FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315  
316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   >>   >|  
d works are detrimental to salvation.'" (_C. R._ 9, 405 ff.) Though unanimously rejecting his blundering proposition, Amsdorf's colleagues treated the venerable veteran of Lutheranism with consideration and moderation. No one, says Frank, disputed the statement in the sense in which Amsdorf took it, and its form was so apparently false that it could but be generally disapproved. (2, 176.) The result was that the paradox assertion remained without any special historical consequences. True, Major endeavored to foist Amsdorf's teaching also on Flacius. He wrote: Flacius "endeavors with all his powers to subvert this proposition, that good works are necessary to those who are to be saved; and tries to establish the opposite blasphemy, that good works are dangerous to those who are to be saved, and that they area hindrance to eternal salvation--_evertere summis viribus hanc propositionem conatur: bona opera salvandis esse necessaria. Ac contra stabilire oppositam blasphemiam studet: Bona opera salvandis periculosa sunt et aeternae saluti officiunt._" Major continues: "Let pious minds permit Flacius and his compeers, at their own risk, to prostitute their eternal salvation to the devils, and by their execrations and anathemas to sacrifice themselves to the devil and his angels." (Frank 2, 221.) This, however, was slander pure and simple, for Flacius was among the first publicly to disown Amsdorf when he made his extravagant statement against Menius. (Preger 1, 392. 384.) The _Formula of Concord_ most emphatically rejects the error of Amsdorf (the bare statement that good works are injurious to salvation) "as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline." And justly so; for the question was not what Amsdorf meant to say: but what he really did say. The _Formula_ adds: "For especially in these last times it is no less, needful to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaical confidence in their own works and merits." (801, 18.) 150. Other Points of Dispute. Is it correct to say: God requires good works, or, Good works are necessary, and, Christians are obliged or in duty bound to do good works (_bona opera
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315  
316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Amsdorf

 

Flacius

 

salvation

 

statement

 

salvandis

 
Formula
 

Christian

 

discipline

 
eternal
 

proposition


detrimental
 
emphatically
 

rejects

 

Concord

 
correct
 

offensive

 

Dispute

 

injurious

 

requires

 
Menius

simple

 

slander

 
obliged
 

extravagant

 

justly

 

Christians

 
publicly
 

disown

 
Preger
 
Points

exercise

 

declaration

 
remind
 

admonish

 

angels

 

gratitude

 

article

 

damned

 

justification

 
mingled

delusion

 

Epicurean

 

needful

 

merits

 

confidence

 
Pharisaical
 

papistic

 

question

 

disapproved

 
result