Luther! Read Read!

[rjs1]

Catholic Dude:

I kept hearing people say that luther said this:No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.

Well I looked around and it means what it says.

I found the letter he said this HERE.
It is from a page devoted to Luther’s writings,
located HERE.

Im so happy I found it! Im saving this!
What do you think?

I have known about this statement of Luther’s for many years, even while I was still a protestant, and there is no way of getting around it. It shows the perversion that Luther got himself into because of his own guilt feelings and his own emotional state. Because he could not feel forgiven he went to the opposite extreme and declared that nothing we can do can separate us from God once we are forgiven.

The trouble with this is it is utterly unbiblical. It contradicts the absolutely clear words of Our Lord in the Gospels. It is true that there is no sin which God will not forgive (except the sin against the Holy Spirit which is the continuing rejection of God) , BUT - (and this is what Luther ignores) we must repent of our sin and confess it AND intend not to do it again.
Luther’s statement about murder and adultery a thousand times a day makes a absolute mockery of Our Lord’s warning about the judgement that comes on those who deliberately flaunt God’s commandments.

Luther, because of his own twisted emotional state, brought in a teaching that has corrupted Christianity ever since. This is the appalling teaching of once saved can never be lost (utterly unbiblical - see St Paul) and the idea that for the Christian, no sin or sins, or continuous multiple sinning, that they do, can effect their salvation.

Jesus has won entry to Heaven for us by His Passion and Death on the Cross. He did what we of our own efforts could not possibly do. He expects from us the acceptance of this salvation by our repentance, confession and intention to live the Spirit filled life. This is the just requirement of an infinitely loving God. It certainly does NOT allow for murder and adultery a thousand times a day - what an insult to the living God!!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ok, Im going to attempt to get up to speed here
(key word: attempt). I will try to limit the quotes to save space by preserve the main idea. I will also underline the main points I want to address. (actually this is going to be like 6 pages long now that Im ready to post)

Contarini-

Faith in Christ purifies the heart, in Luther’s view–it leads us to love God and neighbor. Anyone who sincerely places his trust in Christ for forgiveness is going to strive earnestly to amend his life.

In practice, the Lutheran response to your question wouldn’t be that different from the Catholic response. Confess your sins, repent from the bottom of your heart, ask God for forgiveness, make restitution, receive the sacraments . . . . The main difference is that Luther would say that simply by virtue of having trusted in Christ for forgiveness you can be confident that you are accepted by God. Luther’s teachings are only meant for those who are troubled by their sins and desire to live a holy life. …

I agree that anyone who sincerely trusts Christ is going to strive to amen their life. But I have been seeing this whole issue as Protestants making the claim that “amend his life” means faith+works. Especially in the underlined part, I see a strong urge to not require reparation for sin, in fact as you say “only for those who are troubled”. I cant help but read into this what I see in Protestantism in general today, that is nothing is really required in terms of changing ones ways, and worse yet “those who are troubled” is really a non issue once a person’s conscience is separated from the act/consequenses the way I see nowdays.

Yes, this is indeed what he thought they were doing. He would argue that these are words of law–they do indeed tell us how to live, but as a matter of fact no one is ever saved through keeping the commandments. And the story in Matt. 19 could be used to support Luther’s point–after all, the rich young ruler in the end is unable to keep Jesus’ interpretation of the commandments. In other words, Jesus preaches the Law to the poor guy until he realizes that (contrary to what he thinks) he has not in fact kept the Law.

I can kind of understand him revolting what “he thought they were doing” on certain issues. But the passage in question:The papists quote the words of Christ: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt. 19:17.) With His own words they deny Christ and abolish faith in Him.
I struggle to see how he misunderstood this. Keeping the commandments is part of being saved (but not all), they are the cornerstone of morals, which Jesus goes onto expand/fulfill their meaning in places like the sermon on the mount and Mt19. Jesus was not going by a Law salvation here, its clear from the rest of the text that those commands (which were not even the full 10 Commandments) were half the matter, trusting Jesus was the other half. The moral was how hard it was for a rich man secure in posessions to believe and recognize where true weath resides.

I agree that Luther does a remarkably poor job of actually dealing with this text–even my summary of what he presumably is trying to say is guesswork. He’s confident that Scripture as a whole is on his side–note that he goes on to show how (in his view) Paul is refuting the “papists.”

Again, as you know my position, I dont even see where a poor job can be credited, thats sheer bias to an uncredible level. And the major point that I recognize is that Luther isnt even rebutting Paul here, Luther is condemning none other than Jesus Himself.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

However, I’m not here to defend Luther’s exegesis.

I wonder how many Lutherans even try to defend his interpretations.

I’m not sure what you’re reacting to here. …Since he explicitly says that he knows good works ought to be done, it should be obvious that you are misrepresenting Luther when you claim that he says otherwise.

You know, your response to Luther proves him right, in a way. Luther makes a distinction that you are simply unable to make, even as a thought experiment in order to understand him. I don’t think that this distinction is essential to the Faith the way Luther thought it was. But it is essential to understanding Luther.

Here is what I was reacting to what Luther said (post31): In open contradiction to the Scriptures, our opponents [ie catholics] misquote, “He that believeth in Christ is condemned, because he has faith without works.” Our opponents turn everything topsy-turvy. They make Christ over into a murderer, and Moses into a savior. Is not this horrible blasphemy?
Do you think the CC really talked like this? This is pure lies and smearing the “opponent”. The conclusions he forms are pure slander and proof to me of an agenda that was so biased that he would even condemn Jesus for not being Christian.

I dont see how I misrepresented him in that passage you cited. I see him say on one side of his mouth “we know good works need to be done” but on the other “works have no part in justification”. The issue is that he does say they are needed, but Catholics say How can you separate works from justification and still say it is needed?

I agree with the part where you say “unable to make”, your right, I dont refuse to accept it, Im unable to make the conclusions he is claiming. You even admit this guy held some far reaching explainations.

I guess my biggest problem in attempting to understand protestantism is my uncontrolable urge to point out glairing deficiencies which I cant bring myself to accept.
Here is a recap of my conclusions:
Me: Luther basically teaches that sins dont affect justification.
Luther: Good works are 100000000% required, just not part of justification.
Me: I conclude sins dont affect justification.

Just suppose, for a moment, that salvation worked like this:

On the one hand, God wants us to do good works and to avoid sin. Sin destroys us. God wants us to be holy.

I thought salvation did work like this.

But the catch is that we can’t even start becoming holy until we have a relationship with God characterized by confidence and love and trust. …

Sofar I agree, but dont see how this prevents part1.

God’s gracious way of dealing with our hopeless situation is the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Christ. Christ took on our nature and did what we could not do. He defeated our deadly enemies, sin, death and the devil. He lived a sinless life and, as a human being, established a filial relationship with God–precisely the kind of relationship that we desperately need but find impossible.

Again, I agree but dont see how part1 is prevented.

Because Christ is fully human and fully divine, all those human beings who trust in Him are totally united to Him, so that our sins become His (but are swallowed up and destroyed in His holiness) and His holiness becomes ours. This enables God to look at us and count us as righteous in Christ. Therefore, we can have a filial relationship with God characterized by love and trust. Only then can we actually start to live a holy life and fulfill the righteousness of the Law, being freed from fear of what God will do to us when (as we will in this life) we fall short. Of course we will strive to live a holy life with all our power, precisely because we are now sons of God and we love and trust Him. The whole point is that we don’t need to worry about it any more.

Our sins are fogiven, not covered up. We are new creations and enabled to do good pleasing works. Im not sure where “the Law” comes in, that seems to be the misconception right there. The Law is gone, that word is not used for Christians, it is stated over and over again by Paul that the Law cant be kept, so what is the “fall short” stuff? We always need to worry because we have been warned and told that this is a two way street. The theif in the night will come when we are not expecting it, and it is ourself to blame. It is a daily struggle, if we do fall we are welcomed back with open arms, but we must strive.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m not asking you to agree with this way of putting it. I’m simply asking you to take it seriously if you want to interpret Luther. Run the things Luther says through this grid and they will make a lot more sense.

Luther's distinction between law and grace is absolutely necessary from his point of view, because if we confuse the two we fall back from the relationship of sons to the relationship of servants, and we are back to trying to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

I think the biggest problem here is that Luther doesnt understand the difference between Good Works, Law and Grace. He doesnt see a distinction between the first two. Over and over again Paul and James talk about Abraham who never heard of the Law, yet Abraham did good works.

If you find him so distressing, ignore him. But if you want to understand him, then really give him a chance. Run what he says through the grid I gave you above.

I cant ignore him when I see people who desire to be good Christians subscribing to such views. The whole point of that OP quote is that it is so damming to what the average joe faith alone OSAS protestant holds dearly to. They dont make the logical connection that 1000 murders/fornications really dont hurt their salvation (under the FA system), but when they realize it are too shaken to admit it or change. And the consequences have been show as clear as day especially today that divorce/fornication to most Protestants is no big deal precisely because they think in terms of Faith and Justification not relying on works. As we know half of all marriages “lead” to divorce. Whats leading them? Protestants who keep remarrying them and dont condemn it. Why? Because “your saved, Jesus loves you” is what they are fed every Sunday.
I was under the impression for years that Luther though wrong at least held a solid view, I was wrong, there is no comprimising in Christianity. And as I see more and more, these guys throw out one thing they dont like, but they cant stop there.

Exactly. Can you see how this fits what I’ve been saying? If you tell people “you must do X, Y, and Z in order to be saved,” you will plunge them into despair, because they are incapable of doing X, Y, or Z until they have a loving relationship with God. Notice that he speaks of people having the Holy Spirit experiencing “trouble” with the Law. This implies obviously that they are striving mightily to do what the Law says, or they wouldn’t have “trouble.” Luther can teach sola fide because he is confident that people who have the Holy Spirit will necessarily do (though imperfectly, as long as they are in this life) what the Law commands. But they won’t do it out of fear. That matters above all else to him.

The probem that your xyz conclusion is that these are not everyday commands, in the case of the quote we are dealing with: Whoever teaches that good works are indispensable unto salvation, that to gain heaven a person must suffer afflictions and follow the example of Christ and of the saints, is a minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, and of death
the X, Yand Z are Christ and the Saints. I nor the CC ever said that a “loving relationship” was not required via faith, but when he goes as far as to condemn Christ and the Saints whatever he is trying to get across to me is seriously lacking.
Fear is a great driving force. Proverbs 1 says the Fear of the Lord is the first stage of wisdom.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I should add that my translation is significantly different from yours (mine is based on the first, Elizabethan translation–that may make yours more accurate, but without the Latin in front of me I don’t know). My translation says, “For it is impossible for the nature of man to accomplish the law: yea, in those that are justified and have the Holy Ghost, the law of the members fighteth against the law of the mind.” So in Luther’s view, the Law “gives trouble” because remaining concupiscence makes it difficult to carry out what the “law of the mind” (the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer) is moving us to do. This is perfectly orthodox, except that Catholicism doesn’t consider this concupiscence to be itself sin, and regards the inevitable falling short produced by concupiscence as “venial” sin. Luther took a much stricter view.

How can you say its “orthodox” but the CC doesnt teach it while Protestants do? The tendency/urge to sin is not the same as the sin itself. Thats another problem with Protestantism today, people conclude its just as bad if you do the act than think about it, who can resist with that offer? In the case of “more strict”, thats hanging himself with the rope he made. No wonder he was in distress, he created a hole he couldnt get out of. He effectively made the commandments and Christ’s example an impossible task. I get it now. I think this is the breakthrough. He considered himself unfit for something that was never impossible to begin with, his escape was Faith Alone! I get it! Its 1:45am as I type this. He then concluded after justification, the commandments and Christ’s example were now attainable!

The paradox of the night:
I understand Protestantism.

Faith Alone was never the issue, it was the solution.

One recognizes that religious rhetoric in the 16th century was rather intense! But Luther’s point of course is that if you add the merits of human beings to Christ’s merit, then you are effectively denying Christ’s merit. If you accept his premises, this is a reasonable argument.

Thats just it, there is nothing logical about what he said. He is delusional here. He first says that merits of Christ are not mentioned, he then shows that they are mentioned and then admits they are mentioned.
post68:

I presume from what you say below that you think these are “lies about what the Church believes.” They are not lies about Catholic theology in Luther’s day. “Nominalist” theology, which Luther had learned and which dominated much of the theological world of the early 16th century, did teach that human beings could love God above everything else by purely natural powers. This is beyond dispute–see Heiko Oberman’s Harvest of Medieval Theology or any other book about late medieval nominalism. (Scotism, which was perhaps even more dominant, agreed with the nominalists on this point, and even many Thomists were influenced by this kind of thinking.)

I dont know what Nominalist theology is, but Im pretty sure what Luther said about the CC was accusing them of pelagianism (which of course is not true).

As for doing more than God expects of us, in the sense Luther means it I don’t see how you can deny that this is Catholic teaching–…

Why would the Church require more than what God expects? Thats crazy, thats laughable.

Are you claiming that Luther was lying here? This _was_ common teaching in his day.

Thats a “common teaching”? Thats what the Bible says, God wont put a cross on someone they are not capable of handling.

And as we know, Luther had scant regard for James (and unquestionably you can’t use James to refute Paul–James is clearly less central to the canon than Paul). Furthermore, you are assuming that James means by “faith” what Luther means by it.

Here is what Luther said (which I said is in violation of James2)- For this is Antichrist’s doctrine: Faith is no good, unless it is reinforced by works.
Your start off by saying Luther despised James and end by saying I assume that Luther meant something else than James?

And the idea that I use James to refute Paul? I dont recall Paul saying that passage, nor any other passage in which James was in contradiction with. Are you saying they teach opposing doctrines and in the case of majority rule Pauls letters are more important?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Again notice that he’s speaking of involuntary, in some cases almost subconscious sinful desires. (If he was talking about deliberate lust or fantasy, let alone physical adultery, clearly people wouldn’t need to “diligently examine themselves” to know that they were guilty of it–he’s talking about feelings that in a Catholic context would be regarded as venial sin if they were sin at all. The same with anger. He’s being realistic about the sinful urges that we continue to feel even when we are striving to be holy.)

I dont follow, a urge is not the same as a sin in the CC, dwelling on that urge for a time can be a sin depending on a few factors. But the way I see it, to Luther, the mere urge was a sin. And to say he is “realistic” is another example of him hanging himself with his own rope.

I do not require of you that ye should utterly put off the flesh or kill it, but that ye should bridle and subdue it.

Im not sure I understand this. He doesnt want/think people can kick the old habits? Paul repeatedly says to cast away the old habits of the flesh and dont look back.

On p. 87 he returns to this theme and says that in fact we should "cherish our flesh, that it may be able to endure the labors both of the mind and of the body (he’s thinking of Rom. 13:14 here)

Romans 13:14 are you kidding me? Thats not what it means at all, in fact I had 13:11-13 in mind when I answered the above comment. It says: cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light.

Luther then raises your very objection, that this leads people to be “careless, negligent and slothful.” Luther admits that this is a problem: "if we teach faith, then carnal men neglect and reject works: if works be required, then is faith and consolation of conscience lost

Right here is what I have been saying. He comes right out and says it. What more is there to prove?

Luther says that all sin is mortal in itself (note that this applies to the sort of thing he has been describing, which by Catholic standards is venial sin at most, and maybe not sin at all if you don’t consent to it at all). It is in that context that he says “the believer has as great sin as the unbeliever.” (If all sin is mortal, then even those who resist sin with all their might are basically as sinful as everyone else.)

Here is the fundamental error of Protestantism. They imagine themself in a ditch so deep they cant escape, then they must invent a way out of it. And again the consequence shows especially in protestantism today in that “were all sinners because every sin is mortal”, which leads to the logical conclusion, why dream the sin when it can become a reality? Same price either way, its like the Dollar Tree stores, everything is a buck!

“They do not love God so fervently as they should do.” Can any of us really claim not to be sinners by this standard?

Murder and the urge to murder are miles apart. I can claim to not be a sinner by that standard, so long as that standard subscribes me to every little urge is life threatening.

     But here's the kicker: "But because they mortify the deeds of the flesh by the spirit . . . **therefore these sins do not hurt them or condemn them**. But if they obey the flesh in fulfilling the lusts thereof, then do they lose faith and the Holy Ghost. And if they do not abhor their sin and return unto Christ (who hath given the keys to his Church, to receive and raise up those that be fallen, that so they may recover faith and the Holy Ghost), they die in their sins. Wherefore we speak not of them which dream that they have faith, and yet continue still in their sins."

This is the context in which he makes the claim you cited in verse 21. The claims about the sins of believers that he’s been making here in v. 17 do not apply to those who “obey the flesh in fulfilling the lusts thereof.” Such people only “dream that they have faith.” To them applies the condemnation in v. 21, but not to the true Christians who struggle against the flesh. It’s paradoxical, but not really that confusing if you’re willing to give it a chance.

Why would someone obey the flesh in fulfilling the lusts if they can “mortify the deeds” and commit the same sin and get away with it?

Also this looks like the classical true-member false-member excuse where both commit the same sin, but the true member is not responsible.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have given you a specific passage in which Luther explicitly says that if you give in to the flesh you will lose your faith and ultimately (if you don’t repent) your salvation. (That one surprised even me, I must admit!). I have shown you how over and over he makes it clear that the “sins” believers commit consist in sinful impulses which they resist with all their might.

 What does "repenting" entail? If he burned down a house would he have to make a reparation or just say sorry?

And about the “sinful impulses”, thats his problem, an impulse is not sinful, so if he can be sent to hell for having one then I think I can conclude that he makes a way for no sin to be able to harm his salvation, because if every sin is mortal, even the slightest urge, then I can see where it is impossible to avoid sin. The only hope is to make sin a non issue before and after justification.

When reading Luther, you always have to bear in mind that he was an Observant Augustinian, practicing an extremely strict version of the Catholic Faith at a time of great religious fervor. And there’s little doubt that by any standard he suffered from “scruples.” He’s open to criticism for having built an entire theology on that experience and proclaimed it to be “the Gospel.” But he is not by any stretch of the imagination trying to open the door to licentious behavior, and if you look at the historic record of mainstream, confessional Protestantism it’s hard to argue that this is what he did do.

How can he be practicing a “strict view of the Catholic Faith” when he things an impulse is a mortal sin which was never the case? You said earlier that the idea that all sin was mortal was not a Catholic view. I do agree he didnt “try to” do it, but it came whether he realized it or not. When you open pandora’s box you dont fully recognize what it holds nor can you stop it when you do.

It’s not either/or for Luther. You will get a lot further with Luther if you bear in mind that he is not a Baptist! He isn’t even a Calvinist. The Sacraments offer us the Word of forgiveness and grace, which we receive by faith. They are thus absolutely vital for salvation (and this includes confession and absolution, although Luther eventually decided that this was not strictly speaking a sacrament).

 I asked if it was via Sacraments how it can be Faith alone, you said its not either/or.

How can it not be an “either/or” when you finish the paragraph with “he eventually decided this was not a sacrament”? Where does he hold the idea that he can downgrade a sacrament UNLESS he is changing his mind.

And I have cited Luther’s statement from v. 17 to the effect that in fact something will happen–you will “lose faith and the Holy Spirit.” But when speaking of justification he does not want to say this, because he is afraid of making people concentrate on their works and lose sight of Christ. In other words, as long as you are looking to Christ, you don’t need to worry about being condemned for your sins. But looking to Christ and deliberately giving yourself over to sin are mutually exclusive actions.

Now before you reject this, bear in mind that you have admitted that your interpretation of Luther leaves you baffled by many of the things he says. Try running those things through the grid I’m suggesting and see if it doesn’t become clearer.

 Right here you said it again. You dont need to worry about your sins. It goes back to what I said:Why would someone obey the flesh in fulfilling the lusts if they can "mortify the deeds" and commit the same sin and get away with it?

Thats the situation above too. A sin is ok if its done one way but bad when done another. I will rephrase the question to fit this new passage: Why would someone worry about “deliberately giving” themself, when they can “look to Christ” and commit the same sin and get away with it?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m really baffled now. Nothing you quoted says this. Nothing you underline refers to this. He is simply saying that you can’t be justified by the Law, and far less by what he regards as “man-made” regulations. I never denied this. Of course good works can’t save you. Good works don’t “add” anything to you. They flow from saving faith. As Luther liked to say in his early Romans lectures, you aren’t a good person because you do good works; you do good works because you are a good person.

  Here is a key part of that passage I cited:If you live according to the rules of **Saint Francis, Saint Dominick, Saint Benedict**, you will obtain the peace and mercy of God. If you perform the vows of chastity, obedience, etc., you will be rewarded with everlasting life."** Let these     playthings of the devil go to the place where they came from**

Were these saints justified by the law? Did they ever teach that? I cant think of a better example of “flowing from saving faith” than the examples of the saints. He just trashed and smeared 3 of the big name Saints and turned them into nothing.

Just like modern day protestantism, there is no respect for what is sacred, no respect for saints, etc. They think they can do better than these saints at demonstrating Christianity?

Your confusion is good. Hopefully it will lead you to admit that you’ve been seriously misinterpreting Luther.

    This is exactly what I was trying to get you to look at. Do I really need to say more?

If you still think that Luther believes that someone with true faith might commit adultery repeatedly, you need to tell me how you reconcile this with what you have just admitted (that he explicitly says that good works are the necessary fruit of faith).

I am confused because I see direct contradictions in his words, not that Im misinterpreting things. In the above quote I just showed Luther trashing and bashing three major Saints, did they not have “good works necessary for fuirt of faith”?
I dont see misinterpretation here, I see him playing both sides.

  Luther defined even concupiscence (the sinful tendencies remaining in the baptized) **as sin, and regarded all sin as in itself mortal**.
  
  Luther denied that human works (**even moved by the Spirit**) could ever be said to have merit--he thought they were all fundamentally tainted by sin.

  So what was that I just read about "good works are the necessary *fruit* of faith"? in the previous passage.

No wonder this guy was crazy and delusional, he put himself in a conundrum that would have Paul himself shaking his head in despair.

Luther believed that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer along with the forgiveness of all sin, past and present–Catholics simply believe that past sin is forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit brings the power to begin to live a new life. Positive righteousness has to be actually in one.

If its forgiveness of sin past AND PRESENT then how can evil works harm him in the future? 1000 murders & fornications is already forgiven.

Because of the preceding, Luther believed (and this is the part that’s been confusing you) that neither human good works nor human sin were the cause of a shift in our relationship to God. But that doesn’t mean that they are unrelated, simply that the cause is the other way round. It isn’t that we have a relationship with God because we do good works–we do good works because we have a relationship with God. And similarly, we don’t lose our relationship with God because we sin–rather, the only way we can give ourselves over** deliberately to sin** (as opposed to the involuntary sins or sins of weakness into which Luther, like the Catholic Church, thought we fall every day) is by turning away from Christ and hence losing our relationship with God.

So 1000 murders and fornication is ok as long as he doesnt turn away from Christ?

 

[Assurance]

Catholic Dude,

Let me say, I commend you for the seriousness with which you’ve tried to understand Luther. Your tenacity is impressive. I wish I had the time to match you point for point (as I certainly see such willing and friendly dialogue on such a deep and heavy topic very important!), but I’m holding out that Edwin will be able to jump back into the fray!

You said regarding Luther’s interpretation of Jesus when giving the rich young ruler the law:

I wonder how many Lutherans even try to defend his interpretations.

I do.

If you haven’t read my earlier posts, please, please do. I tried to be as succint and pack as much reflection and theology into those statements as I could. One key point I’ll repeat is that Lutherans say that we can never do anything that will give us spiritual life, we can only reject what God would give us. Much in the same way that a man can kill himself but not cause himself to be born (nor really take care of himself until he starts to be more independent, but even the style of this independence was formed by others!). This is why good works do nothing for our salvation - we have been given ALL THINGS in Christ - basically, His good works in us already exist in us in embryonic form by faith. Further, good works were never meant to effect salvation in any sense anyway, but only to reflect it.

Anyway, please try to digest the words in those posts and you might start to understand why I think Luther understood Paul and Jesus better than anyone up to that time (though he certainly got many of his ideas from Augustine).

If you quote me portions of what I wrote, I’d be happen to answer any questions and challenges you have.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

So 1000 murders and fornication is ok as long as he doesnt turn away from Christ?

Yes. Jesus is the friend of sinners. However:

1. if someone gets to the point where they commit so many murders and fornications, they are undoubtedly to the point where their genuine faith in Christ has been driven out by their sin a long time ago.
2. genuine faith exists in repentance. If there is not constant conviction of sin there can be no real confession and effective absolution of sin when the mercy of Christ for sinners is announced.

Also please consider the following from a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor I know (from confessionallutheran.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12&sid=c6eae25c320a5c53cf3beabb0977543b, Feb 24, 2005 post) who knows Luther’s writings very, very well (though just like a ton of Popes and priests have said incredibly stupid things, we Lutherans do not hold to all Luther has written but to what is contained in the Book of Concord):

In other words, faith in the gospel is our Spirit-wrought assurance of salvation. This is what Lutheran call the “inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.” If there is faith in Christ, there is assurance – most certainly! – because, as Paul points out in his post, Christ has already saved us, not in the sense that he’s enabled us to begin a long journey, but in the sense that he’s acquired our salvation on the cross.

Alongside the inner testimony, there’s also the external testimony of the Spirit, generally speaking, our good works as Christians (going to church, doing other good things); John’s first letter speaks about such things, so as to impress on the slack and lukewarm. But, as Paul also points out, under close scrutiny, there won’t be anything left to comfort us, even in the most earnest Christian life. Catholics, within their system, can be more comfortable with this external testimony because original sin is not a problem anymore for the baptized as sin, merely as “tinder” or “weakness,” that is, as a certain impulse toward sinning to which I may or may not give in (and, by God’s grace, I won’t give in to it). So, there’s basically only actual sins.

This makes then also for neat categorizing of sin, some are just bad (if you find some attenuating circumstance – I didn’t do it deliberately or didn’t know all the circumstances, eg. – they’re perhaps not bad at all); others are really bad, mortal. Lutherans don’t categorize sins based on the intrinsic value of these immoral acts; they don’t “rank” sins as such, and they also don’t consider circumstance etc. This is philosophical and legal thinking, quite fine in the civil realm, but it’s not theological (before God).

And yet, we do speak about mortal sins and venial sins as well. A mortal sin, for Lutherans, would be one that is not repented of. That could be murder, it also could be persistently lying to your parents. It could be a sinful act; it could also be a simple sinful thought that seemingly doesn’t hurt anyone – again, an impenitent one, of course. A venial sin, conversely, is one that we didn’t mean to do: yes, it is a sin (even a mortal sin in itself); yes, it needs to be forgiven (because it is mortal); and yes, it will be forgiven (because Christ died for it) – in fact, contrary to common wisdom (that takes an “I didn’t mean it” to mean that you don’t have to ask for forgiveness anymore), an unvoluntary sin, or a repented sin, is the only sin that can be forgiven! (continued next post)

 

[Assurance]

(quote con’t from previous post) Now, here’s the catch: If you apply “Lutheran” scrutiny to a Catholic system (external testimony, that is, what I have done or haven’t done, leads to at least some certainty), you’ve got problems. That is what Luther experienced first hand, as Paul points out. Luther argues this case in his writings against Latomus and Erasmus.

In the pangs of conscience it is not enough to tell yourself that you wanted to do real good things, but that, sadly, it just didn’t pan our right because of this weird old Adam in you – no, the law will force you to own your misdeeds: I have sinned against God (1 Sam. 12, Ps. 51!); my righteous acts are like filthy rags (Is. 64). God cannot be pleased with me. We’re not justified based on our good intentions; we’re saved based on our good acts, if we follow the law road – and for them to be intrinsically good (that is, not in need of Christ’s forgiveness any longer), there would have to be a consonance of new man and old man which will never happen until that day when the old man (sinful nature) is no more. This why St. Paul says that we don’t do what we wish to do – not most of the time not, or sometimes not; we simply don’t.

The resistance of the old man is not always an empirical fact. The ongoing reality of original sin has to be learned from God’s word (his law), not from introspection.

As I said, our assurance is our faith in the gospel. Is that faith always certain without a doubt? Of course not: the old Adam doubts God’s promises all the time – he can’t help it; he’ll point us to the law, to our imperfection, to God’s busyness, etc. But the question is: will we let sinful doubt prevail over Christian assurance? Obviously, we can do that – and if we don’t that is, again, God’s gracious gift; it is the Holy Spirit who then asserts himself in our hearts and prevails over satanic doubt.

Can we be fooled, that is, can we follow some delusion? Let’s be careful here and put it this way: We’ve always taught that even those who ultimately fall away from the faith might have had genuine, Spirit-wrought faith at some point in their lives. Did they have an assurance with it? Yes. So, their faith was real; their assurance was real – who dropped the ball, what happened? God, for one, wanted them to be saved and to know that they’re saved. But at some point, for whatever reason, they must have cut themselves off from the gospel. Their faith withered away – their assurance was no more (and that they had it sometime in the past is of no avail to them at present).

The same can be said even of being certain of one’s eternal election. Here too faith in the gospel makes one certain of one’s being elected by God before creation; along with it goes the certainty that God, because he has elected us to salvation through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14), will also keep us in the faith by that same gospel (the Third Article of the Creed – this is most certainly true!). Again, what happens if the person doens’t persevere, whose fault is it? Not God’s – but man’s. I find the parable of the sower very instructive here: the gospel is preached, faith germinates in the heart – but then it is choked by various cares etc. Whose fault?

So, then, was the former believer’s assurance of salvation and election a delusion at the time? That is, was the person really not saved and elected – they just thought they were? The first case is relatively easily solved: they are indeed saved on account of the general salvation acquired by Christ (e.g., John 1:29; 1 John 2:2); the gospel most certainly did deliver that salvation to them – and at some point they even believed it; and this is how far their assurance goes. After losing faith, they cannot comfort themselves in the fact that, at one time, they did believe.

(see next post too!)

 

[Assurance]

I asked him to clarify this bit:

“in fact, contrary to common wisdom (that takes an “I didn’t mean it” to mean that you don’t have to ask for forgiveness anymore), an unvoluntary sin, or a repented sin, is the only sin that can be forgiven!”

He wrote:

What I meant is simply this: People might think: If I didn’t mean to do something bad, I don’t have to ask for forgiveness; God already knows that that wasn’t really “me” anyway. Christians know: even if I didn’t mean to do it, I need God’s forgiveness (no sin is ok in and by itself); in fact, if I meant to do it, I’m likely not going to ask for forgiveness, at least for the time I mean it. First when I realize: it was wrong, I was wrong – then I’ll ask for forgiveness, but then I also don’t mean to do it anymore. Does that make more sense now? Excuse my limited English, but all I’m trying to say here is that the intention of the doer does not justify his deed in Christianity; we’re always justified and forgiven because of Christ. There might be white lies in the world, but there are certainly no white sins (in and by themselves) before God – unless you’re referring to those sins washed white in the blood of Christ.

I hope this helps all of us understand what Lutherans today believe (based on the Book of Concord), which as far as this topic goes, I believe is basically the same as what Luther believed.

 

[Assurance]

Much more succint, from my pastor:

Christ then works within the Christian through His Spirit to cause
him to joyously strive to fulfill the Law, but not for the purpose of
salvation. The purpose is to conform the Christian to Himself and thus ever keep the Christian away from the danger of sin overcoming the Christian to such an extent that his faith is destroyed

 

[Assurance]

Quote from Catholic Dude:
So 1000 murders and fornication is ok as long as he doesnt turn away from Christ?

I said:
Yes. Jesus is the friend of sinners. However:

Let me explain this a little better. If the sinner committed all of those sins and still actually turned to Christ in true repentance, yes, he would be saved.

Again, however, the internal state is very important. If someone were to do all those sins, and externally (before the eyes of the Church) turn to Christ, we may well question their sincerity.

Even more so - they might be totally sincere in some sense! Maybe they think, “I can sin as much as I want to and God loves to forgive - what a deal!” The problem is, however, they clearly have their “faith” in a “different Jesus” as Paul says - at that time, at least, they don’t have a relationship with Him.

So how do we know what is a genuine assurance? The Word of God is our only measure - and each individual needs to be confronted with its hard word of Law: “such will not inherit the Kingdom of God” and its pure Gospel: “You are perfectly forgiven in Christ and have eternal life” (though at times, some may be unprepared to hear this message, if they are stubborn and proud and have no fear of God - pearls before swine…).

It is the challenge of the believer to prayerfully consider whether a brother needs to hear the Law or the Gospel, considering their words and outward actions (attitudes) - their fruit. Sometimes, because of our sin, we will get this wrong and incorrectly handle the Word of truth towards a certain individual.

 

[francisca]

I would say that Luther criticize “bad practices” in the church of his time.

Saved through faith is not Luther’s teaching, but Jesus’s

The separation however has cause drifts in practices in both catholics and protestats churches. Often we forget that protestants and catholics have a lot in common regarding “core doctritne of salvation”. But because each party try to be righteous by condemning each other, then there are errors in church practices nowadays. Thus separation creates errors.

For example :

Catholics believe in “faith and works”. But because we want to “identify ourselves” as “catholics” then we tend to talk more about works than faith. We talks about “morality”, and “how to conduct this and that”, and that “we HAVE TO do this and that”. Later on this will drift into “works alone” instead of “faith and works”. In the most extreme, we will see that some catholics refuse to see that WE DO HAVE GUARANTEE in Jesus Christ, although we do not have guarantee in “own strength”.

Protestants… I would not say much about them. I would just say do not easily condemn “the Pope & mother Theresa” for example. For if you are more righteous than the Pope & the saints, why do you condemn? But if you are not more righteous than them, then why do you condemn them?

May God bless us all.

 

[reen12]

Hi, isfatherwrong?

I’ve been discussing blessed assurance, over on
another thread, trying to convey that this is not
the same as OSAS.

Haven’t had time to follow this thread, but I’ll try
to catch up, tomorrow.

Best,

Maureen

 

[Steven_Merten]

reen12:

The connection with the topic of this thread is this:
Lutheranism relys heavily on the letters of St. Paul,
in terms of justification and the certainty of salvation.

2 Peter urges me to heed the writings of St. Paul.

But where is the Synoptic evidence that demonstrates
that what Paul wrote is congruent with what Jesus said?

reen12

Hello reen,

Do we agree that St. Paul teaches the same thing as Jesus in that Jesus will judge us into heaven through Him or hell based on our conduct?

NAB ROM 2:6 (St. Paul is speaking)

. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and anguish will come upon every man who has done evil,

NAB JOH 5:27

"The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; … …Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned."
The reason St. Peter warns that the ignorant distort St. Paul is because the ignorant think St. Paul is deleting the nessessity to obey God’s commandments if we wish to go to heaven through Jesus. It is the Pharisee created laws and the law of circumcision, not God’s commandments, that St. Paul refers to as being not needed to go to heaven. St. James clearly seconds St. Peter’s warnings.

NAB 2PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.

So, beloved, while waiting for this, make every effort to be found without stain or defilement, and at peace in his sight. Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.
NAB JAM 2:18
**To such a person one might say, “You have faith and I have works is that it? Show me your faith without works, and I will show you the faith that underlies my works!” **Do you believe that God is one? You are quite right. The demons believe that, and shudder. **Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that without works faith is idle? Was not our father Abraham justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? **There you see proof that faith was both assisting his works and implemented by his works. You also see how the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as justice”; for this he received the title “God’s friend.”
You must perceive that a person is justified by his works and not by faith alone. Rahab the harlot will illustrate the point. Was she not justified by her works when she harbored the messengers and sent them out by a different route? Be assured, then, that faith without works is as dead as a body without breath.
NAB 1CO 7:19

(St. Paul is speaking.)
Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.

 

[rjs1]

Steven Merten:

Hello reen,

Do we agree that St. Paul teaches the same thing as Jesus in that Jesus will judge us into heaven through Him or hell based on our conduct?

NAB ROM 2:6 (St. Paul is speaking)

. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and anguish will come upon every man who has done evil,

NAB JOH 5:27

"The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; … …Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned."

The reason St. Peter warns that the ignorant distort St. Paul is because the ignorant think St. Paul is deleting the nessessity to obey God’s commandments if we wish to go to heaven through Jesus. It is the Pharisee created laws and the law of circumcision, not God’s commandments, that St. Paul refers to as being not needed to go to heaven. St. James clearly seconds St. Peter’s warnings.

NAB 2PE 3:14 Preparation for the Coming.

So, beloved, while waiting for this, make every effort to be found without stain or defilement, and at peace in his sight. Consider that our Lord’s patience is directed toward salvation. Paul, our beloved brother, wrote you this in the spirit of wisdom that is his, dealing with these matters as he does in all his letters. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin. You are forewarned, beloved brothers. Be on your guard lest you be led astray by the error of the wicked, and forfeit the security you enjoy.

NAB JAM 2:18**To such a person one might say, “You have faith and I have works is that it? Show me your faith without works, and I will show you the faith that underlies my works!” **Do you believe that God is one? You are quite right. The demons believe that, and shudder. **Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that without works faith is idle? Was not our father Abraham justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? **There you see proof that faith was both assisting his works and implemented by his works. You also see how the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as justice”; for this he received the title “God’s friend.”

You must perceive that a person is justified by his works and not by faith alone. Rahab the harlot will illustrate the point. Was she not justified by her works when she harbored the messengers and sent them out by a different route? Be assured, then, that faith without works is as dead as a body without breath.

NAB 1CO 7:19

(St. Paul is speaking.)Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.

You make some excellent points. Scripture does not support salvation by grace alone. It never has and never will. This is perhaps Luther’s biggest doctrinal mistake.

Salvation by our own efforts alone is absolutely impossible. Jesus opened the gates of Heaven to us by offering the perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice that we could never make ourselves. We in turn are expected to follow the life of holiness, the life of obedience to God’s commandments.

To argue that obedience tto God’s commandments is unconnected to our salvation is to contradict Scripture. Time and time again Scripture says our judgement, our very entry into Heaven itself, is dependent, assuming we are followers of Christ, upon our obedience to the commandments of God.

Jesus opened the door to Heaven, we must walk the path that takes us there.

 

[Assurance]

Hello all,

I am going to retire from these boards for at least a month! I have just finished what I consider to be my best efforts at demonstrating the differences that divide Lutherans and Catholics not just on some “relatively unimportant doctrines that need not divide us” but on this crucial question: “How can I know that God is gracious to me?” I think James Akin is a brilliant fellow and I respect him very much, but I simply think he needs to better understand just what it is that pious Lutherans object to regarding Roman teaching!

Francisca, your letter touched me in many ways, most of all because I think that you are expressing a Lutheran view of faith in Christ even though you don’t realize it! If you doubt me, please take a look at the posts I have written (130-133) at this thread here at Catholic.com: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&page=2 (its called “For Lutherans…” and I had taken it on myself the past 3 weeks to explain why I thought it was important for Lutherans to NOT AGREE with official Roman Catholic teaching on this area of “Assurance of Salvation”)

Quickly on the issue of works: True faith always produces works, works garnish heavenly rewards (God crowns His own works within us), good works are those that are done according to the 10 commandments/Golden Rule/Two Greatest and not human traditions, good works are done for the sake of our neighbor, not for ourselves or to climb our way to heaven, good works are connected with salvation only in that they show that we were saved, not to be saved in any sense.

Because we are FULLY SAVED through faith in Jesus and possess ALL THINGS in Him who is everything we need (I Cor 1:30) we do the good works he has planned for us to do out of thankful hearts eager to follow the One we admire and to proclaim His mighty deeds to vindicate Him before our fellow man in conjunction with the works of mercy He does in us.

He has already given us all things, including those good works that He is going to do in us. Like the man who can kill himself but can’t give himself birth, we can only reject God’s goodness towards and in us and can never establish it.

We cooperate with God towards our salvation only in this sense: we continue to believe. We continue to exercise faith in Him (which is in fact His gift to us - creating it in us through His Word) who is our justification - in Him and for His sake we have the forgiveness of sins and life eternal. This eternal life includes the new life (new man in the new creation) that will only be consummated when He comes again - and this new life eagerly does the good works of love God has given to do! Do you believe that through His finished work in Christ, He will do this in you and means to do it in you even now?

Ultimately, only faith saves. Only unbelief damns. Good or bad works only follow either.

 

[Contarini]

rjs1:

I have known about this statement of Luther’s for many years, even while I was still a protestant, and there is no way of getting around it.

Are you saying this after reading my lengthy posts on this thread (see especially posts 65-76)? What about my interpretation of Luther’s Galatians commentary do you find unconvincing? If you seriously think that this quote, taken on its own, represents Luther’s teaching as a whole, then you completely misunderstand Luther. If this is all you know of Luther, you have no business passing judgement until you’ve actually taken the trouble to understand his teaching as a whole.

rjs1:

It is true that there is no sin which God will not forgive (except the sin against the Holy Spirit which is the continuing rejection of God) , BUT - (and this is what Luther ignores) we must repent of our sin and confess it AND intend not to do it again.

Luther did not ignore this. He explicitly taught that repentance was bound up with saving faith. To get the interpretation you’re promoting, you have to ignore almost everything else Luther said and take this one rhetorical remark in a letter of pastoral counsel as constituting the whole of Luther’s teaching.

Luther, because of his own twisted emotional state, brought in a teaching that has corrupted Christianity ever since. This is the appalling teaching of once saved can never be lost (utterly unbiblical - see St Paul)

But Luther didn’t teach this. I’ve quoted in an earlier post a passage from his commentary on Gal. 2:17 where he explicitly says that if you give yourself over to sin you will lose faith and the Holy Spirit, and if you don’t repent you will be damned.

To be frank, you don’t seem to know much about Luther, and you have no business passing judgment on him when you haven’t bothered to understand him beyond a quick sound-bite.

and the idea that for the Christian, no sin or sins, or continuous multiple sinning, that they do, can effect their salvation.

Luther taught that our sins do not affect our salvation directly. But the deliberate choice to give oneself over to sin is incompatible with faith in Christ. Someone who truly trusts in Christ will only sin through the weakness of the flesh, and will repent and turn back to Christ as soon as he realizes what he has done.

Edwin