D
Darryl_B
Guest
After some more reading I do not think that I can give to Luther the same benefit of doubt that seems to be included in your interpretation of his statements. Part of your interpretation seems to be based on an assimilation of your own theology. ie since you believe (a) therefore it is probable that Martin Luther is also and is surely implying (a). And as much as I have tried to see it that way I just don’t see it that way.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”?
One thing for me with his 1000s quote, is that what he might have been trying to say in a hypothetical exaggeration, needs to fit everything, not just the one point he might be trying to say. So while he is addressing (b) which could be considered valid, the result is indirectly (c) and (d). They are a side product of his speech, and must be considered as an implication of his speech, and which IS contrary to Catholic teaching.
I don’t want to go into what (c) and (d) are although I have touched on them in previous posts, and I am sure there are others who would be better equipped to respond to those implications.
I think that is also the reason why Lutherans are the same as Catholics in one breath, and miles apart from Catholics in the next.
At this point I am going to focus more on things relevant to my RCIA. But thanks for your interesting info.