A Matter of Character

Listening to The Lutheran Hour (a half hour program on the radio presented every Sunday by one of our local Lutheran churches) on September 30, 2018 to a sermon entitled Cut Off -- For Us - I am compelled again to respond, and my theme (comparing to other Lutheran Hour responses) remains the same - while the underlying message is true - there is a fundamental flaw which could, in fact, lead to "losing our reward," as this sermon refers to.

I will quote portions of the sermon so you can see the context. It is also found in whole here: https://www.lutheranhour.org/sermon.asp?articleid=31709

Text: Mark 9:38-50 Have you ever seen a post on Facebook and said to yourself, "Oh, that's not smart"? One of the challenges that can confront people today as they enter the job market is their digital footprint. Posts on Instagram, Facebook, and other social media sites follow people into the application process and even into personal interviews. Folks are sometimes surprised to find that prospective employers have searched their online postings as a part of the hiring process. What was posted in fun can have serious effects on a person's employment! Why would a prospective employer go to the trouble of investigating materials that have nothing directly to do with the potential employee? Plain and simple--it's about character.

sw: I must say, I am often struck with how "right on" the speakers on The Lutheran Hour are much of the time - and this is no exception. What we say or post on the Internet can have an effect on potential employment.

What is more, He uses the occasion to teach the disciples once again what the kingdom of God is really about. While they argue among themselves about who is going to be first in Christ's kingdom, He steers them back to the focus of work in His kingdom: "And He sat down and called the twelve. And He said to them, 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all'" (Mark 9:35). Then Jesus takes a child into His arms and says that whoever receives this child receives Him, and whoever receives Him receives His Father, the One who had sent Jesus. Then Jesus goes on to say: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42). This is serious stuff for the Twelve!

sw: And this is case in point where "the message" is really right on the mark, this is "this is serious stuff" for ALL of us - as Dr. Rast goes on to say...

And it is also serious for you and for me. Have you ever caused one of Christ's little ones--youthful or otherwise--to sin? Indeed, you have, whether you realize it or not--and I have, too. Thus, if you really take Jesus' words seriously, you and I are next in line for a pair of cement shoes and an all-too-brief swim in the harbor. Let's be honest with one another--and with God: how seriously do we really take our caring for others? Do we really put others first, or do we serve ourselves, just like the power-hungry disciples?

sw: I don't know where this "power-hungry" comment comes from - but the statement about "causing one of Christ's little ones - youthful or otherwise--to sin" rings absolutely true. From a certain perspective, ALL Christians can be considered "Christ's little ones" as we are all considered children of God.

But in all honesty, while the first two are pretty straightforward: that is, communicate the faith of the church as taught by the Bible and confessed by the Lutheran Confessions; and share that with people who do not know Jesus both here in the United States and throughout the world, it is the latter where we find the challenge. Where we--where I-- struggle, is in caring for all. This is a basic human challenge--and often it degenerates into sin. For either we fail to care for those in need or, worse, actually harm them by our words and deeds. In so doing we show we disregard God's commands for us, refusing to share even "a cup of water to drink" with those in need and, as a result, we should "lose (our) reward." "Losing our reward" is a terrifying prospect. Much more than a foolish social media post, your sinfulness and mine cuts us off from God by destroying our relationship with Him. Further, it disrupts all our relationships with family and friends. And it threatens to leave us eternally separated from God. This is indeed serious, serious stuff!

sw: Yes! Indeed this is "serious stuff!" Now, consider that starting with Luther himself, the whole Lutheran movement is causal to literally millions falling from the grace which Jesus Christ Himself provided for His People - the Church. This is no small matter! Whereas the Lutheran Church has similar beliefs to Catholicism in many ways, there are serious flaws to the concept of the schism of Lutheranism. Most notable, we look to the "Four Marks" of the Catholic Church, which are, ironically, still professed in most - if not all - Lutheran churches throughout the world. Those "Four Marks" are, "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic."

sw: Lutheranism itself is not "One," as there are several "synods" of the Lutheran Church - which do not blanketly accept others - even other Lutherans. Anecdotally, when my family moved from one part of town to another, we went from a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS, same synod which produces The Lutheran Hour) to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and before they would allow our family to participate in Holy Communion, we had to meet with the pastor and be interrogated regarding our faith. We "passed" and were "accepted," but I felt very strange and even a bit offended that as "fellow Lutherans" we had to go through this.

sw: "Holy" is arguable. While I do believe there is a good measure of holiness in the Lutheran Church, can they really be considered "holy" if they are part of what broke apart the Christian Church in the 16th century and continue to be separated to this day? This could be argued as quite "unholy."

sw: Lutheranism is not "Catholic" nor even "catholic." The term meaning "universal," cannot be applied to Lutheranism for they, while being in many parts of the world, are not a universal church - nor do I believe they would literally claim this "mark." Now again, as a former Lutheran, I do concede they do claim this "mark" with the lower-case "c" - implying they belong to the universal belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, this watered down representation of the term cannot be what the writer(s) of the Nicene Creed had in mind because it specifically expresses belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH. Another point I would add - of the major Lutheran synods, only the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) retains the word "catholic" - the others using a mistranslation here choosing to use the word "Christian."

sw: Lutheranism is not Apostolic - for in breaking with the Catholic Church they have lost their link to the line of bishops. Lutheran bishops (yes they do exist) do not have a valid consecration to the bishoprick - and thus have no valid claim to the "mark" of "apostolic."

God's Word challenges us to take sin seriously by showing us the grave consequences that it has. And it demands that we address it with absolute earnestness: "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched'" (Mark 9:43-48). If we really took these verses literally, every one of us would be affected. For our hands rarely help others; our feet move slowly for the Lord's service; and our eyes too often serve as an opening for all kinds of uncleanness to come into us.

Yes! We should take this seriously - and that is part of why I post this Missed it By That Much series. While I have deep rooted love and respect for Lutherans (having spent 20 years as one myself), I also have deep concern that they have missed the mark, "by that much." As Dr. Rast stated above, we need to "address it with absolute earnestness." Anything less than this and we may be judged as "lukewarm" because we got comfortable with the way someone preaches or the people in the congregation. 
Matthew 7:20-25

20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

Matthew 16:18

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (rock); and upon this rock I will build my church

Revelation 3:14-16

14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

sw: So ask yourself - are you seeking the ultimate truth with absolute earnestness, as even Dr. Rast encourages you to do? Do you believe Jesus waited 1500 years for Luther to come around before He built His Church? Dr. Rast next challenges his listeners (and readers) with the hyperbole of "What should we do--begin the amputations?" While that is a bit hyperbolic, it is true! If you have a cancer, you cut it out - why? Because the cancer can kill the rest of your body if you let it stay. Being content with a portion of the Truth is just as deadly, spiritually speaking, for the lukewarm Jesus will spit from His mouth and say to them, "Depart from Me for I never knew you." Pretty stern words, and keep in mind - the lukewarm are people who THINK they are following Jesus, they even claim to prophesied and cast out devils in His name - but they find themselves cast out!  Don't be satisfied just because you have found a pleasant pastor or made some good friends - what good will these do you when you are cast out of Heaven? What does a bit of good feeling do here in this temporal state we are in if it does not bring us to eternity with Him?

sw: Don't just take my word for it - study for yourself. Be open to hearing/reading the whole Truth, and do not be complacent with a comfortable niche - and remember, "Wise men still seek Him." Never stop seeking Him!

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Reminder: If you like what you read here - click one of the "Like" and/or "Share" buttons below!

Luther on the Immaculate Conception (2)

OK, James Swan and I have been going back and forth regarding Luther’s belief in the Immaculate Conception (IC).  Now, I have conceded that there IS ROOM for the anti-IC believer to believe that Luther in his later life rejected the IC - but there can be no denying in his earlier life as a Catholic and well into the time he schismed from the Catholic Faith - that he did indeed believe and profess a belief in the IC compatible with the 1854 dogmatic definition.  James includes in his commentary a link to a Lutheran pastor who echos what I've been saying here regarding Luther continuing to mention the Immaculate Conception right up till the time of his death.

      Now it seems we’re repeating ourselves, so unless something significant comes up, I expect this to be my last posting to him on this matter.   Swan accuses me of not looking at all the context he’s provided, which is a false accusation.  For this response I will quote everything from his recent comments which includes the context he believes I am either not seeing or ignoring.

 James Swan said...

sw: James, why make a point of how I have not resorted to calling you names - which is true, I have not done so - and then you have to throw in "Romanists" which you know to be a slur against Catholics?

Scott, I consider any people under the authority of Rome as Romanists. I've used this term for years, and never apologized for it. I reluctantly use the words "Roman Catholic," as that word "Catholic" no longer applies to the Roman sect.

My response to the above was posted in a comment at BA: 

When it comes to the True Christian Faith, it is truly the Catholic Faith which is universal (throughout the world) and is not a schismatic faith. You (James) can use what ever justifications you want - you're still deliberately using insulting terminology.

Now, on to the more on-topic responses:

sw: I have openly stated that Luther contradicts himself - and yes, I would say within this same context he does so. Even if, for the sake of argument, we give you the 1544 statement - in 1538, just six years prior, he's still affirming the possibility of his earlier "two conceptions" concept.

So you'll give me the 1544 statement from LW 7? LOL.

Context James, context!  I said “Even IF, for the sake of argument...” That “IF” is a pretty big word there.  

Let's now gain more years by comparing statements. In 1544, which you now will give me, Luther stated,

"But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin."

I still believe you have missed the point here... Luther speaks of “the Virgin’s conception” not of Jesus’ conception.  You seem to gloss over this point, repeatedly (though later in this series you do address it, or let someone else (TF) make an argument for you).  It is at “the Virgin’s conception” that the Holy Ghost purged and sanctified Mary.  This was my point for saying that even in 1544, where in the same document he makes seemingly contradictory remarks, he’s still affirming just, just two years prior to his death, that the Blessed Virgin was purified at HER conception.  I reiterate, I do not “give you” the 1544 statement, I said IF we gave you that one, then the 1538 statement still affirms that the Blessed Virgin is purified at some point prior to Jesus’ conception.

Now compare that to Luther in 1540:

"all that flesh and blood of Mary's has been purified in conception, so that nothing sinful remains."

I’d like to see more context here - but at face value Mr. Swan has just provided a 1540 affirmation of Mary being purified in what appears to be HER conception.  In our discussions I believe this is the first time a citation from 1540 has come up and it is not a validly cited source.

Now compare that to Luther in 1538:

"But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them."

Again, this is not a denial of Luther’s earlier “two conceptions” theory and still allows for the concept of the Blessed Virgin being purified in the “second conception” (the infusion of the soul, that is when “life” begins - according to Luther).

Now, read LW 7:

The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh that was contaminated and horribly polluted.

Again, this statement does not deny the “two conceptions” theory Luther explicitly espoused earlier.  Even a 21st century Catholic can accept that the Blessed Virgin inherited Original Sin in her flesh (for she died, though some will argue she did not), as the 1854 definition does not say she did not inherit Original Sin, only that “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.”  I repeat, Luther’s belief in “two conceptions” really does not detract from the 1854 definition.

The scholastic doctors argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born. I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it could be healed. Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils. Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.” Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us. And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. [LW 7:12]

Notice the ambiguity as to which conception is being referred to is no longer... an ambiguity! TurretinFan has rightly commented on this:

"As you can see, context is key. "Mary's conception," or "the conception of Mary" (or replace "Mary" with "Virgin") can refer to two very different things: it can refer to the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, and it can refer to the conception of Jesus (or any of his ἀδελφοὶ - look up its etymology). In the latter case, Mary is doing the conceiving, in the former case she is receiving the conceiving. The difference in meaning is significant and - in English - the difference can only be determined by looking at the context." [source]

So now Mr. Swan, via the pseudonymic “TurretinFan” (TF) delves into the etymological fallacy.  IF the word in question were intended to mean what they say, then an ACCURATE translation would have been, “in the moment of the Virgin’s conception of the Son...” - so if Swan and TF are correct here, then every translator of this passage to English has it wrong.  Now, before continuing, let us also consider the fact that this word TF throws at us is a GREEK word... I am unaware of Luther’s Works being in Greek as he primarily wrote in German or Latin, not Greek.  Why the Greek here?

Now, the word he cites here is transliterated “adelphos” which is literally “a” (from) “delphus” (the womb) - and further means “a brother.” [source]   It is simply illogical that we’re talking about a “brother” here in “the Virgin’s conception.”  TF even states it COULD mean the conception of the Virgin - so we’ll take that argument and leave the irrational one behind.

Now add to the fact that the later Luther states, "Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ" (1540). "Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh" (1544).

Again, this statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the definition of the Immaculate Conception.  The definition does not say that the Blessed Virgin did not inherit the “sin of the flesh,” only that she was preserved from the STAIN of that sin in the moment of her conception.  Will Mr. Swan admit to this fact?

sw: "could it be" James that though he didn't speak of the IC in as forceful terms as he did earlier in his, that he still maintained a belief in it?

Again Scott, even what you consider Luther speaking in forecful terms wasn't so. But, you've never bothered to track down Luther's revised sermon, so how would you know? If you had some sort of similar statement about two conceptions from Luther, then you'd have something. I've never seen any such statement after the 1527 sermon. I have though seen Luther agree that the immaculate conception is a fraud, but the date is uncertain.

My use of “forceful” is a relevant term... in later works he may not have been as explicit as in his Catholic and early Protestant days - you’re missing the point.  The later works do not come out and say, “I was wrong in 1527 and earlier and I whole-heartedly renounce all belief in the Immaculate Conception.”  There is no such retraction that I am aware of, and I’m sure if one existed that you would quote it and validly cite your source.  Your statement that you have “seen” Luther agree that it is a fraud without quote and citation is meaningless to this debate.  Though I’m sure it has meaning in your mind, without valid documentation/citation it cannot be accepted.

sw: I said in one of my initial responses to you though that I could see how those who reject the IC could impute their belief into Luther's "thence."

Scott, you're reading Luther with immaculate conception glasses on. The context from the 1538 quote is about the conception of Christ, in fact each line is about the conception of Christ:

“In our Christian Creed we confess that Christ was conceived and became man or was incarnate (if I may so speak),that He became a real human being by assuming a body"- about the conception of Christ

"We confess that He assumed genuine flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary that He did not pass through her as the sun shines through a glass but brought her virgin flesh and blood with Him."- about the conception of Christ

"If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure."- about the conception of Christ

But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God.- about the conception of Christ

This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost."- about the conception of Christ

Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.”- about the conception of Christ

I will not deny that there are references to Jesus’ conception - that is wholly irrelevant to the FACT that “But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them;”  is about MARY, not Jesus!  Why the smokescreen approach?  I have never denied that I am seeing the Immaculate Conception in places where one could possibly come up with a contrary opinion and as I stated above and Swan quotes, and even in this response from Swan, he’s responding to me saying “I said in one of my initial responses to you that though I could see how those who reject the IC could impute their belief into Luther’s ‘thence’.”  I have been quite up-front about my “glasses” - whereas Mr. Swan appears to think he’s not wearing anti-IC glasses and that his responses are wholly without bias (though I am impressed with his inclusion of his "By the way" comment at the end of this series).

sw: I am content to "let Luther be Luther," and accept his word that at Mary's second conception, at the infusion of her soul, that she was made clean from sin.

So, he has a section he may not haveeven written deteled, and you want to hold him to it? That's letting Luther be Luther? C'mon Scott, you can't really be serious.

Again, as you have already conceded, James, deletion of something is an argument from silence - the LACK of saying something cannot be equivocated to denying it, in fact in logic silence lends itself to consent - not negation.  I’m totally serious here, and again I do not negate your anti-IC glasses - you too have admitted that Luther is hard to pin down at times, and I agree with that!  I believe the IC is one of those times in his later life as he does, as I have agreed, say some contradictory things about it even while in the same context it can be read he’s not denying it.  

sw: Unless you have an explicit statement from Luther saying, "I was wrong in 1527, the Virgin Mary was not preserved from sin at her second conception, and while this did happen, it only happened at the conception of Jesus."

That's a shoddy way of doing history, and I stand by my statement that "this little interaction proves that Romanists read history the way they need it to be." I've given you evidence of Luther's later view, and he's not contradicting himself, even with his 1527 revised sermon (where' he leaves the "two conception stuff in the realm of speculation).

Well, again I beg to differ and here is where we’ll likely have to agree to disagree.  Making an argument from Luther’s silence or an unsubstantiated statement (essentially “hearsay” at this point) is “a shoddy way of doing history.”  You’re not “letting Luther be Luther.”  You’re assuming by his silence (the alleged removal of this from later works) that he negates his earlier statements, but you’re the one left making an assumption which is contrary to logic - remember, in logic silence lends itself to consent, not negation.

I still say Scott that you are a man of integrity. I've seen that you will look at evidence and change your mind, as you did with at least some of our recent exchanges. The excuse "Luther contradicts himself" doesn't work here. In his post 1527 writings, he says the same thing, over and over again.

Well, I’ve changed the wording of what was found on my website (not on the site itself just yet, I’m reformatting that page and making sure “all my ducks are in a row” before republishing it) but my “mind” was not “made up” on the earlier accounts.  As I said, I took someone else at their word.  What I am quite open to doing is correcting anything proven to be in error, and I believe we’ve found some errors - hence my site is changing.  As I also said, prior to this discussion between you and me, I would have to plead ignorance on Luther’s position on the Immaculate Conception.  I am still thankful for this discussion.  Now, I will say if you have explicit and verifiable evidence of Luther expressly denying the Immaculate Conception in any way at all, then I will change my mind on this matter.  Until such a time, I’m letting Luther be Luther in what HE SAID and not relying on what HE DIDN’T SAY.  

By the way, for the three people interested in Luther's Mariology (LOL)- here's a very interesting one year old discussion from a Lutheran blog:

The Problem of Mary

There's a man commenting on this post, Carl Vehse, who mops up the place. I don't know who he is, but he appears to know the subject of Luther's Mariology.

Thank you for including this - the Lutheran pastor, Pastor Peters,  echos the very sentiment I have, that Luther refers to the Immaculate Conception right up to the end of his life.  He criticizes Catholics for over-honoring Mary but in the same breath condemns Protestantism in general and even somewhat Lutherans (who give lip-service to honoring Mary, but “don’t have their heart in it”) for not giving enough honor to Mary.
May each of us continue to seek wisdom and guidance in the spirit of the Holy Family (in JMJ),

Scott<<<

Sola Fide for LP

This entry is a continuation from:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/lcms-statement-on-declared.html

> LP: Hopefully someone notices that
> flooding comments is not enough to
> deliver the proof of the point.

sw: The objective reader will notice that I have merely responded to your points, point by point, which necessitates breaking into multiple comments in order to get around the limit Blogger puts upon the comments section.
 
sw: The objective reader will also see that it is you who is manipulating the text of James 2 in order to make your point - and rather than a point-by-point response this time, I will focus upon your manipulation and misinterpretation - not to mention your contradicting yourself.

> LP: Some of your exposition is fine but
> you make a category mistake in saying
> that James was referring to both types
> of faith in Jas 2:24.
 
sw: How can I possibly be wrong about that?!  St. James himself contrasts the difference between a living/saving faith and a dead faith!

> LP: I am asserting though some of your
> expositions are fine, the conclusion you
> make that faith + works = justification
> is wrong, you are the one making a non
> siquitor.

sw: Well, let us examine this again, and let us examine the consistency of your own words.

> LP: Your latching on Jas 2:24 and
> thinking there - Lutherans are wrong, at
> first blush might convince, but words
> have meaning and they find their
> meaning in context.

sw: I've stuck with the context to prove the meaning and refute your misrepresentation.

>> sw: Sorry LP, but you're simply wrong
>> here. The faith being spoken of is the
>> same throughout James 2 -
>> ... No LP, it is faith which works
>> which justifies.
>
> LP: Notice your double talk?
 
sw: No, I see no double talk there.  You're simply attempting (and failing) to use the argument I used against RC Sproul and Lutheranism against me.  There is no double-speak in what I said above!  James 2 is all about faith in Jesus Christ.  You can have faith in Jesus Christ and no works and that faith will not save you; you can have faith in Jesus Christ with works and then you may be saved!  It's the same faith in both situations.  When St. James speaks of the demons having faith - they have that same faith!  They too believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead - but they have no good works! 

> LP: You are correct, in the bolded line,
> hence, faith which does not work does
> not justify which is what Jas 2:24 is
> saying.
 
sw: Yes, that is what I am saying - and since a faith without works does not justify, the concept of being saved by faith alone is categorically a lie.

> LP: My point is that you made a
> category mistake in lumping all of faith
> (simply because you saw the word -
> faith, alone etc) in that faith described
> in Jas 2:24. Because if you are correct,
> then James is also rebuking the one
> who has a living faith, a textual absurdity.
 
sw: No LP, what is it which makes faith "living?"  It is WORKS!  I also did not merely latch on to verse 24!  I refer to the entire context, so let me quote it again for you here:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?  For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
(James 2:17-26 KJV)
 
sw: I've bolded all the sections in the context which pertain to what I'm saying, and it is clearly not just verse 24!  The REAL POINT of James 2 is that you must have faith AND works for justification, for faith alone is dead.

> LP: My second point. You would have
> heard the Lutheran principle - Scripture
> interprets Scripture.

sw: And talk about absurdities!  Any logically minded person knows that no book interprets itself! Scripture presents the Word of God to His People.  EVERYONE who reads Scripture interprets on some level!  However, that was NOT one of your points NOR is it pertinent to THIS discussion!  If you would like to engage in a sola scriptura discussion/debate, I would be more than happy to oblige, let us not be distracted by such diversionary tactics in THIS discussion of sola fide.

> LP: In your equation:
> faith + works = justification,
> I asked you what these works are - you
> do not know what they are. You demure
> on this one and are Nike - JUST DO IT
> (SOMETHING). But you do not know
> what IT is, to say the least.
 
sw: First off, it's not my equation, it is St. James' equation!
 
sw: Secondly, I answered you with examples.  If you have faith first, then ANY good works may suffice!  USING that faith is what is important!  Feeding the poor, clothing the naked, aiding a fallen neighbor, loving one another... the point is there is no set list, for it would be unending.  You want a cookie cutter god, not a loving God who accepts the free will good works of men done in faith.  The True God does not generate a list of minimum requirements, it is an open commandment.  If you have a true and living faith, it will be evidenced by your works for it is the works which perfect the faith (James 2:22).

> LP: Your equation , faith + works
> = justification, is an RC doctrinal
> equation an not necessarily the
> equation St James is making(.) You
> contradict St. Paul and make
> St James contradict St Paul who
> said.. Here is proof:
>
> Here is the ESV
> 8For(Q) by grace you have been
> saved(R) through faith. And this
> is(S) not your own doing;(T) it
> is the gift of God, 9(U) not a
> result of works,(V) so that no
> one may boast. 10For(W) we
> are his workmanship,(X) created in
> Christ Jesus(Y) for good works,(Z)
> which God prepared beforehand,(AA)
> that we should walk in them.
>
> In the above salvation is not a result
> of works(.)  In your equation ,
> faith + works = justification , makes
> works a cause of salvation.

sw: First off, no - works are NOT the cause of salvation - but they are a necessary component to the equation!  Faith alone cannot save, nor can works alone save.  Protestants, like you, seem to always remove faith from the equation when you challenge Catholicism.  You're constantly making the Catholic equation to be works = salvation and the Protestant equation is faith = salvation - when I am saying NEITHER of those equations are true!  Faith alone is no different than the faith of the devils - it is faith + works = justification and justification leads to salvation IF one perseveres in that saving faith (which necessarily includes works).

> LP: I suggest to you that you got
> your conclusion wrong, here is the
> right equation if you may...
>
> faith = justification + works.
>
> Faith (not assent, or mere belief) in
> Christ, results in justification, results
> also in works - Eph 2:10.

sw: Notice, you're jumping context!  St. James, which is the context we're discussing, does not ever put the "equation" into the syntax you've used - in fact, that syntax would contradict what St. James clearly stated.  So let's look at Eph. 2:10 in context:
 
⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast. ¹⁰ For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

sw: Saved by faith is the clear statement from St. Paul in Ephesians, but in order to not be in contradiction with St. James we need to ask what KIND of faith is St. Paul talking about?  Clearly it is "saving/living" faith, and therefore good works necessarily accompany that faith.  But St. Paul also clearly states "not of works" - is there a contradiction here?  No!  One only need to look at the very next verse (context, context, context) to see he's talking about works of the Law, which can be demonstrated throughout the references Protestants typically cite for support of sola fide.  St. Paul opposes works of the Law - not the good works which are necessary for "living/saving" faith.  So let's look at verses 11-13:
  
¹¹ Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— ¹² that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (NKJV)

sw: So the context explains that it is not through acts like circumcision which save us, but it is through faith, and as we've already demonstrated, that faith must have good works along with it (so it is never alone if it's "living/saving" faith) for justification which leads to salvation.

> LP: Hence, in this equation, we do not
> need to know works because it will
> automatically happen.
 
sw: The debate is not over whether or not the works are automatic, but as to whether or not they always accompany a "living/saving" faith.  They do, causa finita est.

> LP: It is not a factor and no one can
> boast, but in your equation since in it
> works is the cause of justification along
> with faith, boasting is possible, because
> you can say - I HAVE DONE SOMETHING.
 
sw: Nice try, but as St. James says: "^2:18 But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."  Is St. James using the "boasting" St. Paul speaks against, or have you misinterpreted St. Paul?  I suggest it is the latter, otherwise you're espousing that Sts. James and Paul oppose each other.
 
> LP: This is the reason that Abraham did
> not even know that by offering Isaac, he
> was proven to be righteous.
 
sw: Whether or not Abraham knew it is irrelevant - he was justified by his works, period.  That is what St. James tells us.  No amount of rationalization can take away the plain text.

> LP: In my equation, you cannot ask me
> the question what are these good works
> so that one might be saved. It is not a
> factor, it happens but it is not a cause
> of my salvation.

sw: Your equation is based upon your imputation of Calvinistic or perhaps Lutheran thought into the text of St. James.  St. James does not lay it out the way you have, whereas what I have presented is verbatim from his epistle.

> LP: Hence, my question to you - which
> you evade, if Jesus died on the Cross
> what was he doing there if you are to
> supply something so that you may be
> saved. You called this black white fallacy.
> But you wave your hand at this by simply
> labelling my point without offering any
> reason why my question is invalid and
> not reasonable to ask. Rather I believe
> my question is very reasonable.

sw: I can tolerate a lot, but one thing I have a problem tolerating is absolute falsehood and/or one bearing false witness as you have just done.  I will quote my words again to save the readers from having to go back to the original comment, though that too is linked if anyone wishes to see it in the original context:
 
>> sw: FAITH comes FIRST
>> LP, then in order for that FAITH
>> to be LIVING FAITH it must
>> have WORKS. What FAITH are we
>> talking about here, LP? It is FAITH
>> in God that He sent His only
>> begotten Son to die on that cross
>> for us and that whosoever
>> believes in Him shall not perish,
>> but have everlasting life.
 
sw: In my next comment

> sw: The point was (which DID
> answer your question) is that
> FAITH COMES FIRST and that
> FAITH is IN THE CROSS OF CHRIST!
> If you have not faith in the cross,
> then no amount of works justifies.
> THEN comes the "dead faith" which
> St. James speaks - for even the
> demons have faith that Jesus died
> on the cross - but what they lack
> is GOOD WORKS!  In summary, IF
> you have faith in the cross AND do
> good works with that faith, then
> you have living faith which does
> justify.  Doing works without faith
> will not avail you anything.
> Pagans and other non-believers do
> "good" things all the time, but such
> without faith is nothing in the eyes
> of God, according to Scripture.
> Faith then must PRECEDE and
> ACCOMPANY good works.  So
> without the cross, the works are
> meaningless.  So you HAVE been
> answered, TWICE now - and sola
> fide is proven (again) to be a lie.
 
sw: And repeating myself again makes it now THREE TIMES you've been answered on this AND my answer has been explained - so you're definitely bearing false witness.  You may not LIKE the answer given or the explanation, but to say I have evaded your question (which I have not) and have not provided any explanation (which I have done).  Again, the reason your question falls into the black/white fallacy is you asked: "If that (works + faith) is acceptable to God, then what was Jesus doing on the cross, since you can do something, and that would be alright?"  The logical end to your statement is: "Jesus dying on the cross makes everything else we can do unacceptable to God."  To be pleasing to God it's either entirely the cross or nothing.  That's black and white and not true.   I reiterate MY point - NOTHING is pleasing to God without faith in the cross FIRST.  THEN, if that faith is a living/saving faith, works will necessarily accompany the faith.  A living/saving faith is NEVER alone.  Sola fide is a lie.

> LP: Well I have much more to say,
> I am not deluded to thinking you are
> convinced. Since this is your blog
> obviously you have the last word.

sw: First off, I do not require the "last word" here just because it is my blog.  The fact is you continue to end your comments with questions or statements that I have not answered your question(s).  If I did not answer, you would accuse me of avoiding the question! 
 
sw: Second, I asked you a direct question in my last comment, and you have not only evaded it, you've ignored it entirely.  I ask again to save you from having to go back to the original:

sw: One more thing, which I've asked before - but I haven't asked of you yet, have you ever asked yourself why the absolutely ONLY PLACE in Scripture where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together is in NEGATION of sola fide?  Either way, what is your answer to this?
 
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
 
Original: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/lcms-statement-on-declared.html#c5634425108051007560

LCMS Statement on Declared Righteousness

LP askes:

> Scott,
>
> Thanks for sharing your former Lutheran background

> in that you were born LCMS moved to WELS and now

> with the Church of Rome.
>
> May I have a question?

sw: Certainly.

> When you were a Lutheran, did you believe in

> what is called universal objective justification,

> the teaching of both synods that God has

> declared already the whole world to be righteous

> already, by the fact of the resurrection?
>
> Specifically this is summarized in LCMS-1932 Statement

> Article 17. Namely...

17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, accounts as righteous, all those who that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: "There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law," Rom. 3:28.

> LP continues:

> I have bolded the words of concern. Did you believe

> this? Do you believe this now?
>
> It is understandable if you do not, but a surprise if you still do.
>
> Thank you for your answers in advance.
>
> LPC

LP,

To be quite honest with you, I had not heard of this precept while I was a Lutheran nor until you just brought it to my attention.  Did I believe that way as a Lutheran?  No.  Do I believe that way now as a Catholic?  No.   Without reading more context it sounds a lot like universal salvation - which is something I have never adhered to.  That being said, I do believe that Jesus Christ redeemed the whole world through His Sacrifice on the Cross - but there's a difference in redeeming and declaring righteous.

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 KJV)

This verse says "many" shall be made righteous, not the whole world. 

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

(2 Corinthians 5:18-21 KJV)

Here again, the prayer is that we be reconciled to God that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.   The previous verse also indicates the limit to whom this righteousness is given - it is "if any man be in Christ..." obviously then, the context is telling us that those NOT in Christ are not included in this statement.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
(2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV)

The next verse referenced also does not imply the whole world:

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
(Romans 4:25 KJV)

This is especially true again when we look at the context, and you need go no further than the immediately preceding verse:

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
(Romans 4:24 KJV)

Note, it is "to whom it shall be imputed, IF we believe on Him..." 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: ...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
(Romans 3:23-24; 28 KJV)

Well, a verse skipped in this reference betrays the "whole world" concept:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(Romans 3:25 KJV)

Note, it says, "through faith in His blood..." so it is not just given to all, but to all who have faith.

So, every verse cited by LCMS-1932 Statement, Article 17, when read in context does not say this declaration of righteousness is given to the whole world.  Each passage has explicit limitations set upon them.  Unless there is more to this LCMS Statement, it appears to be imputing something to the text which is not there.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<