500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“No sin can separate us from Him”

That’s NOT true.
Look, Luther clearly believed in hell and judgement; all the comments thus far about scrupulosity presuppose that. Not to mention the whole idea of justification by faith, which clearly implies the need to be justified over and against sin and death, etc. So let’s read it in that light.

Luther means, quite rightly, that no sin for which one is truly repentant can separate us from the love of Christ. One is never so lost that one cannot be moved by the grace of God to turn back. True, we can be lost due to our sins, but we are never beyond His reach, and there is no human evil so great that He cannot bring us back to Himself by grace.
 
Look, Luther clearly believed in hell and judgement; all the comments thus far about scrupulosity presuppose that. Not to mention the whole idea of justification by faith, which clearly implies the need to be justified over and against sin and death, etc. So let’s read it in that light.

Luther means, quite rightly, that no sin for which one is truly repentant can separate us from the love of Christ. One is never so lost that one cannot be moved by the grace of God to turn back. True, we can be lost due to our sins, but we are never beyond His reach, and there is no human evil so great that He cannot bring us back to Himself by grace.
At this point, are you sure you are not just providing an interpretation, based on your own understanding of how things work?
 
At this point, are you sure you are not just providing an interpretation, based on your own understanding of how things work?
Of course I am! How could any of us not be?

But I also think it likely that Luther was suggesting the same; my interpretation seems consistent with what he preached and what he practiced (i.e. the forgiveness of real sins, holy absolution, a belief in salvation from sin).

Do you agree that there’s a sense in which a Roman Catholic can affirm that “there is no sin that can separate us from Him”?
 
=steve b;11291699]I’m reading what Luther actually said
*11. “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.
He isn’t talking about mortal and venial sins because that’s not, generally, the way Lutherans speak of sin. Sure, we have a concept of mortal and venial, but it differs from the Catholic view. Again, grace absolves.
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
In the entirety of context regarding confession and repentance, yes you are incorrect. Look again at the Smalcald article I posted. The statement “whatever may be of contrition” is, again, a statement of what absolves, and that is grace. Even the faith that makes it possible for one to seek absolution and believe the words of the priest granting it, is a gift of 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
This is why pulling a sentence or two out of the letter is fruitless.
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”
The entire paragraph is about exhorting Melanchthon to be a preacher of true grace, without hesitation or fear of sin. Preach the Gospel!
And all the hyperbole regarding murders and fornication, and how those things cannot separate us from the Lamb leads up to the last two sentences:
** Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? **
God’s grace, for Christ’s sake, is far greater than our sin. If it were not, then we would be believers in vain.
And he finishes:

Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.
Pray boldly. Who but the regenerate, who knows he has sin, and is sorry for them (contrite) prays boldly. Why pray boldly - because you too are a mighty sinner.
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.
Of course its not true, taken on its own, or out of context. Witness the last line - pray boldly, and remember, this is not a doctrinal statement, but a personal letter between theologians of (at least at this time) like minds. Read what Melanchthon writes about confession and repentance:
Article XI: Of Confession.
1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession 2] an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.
Article VII: 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.
They each know and believe in Confession and repentance, and that they go together. There is no need to state the obvious, that which is assumed by both, that the regenerate will seek out absolution, and that the feeling of need for repentance includes contrition.

Jon
 
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.
Well, let’s break this down.

** I am seeing two things here, the first is what Luther said, the second is what Lutherans claim Luther said. **
I could say I see the entirety of what Luther said, in context, and it doesn’t look a thing like what Catholics here are saying about it. Reference my post to Steve.

** I am having a really really hard time reconciling the two. **

Understood. to really understand, don’t go back to the Catholic polemicists, but instead go to what Lutherans say. Look at what Luther said and Melanchthon said. Look at the context of a letter, with unspoken assumptions between them, spelled out forcefully in the confessions, as I noted.

**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. **

A false dichotomy. To the extent and degree that Luther’s words are reflective of scripture - sola scriptura and all - we accept his words. To the extent that they do not reflect scripture, we reject them. Lutherans are catholic Christians. We preach not Luther, but Christ crucified.
So, what part of Luther’s words do we accept for sure. They are in the Book of Concord. That’s why one can’t separate on a thread Luther from the Confessions, because there are those who assume that Luther and Lutherans are the same, or that Lutherans just take Luther’s word for it on everything he said.

Finally, this is a personal letter, not a doctrinal statement. It is a letter between friends and fellow theologians. One is encouraging the other. To think that the one sentence you pulled out reflects Luther’s thinking is a mistake. To accuse Luther of rejecting Reconciliation because he doesn’t mention it in this letter is a mistake.

Jon
 
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.
That’s a 2-way street. It’s the same for us Catholics - there is what others say about us and what we say about us. If you want to understand Catholics, do you go to Lutherans sources? No.
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.
Luther asked for the movement he started to not be called Lutheran (LW 45 - A sincere admonition to all Christians against insurrection and rebellion - 1521).

It wasn’t just Luther for Lutheranism, Melanchthon played a very big role. You’d also need to look at the political interests behind him - Frederick the Wise (Who did remain Catholic though all the turmoil - probably why he was called “the Wise” ;)). Luther was very much conservative and very much against most of the innovations that were blowing up during this time - see the Zwickau prophets.

If my memory serves me right it was Eck who started calling the supporters of Luther - Lutherans.
At this point I just scratch my head, I tried to understand, but cannot.
I understand. You’d need to take a dive into history to see all the different angles of this mess…
 
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.
Evangelical Catholics follow tradition, creeds, scripture, and the confessions ( that are a reflection of scripture) - Luther was certainly an imperfect member of the church.

We’re were named ‘Lutheran’ by our Roman Catholic friends in the same way I affectionately use the word ‘Papist’ to my Catholic friends here in Washington. At one point, those terms were offensive and still are if not done with a smile, wink, and a good beer in hand.
 
Look, Luther clearly believed in hell and judgement; all the comments thus far about scrupulosity presuppose that. Not to mention the whole idea of justification by faith, which clearly implies the need to be justified over and against sin and death, etc. So let’s read it in that light.
:hmmm:I’m thinking, If he was really concerned about hell, he never would have left the Catholic Church.


He didn’t have to let that happen. And he could have changed that as well. But He didn’t. By leaving, he was no longer “in” the Church. He put himself outside the Church as did all his followers. And he can’t redefine what is meant by Church or Catholic Church, so that he could convince himself and others he didn’t violate God’s condemnation for division from the Church, [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16)** , **[Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5)
N:
Luther means, quite rightly, that no sin for which one is** truly repentant** can separate us from the love of Christ.
That’s not the point I was making Re:[Romans 8:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:39&version=RSVCE) . God loves all souls. That’s true

God still loves souls in hell who are seperated from Him.
  • Nothing can seperate us from God, is False.
  • Nothing can seperate us from His love is True.
N:
One is never so lost that one cannot be moved by the grace of God to turn back.
If you mean grace is always given, I agree. God doesn’t want to lose a single soul. That doesn’t mean souls don’t resist the grace being given.
N:
True, we can be lost due to our sins, but we are never beyond His reach, and there is no human evil so great that He cannot bring us back to Himself by grace.
Again, If you mean grace is always given, I agree. God doesn’t want to lose a single soul. That doesn’t mean souls don’t resist the grace being given.
 
:hmmm:I’m thinking, If he was really concerned about hell, he never would have left the Catholic Church.
He didn’t leave the Catholic Church, he reformed it - Lutherans view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church.

Of course, that’s not Catholic teaching.
 
He didn’t leave the Catholic Church, he reformed it - Lutherans view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church.

Of course, that’s not Catholic teaching.
Just being transparent, not for one second would I want or ignore this encyclical coming from the chair of Peter written against me or in extension, the movement I was in.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

I would correct whatever I needed to correct immediately. But that’s me. And I can only speak for myself. 😉

There’s a great line in the movie Gladiator…“What we do in life echoes in eternity”
 
Just being transparent, not for one second would I want or ignore this encyclical coming from the chair of Peter written against me or in extension, the movement I was in.
Luther certainly didn’t ignore it - he burned it!

 
:hmmm:I’m thinking, If he was really concerned about hell, he never would have left the Catholic Church.
I’m not sure what you mean by “he never would have left”. Luther was excommunicated.

But that aside, I’ve sometimes remarked to myself that there seems to be, among quite a lot of people, a disturbing “no fault divorce” mentality with respect to leaving one church for another. So I guess I’m agree with you to some extent.
 
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.
Lutheran posters are obviously in a better position than I to answer your question, but I’ll go ahead and say Yes anyhow.

The thing to keep in mind is, Lutherans don’t believe in “Lutherpal Infallibility”. (Oddly enough, even the “Papal Infallibility” that we Catholics believe in isn’t the “Papal Infallibility” that a lot of non-Catholics think it is.)
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “he never would have left”. Luther was excommunicated.

But that aside, I’ve sometimes remarked to myself that there seems to be, among quite a lot of people, a disturbing “no fault divorce” mentality with respect to leaving one church for another. So I guess I’m agree with you to some extent.
Frankly, the division between our churches sucks. I can say that (though we’re grumpy an strident) we do miss you and all churches that proclaim the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.

It certainly isn’t God’s will that we remain separated.
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “he never would have left”. Luther was excommunicated.
“he never would have left” was tied to “if Luther was really concerned about hell”

Division from the Church is condemned by Jesus. Where did Jesus say that you ask?😉 See the quotes that follow next section

btw, Luther didn’t just wake up one day, excommunicated. He was warned about his errors well in advance, and he wouldn’t retract them after being given ample time to do so. And as the paper trail shows, he had no intention anyway of changing.
P:
But that aside, I’ve sometimes remarked to myself that there seems to be, among quite a lot of people, a disturbing “no fault divorce” mentality with respect to leaving one church for another. So I guess I’m agree with you to some extent.
for clarification

He didn’t leave one Church for another. Protestantism isn’t a church, no matter the stripe.

Yes, it’s disturbing people bought into the lie of no fault division. Because the consequences for division are HUGE.

Consider the following [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16).

iow, when Paul writes the following
while the HS inspired Paul to write that, who did that ultimately come from? It’s from Jesus … right? [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16).

Jesus is therefore warning us through the HS who is teaching and inspiring Paul, theat He condemns division from the Church that He established and died for. btw, whichever word one’s translation uses there for division, the same Greek word. διχοστασία dichostasia ] is used in both the Romans and Galatians text selection…the meaning = dissension / sedition / division ] . iow, one who does it is then outside the Church and there is no salvation for THEM if they remain in that state…i.e. Hell for them.

And as one can see, the judge who will judge ALL, is telling us how He will judge that sin…

Therefore my point, “he never would have left” was tied to “if Luther was really concerned about hell”
 
Hi steve b. After reading your last post, I realize that I could have written that better. Let me change it to:

I’m not sure what you mean by “he never would have left”. Luther didn’t leave, he was excommunicated.

But that aside, I’ve sometimes remarked to myself that there seems to be, among quite a lot of people, a disturbing “no fault divorce” mentality with respect to leaving one church or denomination for another. So I guess I agree with you to some extent.
 
Hi steve b. After reading your last post, I realize that I could have written that better. Let me change it to:
I’m not sure what you mean by “he never would have left”. Luther didn’t leave, he was excommunicated.

But that aside, I’ve sometimes remarked to myself that there seems to be, among quite a lot of people, a disturbing “no fault divorce” mentality with respect to leaving one church or denomination for another. So I guess I agree with you to some extent.
Is what’s underlined the change you’re making? IMV you’re still saying the same thing as before
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top