Petergdi

Not quibbling at all. Faith for Luther is non-propositional - it isn't believing a set of doctrines. It is a gift of God that enables you to trust in God.

James uses "faith" to mean a set of propositions that demons also believe and know. James seems to be badly misreading Paul's epistle to the Romans by importing the sense <Faith is a set of propositions to be believed> into the text where Paul's and Luther's meaning is <Faith is trust in God and a gift given by God to produce obedience in us>. It is imposible, according to Luther, to have this sort of trust in God and not also to strive towards a life of obedience.

I'm not sure it would make that much difference. Neither Paul nor Luther took it to mean that "the righteous shall live by mental assent to a set of propositions", but that "the righteous shall live by trusting God." If Habakkuk meant "faithfulness" rather than "trust" in that instance it hardly changes anything. I'd be willing to bet that Habakkuk also thought that the righteous live by trusting God even if he didn't say it.

How does it seem that way? At every church I have attended there have been sermons on the necessity of the kind of faith that bears fruit. It is true that there are many "Sunday morning Christians" but I've never been to a church which encouraged people to think it was okay to be like that.

My only partly educated opinion - At the time of the Reformation, Luther's opponents in the Roman Church really did teach the position on faith and works that Luther argued against. But in the Counter-reformation, the Roman church made it clear that Luther's opponents in this matter were wrong, but they did so in such a way that they avoided admitting that the Protestants had actually been right about anything. This confuses people who expect that somehow Roman Catholics and Protestants should have vastly different opinions on the faith/works issue given that it was the central issue of the Reformation.

Fideism means something different from what I think you are taking it to mean. It is nearly always used as a disparaging term for those who think that reason is of no use in coming to faith in God. People almost never use the term about themselves. Pascal would be the canonical example.

Peter.

sion

If the assertion of the author is correct, it would seem to me that 'faithfulness' would imply following the examples and techings of Jesus, not simply the belief in his divinity.

Beginning life as a Lutheran before moving to agnosticism and finally atheism, the difference between Sunday School version and Sunday Service version of Jesus is interesting. The Sunday School version was seemingly much more civic-minded when the works versus faith question was addressed.

The possible political/nationalistic incentives for a mistranslation should not be discounted as well. Possibly a quid pro quo?

Rulers of the geographic regions where this school of thought were willing to protect reformers, and also fairly quick to confiscate Church lands no longer necessary with the abandonment of the Roman Catholic structure. (with some brief attempts by peasants to interpret scriptures on their own: the Peasants Revolt in Germmany and short-lived polygamy of Northern England which were quickly squashed by rulers)

As for Calvinism and its Protestant offshoots; I've often wondered why these sects are placed in the Christian column.

Yes, there is some general lip service paid to the belief of the divinity of Jesus, but isn't the main path to salvation being a member of the 'elect' which is predetermined and is evidenced by prosperty?

Petergdi

This seems to be nonsense. Calvin nowhere claims that material prosperity is evidence of election, and the idea is foreign to his teaching. I'm not aware of any Calvinist theologian who says anything of the sort either. It seems to be something that others mistakenly (or perhaps sometimes mischievously) claim about Calvinism.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Calvinist. I do object to misrepresentation.

Peter.