours. He often confessed his sins every day of the week though it was required only on Fridays.

On confessor grew so tired of Luther’s preoccupation with confession that he yelled at him, saying:

Even the prior of the monastery, Von Staupitz had to tell him”

Bu the problem was that Luther had a realistic view of sin and of righteousness. If small sins are as damning as big ones. If a man’s righteous standing was based on his ability to do works of penance and if those works of penance were based on an accurate assessment of one’s sin…then a person needed to get their confession right. But, of course, it was an endless, absolutely endless, exercise in futility. No man could ever remember or even be aware of every single sin he commits and if a sin could not be recalled, it could not be confessed. Later, Luther wrote:

But you can see his obsessive awareness of his own shortcomings, of his own sinfulness, in other places as well. I think the very best place to see it is in his emotional response to saying the Mass. Now you remember last week that I told you that his father came to hear him say his first Mass. Part of the reason he did that was because two of Luther’s brothers died of the plague and because he had received a report that Luther himself had died from the plague and when he found out his son had not died, he felt ashamed of the way he had acted and came to grudgingly give Martin his approval.

Anyway, when Luther said his first Mass, he very nearly had a total meltdown. You see the church taught that when a priest consecrated the bread and wine it actually, metaphysically, became the body and blood of Jesus. When Luther consecrated the bread and wine and he believed he was holding the body of the Lord Jesus in his hands. But that was no comfort to him for he believed that the Lord Jesus was the righteous judge and only the righteous judge. When he confronted Christ in the Mass, his sin overwhelmed him. He was terrified by the holiness of Christ. Roland Bainton writes this:

Luther faltered in his speech. He stood and trembled. Afterwards, he was deeply discouraged and sought the comfort he need from his father only to have his father tell him, “Have you never read where it is written, ‘A man should honor his mother and his father.’”

Luther began to have doubts not only about his sin but about whether or not he ought even to be in the ministry. He turned to the prior of the monastery Von Staupitz. He sought his comfort. He sought his counsel. Von Staupitz wisely turned him to the mercy of Jesus and to the Bible.

Once sitting at lunch Von Staupitz asked him:

Luther replied:

Von Stupitz replied:

But Luther could not be swayed. He sank deeper and deeper into melancholy. He once failed to come out of his cell for three days and when they broke down the door Luther was incoherent and delusional. He had repented himself almost into madness.

Von Staupitz decided there were only two things that might help Luther. He believed Luther needed to visit Rome and he needed to teach the Bible. He believed that if Luther could take a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Rome and see all of the relics there it might heal his soul. He was wrong about that.

But he also believed that if Luther might begin to teach the Bible, he might gain strength and encouragement from that. He was right…absolutely right about that. We will talk more about both those things next week but let me just relate the conversation between Luther and Von Staupitz when Von Staupitz told him he was going to have to teach the Bible.

Luther shrunk at the very thought:

Von Staupitz replied:

Luther protested:

Von Staupitz replied:

Luther sighed:

Now I think we will stop right there, right there with Luther in the throes of despondency and depression. Next week we’ll pick up with him going to Rome and teaching Romans. But let me add one final thing before we stop. Later after Luther’s trial at Worms…Prince Frederick the Wise had Luther kidnapped and locked away in seclusion at the Wartburg Castle. He did that in order to save his life. There were a great many people who wanted to kill him. Luther was locked away in almost complete and total isolation for nearly two years. During that time Luther completed his translation of the German Bible. Now let me ask you what was it that prepared Luther for two years of perpetual isolation and loneliness in which he was able to give the German people their most prized possession? What was it? It was the years of preparation in the monastery at Erfurt.

What does that tell you?

I think it tells you that when life is hard…that when you suffer… our Lord Jesus is preparing us to be the kind of people that can accomplish what He wants us to do. That certainly was true for Luther and brothers and sisters I have to tell you…I think it is true for us.

Let’s pray.

1 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521, translated by James L. Schaaf, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 58.

2 NIV Acts 7:22…Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

3 NIV Acts 22:3…I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

4 NIV Galatians 1:15-18…But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

5 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 966. See note number 3039.

6 Brecht, 60.

7 Alister E. McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; reprinted 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995), 83. “The essential principle encapsulated in the axiom is that man and God have their respective roles to play in justification; when man has fulfilled his art God will subsequently fulfill his part...The medieval period saw this axiom become a dogma, part of the received tradition concerning justification. The final verbal form of the axiom can be shown to have been fixed in the twelfth century, an excellent example being provided by the Homilies of Radulphus Ardens: Est ergo, acsi dicat Dominus: Facite, quod pertinet ad vos, quia facio, quod pertinet ad inc. Ego facio, quod amicus, animam meam pro vobis ponendo; lacite et vos, quod amid, me diligendo e mandaja inca faciendo. It may, of course, be pointed out that the logic underlying Radulphus’ version of the axiom is that man should do quod in se est because Christ has already done quod in se est. In other words, Christ has placed man under an obligation to respond to him. The logic was however, generally inverted, to yield the suggestion that Godʹs action was posterior. rather than prior, to manʹs. The idea that man could, by doing what lies within him (quod in se est) place God under an obligation to reward him with grace is particularly well illustrated from the works of Stephen Langton and others influenced by him. The use of debere by an anonymous twelfth century writer in this connection is of significance: si homo facit, quod suum est, Deus debet facere, quod suum est.”

8 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 963. See note number 3036. Paraphrased slightly by me.

9 J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 16th Century, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

10 D’Aubigne, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

11 Brecht, 62.

12 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

13 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), 78.

14 Brecht, 55.

15 Brecht, 64.

16 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

17 James Tolhurst, A Concise Catechism for Catholics, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993) 63.

18 Brecht, 64.

19 Bainton, 38.

20 Bainton, 45.

21 Bainton, 45.

22 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 1. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 327. See note number 965.

23 Bainton, 42.

TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: history; luther; reformation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
The History of the Reformation-How Christ restored the gospel to his church (Part 1)

The History of the Reformation…The Goose That Became a Swan…John Huss (Part 2)

The History of the Reformation… The Morning Star of the Reformation… John Wycliffe (Part 3)

The History of the Reformation…De Haeretico Comburendo… The Lollards (Part 4)

The History of the Reformation...The Little Red Bible Chained to the Wall (Part 5)

1 posted on 12/04/2005 2:14:09 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; ...

History Ping


2 posted on 12/04/2005 2:19:43 AM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Johannes Althusius

REFORMED PING


3 posted on 12/04/2005 5:53:37 AM PST by alpha-8-25-02 ("SAVED BY GRACE AND GRACE ALONE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD
he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

You can't be a Christian without an "understanding" of the 16th century invention of the "imputed righteousness of Christ"? LOL. I guess there were no Christians before the 16th century.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man?" For who but a righteous man lawfully uses the law? Yet it is not for him that it is made, but for the unrighteous. Must then the unrighteous man, in order that he may be justified,-- that is, become a righteous man,-- lawfully use the law, to lead him, as by the schoolmaster's hands to that grace by which alone he can fulfil what the law commands? Now it is freely that he is justified thereby,--that is, on account of no antecedent merits of his own works; "otherwise grace is no more grace," since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them,-- in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law. ...

For what else does the phrase "being justified" signify than being made righteous, -- by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? (St. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, nos. 16, 45)

This article practically breathes hatred for the practice of religion and piety. A sad demonstration of the roots of the Reformation.

4 posted on 12/04/2005 7:43:47 AM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: gbcdoj; HarleyD
...invention of the "imputed righteousness of Christ"

Invention?

Either we are saved by our own righteousness or we are saved by the righteousness of God raised from the cross. Scripture speaks to the latter.

An excellent essay on whose righteousness has saved you and me is found here:

"The Immediate and Only Ground of Justification: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ" by Dr. James Buchanan (1804-1870)

"For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." -- Romans 6:10-11

This article speaks to the gracious fact that Luther's years of solitude in the monastery at Erfurt prepared him well for his two-year confinement in Wartburg Castle during which time he translated the German Bible.

As God willed, by His grace alone, for His glory alone, through Christ alone.

The torment Luther felt when he struggled to name every sin lest he forget a single one and not be rectified with God is heartrending. As a Protestant, I read this essay and understand Luther's guilt and pain and fear. And then, like Luther, I return to Scripture and realize again my sins were forgiven at Calvary, my transgressions against God were born on the back of God Himself who is the only redemption capable of paying for so much error, and that I will sit with God in heaven for eternity because of the atoning resurrection of Christ alone.

"Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that a man could stake his life on it a thousand times." -- Martin Luther

5 posted on 12/04/2005 9:46:52 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("How soon not now becomes never." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Either we are saved by our own righteousness or we are saved by the righteousness of God raised from the cross.

The ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ infused into the justified.

Imputation is a legal fiction that says that God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness, regards the ungodly as righteous without making them so. Scripture knows nothing of this concept which is based on late-medieval nominalist philosophy. St. Paul clearly regards justification as transformational, not imputed:

Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. (Rom. 5:18-20)

There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. (Rom. 8:1-4)

But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners; is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator. For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross. And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me. I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain. (Gal. 2:16-21)

Here is a segment from John Henry Newman's Lectures on Justification (written while still an Anglican) demolishing the notion of the imputed righteousness of Christ: Misuse of the Term Just or Righteous:

None but the Eternal Son, who is incommunicably like the Father, can be infinitely acceptable to Him or simply righteous. Yet in proportion as rational beings are like the Son, or partake of His excellence, so are they really righteous; in proportion as God sees His Son in them, He is well pleased with them. Righteousness is nothing else than moral goodness regarded in its intrinsic worth or acceptableness, just as love, truth, and peace, are other names for the same moral goodness, according as it is viewed in different aspects. It is love, or truth, or goodness, viewed relatively to God's judgment or approval of it; or, in words already used, it is the quality in love, truth, or goodness, of being intrinsically pleasing to Him. And, being acceptableness, it is surely as capable of being imparted to man, as love, truth, or goodness; and that in fact it is so imparted, and imparted from and through the Eternal Son, is the literal and uniform declaration of Scripture. Not only is the word "righteous" applied to Christians in Scripture, but the idea is again and again, in various ways, forced upon us. We read, for instance, of "God working in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight;" of our being "holy and without blame before Him in love;" of Christ, "who is His image," "shining" and "living" in our hearts; of His "making us accepted" or gracious "in the Beloved;" and of His "knowing what is the mind of the Spirit" in our hearts, because "He maketh intercession for the saints in God's way." [Heb. xiii. 21. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Eph. i. 4, 6. Rom. viii. 27.]

6 posted on 12/04/2005 10:47:24 AM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: Dr. Eckleburg; gbcdoj

"...invention of the "imputed righteousness of Christ"

"Invention?"

That is funny.

Here is a brief survey of Catholic "inventors":

The Catholic Hermann Volk sees imputation as an essential aspect of justification since Christ's righteousness is "reckoned" to us (see his "Imputationsgerechtigkeit" in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche [Freiburg: Herder, 1960])

Hans Küng writes that this "legal character is of fundamental signification for justification." Furthermore, as a forensic statement of the divine Judge, it involves "a declaration of justice, a court judgment, a nonreckoning of sins, and a reckoning of Christ's justice (imputation: Rom 4; Gal 3:6) through God" ("Justification and Sanctification According to the New Testament" in Christianity Divided: Protestant and Roman Catholic Theological Issues, ed. by D. Callahan, et al [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961] 315).

Other Catholic theologians, such as Ricardo Franco, see the biblical term "justification" as refering primarily to God's judicial verdict of pardon and right-standing, whereby a new relationship is initiated between the person and God, and it therefore cannot be interpreted merely as a synonym for the infusion of grace (see his "Justification" in Sacramentum Mundi, volume 3 [New York: Herder and Herder, 1969], 239-241). Franco goes on explain this verdict as the forensic application of eschatological judgment to us now, in Christ, a judgment that is not based upon us already being inherently righteous, but that is antecedent to and creative of any growth in actual righteousness.

J.P. Kenny, writing in the Catholic Dictionary of Theology (London: Nelson, 1971), says regarding "justification,"
...[Paul] interchanges it at times with the phrase "to reckon as just" (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). When used of the end-events and set in opposition to condemnation (Rom 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4) it is clearly used in a forensic sense, and sometimes it has associated with it the Jewish law-court term: "in His sight" or "before Him" (Rom 3:20; Gal 3:11). Nouns describing the act or state of justification (Rom 5:16-18) are likewise forensic. The immediate sense of the term would thus be rather a declaring just and not a making just. (175)

Catholic scholars, such as [Joseph]Fitzmyer, have come to recognize that in the LXX dikaioun seems to have a declarative, forensic sense (see Fitzmeyer's summary of Pauline theology in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary; see also Michael Schmaus' Dogma, volume 6: Justification and the Last Things [Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1977]).

Catholic scholar George Tavard appreciatively wrote,
When [the Reformers] asserted imputed justification, they wished simply to deny a justice pertaining to man; they wished to make the Pelagian distortions of sanctification impossible, to kill at the roots the idolatrous desire to sanctify oneself through an accumulation of merits...We have nothing of our own: all comes from Christ. (Protestantism [New York, 1959] 27)

These are just some of more recent "inventors" and we haven't even touched on "inventors" such as Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Thomas Aquinas.


7 posted on 12/04/2005 11:05:15 AM PST by Johannes Althusius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: Johannes Althusius
Hi Johannes,

Are you trying to prove my point? All the people you quote from are 20th century authors.

Fr. Fitzmeyer actually says that Paul uses "justify" in a transformative sense. You'd know this if you'd actually read his works instead of culling quotes from http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/theo/question.htm.

You can't seriously be suggesting that Thomas, Anselm, or Augustine would have any truck with the idea of the imputed righteousness of Christ. For starters, see the excerpts from De Spiritu et Littera which I gave above. As regards Thomas, you must be joking - his doctrine is followed very closely by Trent and Catholic theology.

8 posted on 12/04/2005 12:20:43 PM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: gbcdoj
Hi gbcdoj! Are you trying to prove my point? All the people you quote from are 20th century authors.

I did not realize your point was that 20th century Catholic theologians were forensic imputationists.

Fr. Fitzmeyer actually says that Paul uses "justify" in a transformative sense. You'd know this if you'd actually read his works instead of culling quotes from http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/theo/question.htm.

Actually I did read the work and it talks about the early Fitzmeyer and the later Fitzmeyer. Did you miss that?

As regards Thomas, you must be joking...

I guess the joke is on me since that short piece does not deny imputation but does show what always concerned we Protestants, Aquinas was a servant to Aristotle. Should I cull some Aquinas quotes to show he was in fact a true monergist? The mere mention of free will does not deny monergism.

Perhaps what is most interesting is why Trent swept under the rug the Diet of Ratisbon's doctrine of double justification. Surprisingly similar to the Reformational doctrine of Justification and Sanctification. I can think of three reasons: Money, Power, and Land.

9 posted on 12/04/2005 1:04:30 PM PST by Johannes Althusius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: Johannes Althusius
Johannes,

20th century authors supposedly supporting imputation don't disprove what I said, namely that the idea of the imputed righteousness of Christ first showed up in the 16th century. Obviously you need to quote 15th century or earlier authors to do that - which you can't.

The piece's references to early and later Fitzmeyer have to do with the place he gives to justification in Pauline theology, not with the idea of imputed righteousness. My criticism stills stands that you didn't read Fitzmeyer himself and so ended up misrepresenting him.

Thomas, unlike Protestants, doesn't denigrate reason. That doesn't make him a "servant to Aristotle". And in the article I linked you to he says: "the just, who by the fact of their justification are worthy of glory." Obviously this is not an imputed righteousness in question. Similiarly, he defines justification itself as follows: "the transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice."

As for the claim that he is "a true monergist," I assume by this term you mean "Calvinist." Nothing could be further from the truth, although you try to evade this by laughably suggesting that Calvinism is compatible with belief in free-will. Try and reconcile I-II q. 115 of the Summa Theologiae with your claim...

I can think of three reasons: Money, Power, and Land.

Or you could think of the real reason: double justification was a hacked-together compromise formula which didn't please either the Reformers or the Catholics. Try reading Fr. Jedin's history of Trent.

10 posted on 12/04/2005 1:32:09 PM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]
To: gbcdoj; HarleyD

Um, I'm having real trouble following this article. What precisely is "imputed righteousness"? I don't think I've ever heard the term. Am I correct in assuming that the term was unknown in The Church, and thus to the Fathers, prior to the Reformation?

And Harley, this line, "Now what is so remarkable about the novice Martin Luther is that on July 17, 1505 he was not even a Christian.", takien in context of the following lines am I correct in concluding that the author is speaking of the Western notion of a tension between "works" and "faith"?


11 posted on 12/04/2005 2:20:26 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Kolokotronis
Kolokotronis,

"Imputed Righteousness" is the key Protestant idea in interpreting certain passages of +Paul about justification. Here is as good an example of it as any. The theory goes like this: on the Cross, God counted Jesus as a sinner, and punished him for our sins. Now, in justifying us, God imputes or reckons us as righteous on the basis of Jesus' righteousness, although we remain unrighteous.

For a scholarly discussion of Western ideas on Justification, both Catholic and Protestant, I can't recommend highly enough Newman's Lectures on Justification. Here's how he describes it:

This, however, is denied by the majority of Protestant divines, who grant indeed that we are made righteous, yet, not righteous, as He is righteous, but in an entirely different sense, as distinct from what is meant by His righteousness, as foresight or ingenuity, as possessed by brute animals, differs from the same properties when belonging to rational beings; Christ's righteousness having intrinsic excellence, ours, though the work of the Spirit, being supposed to have none. This they maintain; and as if distinctions would serve instead of proof, they lay down, as a principle to start with, that there are two kinds of righteousness, the righteousness of justification, or intrinsic acceptableness, which Christ alone has, and the righteousness of sanctification, which is the Christian's. Now, then, let us consider the principle of interpretation which such a distinction involves. (pp. 108-9)

12 posted on 12/04/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: Kolokotronis; gbcdoj
Protestants believe in imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is simply the moment we believe and become "new creatures in Christ" all sins (past, present and future) are forgiven by God and we become "heirs of God" (Gal 3:29) and not "children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-10). That is not to say Christians do not go on sinning but we are no longer "slaves to sin" but "slaves to righteousness" (Rom 6).

Protestants believe that a true Christian is one who is truly changed by God. They no longer have a desire to sin but a true desire to seek after the things of God.

Roman Catholics believe in infused righteousness. God makes you right the moment you are baptized. Since we continue to sin, God's grace must be refreshed through various sacraments. Many see this (I suspect the author does) as a works based religion. However, it is unclear from the article if the author is critical of the Roman Catholic Church as a works-based institution or if Martin Luther believed in salvation by works.

13 posted on 12/04/2005 3:15:19 PM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: gbcdoj

I read the Protestant tract. I guess I have nothing to say about it.

Thank you for the link to Cardinal Newman. I've bookmarked it and will start reading it tomorrow. I did see this at page 104:

"PLAINER words can hardly be found than those of Scripture itself, to express the doctrine I have been insisting on. Christ, who is the Well-beloved, All-powerful Son of God, is possessed by every Christian as a Saviour in the full meaning of that title, or becomes to us righteousness; and in and after so becoming, really communicates a measure, and a continually increasing, measure, of what He is Himself. In the words of the Apostle, "We are complete in Him," and again, of the Evangelist, "Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." He makes us gradually and eventually to be in our own persons, what He has been from eternity in Himself, what He is from our Baptism towards us, righteous. That acceptableness, which He has ever had in the Father's sight, as being the reflection of the Father's perfections, He first imputes, then imparts to us."

Excellent description of the process of theosis. It is of course the Holy Spirit which dwells within us and leads us more and more to die to the self and become focused on Christ. "For the Son of God became Man so that we might become God".

I look forward to reading the Cardinal. But I'm still not sure what this imputed righteousness stuff is. I am assuming that it isn;t anything like our concept of theosis at all, either in "process" or "end product". It is, my friend, very "foreign" to my thinking.


14 posted on 12/04/2005 3:19:33 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD; gbcdoj

"Imputed righteousness is simply the moment we believe and become "new creatures in Christ" all sins (past, present and future) are forgiven by God and we become "heirs of God" (Gal 3:29) and not "children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-10)"

And this happens, I take it, all at once?


15 posted on 12/04/2005 3:33:09 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD

BTTT


16 posted on 12/04/2005 5:29:44 PM PST by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Kolokotronis; gbcdoj
And this happens, I take it, all at once?

There is some discussion as to what is called the "Order of Salvation" (Ordo Salutis). In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is

Steps 1 and 2 happened before the foundations of the world. Most people believe steps 3 through 7 happens almost instantantiously. I'm probably the only one who believes steps 3 through 7 could happen over years like Abraham, days like Cornelius, or moments like Paul.

We continue to be sanctified (step 8) throughout the rest of our lifes. And we will be glorified (step 9) someday.

17 posted on 12/04/2005 6:20:22 PM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD

Once you are "justified", can you lapse back, fall off the ladder so to speak?


18 posted on 12/04/2005 6:26:37 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]
To: Kolokotronis
Once you are "justified", can you lapse back, fall off the ladder so to speak?

Short answer, no.

19 posted on 12/04/2005 7:40:31 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: Kolokotronis; HarleyD; Johannes Althusius
What precisely is "imputed righteousness"?

We are not saved by our own righteousness, of which we have none.

We are saved by the righteousness of Christ. As sons of Adam, we have died with Christ on the Cross and have been reborn into the family of God by His mercy alone.

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19

"For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." -- 2 Corinthians 4:11


20 posted on 12/04/2005 11:42:03 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("How soon not now becomes never." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search		 Religion
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson