500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[steve_b]

So the Orthodox are in line with CC view of Roman pope ?

no
p:

Are you sure my arguments were non-existent before 16th century ?

You know someone is going to ask you for proof of your argument. Here’s where time is saved by providing in advance proof your arguments existed before the 16th century. If they existed, WHO had them? Needless to say, properly documented

 

[JonNC]

He might have meant Luther’s understanding was erroneous. The pope lists Luther’s errors in this area. Look at the link provided, and see if I missed anything.

(all emphasis mine)

Do you see a theme here to his thinking?

Here’s the theme, Steve:

V. Confession

How Christians should be taught to confess.

What is Confession?*

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

What sins should we confess?

Before God we should plead guilty of all sins, even of those which we do not know, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer. But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts.

Which are these?

Here consider your station according to the Ten Commandments, whether you are a father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, a man-servant or maid-servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, slothful; whether you have grieved any one by words or deeds; whether you have stolen, neglected, or wasted aught, or done other injury.

Pray, Propose to Me a Brief Form of Confession.

Answer.

You should speak to the confessor thus: Reverend and dear sir, I beseech you to hear my confession, and to pronounce forgiveness to me for God’s sake.

Proceed!

I, a poor sinner, confess myself before God guilty of all sins; especially I confess before you that I am a man-servant, a maidservant, etc. But, alas, I serve my master unfaithfully; for in this and in that I have not done what they commanded me; I have provoked them, and caused them to curse, have been negligent [in many things] and permitted damage to be done; have also been immodest in words and deeds, have quarreled with my equals, have grumbled and sworn at my mistress, etc. For all this I am sorry, and pray for grace; I want to do better.

A master or mistress may say thus:

In particular I confess before you that I have not faithfully trained my children, domestics, and wife [family] for God’s glory. I have cursed, set a bad example by rude words and deeds, have done my neighbor harm and spoken evil of him, have overcharged and given false ware and short measure.

And whatever else he has done against God’s command and his station, etc.

But if any one does not find himself burdened with such or greater sins, he should not trouble himself or search for or invent other sins, and thereby make confession a torture, but mention one or two that he knows. Thus: In particular I confess that I once cursed; again, I once used improper words, I have once neglected this or that, etc. Let this suffice.

But if you know of none at all (which, however is scarcely possible), then mention none in particular, but receive the forgiveness upon your general confession which you make before God to the confessor.

Then shall the confessor say:

God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith! Amen.

Furthermore:

Dost thou believe that my forgiveness is God’s forgiveness?

Answer.

Yes, dear sir.

Then let him say:

As thou believest, so be it done unto thee. And by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I forgive thee thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in peace.

But those who have great burdens upon their consciences, or are distressed and tempted, the confessor will know how to comfort and to encourage to faith with more passages of Scripture. This is to be merely a general form of confession for the unlearned.

• These questions may not have been composed by Luther himself but reflect his teachings and were included in editions of the Small Catechism during his lifetime.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Here’s the theme, Steve:

[snip]

• These questions may not have been composed by Luther himself but reflect his teachings and were included in editions of the Small Catechism during his lifetime.

Jon

the theme being asked for, was to address Luther’s specific teachings that were listed.

 

[Darryl_B]

But surely you recognise that Luther would simply say that we ought to doubt the faith of anyone who commits thousands of murders without any sign of remorse?

I don’t know whether that was the point he was making. The end of the quote is kill oneself too, and be in good standing with God. I think it is possibly related to purgatory and the idea that death itself is a final point where one cannot be held responsible after death for the things they did before death. Hence no need for reconciliation.

 

[Darryl_B]

Agreed, but Darryl’s point seems to be that Luther rejected Confession/Holy Absolution. This is where he is incorrect.

I do not know where you get the idea that Luther rejected what Catholics call Reconciliation, and what we call Holy Absolution. Certainly he doesn’t mention it in the letter to Melanchthon that you pulled the quote from. But then again, it was a private letter, not a doctrinal statement, and between two theologians who knew each other well, not everything has to be stated. Some things are assumed.

From the Augsburg Confession (while Luther didn’t write it, he did approve of it)
bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article11

And from the Small Catechism, which he did write:
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Incidentally, the format Luther proivdes here is the usual format used by Lutherans for private confession. And Lutherans believe that pastor/confessors, when they grant Absolution, speak in personal christi.

Jon

No. I do not think Lutherans don’t have confession and absolution, though it is a generic rather than specific confession. My point is reconciliation. Catholics believe that mortal sin, of which fornication and murder (and also suicide) has a removal of santifying grace and there is a need for RECONCILIATION to God. Martin Luther seems to be implying that it is impossible to loose God’s Grace by mortal sin, and hence when this one hypothetical person commits these things they have no need of RECONCILIATION, and confession then becomes only an act of humility.

According to wiki (sorry I don’t usually trust wiki) the confessional of Lutherans was largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries. Is that correct?

 

[Peter_J]

He might have meant Luther’s understanding was erroneous. The pope lists Luther’s errors in this area. Look at the link provided, and see if I missed anything.

(all emphasis mine)

Do you see a theme here to his thinking?

Here’s the theme, Steve:

Jon

It should go without saying that no pope is perfect. If the aforementioned papal encyclical rightly criticized errors of Luther then we do well to attend to it. If not, then not.

 

[MaryT777]

Here’s the theme, Steve:

Jon

Jon:
Can you comment on “This is to be merely a general form of confession for the unlearned.”
Were there more than one form of confession then?
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

the theme being asked for, was to address Luther’s specific teachings that were listed.

The specific teachings that matter are in the confessions.

Jon

 

[Darryl_B]

Interesting assertion ^^ if it’s true. Can you provide a source? (I see Jon has already touched on this point, in the negative, but I figured I should ask anyhow.)

It’s just the impression I get when I put all the pieces together.

1. It is been emphasized that Luther was meticulous in the confessional and could be hours. That sounds like scupulousness.
2. The Lutheran church though it has confession absolution, the confession is just generic, a broad statement of reflection that we are indeed a sinner and in need of mercy.
3. The apparent belief that favour with God cannot be lost through the act of mortal sin, and therefore does not require reconciliation, penance, service. It is like a freedom from guilt that is more easier to achieve than what is present in the Catholic model.

 

[JonNC]

No. I do not think Lutherans don’t have confession and absolution, though it is a generic rather than specific confession. My point is reconciliation. Catholics believe that mortal sin, of which fornication and murder (and also suicide) has a removal of santifying grace and there is a need for RECONCILIATION to God. Martin Luther seems to be implying that it is impossible to loose God’s Grace by mortal sin, and hence when this one hypothetical person commits these things they have no need of RECONCILIATION, and confession then becomes only an act of humility.

According to wiki (sorry I don’t usually trust wiki) the confessional of Lutherans was largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries. Is that correct?

Luther thought it possible to lose salvation because of any sin. He recommended being careful not to ignore venial sins.
We certainly know the term Reconciliation, though we see God’s grace in the Holy Absolution. We believe and repeat the words each Sunday: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”. “If we confess our sins, God, who is faithful and just,** will** forgive our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

The confessions are clear that one can lose justification, one can reject grace, and repeated, unrepented sin can lead to loss of saving faith.

EDIT: On private confession, it is true that this had fallen into disuse here in America, thought the offer has always been there. It seems Lutheran seminaries here are dong a much better job of training pastors to encourage the return.
I understand from some older LCMS Lutherans, that there was a time not too very long ago, that one had to present oneself for confession prior to communion on a frequent basis. I don’t know the details of this as I was raised LCA.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

But surely you recognise that Luther would simply say that we ought to doubt the faith of anyone who commits thousands of murders without any sign of remorse?

For reference purposes,Re: remorse / contrition, here’s a list of Luther’s errors forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11290064&postcount=733

Note #'s 6 &11.

1. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
2. “By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.”

Would you agree, It looks like Luther is saying contrition / remorse, is not an issue? It might not even be necessary for forgiveness?

Here’s an error we see often on these threads. I didn’t realize it came from Luther.

Re: commiting murder or adultery 1000s of times / day, Luther’s full quote was

"No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt

That’s a famous saying among Protestants “No sin can seperate us from God” we hear all the time on these forums. That’s NOT what Rom 8:39 says nor any other passage in scripture… [Romans 8:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:39&version=RSVCE) says nothing can seperate us fron the love of God. Which means God still loves those seperated from Him in hell. .

mortal sin DOES seperate us from God. If one dies in one of those sins they go to hell

example

• Titus 3: 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs ], 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• 2 Thes 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. **9 **They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

[steve_b]

The specific teachings that matter are in the confessions.

Jon

the issue is what Luther said and taught…right?

 

[benjohnson]

the issue is what Luther said and taught…right?

That’s what the topic is… but if you’re trying to understand Lutherans, you should generally go by the Confessions and the Book of Concord.

Also, the Book of Concord has come in handy for many pilots getting type certified.



:takeoff:

 

[JonNC]

the issue is what Luther said and taught…right?

Perhaps this will help.

From the Smallcald Articles.

Part III, Article III. Of Repentance.

1] This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1:18 does, saying: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Again, Rom 3:19: All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him. And Christ says, John 16:8: The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.

2] This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He strikes in a heap [hurls to the ground] both manifest sinners and false saints [hypocrites], and suffers no one to be in the right [declares no one righteous], but drives them all together to terror and despair. This is the hammer, as Jeremiah 23:29 says: Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? **This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio [torture of conscience], true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death. **
3] This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.

Repentance is of a true contrition - the tortured conscience, the sorrow of the heart, etc.
To say that Luther did not believe that contrition is part of confession and repentance is misunderstand Luther entirely.

And the Augsburg Confession, while not written by Luther, met his approval.

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance.** Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition**, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11291025]

1. “By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.”

Would you agree, It looks like Luther is saying contrition / remorse, is not an issue? It might not even be necessary for forgiveness?

Read it again, Steve. He’s not saying contrition isn’t needed. He’s saying it isn’t contrition that absolves, but Grace. The word of Christ. Now, read what he says above in the Smalcald article I posted.

mortal sin DOES seperate us from God. If one dies in one of those sins they go to hell

All sin can separate us from grace. To think Luther is saying otherwise is again, to entirely understand. The letter is to Melanchthon. He doesn’t spell it all out, because he doesn’t have to, since Melanchthon knows what Luther is talking about. They both assume, for the purpose of the conversation, that they are talking about the regenerate, who will practice the sacraments of Confession/Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist.
To speak of murdering or fornicating 1,000 times a day is obviously hyperbole (no one can fornicate 1,00 times a day, and murdering a thousand times a day would have been quite difficult then), and he is talking to Melanchthon, who would have held no plans or desire to do such things.

It is a letter, not a statement of doctrine. The statement of doctrine are in the Confessions, and Luther’s writings there are the Small and Large Catechism, and the Smalcald Articles.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Read it again, Steve. He’s not saying contrition isn’t needed. He’s saying it isn’t contrition that absolves, but Grace. The word of Christ. Now, read what he says above in the Smalcald article I posted.

I’m reading what Luther actually said

I’ll take his statement in parts

1. “By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition,” but because of the word of Christ

Is he talking about forgiveness of venial sins? Mortal sins? Being absolved of sins requires contrition. One isn’t forgiven regardless of contrition.

Luther continues

“Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition."

What’s in red is a conditional statement.

One has absolution only if one believes they have absolution and regardless of contrition.

Tell me where my reading of this is incorrect
J:

All sin can separate us from grace.

That’s not the point I raised. Luther said “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

What’s underlined is nonsense. The rest is an extreme exaggeration
J:

To think Luther is saying otherwise is again, to entirely understand. The letter is to Melanchthon. He doesn’t spell it all out, because he doesn’t have to, since Melanchthon knows what Luther is talking about. They both assume, for the purpose of the conversation, that they are talking about the regenerate, who will practice the sacraments of Confession/Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist.

The point is, Luther appears to say, remorse /contrition, is immaterial…to quote him, “whatever there may be of contrition”. iow contrition may not even be there. He’s saying just believe in God’s mercy. I see that as some form of believism.
J:

To speak of murdering or fornicating 1,000 times a day is obviously hyperbole (no one can fornicate 1,00 times a day, and murdering a thousand times a day would have been quite difficult then),

I get that. But that’s not Luther’s point that I’m focusing on. His point is what precedes that. “No sin can separate us from Him”

That’s NOT true.

 

[pocohombre]

Sorry Pocohombre, but I do not see a thin line between crazy and genius. That is a fuzziness so prevalent in the “modernist” approach to anything, Luther was neither crazy nor genius, he was ordinary. Meticulous is another word for scrupulous. I suspect that the scrupulous Luther eventually rebelled and threw off what he saw as the “shackles” that he believed was creating his scrupulousness, the Catholic Church teaching.
Subsequently there are things he wrote, which show he had no fear of sin. Salvation by faith ONLY, and you can murder as much as you want and still be forgiven without the sacrament of confession/reconciliation. He should really have found a spiritual mentor who could help him through this scrupulous phase he had, rather than taking the action he took.

Have not read much of him as perhaps you have. You might be too harsh with meticulous being scrupulous. Did I not say hypersensitive, not sure ? But I know that some are more than others .Even some of CC saints mystics were hypersensitive. Do you not know of folk who are more fussy about just what to confess than others ? I do agree that he would say the truth set him free from shackles. Not sure if initially he would say he was taught wrong as much as he misunderstood what was always in front of him. But in the end, of course he then differed with CC teaching on just what sets one free…I think he was quite well mentored. Every single day he was "mentored’ I thought while studying as priest, not sure for how long or how many years. You are right, not sure if he was “ordinary” (like the apostles) or a bit above (like St. Paul) and is that propaganda that he distinguished himself in the best law university as well as in his priestly studies? Must be some truth to a good intellect for the Church did set him up to teach others.

 

[pocohombre]

No. Like you, they are in error.

Yes. Well, pretty sure.

So othodox church began then also-16th century

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m reading what Luther actually said

I’ll take his statement in parts

Is he talking about forgiveness of venial sins? Mortal sins? Being absolved of sins requires contrition. One isn’t forgiven regardless of contrition.

Luther continues

What’s in red is a conditional statement.

One has absolution only if one believes they have absolution and regardless of contrition.

Tell me where my reading of this is incorrect

That’s not the point I raised. Luther said “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

What’s underlined is nonsense. The rest is an extreme exaggeration

The point is, Luther appears to say, remorse /contrition, is immaterial…to quote him, “whatever there may be of contrition”. iow contrition may not even be there. He’s saying just believe in God’s mercy. I see that as some form of believism.

I get that. But that’s not Luther’s point that I’m focusing on. His point is what precedes that. “No sin can separate us from Him”

That’s NOT true.

I am seeing two things here, the first is what Luther said, the second is what Lutherans claim Luther said. I am having a really really hard time reconciling the two. Are Lutherans Lutheran and is Luther a Lutheran? I really don’t know because Luther says things not Lutheran, and Lutherans say things that are not Luther.

At this point I just scratch my head, I tried to understand, but cannot.

 

[Novocastrian]

I am seeing two things here, the first is what Luther said, the second is what Lutherans claim Luther said. I am having a really really hard time reconciling the two. Are Lutherans Lutheran and is Luther a Lutheran? I really don’t know because Luther says things not Lutheran, and Lutherans say things that are not Luther.

At this point I just scratch my head, I tried to understand, but cannot.

“Lutheran” Christians are not bound by the teaching of Luther, but rather by the Confessio Augustana (and the ancient creeds, etc.).