Justification is the big topic for the Reformers. Here the Confession dissents from some Roman Catholic thought of the period, which culminated in the Council of Trent formally rejecting the Augsburg Confession on this point.
Augsburg Confession IV
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
So we see in this short Confessional statement the Lutheran commitment to justification through faith alone, received passively by us as a gift of God for Christ's sake and because of Christ's merits. We also see here the clear rejection of justification by works or merit.
Ultimately, while indulgences jump started Luther and drove his hammer into the door at the Wittenberg church, justification was the most important topic in the Reformation. The question as to how a person can be right with God is a pretty big deal. Rome answered that a person contributes to their right standing with God through their actions and good deeds. Luther flatly rejected this, saying that justification is a free gift given by God by His grace alone.
Here is the topic that we must continue to fight for in the church and continues to be the article on which the church stands or falls. Either Christ justifies us freely for His sake and we are receivers of this gift or we are something else entirely.
Let us not, however, downplay the importance of good works in the Christian life. Martin Luther never rejected that. He was no antinomian. Likewise today, we still have the same Confessions and we certainly uphold good works in the Christian life.
For more reading on this topic check out the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV. It's a long read, but it's worth going through. This is the Confessional response the Lutherans made to Rome's rejection of Article IV of the Augsburg Confession.
During the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s, a familiar term regarding salvation was "sola fide," Latin for "by faith alone." The reformers, at that time, accused the Catholic Church of departing from the "simple purity of the Gospel" of Jesus Christ. They stated it was faith alone, without works of any kind, that brought a believer to eternal life. They defined this faith as "the confidence of man, associated with the certainty of salvation, because the merciful Father will forgive sins because of Christ's sake."
ReplyDeleteThis view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church's teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.
All who claim the title "Christian" will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.
The Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). Yet is faith nothing more than believing and trusting? Searching the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). These points appeared to be missed by the reformers, yet they are just as crucial as believing and trusting. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) should be heeded by all it's certainly an attention grabber.
Paul speaks of faith as a life-long process, never as a one-time experience (Philippians 2:12). He never assumes he has nothing to worry about. If he did, his words in (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) would be nonsensical. He reiterates the same point again in his second letter to Corinth (2 Corinthians 13:5). He takes nothing for granted, yet all would agree if anyone was "born again" it certainly was Paul. Our Lord and Savior spoke of the same thing by "remaining in Him" (John 15:1-11).
Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.
Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
...continued below...
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church has never taught we "earn" our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
The reformer's position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.
Bottom line: the only way to obtain "sola fide" as true Christian teaching is to rip the entire Epistle of James from your Bible. And that is exactly what Martin Luther wanted to do...
ReplyDeleteSounds like you don't understand the Confessional Lutheran position on this topic. Most Roman Catholics don't and have indeed been taught an ugly caricature of our position.
ReplyDeleteIn 1542 only 4 years before his death Luther wrote, "We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn't amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, "Wait a moment! I'll oppose them and urge works alone.'"
ReplyDeleteLW54,424-425
I believe that your Catholic friend, has a point, Andrew. I personally think that Romans and James are irreconcilable. It is as if Jewish Christians wrote James and had one concept of justification, based on the teachings of Jesus who always based heavenly reward on deeds, not belief, and Romans written by Paul for Pauline Gentile Christians following Paul's new version of Jesus' teachings.
ReplyDeleteGary, with all due respect, an agnostic's opinion on Scripture is completely irrelevant. Luther was wrong about James in that case. That being said, when he called it an epistle of straw, he was simply stating that there is really very little to no Gospel in James.
ReplyDeleteWhen I have some time I will answer the anonymous Roman Catholic.
I think that Romans and James appear to be irreconcilable...because they are. One was written by Jewish Christians, followers of James, the brother of Jesus, and one by Gentile Christian, followers of Paul.
ReplyDeleteI will bet that James was more familiar with Jesus' teaching than was Paul. Paul doesn't seem to know anything at all about the historical Jesus. He talks a lot about Christ, but hardly any details at all about Jesus of Nazareth. Isn't that odd? It is as if the Christ of Paul is Paul's invention, concocted during one of his visions.
This is what I mean. This comment is just a silly rant. You're not dealing with any issue whatsoever here. You're just spewing.
DeleteThe things that people come up with...SMH...
ReplyDeleteYou're turning into a troll Gary.
If you don't want me to comment on your blog, just say so.
DeleteI don't mind you commenting, but it seems that you will try to twist anything to either a) suit your agnostic agenda (in which truth can't exist anyways, so it's kind of ironic), or b) take sides with someone who opposes you just as much as I do just to disagree with this blog and its authors.
DeleteSay something of value. Eventually.