Did Luther repent?

[Nino]

Ole Martin took the side of the counts and nobles of his day…when they slaughtered some 200,000 peasants he said 'right on!" hardly one to ‘repent’ on his deathbed. After the establishment of the day plundered the RCC churchs and monasteries of their gold and silver…they then informed the simple folk when the churchs were re-opened…naw we sent that junk back to Rome…yeh sure…every so oftne some of that junki resurfaces!..Nino

 

[Sabda]

To be sure, we should strive for perfection – to avoid sinning – but it is unrealistic to think that we will ever achieve it by our own efforts. In the end we are dependent on Christ for our perfection.

Luther did not say we should strive for perfection, he said “sin boldly”. Christ never said any such thing. Christ said, “sin no more,” “repent”, “be perfect”. Christ never said it was ok to sin, NEVER. Luther’s statement “sin boldly”, is saying that it is ok to sin. That is a contradiction to what Christ said. Christ does not want us to sin because then you are saying no to God. What Luther is saying is say no to God but also say yes to God. You can not do both. Christ also said you can not have two masters.

 

[Angainor]

P.S. Since when did Luther worry about repentance and forgiveness??? “Sin boldly” was his motto!

::coffeeread:

FYI:

From “This Rock" Magazine Luther had failed to find peace of soul in ascetic self-discipline and efforts at “good works.” He never declared a good life unnecessary. His "pecca fortiter sed crede fortius” (sin boldly but believe still more firmly) was not meant to be an encouragement to yield to sin without scruple. He intended simply that however great a sinner one may be, granted repentance, he can be justified solely by faith. But to be zealous for good works, thinking them to be a means to salvation, was to manifest a lack of faith in God’s power to save.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve heard a couple times that Luther supposedly repented and re-entered the Church on his deathbed but I cannot find this document anywhere (true or not).

Obviously, Lutherans (all Protestants) are not going to accept this (not that that would have anything to do with it being true or not). I am curious if there is any evidence behind such ‘rumors’. Can anyone speak to this?

It seems to be one of those fictions that grow up because people want it to have been true: the same could be said of​

• the alleged escape of the Romanovs from the Bolsheviks (Nicholas II supposedly escaped to the US)
• the alleged escape of Marshal Ney from a firing squad (he supposedly died in the US)
• the alleged escape of the young Louis XVII from the French Revolutionaries
• • & so on.
    If people want something to be true, it is often not long before they manage to convince themselves (if no one else) that it’s true

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That sounds awfully contradictory. Not only did Christ say to repent he also said to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. You can’t sin and be perfect. In order to be perfect you must refrain from sinning. Yes, we are to go out into the world but that does not mean we need to involve ourselves in the sins of the world’s in order to do so. That whole sentence of Luther’s is completely contradictory.

Luther was speaking hyperbolically - in order to drive home the point he was making. If his readers think he was seriously giving, as his considered advice, an encouragement to sin as much as possible, they - we - would be ripping one phrase from an entire letter, & taking it out of context. Christ Himself would not be guiltless of atheism, if that were a fair procedure. It is grossly unfair. It is as sensible as saying Psalms 14 & 53 teach atheism, because the words “there is no God” appear in both.​

Or does fairness not matter, if the writer or speaker of this or that phrase is not Catholic ?

Luther was not writing for our benefit, but for that of Melanchthon; had he known how his meaning would be distorted by his critics, he might have written more guardedly.

For an advocate of the excellence of abounding in sin, he seems rather unconvinced of the beauties of sin - if the “Small Catechism” is any guide at all:

The Third Article.
Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
What does this mean?–Answer.

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html

Luther, despite his love for sin, seems none too keen on it. It is surely long past time that this misrepresentation was pensioned off. There are enough genuine issues between Luther’s doctrines & those of the CC, without these myths being needed.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul,

I was thinking about a reply to this when I came across the following quote from an article by Uwe Siemon-Netto, a Lutheran theologian and writer as he speaks what is expected of Christians living in this world.

If we do anything at all in this world – if we live our lives boldly-- our human nature (and Satan, working to turn us from God) is bound to lead us into sin, no matter how much we try to avoid it. We are left, then, with recourse only to Christ since we are incapable of saving ourselves. To “believe boldly” requires that we repent of our sins and trust in the promise of forgiveness that comes through Christ.

Luther’s “sin boldly” makes sense only if understood in this light.

What a pathetic, empty theology. How can people read anything of the lives of any of the great saints and not understand that it is perfectly possible to live in harmony with the world and yet also in a state of grace, rarely or never falling into sin? (Oh wait - you don’t study the lives of saints.)

Christ told us “If your left hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. He likely didn’t mean that quite literally, yet the stark contradiction of Luther’s philosophy is evident.

If Protestants were able to be just a bit Incarnational and understand that the world isn’t intrinsically evil, you could probably understand how it’s quite possible to live in it and avoid sin.

 

[TertiumQuid]

P.S. Since when did Luther worry about repentance and forgiveness??? “Sin boldly” was his motto!

My **2 cents **on this.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

My **2 cents **on this.

Quite a read. A lot of obfuscation and a lot of nonsense, mostly.

I think you are very much mistaken in your repeated assertions that Catholics who have a big problem with “sin boldy” just have never read and don’t really understand Luther. Actually, I know that.

It is you that is missing the point, and failing, along with Luther, to see the greater Truths that his theology doesn’t account for and contradicts.

Paul

P.S. I have personally heard countless Protestants of various sorts say exactly that their sins do not matter in any sense, and used this philosophy to justify all sorts of lifestyles and behavior. So, if you are correct in believing Luther’s words are often taken farther than even he intended (and he intended just what he said), it is Protestants that are most guilty, I think.

 

[gcnuss]

Paul,

You wrote, in reply to me:

What a pathetic, empty theology.

(I remember the unedited version very well, also.)

And, in reply to TertiumQuid:

Quite a read. A lot of obfuscation and a lot of nonsense, mostly.

While I rarely comment on the tenor of people’s posts, I must say that these opening sentences do a great deal to obscure anything that follows them. Throwing brickbats doesn’t contribute to reasonable, civilized discussion nor does it encourage one to want to hear what you have to say.

As I write this, I remember my reaction to reading your reply to me. I will always remember that opening sentence, but I can’t quote (nor even paraphrase) any of the rest of your post without going back to look at it. I suspect that is not the result you hoped for.

I do admire your fervor as an apologist of the Catholic faith. God’s blessings to you as you continue in that calling.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

While I rarely comment on the tenor of people’s posts, I must say that these opening sentences do a great deal to obscure anything that follows them. Throwing brickbats doesn’t contribute to reasonable, civilized discussion nor does it encourage one to want to hear what you have to say.

As I write this, I remember my reaction to reading your reply to me. I will always remember that opening sentence, but I can’t quote (nor even paraphrase) any of the rest of your post without going back to look at it. I suspect that is not the result you hoped for.

I do admire your fervor as an apologist of the Catholic faith. God’s blessings to you as you continue in that calling.

Reading this forum for the better part of a year now, I see again and again the pattern of Protestants coming here to repeatedly challenge - if not bash - Catholic theology, usually totally ignoring the explanations given to them. This type of thing can be seen in many of the threads on this page. I guess I have come to the conclusion that being blunt may be the best policy. Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers never sugar-coated responses to those who blatantly persisted in ignoring Truth. This theology of Luther’s that is being espoused is an evil, pure and simple. I think I am just calling a spade a spade. For those who are in ignorance - then, no, harsh language is never called for and is detrimental. I cringe when I think that someone who is/was earnestly search would be put off by my words. Perhaps that is the case here.

 

[Teflon93]

Reading this forum for the better part of a year now, I see again and again the pattern of Protestants coming here to repeatedly challenge - if not bash - Catholic theology, usually totally ignoring the explanations given to them. This type of thing can be seen in many of the threads on this page. I guess I have come to the conclusion that being blunt may be the best policy. Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers never sugar-coated responses to those who blatantly persisted in ignoring Truth. This theology of Luther’s that is being espoused is an evil, pure and simple. I think I am just calling a spade a spade. For those who are in ignorance - then, no, harsh language is never called for and is detrimental. I cringe when I think that someone who is/was earnestly search would be put off by my words. Perhaps that is the case here.

All of which may be true, Paul, but if your intent is to persuade your tone may be undermining it.

I am a Catholic convert, I think Luther is directly responsible for the continuous fracturing of Christendom and for the death of Christianity in Western Europe (put not your faith in princes and all that), and I think the more you learn about the inherent contradictions in sola scriptura (whose scriptura, precisely? whose interpretation of it?) the closer you get to Rome. I’m in the choir already.

And yet I think your response was harsh and dismissive.

There are many Catholic theologians and even popes whose crackpot ideologies and horrendous conduct brought discredit upon the Church. That’s what comes from 2 millennia worth of existence. Is Catholicism to be dismissed due to the influence of the Borgias?

Sure, Luther was short-sighted, scatological, venomous, and political to the bone. Lutheranism, on the other hand, exists distinct from its founder. To persuade Lutherans of the merits of Catholicism, we must tackle key tenets of their theology head-on. Insulting long-dead men probably won’t work, nor will insulting those we want to persuade.

Now that said, bluntness and sarcasm are things I admire, but applied with the art of a surgeon, not a butcher. Fr Richard John Neuhaus is a master of the art.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

All of which may be true, Paul, but if your intent is to persuade your tone may be undermining it.

To be honest, and as I thought I indicated, I felt like I was engaging in a conversation that would fail to persuade regardless of what was said. But, let’s continue.

I am a Catholic convert, I think Luther is directly responsible for the continuous fracturing of Christendom and for the death of Christianity in Western Europe (put not your faith in princes and all that), and I think the more you learn about the inherent contradictions in sola scriptura (whose scriptura, precisely? whose interpretation of it?) the closer you get to Rome. I’m in the choir already.

Sounds like you are indeed.

And yet I think your response was harsh and dismissive.

I’d already agreed that it was some of that.

There are many Catholic theologians and even popes whose crackpot ideologies and horrendous conduct brought discredit upon the Church. That’s what comes from 2 millennia worth of existence. Is Catholicism to be dismissed due to the influence of the Borgias?

Now I have to say that you are straying off the reservation a bit. I believe that taken on the whole, there are very few of these types of individuals - not “many” in any sense at all. The Church is so full of wonderful examples of holy people - it is the norm much more than the exception, if you’re talking about the famous, those who wrote and influence people, etc. Or not.

Then there is the wonderful - even incredible - consistency of orthodox Catholic theology through the ages - so long in history and deep in scope that it does directly smack of something divinely inspired. I doubt you’d disagree with that, but I think your emphasis, at least what you’re expressing here, is off-base.

Why is it that so many miraculous events - apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, incorrupt bodies - are confined to the Catholic Church? This is God’s stamp of approval. That’s more or less the bottom line.

I feel we’re straying off-topic here, but I followed you and wanted to throw that out.

Sure, Luther was short-sighted, scatological, venomous, and political to the bone. Lutheranism, on the other hand, exists distinct from its founder.

This wouldn’t come as good news to most sincere Lutherans. Or perhaps that’s not true.

To persuade Lutherans of the merits of Catholicism, we must tackle key tenets of their theology head-on. Insulting long-dead men probably won’t work, nor will insulting those we want to persuade.

You raked Mr. Luther through the coals just now to a far greater extent than I in this thread, sir. Seriously - I think I concentrated on his theology much more than anything personal, no?

And neither did I personally insult anyone living in this thread and that I do take issue with! Read it again. That would be completely unacceptable. Being blunt about dismissing heresy and insulting somebody personally are completely different things.

Now that said, bluntness and sarcasm are things I admire, but applied with the art of a surgeon, not a butcher. Fr Richard John Neuhaus is a master of the art.

Yes, I love Neuhaus and subscribe to First Things.

There is no doubt that I was blunt in this thread and clearly not making any real attempt to engage in debate. One reason for that is that the thread moved completely off-topic. The other is as I stated: I see again and again many ‘core’ Protestant members of this forum who very clearly are not searching and not interested in learning Catholicism or doing anything other than espousing Protestant theology again and again. I suppose that endless debates are fine, but then so is bluntness.

Yes, of course I could’ve taken more time - and been less blunt and dismissive - to thoroughly explain the whys of how wrong Luther’s theology is (this is not insulting the man - in case you haven’t noticed, much of Christianity is based on his theology). I think I was hoping or expecting someone with more talent and more time than I have at the moment to do that. Then again, it’s not like anybody who was interested couldn’t find very thorough Catholic counters in the archives here and plenty of other places on the net with a simple search.

For the record, I have been involved in people’s faith journeys to the Church and it is a VERY rewarding and beautiful thing to participate in!

Bottom line: I do apologize for any personal offense anybody took. In retrospect, there is NO NEED for any sort of harshness. Except in the case when one sees others being led astray by falsehood - in that case firm responses are called for and necessary. If anybody was put off by an offhanded, dismissive remark, I’m sorry.

I think most would agree the thread has become tiresome…

 

[Teflon93]

Paul-

Fair enough—I’ve got to confess that as a newbie around here I’m never quite sure where we should be in terms of frankness versus politeness. On the one hand, I prefer bluntness myself; on the other, people seem to get genuinely offended by it and it sometimes works against me in that they tune it.

Now, it is pretty ironic to read some of Luther’s correspondence and think that any of his adherents would swoon at blunt, dismissive language, but people are people and some clearly do.

Now, that’s okay if the aim is to administer a bit of shock therapy, but persuasion probably requires a softer touch with such folks.

There are those who absolutely cannot stand Neuhaus after all—but then, there are those who cannot stand Guinness, and thus live not the fulness of life.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve heard a couple times that Luther supposedly repented and re-entered the Church on his deathbed but I cannot find this document anywhere (true or not).

This is completely false. Luther’s last moments (like those of all famous and controversial people in that era) were closely watched and recorded. Of course, it’s always possible that his followers lied about what he said. But certainly there is no record of him recanting his views.

In his later years, Luther did express disappointment that his actions had not led to the comprehensive renewal of the Church for which he had hoped. He never seems to have seriously entertained the possibility that he was wrong–indeed, he became if anything more and more bitter against everyone who disagreed with him. And in spite of his anger and frustration, he seems on the whole to have been a happy man in his later years. But the divisions among Protestants, the low morality of many Lutherans, the political tumult in the Empire, and perhaps also the early signs of Catholic resurgence were all sources of disappointment to him.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Quite a read. A lot of obfuscation and a lot of nonsense, mostly.

I think you are very much mistaken in your repeated assertions that Catholics who have a big problem with “sin boldy” just have never read and don’t really understand Luther. Actually, I know that.

You know what?

Do you know the context for the statement? Do you know that Luther said that if someone didn’t struggle against the flesh they would lose faith and (in the absence of repentance) be damned?

You don’t seem to know these things. If you do, you should demonstrate your knowledge by refraining from ignorant slanders.

No one with any knowledge of Luther’s theology thinks that he believed that someone with genuine saving faith would persist in unrepentant sin. Luther said “sin boldly” to make the point that you shouldn’t worry about sins into which you fall through weakness. Rather, you should believe more boldly still.

It is you that is missing the point, and failing, along with Luther, to see the greater Truths that his theology doesn’t account for and contradicts.

If you want to address Luther’s theology, then for goodness’ sake address it. Don’t pick on one out-of-context quote in a letter. That isn’t addressing “greater Truths” at all.

P.S. I have personally heard countless Protestants of various sorts say exactly that their sins do not matter in any sense, and used this philosophy to justify all sorts of lifestyles and behavior. So, if you are correct in believing Luther’s words are often taken farther than even he intended (and he intended just what he said),

What do you mean by that? What do you know about Melanchthon? About Luther’s relationship with Melanchthon? About Luther’s way of expressing himself? About the differences between a personal letter and a theological treatise? About the developments in his thought after 1521?

it is Protestants that are most guilty, I think.

I agree there. Modern Baptist theology in particular has indeed exploited (in some of its forms) the antinomian potential in Luther’s teaching. But modern “Baptistic” (i.e., it’s not confined to self-identified Baptists) theology of justification is radically different from Luther’s theology on a number of points. Luther did not believe in eternal security, for one thing. And he linked justification by faith to the sacraments (including the sacrament of penance, though he came to believe it wasn’t strictly speaking a sacrament), for another.

Edwin

 

[Eden]

It isn’t true. Heiko Oberman begins his famous biography Luther: *Man Between God and the Devil *by giving an account of Luther’s death

Heiko Oberman lived in the 20th century. Not being a first-hand witness, he relies on the testimony of Justus Jonas. Being a Protestant Reformer himself, Justus Jonas would have understood the significance of the last hours of Luther’s life. While the testimony of Justus Jonas is interesting and deserves consideration, it is possible that he took liberties in describing the details of Luther’s death for posterity. I am mentioning this because TertiumQuid’s post leaves the impression that Heiko Oberman’s retelling of Justus Jonas’ testimony closes the book on the question of Luther’s deathbed conversion.

I think the clearest evidence we have that Luther did not return to the Church is not Heiko Oberman or Justus Jonas, but the fact that Luther had enough time to know that he was dying and he did not call for a priest.

Sadly, for Luther, he almost assuredly did not enter back into communion with the Church. But I recently had a miraculous deathbed conversion in my family, of a great-aunt who had left the Church 40 years ago and was “born again” in an Evangelical church. She became anti-Catholic. But earlier this month, as she lay dying, she asked her daughter to get a priest. She was brought back into full communion with the Church just hours before her death. Praise God!!! I just wanted to share this story for anyone who has loved ones whom they worry about who have left the Church. Don’t give up praying for them.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

While the testimony of Justus Jonas is interesting and deserves consideration, it is possible that he took liberties in describing the details of Luther’s death for posterity. I am mentioning this because TertiumQuid’s post leaves the impression that Heiko Oberman’s retelling of Justus Jonas’ testimony closes the book on the question of Luther’s deathbed conversion.

Hi Eden,

Do you have any counter-evidence to back up the possibility that Jonas “…took liberties in describing the details of Luther’s death for posterity”? If in fact, an eye-witness testimony is not credible, you should at least be able to present counter-evidence to demonstrate the eye witness is not credible.

There were others who were with Luther in his last hours: Michael Coelius, Two physicians, Count Albrecht, Countess Anna. Jonas was given the task of recording these last hours. In other words, your conspiracy must account for these others as well. Perhpas they met together in a smoke-filled room to discuss the Luther-death-bed-myth they were about to create, signed a pact in blood, and now you’ve uncovered their awful cover up.

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[Eden]

Hi Eden,

Do you have any counter-evidence to back up the possibility that Jonas “…took liberties in describing the details of Luther’s death for posterity”? If in fact, an eye-witness testimony is not credible, you should at least be able to present counter-evidence to demonstrate the eye witness is not credible.

There were others who were with Luther in his last hours: Michael Coelius, Two physicians, Count Albrecht, Countess Anna. Jonas was given the task of recording these last hours. In other words, your conspiracy must account for these others as well. Perhpas they met together in a smoke-filled room to discuss the Luther-death-bed-myth they were about to create, signed a pact in blood, and now you’ve uncovered their awful cover up.

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

Please do not tart up my post by portraying what I wrote as a conspiracy theory. It’s rather unbecoming of you. In fact, most scholars who make it their life’s work to study the history of Christianity do not spend time on chat-room forums. So, please leave the arrogant sarcasm at the door.

Clearly, what I said was that Jonas had an interest in presenting a tidy record of Luther’s death. It can never be known for certain, but to my mind, the loud shouting out of “‘Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in His name?’” by Jonas and Coelius in the Jonas account are laughably melodramatic.

So, no, your proof by way of Heiko Oberman, by way of Justus Jonas does not close the book on the question. The much more definitive proof that Luther did not return to the faith is that, in the hours leading to his death, he did not call for a priest. That is exactly what I said in my original post and I stand by the statement now.

 

[Good_Fella]

What a pathetic, empty theology. How can people read anything of the lives of any of the great saints and not understand that it is perfectly possible to live in harmony with the world and yet also in a state of grace, rarely or never falling into sin? (Oh wait - you don’t study the lives of saints.)

Christ told us “If your left hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. He likely didn’t mean that quite literally, yet the stark contradiction of Luther’s philosophy is evident.

If Protestants were able to be just a bit Incarnational and understand that the world isn’t intrinsically evil, you could probably understand how it’s quite possible to live in it and avoid sin.

Indeed, I would have no qualms about breaking my religious vows to Christ believing that he has already forgiven me and saved me by the merits of his death. I think Luther meant “sin confidently, but believe even more confidently.” As long as one believes he will be forgiven of his sins, then he mustn’t worry if he does sin. Luther was encouraging sin although he wasn’t telling people that they should sin. Such a rationalization can cause one to more easily succumb to the devil’s temptations. Even if what Luther said was mere hyberbole, it distorts the scriptures and can send the wrong signals.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Indeed, I would have no qualms about breaking my religious vows to Christ believing that he has already forgiven me and saved me by the merits of his death. I think Luther meant “sin confidently, but believe even more confidently.” As long as one believes he will be forgiven of his sins, then he mustn’t worry if he does sin. Luther was encouraging sin although he wasn’t telling people that they should sin. Such a rationalization can cause one to more easily succumb to the devil’s temptations. Even if what Luther said was mere hyberbole, it distorts the scriptures and can send the wrong signals.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Or was it mere hyberbole? Luther did say, “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart.” [De Wette, lV, 188) and “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out, 'Chase yourselves to the Jews.” [Works, Wittenberg, ed. V 1573] Luther has been quoted in saying that sexual sins are “necessary”, and he did grant Philip Land-grave of Hesse a second wife by appealing to the Old Testament and ignoring Christ’s words on marriage and divorce. I would shudder walking into a Lutheran parish.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella