No Compromise with Rome

Reformation INK ^ | Unknown | Martin Luther

[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.