Maybe Martin Luther's Belief on how Good Works play a role in salvation is not so uncatholic

[Daniel Peres]

I found an Interest Article entitled "Luther on Christian Love and Service" on the Lutheran Witness website. The article is about what Martin Luther wrote in a pamphlet entitled “The Freedom of a Christian," written in 1520. Martin Luther wrote about many of the thing I have been arguing in other posts on this forum. Things that have gotten a lot of negative reactions from many non-Catholics. But don't worry, the article doesn't contradict Luther's teaching that salvation is a one-time event. Nor does it claim that one can earn salvation by his good works (something Catholics don't believe either).

However, in his pamphlet, “The Freedom of a Christian," Luther does show how love and good works are part of true faith. In fact, I would say that in this article, he is opinion is very much in agreement with the real Catholic interpretation of the Epistle of James, and what James meant by "Faith without works is dead."

Maybe hearing from Martin Luther, instead of me, will make it easier to accept the truth of what I have been trying to get across on this forum.

Let me present some of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther," mentioned in this article.

1) Why should I not therefore freely, joyfully, with all my heart, and with an eager will do all things which I know are pleasing and acceptable to such a father who has overwhelmed me with his inestimable riches?

2) I will therefore give myself as a Christ to my neighbor, just as Christ offered himself to me; I will do nothing in this life except what I see is necessary, profitable, and salutary to my neighbor, since through faith I have an abundance of all good things in Christ.”

3) Behold, from faith thus flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a joyful, willing, and free mind that serves one’s neighbor willingly and takes no account of gratitude or ingratitude, of praise or blame, of gain or loss.

4) For those who do not recognize the gifts bestowed upon them through Christ, however, Christ has been born in vain; they go their way with their works and shall never come to taste or feel those things...as our heavenly Father has in Christ freely come to our aid, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through our body and its works, and each one should become as it were a Christ to the other that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the same in all, that is, that we may be truly Christians.

5) Then there's my personal favorite, "Surely, we are named after Christ, not because he is absent from us, but because he dwells in us, that is, because we believe in him and are Christs one to another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us."

These quotes of Martin Luther describe exactly what I have been trying to express on this forum about how Good Works are a part of Christianity. So, if you agree with these quotes of Martin Luther, then you are closer to understanding the true Catholic view on what the role Good Works should play in a Christian's life.

I have to admit that I am a little shocked at how this article has drastically changed my opinion about Martin Luther. However, I still disagree with his belief that salvation is a one-time event. One big difference between a Protestant and a Catholic is the way each responds to the question, "Have you been saved?" A typical Protestant will respond, "Yes! I have been saved." A Catholic response to this question should be, "I have been saved! I am being saved! And I will be saved!"

The reason we believe this is that the although the New Testament sometimes describes salvation as a one-time past event, it some verses describe it as an ongoing process, and still others describe salvation as a future event. Catholics believe all of the verses about when salvation occurs. So, you might disagree, and that's ok, but you can't say there is no scriptural basis for our belief on this issue.

I would love to hear if Protestants on this forum agree with the article, I am commenting on in this post. If you're interested the article can be found at: Luther on Christian Love and Service – The Lutheran Witness

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Where Martin Luther fell short of breaking from the catholic salvation mind set was. That he did believe that there was something called true belief and that a persons works actually showed they were a true believer. he promoted what is now known as Lordship Salvation.

https://faithalone.org/blog/the-reformation-had-lordship-salvation-and-free-grace/

 

[Tigger45]

As Lutherans we’d say Luther is foundational to Lutheranism but not infallible. By the way so would he. That being said he was very catholic and utilized the normative principle over the regulative principle when determining church doctrines and practices.

 

[Daniel Peres]

I don't know why find these beliefs of Martin Luther to be offensive. He is specifically, and correctly maintaining the belief that one cannot earn salvation and it's offensive to God for a Christian to even try. Martin Luther's point is simply that we should not be ungrateful for the free gifts that we receive from God. Let me ask you, "God has given you so many gifts without requiring anything in return, aren't you grateful?" "Do you think a person who is ungrateful is a person of integrity?"

There is one good thing the makes me feel better about your responses. Now, at least I know that my opinions are not being shot down just because I'm a Catholic. You are also willing to reject similar opinions from Protestants, and in a way that makes me a little feel better.

 

[Daniel Peres]

As Lutherans we’d say Luther is foundational to Lutheranism but not infallible. By the way so would he. That being said he was very catholic and utilized the normative principle over the regulative principle when determining church doctrines and practices.

I just thought of another way explaining what I believe Martin Luther was trying to say. If a Christian is ungrateful for God’s free gift o salvation, then that means this Christian considers the gift to be of no value. If you consider God’s free gift of salvation to be of no value, then, basically, you are spitting on his gift. If you are spitting on God’s free gift of salvation, then you are, in essence, rejecting his free gift of salvation. You end up not being saved, not because God punished you for refusing to do good works, but because you chose to reject his free gift of salvation, and instead chose to separate yourself from God and go to eternal damnation.

So, Martin Luther was not talking about anything resembling “faith plus works,” which what you hate, as do I. He was just saying you should be grateful to God for his free gifts, and frankly you should show him the honor and respect he deserves. It’s also similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 22:21, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Wouldn’t you agree that gratitude, honor, respect, and worship should be rendered to God?”
Is that really so offensive to you?

 

[Tigger45]

Right, salvation is something we are intrinsically unable to pay back. It’s simply out of our means, yet salvation should motivate or inspire if you will, gratitude towards God and love for our neighbor.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Finally, a Lutheran that agrees with Luther! Thanks for posting your comment.

 

[Cockcrow]

James is not talking about being saved before God. our Works play zero role in salvation. Jesus gives eternal life without works, we don't earn it by any of our own filthy rag works. Luther, Calvin these were all former Catholics who retained many catholic views.

Salvation is by grace through faith not works lest any man should boast. If it is anything other than believe on Jesus for salvation, then one is calling God a liar and is condemned, not saved.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I think all the arguments of salvation regarding grace and woks can be bypassed, by simply asking what does it mean to be a Christian? What's the point? What's the reason? If "a ticket to heaven" is all one can come up with as an answer, then I'd say there's a serious problem at hand.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I have heard it said that the word often used for being saved in Paul's epistles is a word which is a present continueous tense, so it's not just what Catholics believe, but others who seriously study their bibles will believe that too! We used to from time to time having visiting preacher come to our church who said that the only proof that you are saved, is that you are also being saved as an ongoing thing.

As we live the spirit filled life, we will find ourselves moved to do things which are may often seem natural to do as God wills to use us. Yes, these can be works, but those works are they, the are not necessarily our works alone, but also the works of Him that dwells in us. In John gospel, Jesus tells us "that without Him we can do nothing", anything of any eternal value will never just be the works of man alone, it is only God who creates anything that is of eternal worth.

Anything which we receive from God is by His graceous unmerited favour to us and not of ourselves, least any man should boast and deny God alone all His rightful glory.

 

[Daniel Peres]

James is not talking about being saved before God. our Works play zero role in salvation. Jesus gives eternal life without works, we don't earn it by any of our own filthy rag works. Luther, Calvin these were all former Catholics who retained many catholic views.

Salvation is by grace through faith not works lest any man should boast. If it is anything other than believe on Jesus for salvation, then one is calling God a liar and is condemned, not saved.

My dear Mr. Cockrow, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I am not claiming that a Christian needs to earn salvation with Good Works. I am also, not claiming that James said good works are necessary to earn salvation. My personal belief, which is the same as Martin Luther and the Catholic Church, is that not only are good works unnecessary to obtain salvation, but it is also offensive to God if you perform Good Works solely for the purpose of obtaining salvation.

So, if you’ll permit me, I’d like to offer you an analogy that should hopefully better explain my position. This analogy uses the concept of Christian marriage as if it were like salvation. In other words, a woman getting married is like her being saved (only for the purpose of this analogy of course). Moreover, this analogy only works with the Christian concept of what a marriage should be.

Now, imagine there is a wealthy man called Mike. Let’s say Mike falls in love with a very poor woman, by the name of Jane. Because Mike loves Jane, he showers her with many free gifts. All his free gifts are given to her purely out of love without requiring anything from her in return.

Mike loves Jane so much that he offers to marry her, thereby offering her salvation from poverty. Seeing his love and all he is offering, Jane accepts his offer of marriage, and so she is saved from poverty. She is very grateful for the love Mike has shown to her, and the fact that his love for her has saved her from poverty. After all, no one man had ever loved her with such a great and unconditional love of Mike.

So, in response to Mike’s unconditional love and all the free gifts that come along with it like salvation from poverty, she loves him in return. Because of Jane’s love for Mike, she does many good works for him. She keeps his house clean, makes sure he has clean laundry, she gives Mike physical affection, and she even gives him children. She does all these things purely out of love. None of these good works of Jane’s are done for the purposes of keeping her meal ticket (her husband Mike) pleased so that he won’t end the marriage and cause her to return to a life of poverty.

Would you say that any of Jane’s Good Works for Mike earned her salvation from poverty? I hope you agree that none of Jane’s good works for Mike earned her salvation from poverty.

However, although none of Jane’s good works for Mike did anything to earn her salvation from poverty, her good works were nevertheless appreciated. If her love and gratitude for Mike’s love does not include good works, there will be negative consequences to the marriage. Furthermore, although Jane may sincerely believe she loves Mike, even though she does no good works for Mike, she will be in a similar situation to what James was warning against in his epistle. James did not teach “faith plus good works salvation,” but he did say faith without works is dead. Like what James taught about faith and works, without good works done by Jane, purely out of love and gratitude for Mike’s love, Jane’s love is a dead love, and therefore her love is not love at all.

Now, let’s change the story a little bit. Imagine that Jane never really loved Mike. Imagine that all of Jane’s good works for Mike (listed above) were not done out of gratitude for being the recipient of Mike’s unconditional love. All her good works for Mike were done for the purpose of avoiding a life of poverty.

When Mike discovers that Jane has never loved him at all he will feel offended and hurt. Mike had given his unconditional love that required nothing in return, and yet instead of returning his love she insulted him by trying to earn her salvation from poverty. Mike gave her the beautiful gift of unconditional love, and she disrespected and devalued that gift by treating it simply as a way to be saved from poverty.

I don’t know what your opinion is about this marriage, but in Catholicism, this would not constitute a true marriage, because a marital bond based on love was never formed. Therefore, in this analogy, she was never really saved at all, because there never was a true marital bond based on love. In Catholicism, this marriage would be eligible to be granted an annulment.

This is simple way of explaining the Catholic teaching on marriage annulments. Catholicism looks at marriage in way of that the common law looks at contracts. Under common law, a judge may declare a contract to be void, if both parties had a different understanding of what they had agreed to. In common law, we say such a contract is void because there was never a true meeting of the minds.

I hope my analogy was a good explanation for how what I believe concerning the need for good works, which is what the Catholic Church teaches about the necessity of good works, and what I am claiming Martin Luther believed about the necessity of goods works.

I am in complete agreement with Martin Luther as to why we call ourselves Christians, when he wrote:

“Surely, we are named after Christ, not because he is absent from us, but because he dwells in us, that is, because we believe in him and are Christs, one to another, and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us.”

If after reading this post, you still insist that I am claiming salvation is earned by doing good works, I don’t know what else to say to you other than, “Go ahead and continue with your belief that God doesn’t appreciate you love.”

 

[Tigger45]

Good works are indicators of your Spiritual health as is vital signs such as blood pressure, heart beat and blood oxygen count are indicators of your physical health. That’s why the book of James is not in contradiction with the epistles of St. Paul because St. James is contrasting living faith with dead faith. It really is that simple folks.

 

[Receivedgrace]

One cannot do any works of eternal merit until after they are saved by grace. In fact we are created unto good works by God when we are converted and given new life in Christ. Eph 2:10 Eph 2:1-10 frames the context.
Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Speaks of those who are religious but very lost having never come to Christ confessing themselves sinners in need of salvation.

 

[GDL]

I have to admit that I am a little shocked at how this article has drastically changed my opinion about Martin Luther. However, I still disagree with his belief that salvation is a one-time event. One big difference between a Protestant and a Catholic is the way each responds to the question, "Have you been saved?" A typical Protestant will respond, "Yes! I have been saved." A Catholic response to this question should be, "I have been saved! I am being saved! And I will be saved!"

The reason we believe this is that the although the New Testament sometimes describes salvation as a one-time past event, it some verses describe it as an ongoing process, and still others describe salvation as a future event. Catholics believe all of the verses about when salvation occurs. So, you might disagree, and that's ok, but you can't say there is no scriptural basis for our belief on this issue.

Nice opening post. Thank you.

Although expressing this view of salvation being a process will get you attacked by some Protestants, others will agree with this teaching, because it's how the Word of God presents Biblical Salvation.

 

[GDL]

My dear Mr. Cockrow, you seem to have misunderstood my post

One of the issues that strikes me in regard to these love analogies is that Biblical Love is not separate from fulfilling responsibility. IOW, whatever that feeling is that we consider to be love, if we are not fulfilling our responsibilities in the love relationship, then we are not loving. The 2 concepts need to be joined.

As I understand from some scholarly research I've read, in the world of kings, to love the king was to do what he commanded.

• NKJ 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
  • And we can't disregard the last clause here. These are the commandments of a benevolent God - a loving Father - who saves us and blesses us and desires only good for us. His commandments are not a burden when we know & understand Him & desire to do what pleases Him
• NKJ John 14:21-24 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."...23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
  • Note all that's instructed here:
    • Our love for Christ is keeping His commandments
    • Our Father's and our Lord's love for us in this sense is conditioned on our obedience to Jesus Christ
    • If we love Him, then we will obey Him
      • Is this motivation for obedience or saying the same thing as 14:21 & 24?

There are also explanations about love such as Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 13. So, love functions in a certain way and apart from it our words & actions are nothing.

There is also love as motivation. Some of this seen in the John 14 verses above. It is also responsive:

• NKJ 1 John 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.

But, let's face it, love is commanded, and it has criteria, not only in doing the things commanded, but also in how it is done:

• NKJ Mark 12:30 `And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.

Fulfilling the terms of a contract/covenant is love. Doing what the King commands is Love. Feelings are transitional. Faithfulness is supposed to be consistent no matter how we feel. So is love. Along the way to perfected Love is duty playing an important role.

 

[fhansen]

Catholic teaching, consonant with Scripture, is this: What we do, with the grace given us once freely justified, (made just, given the gift of righteousness) as we turn to Him in faith, now walking and cooperating with Him in a union based on that faith, along with hope and love, determines our eternal destiny. We work out our salvation together with He who works in us. We’re to grow in the virtues, the righteousness, given us. We don’t save ourselves because we have no righteousness of our own apart from Him. But we can either reject or thwart the gift, or we can allow it to flow, to take root and blossom and produce much good fruit as we truly remain in Him, or not. The church sums it up this way, quoting a 16th century believer,
“At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.”

That’s the real gospel, that’s what faith is intended to lead to as it unites us with the only Source, the essence, of that love. Love is the heart of Christianity as Christ is the heart of Christianity. It’s the full-true definition of justice or righteousness for man which is why the greatest commandments are what they are.

The gospel, the new covenant, faith and grace, we’re never about relieving man from the obligation to be righteous, but rather are the means to the authentic righteousness that man was created for, but the right way, Gods way, by the Spirit, under grace, united with Him.

 

[GDL]

What we do, with the grace given us once freely justified,

What's the Catholic teaching on what we do to come to Him prior to being freely justified?

 

[Daniel Peres]

What's the Catholic teaching on what we do to come to Him prior to being freely justified?

The simple answer is, “absolutely nothing.” One biblical verse I can think of that supports this belief is John 6:44 where it is written that Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.”

What’s the typical Protestant belief? I must admit I have never discussed this with any Protestant so I honestly don’t know.

 

[fhansen]

What's the Catholic teaching on what we do to come to Him prior to being freely justified?

Pure grace. If you get a chance read the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange. These are officially sanctioned foundational church teachings, hammered out mainly as a result of the Pelagian dispute and quoted by Trent as well as the modern catechism. Be sure to read Conclusions at the end:
The Canons of the Second Council of Orange (529)

It’s all grace in Catholic teaching, whether faith or works prepared for us in advance (Eph 2:10), or anything else that might contribute to salvation. But in Catholicism grace is resistible, meaning that man can still say “no” at any point even if his “yes” is only possible due to grace to begin with. And this is to say that God wants our wills involved, our cooperation and participation, and increasingly so, in embracing and “owning” the righteousness given, in embracing Him, IOW, for our highest good. Man was not created to be unrighteous and yet two factors are critical in his righteousness:
1) Human righteousness is impossible apart from God, and fallen man is born apart, alienated, from God.
2) Human righteousness is only possible to the extent that we want it, and turn to Him for it, and remain in Him to keep and grow in it, towards His own likeness.

God orchestrates the whole thing, drawing and moving man towards Himself, and yet it’s not a puppet show, because man can say no. But unless he says yes, unless he opens the door when He knocks, and keeps it open, no real righteousness prevails.

 

[Daniel Peres]

What's the Catholic teaching on what we do to come to Him prior to being freely justified?