A
Adam14
Guest
WHAT?!?!?! Boy am I in trouble! Just kidding!
“No sin can separate us from Him (God), even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
- Status
G
gcnuss
Guest
I, too, agree with this. Also, we need to remember that the document quoted in the OP was a letter from Luther to Melanchton, a close colleague and one who probably understood Luther better than any of us. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that Melanchton would not have taken Luther’s letter to be a license to sin.
Perhaps, if we want to look at what Luther wrote and intended to be made available to a wide audience, we should look at his Small Catechism and his explanations of the commandments that address murder and adultery:
I think this is a better example of Luther’s theology than a bit of hyperbole written in a private letter.
Hi Pastor,
In addition, my understanding is that Luther knew Melanchton to be a rather mild mannered individual, who would not be prone to anything near approaching these kinds of overt sins in any case. So to say Luther was somehow encouraging sinful behavior shows a lack of understanding of both men.
Jon
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello** Jon** and gcnuss,
I can agree with much of what, both of you have written here in the last two and three posts but I have a slightly different take on it.
I have spoken with many Christians, here and elsewhere, regarding the OSAS belief and the impression I got, was that OSAS is a “promise made by God” to Christians and that, “God is not a liar”; and once “Saved”, that person’s salvation was guaranteed forever…no matter what!
Sort of what Luther is implying here…right?
I do not believe that people, who hold the belief in OSAS, believe that it is a “license to sin”.
If Luther did eventually adopt this belief (OSAS) and he wrote a letter to explain it, then it wouldn’t matter who his audience was…right?
The belief in OSAS, seems to me to be more of a “comforting assurance”, caused, by a belief in a “guaranteed Salvation”.
As for forgiveness, received after confessing a sin; prior to any confession, there should be a thorough and sincere, examination of one’s conscience, they must be truly repentant and resolve not to repeat the same offence.
If a person is truly repentant, then they will try to avoid repeating the same sin confessed and may still fall back into sin, with a need to confess again. However, I believe that Luther’s quote here is quite extreme and lines up better with a OSAS belief, than it does with a belief in confession and forgiveness.
Saul’s (Paul’s) conversion, should give people hope and comfort in the fact that God is both merciful and forgiving but then again, Paul did not continue to commit the most serious sins over and over, “a thousand times a day”.
I don’t know what Luther was thinking when he wrote this letter, but I do believe that, what he wrote could be taken as a belief in OSAS.
In my opinion, this is most logical conclusion one can reach , because it requires the fewest “what if’s” to explain.
Does this make any sense? Am I wrong?
Peace
I can agree with much of what, both of you have written here in the last two and three posts but I have a slightly different take on it.
I have spoken with many Christians, here and elsewhere, regarding the OSAS belief and the impression I got, was that OSAS is a “promise made by God” to Christians and that, “God is not a liar”; and once “Saved”, that person’s salvation was guaranteed forever…no matter what!
Sort of what Luther is implying here…right?
I do not believe that people, who hold the belief in OSAS, believe that it is a “license to sin”.
If Luther did eventually adopt this belief (OSAS) and he wrote a letter to explain it, then it wouldn’t matter who his audience was…right?
The belief in OSAS, seems to me to be more of a “comforting assurance”, caused, by a belief in a “guaranteed Salvation”.
As for forgiveness, received after confessing a sin; prior to any confession, there should be a thorough and sincere, examination of one’s conscience, they must be truly repentant and resolve not to repeat the same offence.
If a person is truly repentant, then they will try to avoid repeating the same sin confessed and may still fall back into sin, with a need to confess again. However, I believe that Luther’s quote here is quite extreme and lines up better with a OSAS belief, than it does with a belief in confession and forgiveness.
Saul’s (Paul’s) conversion, should give people hope and comfort in the fact that God is both merciful and forgiving but then again, Paul did not continue to commit the most serious sins over and over, “a thousand times a day”.
I don’t know what Luther was thinking when he wrote this letter, but I do believe that, what he wrote could be taken as a belief in OSAS.
In my opinion, this is most logical conclusion one can reach , because it requires the fewest “what if’s” to explain.
Does this make any sense? Am I wrong?
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Jimmy,
Yes, I think you are wrong. Luther was not OSAS. In this letter, he was making a comparison, in his hyperbolic way, between our tendency to sin, as Christ’s power to forgive.
Luther believed strongly that we must confess, we must do good works, we must live a godly life. He did not preach cheap grace.
And he knew that sin separates us from His grace.
Does this sound like OSAS? And I could give you many more quotes.
Jimmy, I will tell you this; if I was told tomorrow that the Lutheran Church was closing down (no smart remarks here, Jimmy
), and that I could choose between an OSAS church or the Catholic Church, I would be Catholic in a heartbeat. Why? Because our beliefs are far closer than to that of OSAS (and the Eucharist, too).Jon
Actually, Jimmy, when I said you were wrong, I meant you were wrong about Luther. Not the other comments you made above.
These I agree with totally.
Jon
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello again Jon,Jimmy,
Yes, I think you are wrong…
Jimmy, I will tell you this; if I was told tomorrow that the Lutheran Church was closing down (no smart remarks here, Jimmy
Wrong…maybe so… and it wouldn’t be the first time.
I agree with your ending remarks here. From what I have learned about the Lutheran Church, Catholics and Lutherans have a lot in common, more than would fit here in this post.
I do not think Luther would recognize many of the so-called Christian denominations today and I personally believe that if Luther were alive today that he would probably want to be Catholic…That is, if the Catholic Church would take him back. He was, after- all, formally excommunicated for heresy…right?
I pray for true Christian unity…but in the mean time, why don’t you come over to our side? I have a feeling that you would make a great Catholic!
What “Catholic” beliefs are preventing you from joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, should I ask what Lutheran beliefs are keeping you in the Lutheran Church?
Thank you for your post…
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Question -
How many different ways is there to complain about improper indulgences?
Answer -
As least 95…
Just a little levity people…please no hate mail.
Peace
How many different ways is there to complain about improper indulgences?
Answer -
As least 95…
Just a little levity people…please no hate mail.
Peace
Jimmy,Hello again Jon,
Wrong…maybe so… and it wouldn’t be the first time.
I agree with your ending remarks here. From what I have learned about the Lutheran Church, Catholics and Lutherans have a lot in common, more than would fit here in this post.
I do not think Luther would recognize many of the so-called Christian denominations today and I personally believe that if Luther were alive today that he would probably want to be Catholic…That is, if the Catholic Church would take him back. He was, after- all, formally excommunicated for heresy…right?
I pray for true Christian unity…but in the mean time, why don’t you come over to our side? I have a feeling that you would make a great Catholic!
What “Catholic” beliefs are preventing you from joining the Catholic Church? On the other hand, should I ask what Lutheran beliefs are keeping you in the Lutheran Church?
Thank you for your post…
Peace
First, thank you for your kind words.
There are fewer and fewer things in Catholic teachings that I disagree with.
I love the way you handle the Eucharist - Tabernacle and all - though I am unsure of transubstantiation.
I’m beginning to think you are right that confession and marriage should be sacraments.
I believe in apostolic succession, in the sense that it represents a historical unity in the communion of saints.
Some things I’m unsure of at this point:
Purgatory, invocation of saints, papal infallibility, and I’m still concerned with Tradition and the Magisterium being on an equal footing with scripture.
I must also consider the following:
- family
- emotional ties: my dad was a Lutheran minister, so I have stong emotional ties to the Lutheran Church.
If Luther came back today, he’d be all over us Lutherans like stink on skunk for things like allowing private confession to fall into disuse. So, yes, he might well ask to be received back into the Catholic Church.
Thanks, again, for your kind words.
Jon
Question -
How many different ways is there to complain about improper indulgences?
Answer -
As least 95…
Just a little levity people…please no hate mail.
Peace
Jimmy, did you just admit the indulgences were improper???
Oh my gosh! Did I just consider this a compliment?
Can unity be far off?
Jon
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Believe this. there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the CC and there is nothing in the CC that contradicts the Bible. for it is impossible for that to happen. there is one Church and she is protected from error according to the promise of Our Lord.
**“Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.” **
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
At least as held by Calvinists, OSAS (= preservation of the saints; the P of TULIP) is about as likely to lead to fit that description as the sacrament of reconciliation is to lead to adultery or murder.
Besides, Calvinists are not Perfectionists - that idea is almost as big a bug-bear for them as Arminianism. Which is probably significant - because the notion that “sinless perfection” is attainable in this life is far more likely to be found among churches of Wesleyan origin or doctrine; John Wesley was an Arminian in his soteriology, & no Calvinist. A lot of Calvinist piety is so far from perfectionism that if it can be criticised for anything, the criticism would be that it concentrates on the sinfulness of man rather too fixedly. They tend to be well-read in the Bible, which does not encourage sin at all; if anything, it is an indictment of it, from Genesis to Revelation. Why do people have draw the worst possible consequences from beliefs they do not hold ?As for the rest - that is the Catholic account of the matter. Martin Luther was not speaking as a Catholic, so that utterance cannot be understood properly if it is interpreted by a theology which is foreign to it. Luther’s doctrine is based on Romans 8; so Luther can be refuted only if Romans 8 can be interpreted in a way that satisfies Paul’s meaning without leading to Luther’s conclusions.
As for lying: if Luther’s words are to be treated as a proposal to sin, even though they are hyperbolic [see links below]; the same rule must apply to the hyperbole of St. Ignatius. If his words were taken in the cold-blooded way some take those of Luther, they amount to a propsal to commit the sin of lying. But *both *men spoke hyperbolically - so it is unfair to them both to read them as though either was proposing to sin.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
You made some excellent points here Michael… but you lost me when you started comparing Martin Luther to St. Ignatius. I have read them both, and although there may be some, a very few similarities, with these two men, for the most part, they are very different.
A similar writing style, consistent with a specific era, does not equal the same person.
I’ll take Saint Ignatius over Martin Luther any day.
Saint Ignatius embraced many of the things that Martin Luther rejected.
I think that even you would agree that Saint Ignatius, did not posses the same ego that Martin Luther did and that St. Ignatius believed in “surrendering” to ones God and ones Faith, where Luther, on the other hand, was more about questioning things, based on his (Luther’s) own intellect.
Thank’s to Luther, the era of, “God on my terms” began.
Luther’s position on “personal interpretation” for example, attempts to justify… Luther’s "own “personal interpretations”, which was all well and fine, until his own "interpretations were challenged. Be careful of what you ask for…right?
This errant belief by Luther, of “personal interpretation”, came back to bite Luther in the backside…wouldn’t you agree? Luther’s “personal interpretation” doctrine has been a disaster for Christianity.
Now Protestants are trying to interpret was Luther said….Ya see what he started?.
Your Thoughts?
G
gcnuss
Guest
Jimmy,
I think that what we have here is the difference between reading Luther as saying its OK to sin a thousand times a day and reading him as extolling the immensity of God’s mercy. I see the letter to Melanchton as something of a reaction to the scrupulosity that bedeviled Luther during his Augustinian years. He was so convinced that he could never satisfy God, so convinced that some unnoticed or forgotten (and, thus, unconfessed) sin would condemn him, that he would express his understanding of God’s mercy in terms that many might misunderstand. As far as OSAS is concerned, Luther continued throughout his life to look upon confession and absolution as necessary.
I will join with Jon in saying that if the Lutheran church ceased to exist, I would see myself moving to Catholicism rather than to any OSAS denomination. I don’t say that lightly as I grew up under the influence of a Lutheran pastor who was virulently anti-Catholic. It is a measure of God’s grace to me that I am able to pray for the unity that I know Christ wills for his church and that I find so much to be thankful for in the discussions on this forum.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
If the Lutheran Church ever ceased to exist… I don’t think I would join any other communion. I would happily lift my stein and Concord book and drink to times past haha.
Honestly, if given the choice, Catholic would be a logical alternative, although I suppose soteriologically Calvinism would make more sense. But at least the Catholics have the eucharist. Tough call. I would refrain from joining a fellowship that I couldn’t confess 100%.
Somewhere, TriuneUnity, I would have to have access to confession and absolution, and the Eucharist. Not joining another community could not be an option for me.
Jon
Jimmy,
I think you over emphasize Luther’s “personal interpretations”. Luther was a doctor of theology and carefully researched the ECF’s. I suspect he knew their writings as well as most of his time. I think his contention would be that the Church had at least allowed errors and innovations to creep in. IOW, he would say the personal interpretations came, not from him, but from those who were not following the ancient church and the ECF’s.
Obviously, this would be a point of debate and disagreement.
Jon
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The problem for me would be that communing at a Catholic or, say, Presbyterian church would be a public statement that I adhere to and believe that ALL of their doctrines and teachings are correct. I couldn’t in good conscience do that. I understand what you’re saying and believe me, I would lean heavily that way myself, but mixing truth with heterodoxy is never a good thing.
- Status