Posted on 03/05/2008 8:13:07 PM PST by Dajjal
Purgatory.
Couple more for your reading pleasure! :)
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
That's not actually what happened, though. In fact, very few indulgences were attached to monetary contributions, and not all of those were abused like Tetzel did in Germany.
How do you believe they were degraded almost entirely?
This is not a bad definition at all. It's very close to what the Church actually teaches, not what the Church is purported to teach.
However, man, even though he have faith and the fruit of good works, can simply choose to stop doing good works. If good works are the fruit of faith, then the implication is that faith is only efficacious if mankind cooperates in doing good works. Thus, since good works are still an act of the free will, without works, there can be no evidence of faith. Faith cannot impose the fruit of good works on man. Faith predisposes us with the grace to do good works, but leaves our free will in tact. If we reject those graces by refusing to cooperate, then we reject faith. Thus, if you do no good works, you have no faith, and consequently, no salvation.
Works do not merit us heaven. Faith does. But one cannot be in possession of faith if he rejects the grace that causes us to do good works.
It also never says you have to have others critique your good works or that you have to meet someone else’s standards or criteria of how much ‘works’ are ‘enough’ (ie legalism).
If someone has to "choose" to accept Christ as their Savior, that, by definition, is a work of free will and a criterion of what it takes to be "born again", so there are standards in Protestantism as well, if I'm not mistaken.
Ironically (or not ironically), Luther also wanted to eliminate the Letter of James and Revelation because of his opposition to "works" and "the communion of saints". Since he had nothing to hide behind - such as translation differences - he was deterred on that account.
Additionally, in getting rid of 2 Maccabees, Luther also got rid of incontrovertible Scriptural prophecy concerning the bodily Resurrection of Christ and of all the faithful.
Not if it conflicts with their Tradition.
Some flavors of Protestanism may teach that, but Luther isn't the source of it. We become "born again" if Christ chooses us. "Free will" may cause us to reject the gift of Grace, but if someone is "born again" it is through the work of Christ & Christ alone.
It’s my understanding that the split was caused as much from the political/economical pressures of the time as it was by the differences published by Luther. If not more.
At the very least, all Christians owe a debt of gratitude to Luther for being the first to insist that the Scriptures should be presented to the common man in their own language. Without this first step, only scholars would truly have access to God’s Word. Inevitably, had Luther not translated the Bible someone else would have, but regardless of your thoughts on his doctrine, he was the first.
Thank God!
MB
Please note I was quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I guess Martin Luther’s extreme and vile hatred of Jews doesn’t matter.
To some, that is all that matters.
That would appear to be the one sentiment he did have in common with the Catholic Church.
I love arch-conservative hardliners.
Where's that in the Bible? Didn't Jesus say that the weeds would grow up among the wheat, only to be burned up at the harvest? Didn't Jesus pray that all Christians be one as He and the Father are one?
Did a search on "faith alone" and found this.
James 2:24Sola Scriptura, when you get down to it, is really just Sola Luthera, or Sola Joe Protestant. Interestingly enough, Luther's novel doctrine of "the Bible alone" isn't in the Bible.You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Only interesting to those who think "the Bible alone" was Luther's. It wasn't.
Truth and error mix like oil and water. Read Paul’s books on attempting to correct a brother who is in error. If after all the prior steps will not give up their error, you must separate from them. This is the basis for excommunication and for the idea of ‘keeping the faith’. They were having this problem in Paul’s day (ie people preaching a different Gospel that Paul preached, people openly commiting sexual sins that they would not stop doing, etc).
God wants Christians to have a genuine union because they are of one mind, and one in truth. You cannot have that kind of union when one of the two is in error.
I pray all Christians would be in genuine union and all know the truth. Where we may disagree is that I don’t think this means that we all have to be part of the Roman Catholic Church or believe what the RCC teaches.
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.