How did Luther understand Romans 1: 16?

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!

I am the OP!

 

[JonNC]

=DavidFilmer;13271156]Fair enough.

Unfortunately, Catholics don’t seem to use it enough. But the Church encourages frequent Confession, not because She thinks Catholics are generally in a state of mortal sin, but for the same reasons you cite - spiritual growth and awareness.

Good reasons.

But the Church DOES teach that anyone who has forfeited his salvation through a single mortally-sinful act can ALSO restore it in Confession.

Exactly.

If I understand Luther’s theology correctly, he doesn’t believe that a person who has faith can forfeit his salvation, no matter what he does.

Not my understanding. From the Augsburg Confession, which Luther was in approval of:

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.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

It’s not quite OSAS (because, strictly speaking, OSAS means you are saved even if you loose your faith), but it’s pretty close. And, if they thought about it, I think many OSAS proponents would be fine with Luther’s ideas.

The condemnation of the Anabaptists, seems to indicate the opposite. We have always believed that one can fall after Baptism, after regeneration. I am not aware that Luther ever believed what has been ascribed to him in this thread - that one can do whatever one chooses without regard to God’s law and still be saved.

…since we receive in this life only the first-fruits of the Spirit, and the new birth is not complete, but only begun in us, the combat and struggle of the flesh against the spirit remains even in the elect and truly regenerate men; for there is a great difference perceptible among Christians not only in this, that one is weak and another strong in the spirit, but each Christian, moreover, experiences in himself that at one time he is joyful in spirit, and at another fearful and alarmed; at one time ardent in love, strong in faith and hope, and at another cold and weak.

69] But when the baptized have acted against their conscience, allowed sin to rule in them, and thus have grieved and lost the Holy Ghost in them, they need not be rebaptized, but must be converted again, as has been sufficiently said before.

bookofconcord.org/sd-freewill.php

Jon

 

[DavidFilmer]

I am not aware that Luther ever believed what has been ascribed to him in this thread - that one can do whatever one chooses without regard to God’s law and still be saved.

You are sidestepping my point (very adeptly, I might add).

My question is this (and I would appreciate a yes or no answer): Did Luther teach that a person of faith could be condemned (ie, not saved - go to hell) if he died with his Christian faith intact?

My question presupposes that this person never availed himself of the Lutheran version of reconciliation, or any other potential graces. He never prayed, and never read his Bible, and never went to any Christian worship service.

This person certainly never committed adultery or murder “thousands of times each day,” but occasionally cheated on his wife and occasionally killed “inconvenient” people (like guys he owed money to). But he maintained a steadfast faith, right up until the time he was shot dead.

Did Luther teach THAT GUY will attain salvation? Yes or no?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Good reasons.
The condemnation of the Anabaptists, seems to indicate the opposite. We have always believed that one can fall after Baptism, after regeneration. I am not aware that Luther ever believed what has been ascribed to him in this thread - that one can do whatever one chooses without regard to God’s law and still be saved.Jon

There are too many things that trouble me about Luther, at the top of the list, his virulent Antisemitism that in effect may have been the prime mover of German attitudes towards the Jews. Another is his siding with the nobility during the peasants’ revolt starting from 1524. This was provoked by the general atmosphere of revolt against authority that he started.
An analogy can be made to today’s upheavals in the Middle East where oppressed peoples were hoping for support by those who were preaching freedom to them and only got chaos in return. Erikson makes the connection between Luther’s deep, unresolved anger towards his father and the resentment he had towards the clergy but in the end revolutionaries become in most cases, arch-reactionaries, no surprise here.
It’s not doing so much that bothers me about Luther but the spirit and how he expressed himself. I will not repeat some of the more salacious comments of his, but really how can anyone really whitewash him?

 

[JonNC]

You are sidestepping my point (very adeptly, I might add).

My question is this (and I would appreciate a yes or no answer): Did Luther teach that a person of faith could be condemned (ie, not saved - go to hell) if he died with his Christian faith intact?

My question presupposes that this person never availed himself of the Lutheran version of reconciliation, or any other potential graces. He never prayed, and never read his Bible, and never went to any Christian worship service.

This person certainly never committed adultery or murder “thousands of times each day,” but occasionally cheated on his wife and occasionally killed “inconvenient” people (like guys he owed money to). But he maintained a steadfast faith, right up until the time he was shot dead.

Did Luther teach THAT GUY will attain salvation? Yes or no?

Are you convinced that a person with steadfast faith occasionally kills inconvenient people?
none of the attributes you describe indicate a steadfast faith.
No

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Are you now determining who is and isn’t saved?

Jon

I said nothing about saved or not saved.

I said "He (Luther) knew the second he took his last breath, that Jesus never said, “no sin can separate us from Him”.

Luther said “no sin can separate us from Him”.

That is an anti scriptural statement.

 

[steve_b]

To Luther, if you had faith, it absolutely mattered.

His commentary on Galatians

Verse 6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

Speaking of Galatians

Luther obviously didn’t take seriously the sins mentioned in Gal 5:19-21 or he wouldn’t have remained divided from the Catholic Church

Galatians 5:19-21
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίαςsects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

To pick just one sin mentioned in that group

διχοστασίας* dichostasia** = division / dissension / factions /sedition,*the same word is used in both Rom 16:17…. And Gal 5:19-20. Open the link to see the full description of the word. Do you see that the consequences for one who dies in that sin, will not inherit heaven [Gal 5:21] as in they go to hell ? Those are Not my words Jon so don’t accuse me of judging. I’m quoting. And I would also Note, there is no expiration date to those warnings. Those warnings are as good then when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to teach that, as it’s true today and forever. I would also make this other point. To be precise, since it came from Jesus John 16:12-15 who will do all the judging, we know exactly the consequences for those sins, division from the Catholic Church in particular if one dies that way…from the judge Himself.

*So unless Luther had perfect contrition of his *διχοστασίας from the Catholic Church before he died, then he died in that sin. And we all see what the consequences for that is.

 

[JonNC]

Speaking of Galatians

Luther obviously didn’t take seriously the sins mentioned in Gal 5:19-21 or he wouldn’t have remained divided from the Catholic Church

Galatians 5:19-21
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίαςsects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

To pick just one sin mentioned in that group

διχοστασίας* dichostasia** = division / dissension / factions /sedition,*the same word is used in both Rom 16:17…. And Gal 5:19-20. Open the link to see the full description of the word. Do you see that the consequences for one who dies in that sin, will not inherit heaven [Gal 5:21] as in they go to hell ? Those are Not my words Jon so don’t accuse me of judging. I’m quoting. And I would also Note, there is no expiration date to those warnings. Those warnings are as good then when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to teach that, as it’s true today and forever. I would also make this other point. To be precise, since it came from Jesus John 16:12-15 who will do all the judging, we know exactly the consequences for those sins, division from the Catholic Church in particular if one dies that way…from the judge Himself.

*So unless Luther had perfect contrition of his *διχοστασίας from the Catholic Church before he died, then he died in that sin. And we all see what the consequences for that is.

There is no dfinition there that the Church is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The divisions are mutual, and we should all ask for forgiveness, Catholic, Lutheran, EO, OO, Anglican, all of us.

Jon

 

[DavidFilmer]

Are you convinced that a person with steadfast faith occasionally kills inconvenient people?

I believe it’s possible to have steadfast faith and knowingly and willingly do something stupid. Maybe really, really stupid, like killing someone who got in your way.

I believe a person of steadfast faith can be tempted to cheat on his wife. I believe people of steadfast faith have done so. I think it is possible to attain a state of spiritual perfection (where we loose all proclivity to sin), but I think it’s rare. I think people of steadfast faith are tempted all the time. Having a steadfast faith is not the same as spiritual perfection. We don’t become immune to temptation.

You’re drifting into the “logic” employed by the OSAS crowd. We ask, “what happens if a ‘saved’ person goes out and kills a bunch of kids in a schoolyard?” And they say, “well, that guy obviously was never saved to begin with.”

We object, “but he answered the altar call. He accepted Jesus as his ‘personal Lord and Savior.’ He was slain in the spirit. He spoke in tongues! He picked up the snake!!!”

OSAS: “Well, he might have done all of those things, but he was not sincere. No saved person would kill a bunch of kids.”

Aye yie yie. With logic like that…

 

[steve_b]

There is no dfinition there that the Church is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon, if I didn’t know better I’d say you were being controversial

• I quoted Romans. The book of Romans is written to the Church of Rome
• the bishop of Rome was Peter
• Was Peter ALWAYS over the entire Church not just some of it ? Yes
• Did Jesus allow division in His Church? NO! He wanted perfect unity John 17:20-23
• This is the same Church pope Francis 267th successor to St Peter is over today.

So where’s the problem one might ask?

This is the same Church Luther divided from and was ultimately excommunicated from, in the 16th century. **That’s **the point Jon of quoting those passages (Rom 16:17-20, & Gal 5:19-21). To show that people who cause or are in these divisions are not going to heaven.

Here’s another point. There is no expiration date to those warnings and consequences mentioned in those passages. It’s as valid in the 1st century as the 21st century and forever.

BTW, That’s where “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from.

open the following link, you will read what Bp Irenaeus, one man away from St John the apostle, had to say about (the Church of Rome) and the succession of 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, down to Irenaeus day.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere”. (Irenaeus “Against Heresies” ~180 a.d. Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3)
J:

The divisions are mutual,
Jon

Nope

Those who are divided, are divided from the Catholic Church. Scripture and tradition condemns that division
J:

and we should all ask for forgiveness,

Already been done. And what’s changed? Nothing. ALL those in revolt before the apologies have remained divided from the Catholic Church after the apologies. They have made their choices.

As Paul said in Galatians, division is an act of the flesh, and those sins are obvious, and they who do it or remain in it are condemned .
J:

Lutheran, EO, OO, Anglican, all of us.

“all of us”

as in all those who are in division from the Catholic Church. That act is condemned,

 

[DavidFilmer]

BTW, That’s where “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from.

Sigh. I am annoyed when I must correct Catholics about Catholic doctrine.

The teaching is extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Not extra ecclesiam catholicam nulla salus. You added a word there, my friend.

JhonNC is more correct about this than you are. You and JonNC are both wrong, but you are more wrong.

There is no dfinition there that the Church is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

He’s right, you know.

The divisions are mutual, and we should all ask for forgiveness, Catholic, Lutheran, EO, OO, Anglican, all of us.

He’s right again. Every Christian Communion that he named practices (at least) valid Christian Baptism. We can quibble about which Faiths can absolve mortal sins (I would successfully argue that three of them could, though not his), but we cannot deny that all of these Faiths practice valid Christian Baptism, and therefore place the Baptized in a State of Grace (and are rightly called Christian).

 

[steve_b]

Sigh. I am annoyed when I must correct Catholics about Catholic doctrine.

The teaching is extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Not extra ecclesiam catholicam nulla salus. You added a word there, my friend.

JhonNC is more correct about this than you are. You and JonNC are both wrong, but you are more wrong.

Here’s what the Church teaches. All emphasis mine

[846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846) "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. "

I didn’t add a thing.

I will just say this. I can’t believe you taught RCIA
D:

He’s right, you know.

He’s wrong
D:

He’s right again. Every Christian Communion that he named practices (at least) valid Christian Baptism.

Baptism is NOT the be all to end all sacrament. see below
D:

We can quibble about which Faiths can absolve mortal sins (I would successfully argue that three of them could, though not his), but we cannot deny that all of these Faiths practice valid Christian Baptism, and therefore place the Baptized in a State of Grace (and are rightly called Christian).

Baptism does NOT gurantee one stays in a state of grace. As far as “Christian”, every one of these Heresies and ergo heretics who belong to them, are by definition all “Christian”
Great Heresies

• **They all practice valid baptism. **
• Here’s what Jesus teaches through Paul, to a “Christian” who is in heresy and won’t change.

[Titus 3:10 (Titus 3:10 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway)
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Even If a heretic goes to confession but doesn’t end his heresy, guess what? He’s not forgiven. He’s still in mortal sin, he’s self condemned.