Luther! Read Read!

[Contarini]

Reformed Rob:

While the quote that is at issue here (the “sin boldly”) certainly gives insight on what Luther believed regarding what is known as “eternal security” of the person whom Christ’s atonement has been applied to, it certainly in no way should lead one to conclude that Luther would actually advocate such a manner of life. I say eternal security, because the Calvinist proposition of “perseverance of the saints” would not allow for such a statement as Luther’s.

Luther didn’t believe in eternal security. And his view wasn’t substantially different from the Reformed (except that he thought you could fall away–at least that’s my impression). He didn’t stress the necessity of good works quite as much as the Reformed, because he thought good works would flow naturally from true faith and he didn’t want to bring people back under the law. But it seems to me that in his later writings he sounds much more like the Reformed, as he became more aware of how people could misinterpret what he was saying.
Reformed Rob:

I remember reading elsewhere, that he said something to the effect of:

Even if a man were to, while his hands were still wet with the blood of a person he killed, were he to look up to heaven and pray for forgiveneness, he can have comfort in God’s forgiveness towards him.

At any rate, when I brought this up to my pastor, he said that clearly Luther shouldn’t have said that, that it’s wrong, and he cited a couple texts like I Cor. 9 and Revelation 21:8 for his justification as to not believing what Luther was getting at.

Funny. I don’t think there’s anything unorthodox about that particular quotation. (I don’t know if Luther actually said this, but he could well have–as could just about any orthodox Christian.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Contarini-

If that quote means what it looks like, Im happy that he is exposed so clearly and can show protestants a clear example of what Faith Alone leads to.

But it doesn’t.
Catholic Dude:

Ok, fair enough. But I guess I dont understand how FA stops someone from sinning. Lets say someone did commit 10 murders in a bank robbery, how do they reconcile themself back to Christ?
Ill look into that Galatians work.

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. Several people have remarked on this in citing the Galatians commentary (I’ll get to that in a minute–I’m trying to answer all the posts on this thread).

BTW, It’s 5:6, not 5:4 that I meant to cite. I thought I had corrected it but obviously hadn’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Pax:

Edwin,

A great deal of what you said has merit. I’ve read quite a few of Luther’s sermons and other materials and some of it is quite good. I am, nevertheless, put off by him when he engages in certain forms of rhetoric. I am not going to claim any expertise on Luther, but I do encourage people to read his material. Some of what he says is extreme and I do not accept his defenders contention that it was merely stylistic sarcasm for the purpose of making a point.

But you have essentially admitted this by saying you’re put off by his “rhetoric.” I’m not sure exactly what you don’t accept. I’m not going to try to defend Luther’s rhetoric, although in some contexts it was extraordinarily effective. But I will do all in my power to squash any claim that Luther thought you could wilfully remain in serious sin and still be a true believer. Because the more I read Luther the clearer it becomes that he believed no such thing.

Pax:

Dave Armstrong has debated the issue of Luther’s more “interesting” remarks. For those that are interested in Luther there is plenty of reading to do. I suggest reading him for yourself and then deciding.

Are you suggesting that I haven’t read Luther for myself? How would you know this? As a matter of fact I’ve spent ten years studying the Reformation as a Ph.D. student, working with a renowned scholar of the period (David Steinmetz). I don’t claim that I have profited from this as much as I could have (indeed, the fact that it’s taken me so long is evidence against me!). But I do think that I know more about Luther than most people.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

GoldenArrow:

We should rejoice at knowing the truth, even it it’s not pretty; therefore, Catholic Dude is right to rejoice in finding and revealing the truth about Martin Luther.

Bunk. If you found out that the Pope was a murderer, would you rejoice because it was the truth? Did you rejoice when you found out about the sexual abuse scandals?

GoldenArrow:

The site Catholic Dude referenced from is a Lutheran Website, a site supporting the views of Luther. There is no error, then, in considering the letter citing that quote to be representative of Luther’s views, because his followers consider it representative of their leader.

Have you considered the possibility that it’s there because they are honest people who are not trying to hide the more embarrassing statements of their founder? Besides, as a piece of pastoral counsel to someone Luther knew to be a scrupulous person concerned with holiness, it is representative. It’s just not representative of Luther’s entire theology of faith and works.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

By Luther for Gal2:17-21 its a verse by verse commentary:

… 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. Christ is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around.

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 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.”

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

Papists and Anabaptists deride us because we so earnestly require faith. “Faith,” they say, “makes men reckless.” What do these law-workers know about faith, when they are so busy calling people back from baptism, from faith, from the promises of Christ to the Law?

Exactly. Note that he’s challenging their very concept of faith in the first place. In the comments on 5:6, to which I’ve already referred you, he explains this more clearly. But see what he says in between this and the next quote. He’s attacking the conception of “unformed faith.” You can easily interpret this to mean that unformed faith in the Catholic definition justifies (in Luther’s view). But what he says in 5:6 is that faith itself is efficacious which works through charity (and as he says, that is in fact Paul’s wording). He’s not denying the necessity of charity. He’s denying that charity is something separate that you add to faith in order to make it living and efficacious.
Catholic Dude:

** We can tell the difference. We do not here and now argue whether we ought to do good works, or whether the Law is any good, or whether the Law ought to be kept at all. We will discuss these questions some other time. We are now concerned with justification. Our opponents refuse to make this distinction. All they can do is to bellow that good works ought to be done. We know that. We know that good works ought to be done, but we will talk about that when the proper time comes. Now we are dealing with justification, and here good works should not be so much as mentioned.**
.

How can you deal with this kind of talk? People say Im the one misrepresenting Luther? It looks to me like Luther won more converts by shameless half-truths and smear tactics than true representation and refutation of the opponent.

I’m not sure what you’re reacting to here. He says explicitly that he’s not denying the necessity of good works. He’s denying that good works justify–that good works are the basis for our acceptance by God. 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.

 

[Contarini]

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.

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. Holiness comes through a family relationship with God (see your Scott Hahn!), not through obeying rules out of fear. As sinners, we don’t have such a relationship with God. As sinners, we necessarily fear God’s wrath (if we have any awareness of God at all), which prevents us from having a filial relationship with Him. So we’re trapped. We can’t become holy till we have a relationship with God, but we can’t have a relationship with God as long as we are unholy.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Luther is like a bad dream that doesnt end…

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.

…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, for the conscience knows how impossible it is for a person to fulfill the Law. Why, the Law makes trouble even for those who have the Holy Spirit. What will not the Law do in the case of the wicked who do not even have the Holy Spirit?

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.

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.
Catholic Dude:

These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.

"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."
** True, the merit of Christ is mentioned** in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ’s merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. …

​

How does one deal with this kind of talk?

(cont. with verse 19-21)

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.

 

[Contarini]

quote=Catholic Dude VERSE 20. Who loved me, and gave himself for me.
The sophistical papists assert that a person is able by natural strength to love God long before grace has entered his heart, and to perform works of real merit. They believe they are able to fulfill the commandments of God. They believe they are able to do more than God expects of them, so that they are in a position to sell their superfluous merits to laymen, thereby saving themselves and others.
[/quote]

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.)

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–or at least that it’s the only way to construe Catholic teaching if you think of it in legal/financial terms. And it’s indisputable that Catholics often have used this language (“treasury of merit,” etc.). I don’t think this is the only way of looking at the matter. But it’s unfair to blame Luther for not coming up with interpretations of Catholic teaching that Catholics hadn’t come up with yet. Catholic teaching in his day did speak in terms of a treasury from which you could draw. And that did imply that to put something into the treasury you must have “leftover” merits you didn’t need for yourself.
Catholic Dude:

The papists will tell you to do the best you can, and God will give you His grace. They have a rhyme for it:

• *"**God will no more require of man, Than of himself perform he can.***"

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

Our opponents go even further than that. They say, nature is depraved, but the qualities of nature are untainted. Again we say: This may hold true in everyday life, but not in the spiritual life. In spiritual matters a person is by nature full of darkness, error, ignorance, malice, and perverseness in will and in mind.

At this point I’m getting lost. Are you objecting to this because you think Luther is wrong or because you don’t think Catholic theologians of the early 16th century taught what he says they taught? It would really help if you would give a reasoned critique instead of just stringing quotations together.
Catholic Dude:

For this is Antichrist’s doctrine: Faith is no good, unless it is reinforced by works. By this abominable doctrine Antichrist has spoiled, darkened, and buried the benefit of Christ, and in place of the grace of Christ and His Kingdom, he has established the doctrine of works and the kingdom of ceremonies.

Most of this stuff is either direct contradiction of the Bible or lies about what the Church believs.
The best example is that last line about the “Antichrist”, compare it to James2:26-26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

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.
Catholic Dude:

Honestly the more of Luther’s stuff I read, the more glad I am that I read it, so that I can expose it for what it is.

Expose away, as long as what you are exposing is there. But so far you have produced absolutely nothing from the Galatians commentary that supports your interpretation of the letter to Melanchthon. On the contrary, you have cast doubt on that interpretation by what you have quoted. Luther says explicitly that he knows perfectly well that good works need to be done. That does not sound as if he thinks it’s OK to go out and commit adultery at will!

 

[mhansen]

Contarini:

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.

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. Holiness comes through a family relationship with God (see your Scott Hahn!), not through obeying rules out of fear. As sinners, we don’t have such a relationship with God. As sinners, we necessarily fear God’s wrath (if we have any awareness of God at all), which prevents us from having a filial relationship with Him. So we’re trapped. We can’t become holy till we have a relationship with God, but we can’t have a relationship with God as long as we are unholy.

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.

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.

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.

Very well said.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

In the intent to look at Luther fair-mindedly, can you show us where Luther teaches Protestants the correct answer is to the question, “What must I do to share in everlasting life?”

NAB MAR 10:17"Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments:

’You shall not kill;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
You shall not defraud;
Honor your father and your mother.’"

A careful reading of Edwin’s post doesn’t demonstrate any attempt on his part to defend Luther’s heresy (I’ve no idea what he thinks of Luther). It only demonstrates an attempt on his part to assert that Luther is merely using “rhetorical flourish” or overstatement. It’s a literary device, like understatement or irony. You can’t use this to establish what Luther’s theology in all of its nuances actually is any more than you can demonstrate the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinus using a knock-knock joke. That’s all Edwin was saying.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Here is all of what Luther says about v21: This is a hard saying, but very necessary for those false Christians and hypocrites who speak much about the Gospel, about faith, and the Spirit, yet live after the flesh. But this hard sentence is directed chiefly at the heretics who are large with their own self-importance, that they may be frightened into taking up the fight of the Spirit against the flesh.
From what I see here, according to Luther a “true” Christian CAN do the things listed in vv19-20 with no problem.

First of all, you have an abridged version (perhaps the one available online from Project Wittenberg?). My version adds that the text is directed against “careless contemners and obstinate hypocrites.” Note again that the purpose is to frighten them into “taking up the fight of the Spirit against the flesh.” That is what true Christians are already doing. You’re arbitrarily deciding to interpret this in accordance with your own prejudices, and thus, once again, you’re radically misunderstanding Luther.

If you had looked at his comments on the preceding verses, you would see how wrong you are (assuming that your version is complete). I’ll give you a run-through of these verses, citing my translation. To help you follow, I’ll give the references from the WA (Weimar Ausgabe), the standard Latin edition–any good English scholarly version should have these references at the top of the page. The page references won’t be exact, because the references I have only apply to the top of the page in the English edition–the bottom of the English page may correspond to a different page in the WA. I’m giving you this because the standard English version (the Luther’s Works series put out by Fortress Press) also cites the WA pages.

Let’s start with v. 16 (WA 40.2:79): “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.” Luther begins by saying that love does not fulfill the law in this life because it is imperfect and “purity is hindered by the flesh.” In fact, I’ll grant that he says (heretically) that “the corrupt love of ourselves is so mighty that it far surmounteth the love of God and of our neighbor.” However, don’t gloat . . . . on the next page (WA 40.2:80) he says that once Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, we “do begin to love and to fulfil the law. Yet for this fulfilling we are not justified nor accepted of God whilst we live here. . . . Indeed we receive here the gift and first fruits of the Spirrit, so that we begin to love, howbeit very slenderly. But, if we loved God truly and perfectly as the law of God requireth. . . . then should we be as well contented with poverty as with wealth, with pain as with pleasure, and with death as with life; yea, he that could love God truly and perfectly, should not long continue in this life, but should straightway be swallowed up by this charity.” On the next page (81) he paraphrases Paul as saying: "When I bid you love one another, this is it that I require of you, that you walk in the Spirit. For I know that ye shall not fulfil the law; because sin dwelleth in you as long as ye live, therefore it is impossible that ye should fulfil the law. Notwithstanding, in the meanwhile endeavor yourselves diligently to walk in the Spirit, that is, wrestle in Spirit against the flesh, and follow spiritual motions, &c. . . . Here I require nothing else of you, but that ye follow the Spirit as your captain and guide, and that ye resist that captain the Flesh: for that is all that ye be able to do."

Are these the words of a man who thinks that you can commit adultery 100 times a day? On the contrary, his concern is that we should not be discouraged when we fail to achieve perfection in this life. He thinks that the only way to do this is to teach justification by faith, so that our consciousness of our sinfulness will never trouble our relationship with God.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s go on (p. 82): "The flesh of no faithful man is so good, which being offended would not bite and devour, or at the least omit somewhat of that commandment of love. Yet even at the first brunt he cannot refrain himself, but is angry with his neighbor, desireth to be revenged, and hateth him as an enemy, or at the least loveth him not so much as he should do, and as this commandment requireth. And this happeneth even to the saints [or “faithful”; i.e., those who truly believe in Christ]. . . . [83] “Although ye be moved with wrath and displeasure against your brother, offending you or doing anything heinously against you, yet notwithstanding resist and represst hese [violent] motions through the Spirit. . . . even the godly, especially the younger sort, are tempted with fleshly lust. . . . . Here let everyone . . . diligently examine himself, and no doubt, many shall find this in themselves, that the beauty or manners of another man’s wife pleaseth him better than of his own, and so contrariwise his own lawful wife he loatheth or misliketh, and loveth that which is unlawful.” 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.)
p. 84: “And when I exhort you to walk in the Spirit, that ye obey not the flesh . . . 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. For God will have mankind to endure even to the last day. And this cannot be done without parents, which do beget and bring up children. These means continuing, it must needs be that flesh also must continue, and consequently sin, for flesh is not without sin.” Granted, this is an extremely pessimistic view of the human condition (taken on its own, it’s close to Manicheanism), but it indicates the kind of sin Luther has in mind–the basic fleshly weakness that we all experience as long as we are in this life.

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); but yet only for necessity’s sake, and ‘not to nourish the lust thereof.’ Therefore, if the flesh begin to wax wanton, repress it and bridle it by the Spirit. If it will not be, marry a wife, ‘for it is better to marry than to burn.’ Thus doing thou walkest in the Spirit: that is, thou followest God’s word and doest his will. But (as I have said) this commandment to walk in the Spirit, &c., belongeth not only to hermits and monks, but to all Christians, even though they feel no carnal desire *. So the prince fulfilleth not the concupiscence of the flesh, when he diligently doeth his duty and governeth his subjects well, punishing the guilty and defending the innocent. Here the flesh and the devil resist, and tempt him, provoking him to make unrighteous war, to obey his own covetousness, &c.; and except he follow the leading of the Spirit and obey the good and holy admonitions of the Word of God concerning his office, then he fulfilleth the lust of the flesh, &c. . . .

(v. 17; p. 88) Notwithstanding he [Paul] would have us so to feel them [desires of the flesh, whether sexual or “pride, wrath, heaviness, impatience, unbelief, and such like”], that we consent not unto them, nor accomplish them: that is, that we neither think, speak, nor do those things which the flesh provoketh us unto. As, if it move us to anger, yet we should be angry in such wise as we are taught in the fourth Psalm, that we sin not. As if Paul would thus say: I know taht the flesh will provoke you unto wrath, envy, doubting, incredulity, and such-like: but resist it by the Spirit, that ye sin not. But if ye forsake the guiding of the Spirit, and follow the flesh, ye shall fulfil the lust of the flesh, and ye shall die, as Paul saith in the eighth to the Romans."

And lest you claim that he only thinks this applies to “false Christians,” he adds (89): “And this place witnesseth plainly that Paul writeth these things to the saints, that is, to the Church believing in Christ, baptized, justified, renewed, and having full forgiveness of sins. Yet notwithstanding he saith that she hath flesh rebelling against the spirit.”*

 

[Contarini]

I could go on and on, but I’ll skip to a few of the more significant places:

p. 91: “When I was a monk I thought by and by that I was utterly cast away, if at any time I felt the concupiscence of the flesh: that is to say, if I felt any evil motion, fleshly lust, wrath, hatred, or envy against any brother. . . . If then I had rightly understood these sentences of Paul . . . I should not have so miserably tormented myself, but should have thought and said to myself, as now commonly I do: Martin, thou shalt not utterly be without sin, for thou hast yet flesh; thou shalt therefore feel the battle thereof, according to that saying of Paul: ‘The flesh resisteth the spirit.’ Despair not therefore, but resist it strongly, and fulfil not the lust thereof. Thus doing thou art not under the law.”

p. 93: “Wherefore let not them which feel the concupiscence of the flesh, despair of their salvation. Let them feel it and all the force thereof, so that they consent not to it. Let the passions of lust, wrath and such other vices shake them, **as long as they [the passions] do not overcome them. **Let sin assail them, **as long as they do not fulfil it **[my translation says, “accomplish it,” which I’ve modernized; the http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal5-14.html”]online translation says “welcome it”]. Yea, the more godly a man is, the more doth he feel that battle.”

p. 94: 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 . . . But let every man diligently try himself to what passon of the flesh he is most subject, and when he findeth that, let him not be careless, nor flatter himself: but let him watch and wrestle in Spirit against it, that if he cannot altogether bridle it, yet at the least he do not fulfil the lust thereof.”

On p. 95 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.) Believers sin every day, Luther insists–but notice how he defines this “sin” in the very next paragraph: “they only feel indeed that they have and do commit sins, that is to say, they feel they do not love God so fervently as they should do; that they do not trust him to heartily as they would, but rather they oftentimes doubt whether God have a care of them or no; they are impatient, and are angry with God in adversity.” This is the sin that believers commit every day, and that is as great as the sin of unbelievers.

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

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.

 

[Contarini]

On 6:7-9, you’re confused because you didn’t look at v. 6. Paul speaks of those who are taught the Word sharing their goods with their teachers. The language of sowing and reaping is also used in 1 Cor. 9. Luther’s interpretation is quite reasonable.

Finally you say,

And the way he talks about doing good works, I dont see how he can trumpet Faith Alone in the previous passages.
The only logical conclusion is that evil (or good) works have no bearing on a “justified” Christian.

So you run smack against statements that good works are important, and you dismiss them simply because you think you have figured out what the “logical conclusion” of “Faith Alone” is? No, the logical conclusion is that you are reading Luther wrong, when *by your own admission *you can’t explain many of the things he says in terms of your “logical” interpretation.

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.

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.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Im done looking in to what Luther has to say on Galatians. Reading what I just read is life draining.

I suggest that you’re finding it “life-draining” because you’re trying to make it fit mistaken preconceptions about what “sola fide” means.
Catholic Dude:

I just looked into Luther’s Large Catechism which someone posted a link to, here is what it said concerning the Apostle’s Creed on “forgiveness of sins”:We further believe that in this Christian Church we have forgiveness of sin, which is wrought through the holy Sacraments and Absolution, moreover, through all manner of consolatory promises of the entire Gospel. Therefore, whatever is to be preached concerning the Sacraments belongs here,
Now Im really CONFUSED! Is it Faith Alone or Sacraments?

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).
Catholic Dude:

Thats exactly what Im saying here is what he says in that commentary on 5:4-If you know Christ at all, you know that good works do not serve unto righteousness, nor evil works unto condemnation. I do not want to withhold from good works their due praise, nor do I wish to encourage evil works. But when it comes to justification, I say, we must concentrate upon Christ alone, or else we make Him non-effective
I see he is not saying to go ahead and sin, BUT if you do NOTHING will happen.

First of all, I mistakenly said v.4 instead of v. 6–I corrected it in the second paragraph but not the first. However, that’s all to the good, since it gives us a chance to discuss more Luther (which is my job, after all . . . . )

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.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. Those who seek to be justified by the Law are fallen from grace and are in grave danger of eternal death. If this holds true in the case of those who seek to be justified by the moral Law, what will become of those, I should like to know, who endeavor to be justified by their own regulations and vows? They will fall to the very bottom of hell. “Oh, no,” they say, “we will fly straight into heaven. 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** and listen to what Paul has to say in this verse in accordance with Christ’s own teaching: “He that believeth in the Son of God, hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him.”

The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.

I dont see how it can be more clear, you pointed out these passages but they are crystal clear. Sins (as well as good works) do nothing to the person who has faith alone.

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.
Catholic Dude:

And on the case of 5:6 here is what luther says:…Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that** without fruits faith serves no purpose.** To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.
IM CONFUSED HERE. Its like he plays it both ways on people. One second works have nothing to do with it, now GOOD WORKS ARE REQUIRED???
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

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).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

[/indent]
Hey Edwin!

Catholic Dude is calling your bluff.

No bluff. I’ve just spent most of the afternoon (which I should not have done) citing the Galatians commentary at great length to prove my point. Note that in post 35 Catholic Dude admits that he is confused because Luther is saying things that contradict what Catholic Dude thinks sola fide is all about.
Steven Merten:

Please clarify that Luther says obedience to the commandments is needed.

See my recent posts to Catholic Dude. For that matter, see Catholic Dude’s post 35, where he explicitly admits that Luther says good works are required.
Steven Merten:

Please clarify that Luther said the “opposite” of "faith alone

"I will bear witness against you if you claim that Luther thought you could have true faith without good works, because he emphatically said the opposite."

You keep misinterpreting “faith alone.” Haven’t you ever argued with a conservative Calvinist (like James White)? One of their favorite slogans is “We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.” And that sums up Luther’s views pretty well. You can’t have true faith without producing good works. But works do not justify–only faith justifies. That’s Luther’s view, and he makes no secret of it. Again, see my voluminous discussion of the Galatians commentary in recent posts on this thread.
Steven Merten:

According to Catholic Dude’s quote, Luther is condeming his “opponant” Jesus who calls for us to obey the commandments if we wish to enter into life.

No, he’s condemning his Catholic and Anabaptist opponents who (in his view) twist Jesus’ words to make Jesus a lawgiver and bring people’s consciences into bondage.

I’m not claiming that his exegesis is very convincing here. I’m explaining Luther, not endorsing him.

(In case anyone should be curious, I think Luther is only marginally heretical, if at all–some of his statements about human depravity are perhaps heretical. But I think his theology is highly idiosyncratic and he was seriously mistaken to set it up as “the Gospel.” I think he’s done a lot of good and a lot of harm, and I’m glad it’s not my job to balance the two against each other.)

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Based on what I have just read I dont see how luther is against what the Church teaches, it looks like both teach basically the same thing just use different words.
eg James Ch2:
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
From what I read you saying, both Catholics and Luther believe in Faith alone but not a faith that is alone. Protestants should be citing this passage day and night to Catholics. If I understand you now, the Reformation according to Luther was nothing but a misunderstanding of what each side actually agreed on. This passage is clearly Faith Alone (active along with works and completed by works) if that is the definition Luther used. Evil works do lead to condemnation because faith without good works is dead.

Can you explain if this is correct before I go to reply to all that stuff you wrote?

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude:

Based on what I have just read I dont see how luther is against what the Church teaches, it looks like both teach basically the same thing just use different words.From what I read you saying, both Catholics and Luther believe in Faith alone but not a faith that is alone. Protestants should be citing this passage day and night to Catholics. If I understand you now, the Reformation according to Luther was nothing but a misunderstanding of what each side actually agreed on. This passage is clearly Faith Alone (active along with works and completed by works) if that is the definition Luther used. Evil works do lead to condemnation because faith without good works is dead.

Can you explain if this is correct before I go to reply to all that stuff you wrote?

Basically, although I wouldn’t say it was just a misunderstanding. Some substantive areas where Luther is erroneous from a Catholic point of view (as I understand it)

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.

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.

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.

One final aspect–and the only one where I solidly agree with Luther: Luther believed that unformed faith (faith without charity) was not a gift of God. Notice in the Galatians commentary he keeps saying something like: “The Papists believe that faith, whether infused or not, avails nothing unless charity is added.” For Luther the only kind of faith that isn’t going to work through love is faith that is just a human opinion. Any faith that is a gift of God comes together with love and good works. (He objected to the idea that charity perfects faith as opposed to flowing from an intrinsically perfect faith–this is where perhaps he is contradicting James, though I think they can be reconciled.)

I think all of these are substantive issues. I agree with the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration that they did not need to divide the Church. The point I’ve been trying to make is that whether or not Luther was a heretic, his heresy did not consist in saying that someone could be in a right relationship with God and deliberately give themselves over to sin. He did believe that sin would not itself break one’s relationship with God, but he did not believe that a person in right relationship with God would deliberately plunge into serious sin. I understand that this is a tricky distinction to understand if you aren’t on Luther’s wavelength.

My apologies for being testy in my responses. I apologize also for the intolerable length of my responses. Please feel free to respond selectively to points you find unconvincing or puzzling. I have written at such length (well, partly because it’s a weakness of mine and I was distracting myself from my dissertation!) because I wanted to deal with the issue in enough depth to (hopefully) convince you that I knew what I was talking about, and also to provide myself with a substantive set of posts to which I could refer people when this issue comes up again. I don’t want to have to do this over and over, and that blasted letter to Melanchthon comes up all the time . . . .

So read and respond at your leisure. I’ll tell you if I think there’s a significant point you aren’t dealing with (and of course always feel free to do the same).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Contarini:

Luther didn’t believe in eternal security. And his view wasn’t substantially different from the Reformed (except that he thought you could fall away–at least that’s my impression).But it seems to me that in his later writings he sounds much more like the Reformed, as he became more aware of how people could misinterpret what he was saying.
Edwin

Contarini,

Hey, I’m just asking this, maybe you can clarify something for me and whoever else wonders.

I said “eternal security” and put it in “”"" because I figured surely Luther’s view differed substantially from the common Evangelical Once Saved Always Saved (practically same as eternal security, right?) presumption, but I felt it necessary to distinguish it from Calvin’s “P” perseverance of the saints. But, I didn’t have a name for it, and I’m not familiar with Luther to know exactly what to think. You said you have the impression that Luther believed a person could fall away from grace, what makes you think he taught that?

I don’t know one way or another, that’s why I’m asking. Likely Calvin’s view was more mature and consistent than Luther’s on the effects of redemption’s application to individuals, but I don’t know. Just asking.

And isn’t it odd how calvinists won’t lay hold to systems such as “OSAS” instead they clarify “perseverance of saints.” I suppose it’s actually quite necessary, the 2 sound the same, but are built on quite differing foundations.