![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/11\/LutherMusic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I offer extensive Catholic replies to portions of the Lutheran\u00a0Smalcald Articles<\/i>\u00a0<\/a>(1537). It was written by Martin Luther<\/a> and is part of the Lutheran\u00a0Book of Concord: which is binding on all Lutherans who wish to follow their denomination\u2019s historical doctrinal teaching. Luther\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I. Of Sin<\/span><\/p>\n 1] Here we must confess, as Paul says in Rom. 5, 11, that sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin.<\/span><\/p>\n 2] The fruits of this sin are afterwards the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as [distrust] unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption [recklessness], despair, blindness [or complete loss of sight], and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by [to abuse] God\u2019s name [to swear falsely], not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard [to despise or neglect] God\u2019s Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics basically agree thus far.<\/p>\n 3] This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51, 5; Rom. 6, 12ff ; Ex. 33, 3; Gen. 3, 7ff.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics believe that human nature is perverted, weakened, and warped, but not entirely perverse, corrupt, or depraved, as Protestants (especially Calvinists) teach.<\/p>\n Hence, it is nothing but error and blindness in regard to this article what the scholastic doctors have taught, namely:<\/span><\/p>\n Here are the obligatory digs at St. Thomas Aquinas and his followers, the Scholastics. Luther despised these men (or what he\u00a0thought\u00a0<\/i>they taught, in many cases. It is known that Luther often equated the teachings of Aquinas with the nominalist corruptions of his teaching in the later Middle Ages. In other words, this was a straw man more often than not).<\/p>\n 4] That since the fall of Adam the natural powers of man have remained entire and incorrupt, and that man by nature has a right reason and a good will; which things the philosophers teach.<\/span><\/p>\n If by this is meant that man can save himself through his own natural powers without the grace of God, we deny this, as that is Pelagianism: condemned by the Catholic Church at the 2nd Council of Orange in 529 and ever since, and opposed by Augustine over 100 years earlier. Recently, in two papers I think I have shown that Augustine\u2019s teachings were much more in accordance with Catholicism than Protestantism.<\/p>\n But man can know there is a God by virtue of natural reason, according to Romans 1. Men can attain to the knowledge of God\u2019s existence by the Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument and various other theistic proofs. I have always believed this, both as a Protestant and Catholic apologist. Luther placed reason in opposition to faith (\u201creason is the devil\u2019s whore,\u201d etc.). I think that is unbiblical and epistemologically (and evangelistically) suicidal. We believe that man is a free agent; otherwise, is seems to me that Christian moral precepts become meaningless \u2013 as man is unable to abide by them: he either literally can\u2019t be good, or is forced to do good like some sort of robot or puppet. But this is\u00a0always<\/b>\u00a0by God\u2019s enabling grace. If man cooperates with that grace, he may choose to do good. To that extent, to that degree, and in that sense (and no other), he \u201chas a free will to do good and omit evil.\u201d<\/p>\n 6] Again, that man by his natural powers can observe and keep [do] all the commands of God.<\/span> 7] Again, that, by his natural powers, man can love God above all things and his neighbor as himself.<\/span> Canons on Justification<\/b><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.<\/span> 8] Again, if a man does as much as is in him, God certainly grants him His grace.<\/span> 9] Again, if he wishes to go to the Sacrament, there is no need of a good intention to do good, but it is sufficient if he has not a wicked purpose to commit sin; so entirely good is his nature and so efficacious the Sacrament.<\/span><\/p>\n The sacrament is objectively efficacious; however, Catholic teaching also contains something known as \u201csacramental disposition.\u201d Lacking that, the sacrament is not fruitful subjectively. Examples of such deficiencies, according to Fr. John A. Hardon, S .J., an eminent catechist, are a \u201clack of faith or sanctifying grace or . . . a right intention.\u201d [Modern Catholic Dictionary<\/i>, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1980, 477] Trent dealt with this as well, particularly in its Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter VII, citing the appropriate biblical proof text of 1 Cor 11:29. This was also a great emphasis of Vatican II, but it was nothing new.<\/p>\n 10] [Again,] that it is not founded upon Scripture that for a good work the Holy Ghost with His grace is necessary.<\/span> 11] Such and many similar things have arisen from want of understanding and ignorance as regards both this sin and Christ, our Savior and they are truly heathen dogmas, which we cannot endure. For if this teaching were right [approved], then Christ has died in vain, since there is in man no defect nor sin for which he should have died; or He would have died only for the body, not for the soul, inasmuch as the soul is [entirely] sound, and the body only is subject to death.<\/span> I. Original Sin.<\/span><\/p>\n Solid Declaration\/Book Of Concord<\/span><\/p>\n STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.<\/span><\/p>\n The Principal Question in This Controversy.<\/span><\/p>\n 1] Whether original sin is properly and without any distinction man\u2019s corrupt nature, substance, and essence, or at any rate the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or whether, even after the Fall, there is a distinction between man\u2019s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin, so that the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another.<\/span> Affirmative Theses.<\/span><\/p>\n The Pure Doctrine, Faith, and Confession according to the Aforesaid Standard and Summary Declaration.<\/span><\/p>\n 2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man\u2019s nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.<\/span><\/p>\n 3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because this doctrine, that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin, conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.<\/span><\/p>\n 4] For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written Job 10, 8: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about. Deut. 32, 18; Is. 45, 9ff; 54, 5; 64, 8; Acts 17, 28; Job 10, 8; Ps. 100, 3; 139, 14; Eccl. 12, 1.<\/span><\/p>\n 5] Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2, 14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4, 15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin.<\/span><\/p>\n 6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the (blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.<\/span><\/p>\n 7] Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.<\/span> 8] 3. But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man\u2019s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings:<\/span><\/p>\n Through Adam\u2019s fall is all corrupt,<\/span><\/p>\n Nature and essence human.<\/span><\/p>\n 9] This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God\u2019s Word.<\/span><\/p>\n 10] And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which willfully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19, 26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.<\/span> Insubordination of man\u2019s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (<\/span>Ibid<\/i>., p. 120)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Baptismal regeneration, in Catholic theology (even Protestant and Orthodox baptism), produces a number of wonderful effects: 1) Removal of all guilt due to sin, original and personal;\u00a0<\/span> The only thing it does not remove is concupiscence and bodily mortality.<\/span><\/p>\n Negative Theses.<\/span><\/p>\n Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.<\/span><\/p>\n 11] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus<\/em> or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.<\/span><\/p>\n The question at hand is: \u201chow corrupt is \u2018corrupt\u2019?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 12] 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know who teaches that, though Luther himself seemed to at times, with some of his outrageous statements about women and sex.<\/p>\n 13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man\u2019s nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i.e., in its natural powers.<\/span><\/p>\n As do we.<\/p>\n 14] 4. Also, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, dashed upon the nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its good powers even in spiritual things.<\/span><\/p>\n I think the Catholic view is the \u201cgolden mean.\u201d<\/p>\n 15] 5. Also, that original sin is only an external impediment to the good spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, its natural power is not thereby removed, but only impeded; or that this stain can be easily wiped away like a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, it is a question of the power of regeneration, and of God\u2019s grace, especially through the sacraments.<\/p>\n 16] 6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something [good].<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/span><\/p>\n 19] 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n We look at it more a a propensity to sin; concupiscence; not total depravity. 22] 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n So what: neither are\u00a0Trinity<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0consubstantiation<\/i>. This is always a shallow argument. and besides unknown to the ordinary man,<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Much better to be taught, than to assume that \u201cuninstructed\u201d people could never comprehend these terms and ideas. Lutherans think nothing of teaching highly abstract concepts of imputed justification. 24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n II. Free Will.<\/span>STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.<\/span><\/p>\n The Principal Question in This Controversy.<\/span><\/p>\n 1] Since the will of man is found in four unlike states, namely: 1. before the Fall; 2. since the Fall; 3. after regeneration; 4. after the resurrection of the body, the chief question is only concerning the will and ability of man in the second state, namely, what powers in spiritual things he has of himself after the fall of our first parents and before regeneration,<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Affirmative Theses.<\/span>The Pure Doctrine concerning This Article, according to God\u2019s Word.<\/span><\/p>\n 2] 1. Concerning this subject, our doctrine, faith, and confession is, that in spiritual things the understanding and reason of man are [altogether] blind, and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them when he is examined concerning spiritual things.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This only denies free will insofar as it cannot produce good apart from God\u2019s grace; we agree wholeheartedly with that.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Negative Theses.<\/span><\/p>\n Contrary False Doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n 7] Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God\u2019s Word:<\/span><\/p>\n 8] 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n5] Again, that man has a free will to do good and omit evil, and, conversely, to omit good and do evil.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nThis is not Catholic teaching. See the following response.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nAbsolutely not. So now Catholic teaching is being misrepresented in official Lutheran documents (which doesn\u2019t surprise me). The Book of Concord was formulated between 1577 and 1580, and thus was later than the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which taught:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nGrace never originates from man\u2019s inherent goodness, but rather, from the free and unmerited decision of God, as seen above. This is Catholic dogma.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nAnother flat-out lie, condemned at Trent and at Orange 1000 years earlier.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nIndeed; that\u2019s why these have never been Catholic doctrines. I don\u2019t know who the authors had in mind here, but it is certainly not the Catholic Church, in reality. But it has always been an effective ploy to caricature one\u2019s opponents in order to present a \u201csuperior\u201d alternative.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nInsofar as I correctly understand this, if this is denying that man\u2019s nature is entirely corrupt: evil through and through, we agree. We assert that man is highly subject to concupiscence, the world, flesh, and the devil, but that he retains the capacity to do good, always with God\u2019s preceding enabling grace. Perhaps that is common ground. It would not be common ground with the Calvinist position.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nAgain, if I understand this correctly. I think we agree with it.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nThis goes too far. Catholics believe that the primary effect of the fall is concupiscence, which Fr. Hardon defines as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n2) Removal of all punishment due to sin, temporal and eternal;\u00a0<\/span>
\n3) Infusion of sanctifying grace;\u00a0<\/span>
\n4) Infusion of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity;\u00a0<\/span>
\n5) Infusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit;\u00a0<\/span>
\n6) Incorporation into Christ;\u00a0<\/span>
\n7) Entrance into the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church;\u00a0<\/span>
\n8) Imprinting of the baptismal character, which enables one to receive the<\/span>
\nsacraments, participate in the liturgy, and grow in the likeness of Christ through<\/span>
\npersonal sanctification.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n*
\nWe deny that man\u2019s nature is entirely corrupt. We agree with this insofar as it again condemns Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n17] 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.<\/span><\/div>\n
\nSo Lutheranism moves at least one step away from Calvinist supralapsarianism.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n18] 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.<\/span><\/div>\n\n*
\nAgreed.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n20] 10. Now, this original sin is called by Dr. Luther nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin, not because the nature, person, or essence of man is, without any distinction, itself original sin, but in order to indicate by such words the distinction between original sin, which inheres in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
\nGood as far as it goes (I think).<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n21] 11. For original sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance, and essence of man, so that, though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, no idle word were spoken, no wicked deed were done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupted through original sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountainhead of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written Matt. 15, 19: Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Also Gen. 6, 5; 8, 21: The imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth.<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n*<\/p>\n*
\nAgreed.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n23] 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia<\/em> and accidens<\/em>, because they are not words of Holy Scripture,
\n<\/span>**\n
\n*<\/p>\n*
\nAlso a non sequitur<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nthey should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.
\n<\/span>*
\n*\n
\n*<\/p>\n*
\nElitism . . .<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n25] For the distinction between God\u2019s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\nTrue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n*
\nI think I have answered that by citing what graces we believe regeneration confers.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nand whether he is able by his own powers, prior to and before his regeneration by God\u2019s Spirit, to dispose and prepare himself for God\u2019s grace,<\/span><\/div>\n*
\nHe is definitely not, in Catholic theology.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nand to accept [and apprehend], or not, the grace offered through the Holy Ghost in the Word and holy [divinely instituted] Sacraments.<\/span><\/div>\n*
\nIf one is in mortal sin, he condemns himself anew by partaking of sacraments.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n*
\nWe agree to this, pre-baptism.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n3] 2. Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8, 21: The imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8, 7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2, 5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3, 5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
\nIndeed.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n4] 3. God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God\u2019s Word, as it is written Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God 5] unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God\u2019s will that His Word should be heard, and that man\u2019s ears should not be closed. Ps. 95, 8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16, 14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose 6] work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God\u2019s grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1, 29; 2 Cor. 12, 5; Jer. 9, 23.
\n<\/span>*
\n*\n*
\nWe agree. Luther seems to disagree, in his\u00a0Bondage of the Will<\/i>, but the Lutherans wisened up, 30 years after his death.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n9] 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God\u2019s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.<\/span><\/div>\n*
\nAmen. We Catholics beat the Lutherans by over 1000 years in condemning this foul error. :-)<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n