Luther! Read Read!

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid:

Luther found in his studies that “to justify,” described an action of God, which bestows a righteous relationship by casting his favor upon us. God does this through His Word.
Luther understood the term “justification’ as a forensic pronouncement of innocence.
Luther understood the Word of God as the strongest instrument in God’s arsenal. When God speaks, he establishes reality. When God declares someone “righteous,” they are righteous.

Luther also understood “justification” as the word of the justice of death done to the sinner (the sinner is buried with Christ), with the subsequent gift of new life in Christ. Both of these understandings flow from the Word of God. The result is the forgiveness of sins. The Word of the Lord is not merely a verbal transaction, but is an imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ as the reality of the justified sinner’s existence.

What is “a forensic pronouncement of innocence”?

Also the part where you said “the sinner is buried with Christ”. Paul mentions how this is done in Rom6:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
right here it says Baptism, not Faith Alone is what “buries a sinner with Christ”.

 

[Assurance]

TertiumQuid,

Again, it is so good to have you here.

Catholic Dude - due to limited time and a desire to answer Steve right away, I didn’t read your last 3 posts by the way (in full disclosure!)

Steven, you said:

Please do give us quotes from Luther where Luther teaches, as Jesus does, that people will be judged into heaven through Jesus or hell based on conduct.

Strictly speaking, Luther does not believe that and Edwin was right for saying so.

I do not believe, nor did Luther, nor do any pious Lutherans that Jesus will judge any man INTO heaven or hell on the basis of their conduct. Rather, BEFORE GOD, we are judged into heaven or hell on the basis of our faith, as we believe Jesus and Paul quite clearly teach - for none of us have been perfect (whole, complete) as our Father is perfect and we have not loved him with all (whole, complete) of our heart, soul, strength, and mind. We believe that those who want to be judged on the basis of their love for God and their obedience to those kinds of commandments which should not comfort us but rather accuse us before God are in for a rude wakening indeed!

How about this verse: NAB REV 22:12

"

Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves…"

Or in the King James:

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, Is. 40.10 ; 62.11 to give every man according as his work shall be. Ps. 28.4

13 I am Alpha and Ome’ga, the beginning and the end, Rev. 1.8 the first and the last. Is. 44.6 ; 48.12 · Rev. 1.17 ; 2.8

14 ¶ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, Gen. 2.9 ; 3.22 and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie

.

I will admit, that this verse does challenge me. However, Iook at it this way: Perhaps the rewards that Jesus speaks about in verse 12 are not heaven and hell per se, but are the things people who are going to heaven or hell (by faith or unbelief respectively) will receive. For example, some in heaven will receive more rewards than others, based on their works that they allowed Christ to do in them through faith during their time on earth.

Verse 14 and 15 are describe heaven and hell, and this verse in particular: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life” says to me two things: A) either Jesus is referring to the “pure Gospel” commandments (ie “COME to the feast”, "BELIEVE!) where God asks nothing of us in regards to our conduct (think “good and bad…come to the feast”) but only that we trust that He is gracious and has prepared everything for us (who as we try to obey by His grace, still constantly need mercy), and/or B) it really is true that those who DO his commandments (love him, things God demands of us in His Law) will be the ones who have the right to heaven, but this judgement, as I explained earlier, is only for the eyes of MEN, who need to see the hard evidence (again, think of Jesus commending the sinful women and her works of love to Simon and the other Pharisees, and saying to her: "Your FAITH has SAVED you. Go in peace).

All the passages on works you send me, I filter through this kind of understanding. You see, no one whose soul has not been transformed by the love of God (and hence they start to love God) will be saved! BUT, it is not this transformation that justifies us per se, but rather the declarative word or promise that bespeaks us righteous that justifies us. Of course, as Bellarmine said, “those God declares righteous he makes righteous”. We believe the same. However, it is not the righteousness that truly begins in us that constitutes our acceptance before God. Why, before I say “faith saves me” I want to say “Jesus’ blood saves me” (both phrases are in Romans), because if you ask faith what it’s “got” it has nothing to talk about except its object!

cont…

 

[Assurance]

con’t…

Still, to say all that I’ve said above does not mean however, that the statement, “Luther most definitely taught that bad deeds put you in danger of damnation” is false.

On the contrary, Luther taught this and all pious Lutherans have always believed this. You see, Luther would not say “good deeds get you into heaven” to be sure, but he would and did say this kind of thing above (I think lots of quotes from others on this thread have illustrated this, but when I find time, I’ll try to find some good ones from the Book of Concord, particularly some written by Luther).

Think about it this way - there is a war going on in the Christian between the old and new man (Romans 7). The New Man within us needs to be consistently nourished by the Word of God and the Sacraments (Baptism and Lord’s Supper and even Absolution)
that we may fight off our old Adam and reckon him dead everyday. He needs to be killed. The reason? He still has in mind the ways of the world, of “worshipping God” the way he wants, etc. and he leads us into doubt-inducing and faith-destroying sin. When sin crouches at our door and we let it in, it changes us inside. Our desire for the things of God and His will and even His forgiveness in Christ (the only way we are saved!) decreases. Eventually, we might for example, A) disown him (stop hanging out with Him) and He, giving us FREEDOM (what our heart really WANTS), lets us have our way by disowning us as well, or b) we start to make room for our sin and, wanting to still be a “Christian”, we rationalize and pretty soon have invented “another Jesus” (see II Cor 11:3,4). In other words, we invite being decieved and have this imaginary friend - this idol - that is not the biblical and apostolic Jesus at all! And, once again, perhaps if we really want to stay decieved and reject all God’s attempts to jerk us out of our deception, he, being a gentlemen, gives us what we really WANT.

But what we really NEED is His Word of forgiveness, which brings life and salvation. For by the Law, we realize our sin (Romans 3:20), but we are saved in Jesus (Rom. 3:23).

I hope this helps Steve. Look forward to continuing the conversation.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

We all have mispoken at one time or another. You can’t just take one random quote and define the whole of Luther’s theology based on that. He’s also quoted as saying:

“The function of the law is to convict, and to kill; the function of the gospel is to make alive.”

The Apostle Paul said something in Romans 7:9 that reminds me of this quote.

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude,

Quick point. You’re talked about Luke 18 with the rich young ruler. The answer to the question, “Who then can be saved?” is obvious: No one.

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20). “But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?… (Malachi 3:2). No one.

No one that is except Jesus.

Consider also what comes right before the story of the ruler:

15 ¶ And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

What have those INFANTS ever done? Note: infants can trust (believe/faith) - see Psalm 22 and John leaping in Elizabeth’s womb.

Consider also this: Baptism saves us - of course it does, and Lutherans have always believed this. This does not contradict that it is by faith we are saved, as we trust the promise delivered to us in baptism (and baptism, since it is the water and the WORD, can create faith as well [Romans 10:17])

Lastly, consider the following example I am working on for another thread:

“I think of an example of an orphan who has been beaten down by life. He is convinced he is not worth anything and that there is nothing in him that is worth loving. The father I am speaking of comes to the orphan and immediately adopts him – it is purely because of the love and goodness in this father’s heart that he does such a thing. This father knows how crucial it is in order for the orphan bruised by life’s storms to know that the basis of his acceptance does not lie in him but in the father’s heart – for this is the only way any sort of true love will begin to grow, even as the trust might even be weak on the orphan’s part in the beginning. The other father – the one I believe you are speaking of – takes the orphan home and his adoption is, in a way, always pending. Everything is completely based on his behavior. Now, of course, this behavior is born of the love of the father, who gives the orphan the power to love him and to do other good things – if he will accept this love. But, at rock-bottom, everything is performance based. The orphan is told that he must not have absolute certainty that their relationship is secure. He is told much depends on his pleadings, his words, his actions – basically, he will not get the security he needs until he is perfect – or, at least until he gets that longed for and very rare “special revelation” from the father. In short, one wonders (especially in times of great personal distress over one’s sins) whether this father, by virtue of his performance-based approach to love relationships, really is the kind of father who is eager to forgive, does not play tit-for-tat, and is never eager to discard those he adopts.”

Finally, regarding the parable of the two sons the answer is simple: the second son who said he’d do it didn’t really ever mean to do it in the first place. If he asks for forgiveness, of course he must follow through with repentance, but as to what restores the relationship, the focus is must be on the forgiveness.

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude,

By the way “too easy?”. Seemed Paul had to deal with the same response to the good news: “Shall we go on sinning?.. (you know the rest)”

Becoming the greatest sinner in the world was not easy for Christ. And once God gives us faith, its not easy to “fight the good fight” to keep it, either.

Love in Christ,
Assurance (formerly isfatherwrong?)

 

[Assurance]

TertiumQuid,

I probably should have let you talk to Catholic Dude first!

I don’t want to discourage your participation here - I am really happy you have been on this thread.

Also, a quote from a good Lutheran theologian for Catholic Dude:

“Small sins become mortal when they are considered small”.

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Steven,

I will look through your material. If the material is relevant to the discussion about Luther taking place here, I will read it quite carefully. I’m particularly hopeful that your material will further explain your interpetation of Luther, especially your comment:

"Luther hates Christ’s teaching on this and elliminated Jesus teachings from his Lutheran theology"

I can’t wait to see exactly what you actually read from Luther to substantiate this claim.I’m sure you would never just say this without doing research to prove it.

Regards,
James Swan

Hello James,

Luther The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

NAB DEU 30:15 The Choice before Israel.

“Here then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom. If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.” NAB LUK 10:25

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

**"You shall love the Lord your God **
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
NAB DEU 6:1

"These then are the commandments, the statutes and decrees which the LORD, your God, has ordered that you be taught to observe in the land into which you are crossing for conquest, so that you and your son and your grandson may fear the LORD, your God, and keep, throughout the days of your lives, all his statutes and commandments which I enjoin on you, and thus have long life. Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them, that you may grow and prosper the more in keeping with the promise of the LORD, the God of your fathers, to give you a land flowing with milk and honey." The great commandment. Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. Write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates.

NAB DEU 5:9

“. . . you shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

**NAB DEU 7:9 **

“Understand, then, that the LORD, your God, is God indeed, the faithful God who keeps his merciful covenant down to the thousandth generation toward those who love him and keep his commandments, but who repays with destruction the person who hates him; he does not dally with such a one, but makes him personally pay for it. You shall therefore carefully observe the commandments, the statutes and decrees which I enjoin on you today.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Catholic Dude,

Thank you for reading through Luther’s Sermon “The Pharisee and the Publican” which I earlier provided to you via this link:

trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Luke18_9_14.html

I do have a few responses to your comments.
Catholic Dude:

Quotes from that link by Luther:… What kind of talk is this? Is Luke trying to pull a fast one?

Please note what Luther goes on to say:

“Luke here makes the impression as though righteousness came by works. For Luke is most accustomed to do this, as when we at present preach that faith alone saves, he observes that people are led to desire only to believe, and to neglect the power and fruit of faith. This John also does in his Epistle and James, where they show that faith cannot exist without works. Thus Luke, in the beginning of his introduction, would speak as follows: I see indeed that many have preached how faith alone saves, by which they have brought the people to strive for a fictitious faith; hence I must also speak of works by which they can be assured of their faith, and prove it to the people by their acts.”

By only selectively citing Luther, you propped up a caricature. Note Luther presents the harmony of faith and works, and also refers to a false “fictitious faith”- Isn’t this one of the things you’ve been looking for in Luther’s writings? Here it is- Luther is teaching a true saving faith that shows itself in works, not a “fictitious faith” of easy believe-ism.
Catholic Dude:

This is double speak. This only shows that by their fuits you cant conclude anything. All that talk about knowing someone is justified when they produce good fruit means nothing.

In my paper In section VI.C , I put forth many quotes from Luther noting what he thought false works were. I suggest taking a look at those quotes. Here in this sermon though, Luther explains how the Publican showed his good fruit:

“The foundation you have in that faith is concealed; this he feels, who believes; but that is not enough, it must express itself as you see above in the publican, who breaks forth in humility, so much as not to lift his eyes to heaven, smites on his breast and praises God, by which he helps me to say when my sins oppress me: Behold, the publican also was a sinner and said: “God, be thou merciful to me a sinner;” thus too, I will do. By this will I also be strengthened so that when I see my sins I will think of his example, and with it comfort and strengthen myself, so that I can say: Oh God, I see in the publican that thou art gracious to poor sinners. Faith the believer keeps for himself, but externally he communicates its fruits to other people. The publican is on the right road and is twice justified; once through faith before God, and again by his works to me. Here he gives unto God his glory, and by faith repays him with praise. Also toward me he performs the duty of love, and puts words into my month and teaches me how to pray. Now he has paid all his debts toward God and man. So faith urges him to do; without however requiring anything from God as a reward of faith.”

Luther then contrasts this with the work of the Pharisee, whose works are those of a hypocrite. The Pharisee’s own words betray his bad heart (read points 17-25 in Luther’s sermon). Luther explains, “For the publican during his whole life did not do as many and as great sins as this Pharisee does here when he says: I thank thee God that, I am not as other men are; and lies enough to burst all heaven.” “Further, since he has now blasphemed God and lied to him, because he is unwilling to confess his sins, he falls further and sins against love to his neighbor, in that he says: “Even as this publican.” He could not bear his presence without blaming and condemning him. Here all commandments are abolished and transgressed, for he denies God and does his neighbor no good.”

-continued-

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

Again, what kind of talk is this about a Gospel account? “well it sounds like good works are part of it, but in reality what the writer didnt say was faith alone” Here is what Luke18 says a few verses down:

First, you’ve moved out of the context of the parable in question. Luke 18:28-29 is not prescriptive, but descriptive. Secondly, Jesus answer to Peter means that God’s gifts surpass anything we can give up for Him. It does not mean that we can make sacrifices as a means of getting a better reward.
Catholic Dude:

Now compare this to Luther above and see how that comment by Luther was unfounded, there is no separation of faith and works.

In Luther’s theology belief and action are not separated. As Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus notes for Luther, “This new obedience [brought about from justification] depends on faith. That, however, does not exhaust their relationship. This new obedience is for this very reason significant for faith, as the hallmark of the fact that it really is faith. If faith is the actual basis of the work, then the work becomes the basis for knowing we have faith.”
Catholic Dude:

Notice what Luther is doing here? Right with the very words of Jesus does Luther shift focus to something not found in the text. It says he went “justifiED”, but luther forces the conclusion it must refer to through faith before the publican even smote his breast and asked for forgiveness. This is a perfect example of Faith active with and completed by works, but what does Luther do? He openly teaches something else. That is a clear agenda going on.

I will grant that Luther implies something not found in the text, that is: “But how shall we understand what Christ says: “This man went down to his house justified,” as he had already been just through faith, before he smote his breast? He certainly must have been just before.” The text of Luke doesn’t explicitly say the man was previously justified. It could be the case the man received Christ by faith alone the moment he uttered the words Luke records.

I will not though grant that Luke is teaching “Faith active with and completed by works”. This concept is not found in Luke 18: 9-14.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Assurance]

Steven,

I hope that you will find my ideas in the previous posts worth engaging when you get the time to do so.

Regarding your last flurry of Bible verses, let me ask you a question.

What Bible verses do you think most clearly show that obedience or disobedience to God’s commandments in the Old Testament clearly meant eternal salvation or damnation (and not only temporal blessings or curses) for the nation of Israel?

I say this because I am not sure if those who were swallowed up by the earth for disobedience in Korah’s rebellion for example are necessarily in hell. Maybe I am missing a reference. Further, I know that Moses himself did not enter the promised land, whose New Testament corollary (via Paul, Jude) is heaven.

I note that the rich young ruler asks Jesus about eternal life specifically, and not temporal blessings and curses. I think there is a difference we must note here, and flesh out.

Of course, now all of this could be a different thread and I’m possibly entering “off topic” area!

Love in Christ,
Assurance

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude,

Interesting point you’ve put forth about Scripture not talking about us sinning all the time (at least mortally).

I hope that you will let that quote about small sins becoming mortal when they are considered small to seep in.

You’ve got me curious now about how many good verses I could find that we are in fact sinning all the time (sounds like Genesis 6 I think)!

For my part though, my experience a big part of it. Jesus said even lusting after a woman was a sin. Bzzzt! - often. Being angry. Bzzzt! - often. I don’t know - maybe I am “getting better every day and in every way” but then why do I see more and more sin in me all the time?

Jesus said to his disciples “you then, though you are evil…” why did he say that - especially when he told them in Luke 10 to not rejoice that their names “ARE written in the book of life…” (to get back to assurance! - ARE WRITTEN). Why is God letting evil men in?

(By the way, in the Roman Catholic system, man was created weak and immature - even without the fall, man would have tended to sin (as baptism removes the original sin that occured in the fall) - even though God created him “very good”. In the Lutheran conception, man was immature but perfect (kind of an immature, infant-like perfection) - he was able not to sin in the beginning and there’s no reason as best as we can tell that he had to fall into it. So, our conception of sin is heavier than the RCC’s)

Oh, and just give me some more time to think about this! How about Romans 7 - “I know there is nothing good in me…” (this confirms my experience!).

This is serious stuff. For God is a consuming fire and His eys are too pure to look upon that evil within me. Whatever shall I do?

Romans 7:25.

In Jesus we ARE saved. What can we do? Nothing. Keep believing that Jesus has done it all, as you “work out” in your daily experience this salvation that God has already “worked in”.

Keep the faith.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Assurance-

Im busy now but I will get to this post and others asap, hopefully tonight.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Assurance:

Steven,

What Bible verses do you think most clearly show that obedience or disobedience to God’s commandments in the Old Testament clearly meant eternal salvation or damnation (and not only temporal blessings or curses) for the nation of Israel?

Love in Christ,
Assurance

Jesus quoting God’s Old Testiment covenant of life when He is asked what we must do to share in everlasting life. Of course!

Old Testament people go to heaven through Jesus as we do. Our part in what we must do to go to heaven through Jesus is the same as what Old Testament people did to go to heaven through Jesus, according to Jesus, and that is to love God with all our hearts through obedience to God.

We also know for sure that Old Testiment people are in heaven because Jesus tells us they are.

NAB LUK 10:25

On one occasion a lawyer stood up to pose him this problem: “Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

"You shall love the Lord your God
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”

NAB MAT 19:16

What good must I do to possess everlasting life?" He answered, "Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"NAB MAR 12:18

Then some **Sadducees who hold there is no resurrection **came to him with a question …\…12:24 Jesus said: “You are badly misled, because you fail to understand the Scriptures or the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven. As to the raising of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living not of the dead, You are very much mistaken.” NAB LUK 13:28

And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Assurance:

Steven,

I say this because I am not sure if those who were swallowed up by the earth for disobedience in Korah’s rebellion for example are necessarily in hell. Maybe I am missing a reference.

Hello Assurance,

We know Korah is in hell because New Testament tells us he is.

(NUM 16:1-35)(JUD 5-11).

**NAB JUD 1:10 **

These people, however, not only revile what they have no knowledge of but are corrupted through the very things they know by instinct, like brute animals. So much the worse for them! They have taken the road Cain took. They have abandoned themselves to Balaam’s error for pay, and like Korah they perish in rebellion. These men are blotches on your Christian banquets. They are wild ocean waves, splashing their shameless deeds abroad like foam, or shooting stars for whom the thick gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Hi Reen12,

I thought you gave this up! Back for more eh?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Assurance- (edited for size)

…The answer to the question, “Who then can be saved?” is obvious: No one.

I dont know what your saying by “no one”. Peter clearly showed he did what Jesus was talking about.

… (Romans 3:20)…(Malachi 3:2)…

Im lost here.

No one that is except Jesus.

“Who then can be saved?..no one except Jesus” ?

Consider also what comes right before the story of the ruler: …vv15-17…

What have those INFANTS ever done? Note: infants can trust (believe/faith) - see Psalm 22 and John leaping in Elizabeth’s womb.

Im still lost on what your trying to get at. I must have missed a post or something.

Consider also this: Baptism saves us - of course it does, and Lutherans have always believed this. …

Thats good and I agree. Baptism washes away all sins and makes the person fully ready to follow Jesus and hold the title Christian.

Lastly, consider the following example I am working on for another thread:

… … The father I am speaking of comes to the orphan and immediately adopts him – it is purely because of the love … This father knows … that the basis of the child’s acceptance does not lie in him but in the father’s heart

I might be misreading this, but even though the basis is the father’s love, in the end the child can reject the father.

this is the only way any sort of true love will begin to grow…

God doesnt ask the impossible, He desires all men come to Him and welcomes them.

The other father – the one I believe you are speaking of – takes the orphan home and his adoption is, in a way, always pending. Everything is completely based on his behavior. … – if he will accept this love.

Im not sure I understand your whole story to make a long reply. But the idea that “if he will accept” is very Biblical. God does not force anyone to love him and does not force anyone to stay. That is true love, loving the child, even if the child doesnt want to stay.

But, at rock-bottom, everything is performance based. The orphan is told that he must not have absolute certainty that their relationship is secure.

I dont know where this came from. Thats not how a parent acts. The definition of relationship is commitment by BOTH parties, not a one way street. It would be not love for the father to say the child will never be lost, because that father would be limiting the child to a one sided relationship.
The problem is the child doesnt stay a child forever, he grows up and has the option to do what he wants. Does the father want to be separated from the child? No. But if the child wants to move across the country he should know the father will not limit him to the role of puppet dancing to the father’s command.

…basically, he will not get the security he needs until he is perfect – or, at least until he gets that longed for and very rare “special revelation” from the father.

The father is not raising an incompetant wuss here. He demands that the child do his best. Think of how much worse it would be in the world if fathers didnt demand something from their children. The result is a spoiled brat, not good for anything Its like the “salt that loses its saltyness, it is good for nothing and must be thrown out.” Matt5:13

one wonders …whether this father, by virtue of his performance-based approach to love relationships, really is the kind of father who is eager to forgive, does not play tit-for-tat, and is never eager to discard those he adopts."

Your story reminds me of the prodigal son (Lk15:11ff), except you say the opposite of how the parable goes. The child is free to leave, but the Father always has His arms open for the child to return to full fellowship.

Finally, regarding the parable of the two sons the answer is simple: the second son who said he’d do it didn’t really ever mean to do it in the first place. …

Do we know if he never intended to do it? It could be argued that either he never intended to do it, OR he could have intended to do it but when the time came to work he didnt. Both ways are possible. The fact is it was the one who worked that day.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Assurance:

Catholic Dude,

** By the way “too easy?”. Seemed Paul had to deal with the same response to the good news**: “Shall we go on sinning?.. (you know the rest)”

** Becoming the greatest sinner in the world was not easy for Christ.** And once God gives us faith, its not easy to “fight the good fight” to keep it, either.

Love in Christ,
Assurance (formerly isfatherwrong?)

I dont get what your saying:

1)He is clear if they go on sinning they will be punished.

2)How did Christ become a sinner?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-

Please note what Luther goes on to say:

“Luke here makes the impression as though righteousness came by works. For Luke is most accustomed to do this, as when we at present preach that faith alone saves, he observes that people are led to desire only to believe, and to neglect the power and fruit of faith. This John also does in his Epistle and James, where they show that faith cannot exist without works. …”

…Luther presents the harmony of faith and works, and also refers to a false “fictitious faith”- Isn’t this one of the things you’ve been looking for in Luther’s writings?..

I have been more under the impression he was playing both sides of the aisle, but thats just me. Anyway, why does Luther continue to say “we at present teach faith alone saves” when he shows Luke, James and John dont talk like that? Also where does Luke downplay faith?

The idea that a person can claim they are justifed at a single moment faith without works is totally destroyed if you have to turn around and look at their fruits. In that case you dont know if you have a “fictitious faith” or not you cant claim of your certainty of being justifed at any point in time. Think about it. Its like saying you dont know if you have a bug bite on your forehead, you can feel some kind of pain, but your not sure unless you look in a mirror. This is what Luther is saying, you know you have a bug bite because you feel it, but you dont know if you have one for sure unless you check.

Luther explains how the Publican showed his good fruit:

“… … … Faith the believer keeps for himself, but externally he communicates its fruits to other people. The publican is on the right road and is twice justified; once through faith before God, and again by his works to me. Here he gives unto God his glory, and by faith repays him with praise. Also toward me he performs the duty of love, and puts words into my month and teaches me how to pray. Now he has paid all his debts toward God and man. So faith urges him to do; without however requiring anything from God as a reward of faith.”

I dont understand “twice justified”. If he is justified by Faith first at a single moment in time, then the “second” justification is not required. I asserted that outward works prove nothing and cited by Luther:…Who dare say that fasting is not good; or that to praise God and give everyone what we owe them is evil? When I see a priest, monk, or nun with such apparent noble conduct, I regard them as pious. Who can say otherwise? **Hence if I am to judge whether this one **is good and the other evil, I must be able to look into the hearts of both. But I cannot see into the heart, and must make the proper distinction from their works, as Christ says: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
I dont see where you addressed this. Its double speak. On one hand he says he sees the priests and nuns acting good, but then says he must know their heart to know if they are good or evil, then he ends by judging by works. I dont know where it is right off the bat, but there are parts I quoted where luther trashes priests and nuns.

First, you’ve moved out of the context of the parable in question. Luke 18:28-29 is not prescriptive, but descriptive. Secondly, Jesus answer to Peter means that God’s gifts surpass anything we can give up for Him. It does not mean that we can make sacrifices as a means of getting a better reward.

I didnt move out of context, rather I read ahead and showed that what Luther was concluding was not what Jesus had in mind. As for part I quoted:28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
I dont recall saying that better works = greater reward. But there is truth to that.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

** In Luther’s theology belief and action are not separated. **As Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus notes for Luther, “…If faith is the actual basis of the work, then the work becomes the basis for knowing we have faith.”
IF they are not separated then why does he trumpet the very term “faith ALONE”? that is very misleading as I have said time and time again. Im sure even he would be shocked of the state of protestantism, but he did open the door for that mess. As for what the scholar says, Im not conviced thats what Luther believed. What I do believe though is that more and more Protestants are thinking about these issues and modifying things little by little to conform with common sense and Scripture. The term “Faith Alone” itself, the mere words are misleading. I dont remember the quote, but I remember Luther saying we have to be careful to separate faith and works, its in the early part of this thread somewhere.

I will not though grant that Luke is teaching “Faith active with and completed by works”. This concept is not found in Luke 18: 9-14.
Go back and read what I said about that comment here. I was commenting on Luther’s comment on Abraham. I showed clear Scripture passages to refute Luther’s claim.