No Compromise with Rome

Reformation INK ^ | Unknown | Martin Luther

[fortheDeclaration]

No Compromise Between The Church and Rome

by Martin Luther (1483-1546)

The following article has been extracted from volume VIII of, The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). This was a section of a sermon based on Col. 1:3-14 titled "Knowledge of God's Will and Its Fruits," (sections 26-30 presented here). It was later published in english in 1905 by The Luther Press (Minneapolis, MN), in Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 14 (later republished by Baker Books, Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5). This e-text was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink; it is in the public domain and it may be copied and distributed without restriction. Original pagination from the Baker edition has been kept intact for purposes of reference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER, VOL. VIII

The world at the present time is sagaciously discussing how to quell the controversy and strife over doctrine and faith, and how to effect a compromise between the Church and the Papacy. Let the learned, the wise, it is said, bishops, emperor and princes, arbitrate. Each side can easily yield something, and it is better to concede some things which can be construed according to individual interpretation, than that so much persecution, bloodshed, war, and terrible, endless dissension and destruction be permitted. Here is lack of understanding, for understanding proves by the Word that such patchwork is not according to God's will, but that doctrine, faith and worship must be preserved pure and unadulterated; there must be no mingling with human nonsense, human opinions or wisdom. The Scriptures give us this rule: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

We must not, then, regard nor follow the counsels of human wisdom, but must keep ever before us God's will as revealed by his Word; we are to abide by that for death or life, for evil or good. If war or other calamity results complain to him who wills and commands us to teach and believe our doctrine. The calamity is not of our effecting; we have not originated it. And we are not required to prove by argument whether or no God's will is right and to be obeyed. If he wills to permit persecution and other evils to arise in consequence of our teaching, for the trial and experience of true Christians and for the punishment of the ungrateful, let them come; and if not, his hand is doubtless strong enough to defend and preserve his cause from destruction, that man may know the events to be of his ordering. And so, praise his name, he has done in our case. He has supported us against the strong desires of our adversaries. Had we yielded and obeyed them, we would have been drawn into their falsehood and destruction. And God will still support us if we deal uprightly and faithfully in these requirements, if we further and honor the Word of God, and be not unthankful nor seek things that counterfeit God's Word.

So much by way of explaining what Paul means by wisdom and understanding to know the will of God, and by way of teaching the necessity of having both wisdom and understanding. For not only must the doctrine where by wisdom is imparted be inculcated in Christendom, but there is also need for admonition and exhortation concerning that understanding necessary to preserve wisdom, and [or defense in strife and conflict. Were not these principles exercised and inculcated in us, we would be deceived by false wisdom and vain imaginations, and would accept their gloss and glitter for pure gold, as many in the Church have ever done.

The Galatians had received from Paul the wisdom of justification before God by faith in Christ alone. Nevertheless, inspite of that knowledge, they were deceived and would have lost their wisdom altogether through the claim of the false prophets that the God given Law must be observed, had not Paul aroused their understanding at this point and brought them back from error. The Corinthians were taught by their spiritual wisdom the article of Christian liberty; they knew that sacrifices to idols are nothing. But they failed in this respect: they proceeded without understanding, and made carnal use of their liberty, contrary to wisdom and offending others. Therefore Paul had to remind them of their departure from his doctrine and wisdom.

The Scriptures record many instances of failure in this matter of understanding. A notable one is found in the thirteenth chapter of First Kings. A man of God from the kingdom of Judah, who had in the presence of King Jeroboam openly denounced the idolatry instituted by the king, and had confirmed his preaching and prophecy by a miracle, was commanded by God not under any circumstances to abide in the place whither he had gone to prophesy, nor to eat and drink there. He was to go straight home by another way than the route he had come. Yet on the way homeward he allowed himself to be persuaded by another prophet, one who falsely claimed to have a revelation from God, by an angel, commanding him to take the man of God to his home and give him to eat and drink. While they sat together at the table the Word of the Lord came to the inviting prophet and under its inspiration he told the other that he should not reach home alive. The latter, departing on his journey, was killed on the way by a lion, which remained standing by the body and the ass the man of God had ridden, not touching them further, until the old prophet came and found them. He brought the body home on the ass and buried it, commanding that after his own death he should be laid in the same grave. Such was God's punishment of the prophet who allowed himself to be deceived and obeyed not God's express command. However, his soul suffered not harm, as God testified by the fact the lion did not devour his body but defended it. Now, in what was the prophet lacking? Not in wisdom, for he had the Word of God. He lacked in understanding, allowing himself to be deceived when the other man declared himself a prophet whom the angel of the Lord had instructed. The man of God should have abided by the word given to him, and have said to the other: "You may be a prophet, indeed, but God has commanded me to do this thing. Of that I am certain and I will be governed by it. I will regard no conflicting order, be it in the name of an angel or of God."

[fortheDeclaration]

The Galatians had received from Paul the wisdom of justification before God by faith in Christ alone. Paul never said "alone." In reality, the only time “alone” appears with the word “faith” in the original Greek text is in James 2:24 where it says we are not saved by faith alone.

Actually, I did not say that it was faith 'alone' I said it was in faith in Christ alone.

In other words, no 'wafer'gods, Mary gods or Pope gods'

Justification is said to be without works in Gal.3:16, hence 'alone'.

James has to do with how man sees our faith, not whether we were saved by it (James 3:14-2)

[Woodkirk]

Try to remember this when you begin to question the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD" [John 1:1]

Now, how many Gods are there? Note also that it is WORD singular [not Words plural]. The Scripture from "In the beginning" to "Amen" is, in God's eyes, one long complete finished WORD. God and His Word are one and inseparable.

[winstonchurchill]

In other words, no 'wafer'gods, Mary gods or Pope gods'.

Boy, you are firing on all cylinders this morning.

What is interesting about your post is that Luther refused to reconcile with Zwingli on Zwingli's (proper) 'remembrance' view of the Lord's Supper (as opposed to Luther's 'consubstantiation' -- whatever that means) because Luther held out hope of reconciling with the RCC and felt that Rome could never be completely reformed to the Scriptural view in one step. He felt that his 'compromise' with their 'wafer god' (as you so aptly put it) was a necessary concession to 'compromise'.

Obviously, it didn't work and the RCC marched on in their multiple errors and the poor Lutherans were left with a Scripturally indefensible doctrine.

[fortheDeclaration]

Obviously, it didn't work and the RCC marched on in their multiple errors and the poor Lutherans were left with a Scripturally indefensible doctrine.

Amen!

But I believe that the Lutherans have rejected consubstantiation and have moved toward the Calvinistic approach.

That was where Melanchthon was moving.

Maybe some of the Lutheran brethren could clarify their views on the subject.

[editor-surveyor]

Wafer-god bump :o)

[WriteOn]

Quoting Paul with reference to the context is an exercise in schism. Paul contrasts Faith with the Law (works). As such his emphasis on faith is to counter the influence of the Mosaic influence of his listeners, particularly the Galatians. For anyone to read that and think the he means Faith alone, when he clearly means faith versus the Law of Moses is a great error. Justification is said to be without works in Gal.3:16, hence 'alone' I have to say again, that you and Luther are both adding the "alone." It is not Paul's meaning. How could it be when God himself emphasizes the works of the Good Samaritan, the charity of the Widow's Mite, etc. You are lost if you believe in Faith Alone.

[WriteOn]

Well I'm glad I can make you smile. :-) Luther's misrepresentation/mistranslation was a bigger deal than Scott's (lol.) But I take your point.

[WriteOn]

It's not an either/or situation. Read the good samaritan, the Widow's Mite. Faith comes first, Charity is the next step.

[maestro]

Thank you again for posting!

Maranatha!

[RnMomof7]

You are lost if you believe in Faith Alone.

So God is your debtor. He owes you BIG time huh?

[RnMomof7]

I have enjoyed our exchange that was not meant as sarcasm ...just a nudge:>)

[WriteOn]

No. I owe him BIG time. I know that it is not enough to have accepted him into my heart that I must live for him, follow him, make him my King, follow his precepts. I cannot talk the talk without walking the walk. Faith is only the beginning of coming to know Jesus. Faith without works is dead.

[WriteOn]

Before I continue to go on about this. Here's a link to James Akin on Justification by Faith Alone versus salvation sola gratia.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

Is your position(s) sola fide formata or sola fide informis? If it's sola fide formata, I'll go away...

[fortheDeclaration]

Thank you for the link, the post was quite interesting.

My Protestant brethren are going to be quite amazed that the Roman Church believes in Sola Fide (formata)

Two interesting things in this.

One the Romanists have always jumped up and down when the word alone was mentioned.

That word is never used they say (Luther wrote in the margin of his Bible) so the concept is a false one.

Now, it seems that the RCC held to it all along!

Second, no object (Christ alone) of the faith is mentioned (and this is the issue in James).

Thus, according to Rome, salvation comes through the Roman Church and not be faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ and His blood atonement (Rom.3:25, Eph.2:8-9)

The issue that you raise between formata and informis is one debated on the Lordship issue between Protestants (what faith is and is not)

If you are saying that if one can have such a sola fide formata faith outside of the RCC (and its Sacraments) then you are saying one can saved without the RCC.

Is that what you are saying?

As for my personal view on the difference between the two, someone who comes to the point of salvation is under conviction by the Holy Spirit and has the Gospel revealed to him, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for his sins (1Cor.15:3-5) and must place his confidence in the shed blood of Christ for his eternal salvation.

If he does that he will be saved, and will have assurance of that salvation (1Jn.5:13).

He can only be saved if he is totally and completely trusting in the work and person of Christ and not anything he can do to 'help' God (e.g. take Sacraments like Baptism, Communion)

[fortheDeclaration]

Quoting Paul with reference to the context is an exercise in schism. Paul contrasts Faith with the Law (works). As such his emphasis on faith is to counter the influence of the Mosaic influence of his listeners, particularly the Galatians. For anyone to read that and think the he means Faith alone, when he clearly means faith versus the Law of Moses is a great error. Justification is said to be without works in Gal.3:16, hence 'alone' I have to say again, that you and Luther are both adding the "alone." It is not Paul's meaning. How could it be when God himself emphasizes the works of the Good Samaritan, the charity of the Widow's Mite, etc. You are lost if you believe in Faith Alone.

Charity is the result of Faith (Gal.5:22-23)

Moreover, what Luther was saying was salvation did not come through a church, or a sacrament but by faith in the saving work of Christ.

Now, under any definition I would say that he meant alone without works, or merit (Eph.2:9)

If someone who is a Roman Catholic believes that he will be saved also.

if however, he is depending on anything else (baptism, communion) to be saved with, he is not saved.

This is no different for a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, who add works to be saved (baptism, join a church etc)

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen brother! Thank you!

[narses]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

[fortheDeclaration]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

No, the 'rebellious monk' understood very well.

It was his 'rebellion' that led millions out of darkness, despite Roman resistance.

As for the lost between the Crucifixion and Luther, there were always those who were resisting Roman falsehoods (Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites) but it was God's timing to have Luther finally break the yoke.

My concern is for the millions of Roman Catholics still depending on a church to save them and not the Atoning work of Christ.

[RochesterFan]

Your #34 was well put! Good summary of the Good News!

[RochesterFan]

And all those poor souls who must have been lost between the Crucifixion and Martin Luther's rebellion because he said Rome was wrong, was that just too bad, or could it be that the rebellious little monk simply didn't understand?

No, the rebellious little monk understood all too well. He recognized and condemned the false teachers who were selling indulgences, misleading people into believing that they could buy favor with God. How many tons of pieces of the "true cross" were sold gullible sheep? What did the blind shepherds do to stop it? Luther understood the complete and utter wretchedness of the natural man, in bondage to his own will and a slave to sin and death. He understood that Aquinas was wrong when he concluded that the intellect was unscathed by the Fall and that reason alone could lead man to God. In short, the rebellious little monk found God's truth in God's Word and proclaimed the Good News to a lost world who desperately needed to hear it.