Luther! Read Read!

[Contarini]

Catholic Dude,

Sorry for the delay. I may not be able to reply to all of this at once myself.
Catholic Dude:

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.

But Luther did not say that. That wasn’t Luther’s issue at all. You keep reading modern evangelical Protestantism of a more or less Baptist sort into Luther. That’s highly unfair. Luther didn’t think that “amending your life” was adding works to faith, unless you thought that your success in amending your life was the point on which God’s acceptance of you depended. In other words, Luther and the historic Protestant tradition generally would say that you amend your life because you have been accepted by God, not so that you will be accepted by God. I’m not concerned here to defend this position, only to explain it.

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”.

You’re exactly right that Luther wouldn’t require *reparation *for sin (reparation to God–of course when we sin against our neighbors we must make reparation to them). In fact he would say that the attempt to make reparation to God is incredibly stupid and blasphemous. Christ has already made full reparation. How could we ever pay back to God the infinite debt we owe Him? (That’s right out of Anselm, really, though of course Protestants push this teaching farther than Catholics.)

But that’s not the same thing as *repentance. *Coming from a traditional Catholic point of view, you’re interpreting repentance and amendment of life as paying something back to God. That’s exactly what Luther was attacking. But he wasn’t attacking the necessity of repentance and amendment. Repentance is bound up with saving faith. To place our faith in Christ means coming to Christ as “real sinners,” to use Luther’s phrase–sinners who don’t make excuses for their sins, who loathe their sins from the bottom of their hearts.

Luther thought that the way to amend our lives was not to try to pay God back for the “damage” done by sin (which is an impossible task, and furthermore one that Christ has already accomplished), but to approach Him humbly asking for mercy, and then to go out and do good works out of joy and gratitude for the free forgiveness we have received.

 

[Contarini]

I cant help but read into this what I see in Protestantism in general today,

Well, you should try to help it. You should try very hard. Basic honesty requires you to. Luther was not a modern Protestant, and he had no way of knowing about modern Protestantism. You might as well blame Paul or Augustine for Luther (since Luther was unquestionably influenced by them) as blame Luther for later forms of Protestantism that appeal to him.

that is nothing is really required in terms of changing ones ways,

That’s a highly unfair generalization about modern Protestantism, anyway. I’ve heard the testimonies of many people whose lives were radically changed by the Gospel as proclaimed by evangelical Protestantism. Most Protestants do think that faith in Christ requires changing our ways. I’ll grant you that not all do–cheap grace is popular in many circles.

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.

I think that’s very true. But obviously Luther did not live in that society, and had no way of knowing about it. So this is irrelevant for a discussion of what Luther meant.

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 wealth resides.

Luther would say that it isn’t a half-and-half matter. Trusting Jesus is the only way in which we can fulfil the Law. It’s not that you have to get 100 points and you get 50 for keeping the commandments and 50 for trusting Jesus. Jesus has fulfilled the Law perfectly, and trusting Jesus unites us to that perfect righteousness. I suspect that if he were to take more time on this passage he would say that the whole point of the story is that the young man can’t be justified by keeping the Law, because he hasn’t kept the Law perfectly, as Jesus shows by zeroing in on his love of possessions.

Please understand that I’m not defending Luther’s position here. I’m explaining it to the best of my ability.

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.

I keep seeing this disjunction on these boards. This isn’t the place to address it, but traditional Protestants would say (and I’d think that Catholics traditionally would agree) that since all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, you can’t really say that disagreeing with Paul is less serious than disagreeing with Jesus. This is not entirely irrelevant, because part of what you and Steven Merten are doing is using the Synoptic Gospels as your primary source and building everything else around that. Luther said explicitly that he thought John and Paul were the heart of the New Testament and the Synoptics were relatively more peripheral. Again, I’m not defending this, I’m explaining it. Luther didn’t think he was contradicting Jesus’ words–he was convinced that Scripture as a whole supported his position. And I’ve suggested how he might have interpreted this particular passage in Matt. 19.

Please bear in mind that this thread has a fairly limited subject, at least as far as I’m concerned. I am attempting to demonstrate that Luther did not believe that true faith in Christ was compatible with repeated, persistent, wilful, serious sin. That is all I am trying to argue in this thread. There are all sorts of other issues about Luther that we could discuss, and we both tend to get distracted by them. But they really belong in separate threads.

If you want to know what I think about justification by faith, you can visit my blog Ithilien, where I devoted a recent post to the subject (in part because of our discussion about Luther).

Edwin

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

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.

Luther would say that it isn’t a half-and-half matter. Trusting Jesus is the only way in which we can fulfil the Law. It’s not that you have to get 100 points and you get 50 for keeping the commandments and 50 for trusting Jesus. Jesus has fulfilled the Law perfectly, and trusting Jesus unites us to that perfect righteousness. I suspect that if he were to take more time on this passage he would say that the whole point of the story is that the young man can’t be justified by keeping the Law, because he hasn’t kept the Law perfectly, as Jesus shows by zeroing in on his love of possessions.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

How did Luther teach that Abraham trusted in Jesus, which Luther says is the only way, to fulfil the Law?

Jesus tells us that Abraham is in heaven. How did Luther say Abraham got to heaven?

NAB MAR 12:18
Then some **Sadducees who hold there is no resurrection **came to him with a question …\…12:24 Jesus said: “You are badly misled, because you fail to understand the Scriptures or the power of God. When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven. As to the raising of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living not of the dead, You are very much mistaken.” NAB LUK 13:28

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

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

How did Luther teach that Abraham trusted in Jesus,

The same way Paul and Jesus did.

I presume I don’t need to quote all of Romans 4 to you to show that Paul believed that Abraham was saved through trusting God? But here are vv. 18-21, since they speak more specifically of trust:

18 Who against hope believed in hope; that he might be made the father of many nations, according to that which was said to him: So shall thy seed be. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
19 And he was not weak in faith. Neither did he consider his own body, now dead (whereas he was almost an hundred years old), nor the dead womb of Sara. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
20 In the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust: but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God: http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
21 Most fully knowing that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform.

And lest you say that this doesn’t speak of Jesus, remember that our Lord said in John 8:56:

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad.

This isn’t a wacky idea of Luther’s–it’s basic, orthodox Christianity. You want to attack Luther, you’re going to have to pick another ground for it than the claim that Abraham was saved by faith in Christ. That’s something all Christians have believed for 2000 years, and if you don’t believe it then *you *are the heretic.

Edwin

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

The same way Paul and Jesus did.

I presume I don’t need to quote all of Romans 4 to you to show that Paul believed that Abraham was saved through trusting God? But here are vv. 18-21, since they speak more specifically of trust:

18 Who against hope believed in hope; that he might be made the father of many nations, according to that which was said to him: So shall thy seed be. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
19 And he was not weak in faith. Neither did he consider his own body, now dead (whereas he was almost an hundred years old), nor the dead womb of Sara. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
20 In the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust: but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God: http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
21 Most fully knowing that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform.

And lest you say that this doesn’t speak of Jesus, remember that our Lord said in John 8:56:

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad.

This isn’t a wacky idea of Luther’s–it’s basic, orthodox Christianity. You want to attack Luther, you’re going to have to pick another ground for it than the claim that Abraham was saved by faith in Christ. That’s something all Christians have believed for 2000 years, and if you don’t believe it then *you *are the heretic.

Edwin

Contarini:

Steven Merten:

Hello justcatholic,

You are confusing faith with the Protestant missunderstanding of “faith”.

Faith, love and obedience are all one in the same. The way people keep faith in God is to do as He tells us to do.

That’s actually closer to the Protestant position. Catholicism traditionally has distinguished sharply between faith and love and has taught that you can have one without the other–something most of the Reformers (certainly including Luther) flatly denied.

Perhaps our earlier discussion would have gone better if I had challenged you to define the Protestant understanding of faith–because you don’t seem to understand it at all.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

What can I say? Great! I did not realize that Luther equated faith, love and obedience all as one. If Luther agrees that had Abraham defied God and refused to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (disbelief), he would have had no faith, then yes, Luther, I and you are all in agreement.

I had the understanding that Luther separated “faith” from obedience and love. Does Luther believe that faith means to obey what God commands? Does Luther teach that Abraham obeyed God and this was his faith in God?

I want to clarify. Do we agree that the terms “believe” and “faith” in the bible mean to obey what God tells you to do? Obedience to God, which is love for God is faith in God. Do Luther, you and I agree on this?

**NAB ROM 4:3 **

“Abraham beleived God, and it was credited to him as justice.”

You cannot love God yet think it all right to choose disobedience. You cannot choose the option of disobedience yet claim fidelity. Without fidelity in ones heart what love can you have for God? Faith, obedience and love are all tied together. Some people cast out love and obedience and claim that only “faith alone” is needed to inherit eternal life. I ask them though how can your faith in Christ grow while you choose to hate Him with all your heart? How can your level of faith in Christ remain unchanged when you freely choose to betray and disobey Him?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Could Abraham be faithful to God and disobey Him in the same act? Because Abraham had faith it was accredited to him as justice. How did Abraham have allegiance, fidelity, trust, and confidence - all of which are faith in God? Abraham showed God faith through obedience. God commanded that Abraham sacrifice his son and Abraham had faith in God through his obedience. Abraham could not have maintained or increased his level of faith in God had he chose to disobey. Abraham had the free willed opportunity to love God and the free willed option to hate God. The way that Abraham loves God and puts faith in God is through his obedience to God’s command. ****

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 GEN 22:15

Again the LORD’s messenger called to Abraham from heaven and said: “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing - all this because you obeyed my command.”
NAB HEB 11:17

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac;
**NAB **REV 14:12

This is what sustains the holy ones, who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. I heard a voice from heaven say to me: Write this down: Happy now are the dead who die in the Lord! The Spirit added, “Yes, they shall find rest from their labors, for their good works accompany them.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

Love, obedience and faith are one, and one are three as the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One. Three are one and one are three as our loving Father, obedient Jesus and faithful saints, when begotten into the Holy Spirit, will be One in heaven. God accepts Abraham’s faith as obedience and love. And Abraham’s obedience is love and faith for God. Israelites or Christians who are faithless and disobey but repent will be seen faithful and obedient because they now love.

Faith, love and obedience do not function independent of one another. A choice of disobedience results in a decrease of faith. An act of obedience increases your faith. An act of faith is seen as an increase in obedience and love. Repentance to love can override faithlessness and disobedience. However, love is an obedient and faithful heart.

NAB 1TI 1:5

What we are aiming at in this warning is the love that springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. Some people have neglected these and instead have turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law but actually not understanding the words they are using, much less the matters they discuss with such assurance.
NAB GAL 5:6

In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.

**NAB 1TI **1:19

and hold fast to faith and a good conscience. Some men, by rejecting the guidance of conscience, have made a shipwreck of their faith,

NAB JOH 14:14

"Anything you ask me in my name I will do. If you love me and obey the commands I give you."

**NAB MAT **21:22

**“You will receive all that you pray for, provided you have faith.” **
Faith Love and Obedience, three as one, bring sinners into the saving merciful hands of Jesus Christ.

Do you, I and Luther agree?

Peace in Christ,
Steven

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have been having the same questions as Seven here. On one hand it looks like luther was separating the two on the other hand it looks like Luther wasnt. I got to the point where I think it was some kind of psycologiacl problem where he wanted to have it both ways and play it like it was two sides to the same coin.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

This isn’t a wacky idea of Luther’s–it’s basic, orthodox Christianity. You want to attack Luther, you’re going to have to pick another ground for it than the claim that Abraham was saved by faith in Christ. That’s something all Christians have believed for 2000 years, and if you don’t believe it then *you *are the heretic.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

Well not all Christians. I think more Lutherans would agree with Reen12 than with you.

reen12:

Originally Posted by reen12
*
In short, the game is up*.

No longer will we be subject to the Law, but will, rather, enjoy sonship
…and the priviledges thereof, **namely Grace, poured out through relationship.
**

reen12
**

 

[rjs1]

In spite of what has been said it is a fact that Luther did make the statement: “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

No amount of quoting from his other writings can alter what he said. His statement is offensive to the holiness of God and totally contrary to the constant teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Perhaps this explains why Luther counselled Philip of Hesse to commit bigamy and have two wives. Perhaps it explains why Luther said: “To be continent and chaste is not in me.” Perhaps it explains his statement: “Why do I sit soaked in wine?”

Reference to Luther’s life shows a man of foul temper and sensual behaviour. A man so different from the Saints of the Church as to be embarrassing.

No wonder such a man made an autocratic decision to wipe the Epistle of James from the Bible. An entire book of scared Scripture to be rejected because it contradicted Luther’s views.

No wonder he took the extraordinary step of changing a verse of Scripture. Romans 3:28 says: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Luther added the word “alone” after the word faith. When Luther was challenged as how he could do this, he replied: “Dr Martin Luther wants it that way and says, Papist and *** are the same thing. Such is my wish, such is my order, let my willing it be the reason.”

***let my willing it be the reason ***!!! What incredible arrogance. What an ego. How can Protestants criticise Papal infallibility when their own leader had such pride. Luther banished a book from the New Testament and changed a key verse of Scripture simply because they contradicted his man made theology.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

I keep seeing this disjunction on these boards. This isn’t the place to address it, but traditional Protestants would say (and I’d think that Catholics traditionally would agree) that since all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, you can’t really say that disagreeing with Paul is less serious than disagreeing with Jesus. This is not entirely irrelevant, because part of what you and Steven Merten are doing is using the Synoptic Gospels as your primary source and building everything else around that. Luther said explicitly that he thought John and Paul were the heart of the New Testament and the Synoptics (gospels of Jesus through Mathew, Mark and Luke) were relatively more peripheral. Again, I’m not defending this, I’m explaining it. Luther didn’t think he was contradicting Jesus’ words–he was convinced that Scripture as a whole supported his position. And I’ve suggested how he might have interpreted this particular passage in Matt. 19.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

I have heard that Luther said that James was an epistle of straw. I have heard that Luther wanted to take James out of the bible but was convinced by others not to do so. Do you believe that Luther believed that disagreeing with James was no less serious than disagreeing with Jesus?

Luther bases the foundation of his theology on St. Paul while avoiding Christ’s words on what we must do to go to heaven. I think it is clear that Luther elevated St. Paul’s writings to the level of Jesus’ gospels and then avoided using Jesus gospels and used St. Paul who fit his theological goals better. What do you think?

I think we all agree that Jesus’ words, at least that in Mathew, Mark and Luke really do not say what Luther wanted to say. To say the least.

 

[Constantine312]

If Jesus is God’s Son… Martin Luther is the devil’s…

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

What can I say? Great! I did not realize that Luther equated faith, love and obedience all as one. If Luther agrees that had Abraham defied God and refused to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (disbelief), he would have had no faith, then yes, Luther, I and you are all in agreement.

I had the understanding that Luther separated “faith” from obedience and love.

Only in the sense that obedience and love are not perfect in this life and thus cannot form the basis for justification. Perhaps that’s what you mean. Luther would say that love and obedience flow out of faith and cannot be separate from it. He distinguished them, but he didn’t separate them. Catholics, on the other hand, separate them. They think it is possible to have faith but not charity, and they rightly say that faith without charity does not save. I think one problem with Luther is that he didn’t seem to recognize degrees of faith. I would say (with Martin Bucer) that imperfect love indicates imperfect faith. Luther, as far as I understand, would not. In that sense he separated them. Perhaps that is what you mean.

Luther liked the tree/fruit analogy. A living tree (a person with faith) produces fruit. But (though I don’t think he used the analogy to say this) a tree may be alive and still produce imperfect fruit. The fruit are one with the tree in the sense that they flow from it. But they are not identical. I never said Luther thought they were identical. I said that in his view you can’t have one without the other as you can in Catholicism, so he identifies them far more closely than standard Catholic theology does.

:I want to clarify. Do we agree that the terms “believe” and “faith” in the bible mean to obey what God tells you to do? Obedience to God, which is love for God is faith in God.:

Luther would not say that they are identical, no. He would say that faith results in obedience, although obedience is not perfect in this life. I find it interesting, though, that you would make a claim that goes so flatly against mainstream Catholic theology. Whether you’re actually contradicting Catholic dogma I don’t know.

You cannot love God yet think it all right to choose disobedience.

Luther would agree absolutely.

You cannot choose the option of disobedience yet claim fidelity.

Again, Luther explicitly agrees with this.

Without fidelity in ones heart what love can you have for God? Faith, obedience and love are all tied together. Some people cast out love and obedience and claim that only “faith alone” is needed to inherit eternal life.

But traditionally “faith alone” had nothing to do with casting out love and obedience. Nor does it in most Protestant theologies today, at least not to my knowledge. Some twisted perversions of Protestant theology do fall under your accusation. But they’re no more representative of Protestantism than Hans Kung is of Catholicism–though granted since we don’t have a unified authority structure this is a harder claim to establish!

I ask them though how can your faith in Christ grow while you choose to hate Him with all your heart? How can your level of faith in Christ remain unchanged when you freely choose to betray and disobey Him?

I have shown that Luther explicitly says that if you make the kind of deliberate choice you’re talking about you lose faith and the Holy Spirit. Admittedly, he also seems to think that David remained a true believer throughout his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah. So unless he was being inconsistent (which is possible), he was willing to be rather flexible in what he meant by deliberate choice. (Presumably David’s repentance when confronted by Nathan showed that his sin had not been fully deliberate. But one has to say that writing out an order to murder someone looks pretty deliberate! Once again, I’m not defending Luther, just trying to interpret him fairly.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

rjs1:

In spite of what has been said it is a fact that Luther did make the statement: “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

No one has denied that he made the statement. I have explained at some length what he meant by it and how it fits into his teaching as a whole. You need to explain exactly how you find my arguments unconvincing. Simply bursting into the thread at this stage and blustering is not adequate.

No wonder he took the extraordinary step of changing a verse of Scripture. Romans 3:28 says: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Luther added the word “alone” after the word faith. When Luther was challenged as how he could do this, he replied: “Dr Martin Luther wants it that way and says, Papist and *** are the same thing. Such is my wish, such is my order, let my willing it be the reason.”.

But if you would actually read the text in question, you would see that he goes on to give a reason. He was simply saying that his “Papist” opponents didn’t know enough about translation to challenge him. I’m not denying that he could be a bombastic ***hole at times, only that he believed that one could give oneself over deliberately to sin and still have true faith. He clearly did not teach this. I have quoted him explicitly teaching the contrary. If you choose to deny the evidence to suit your prejudices, then you may find yourself sharing a cell with Jack Chick in Purgatory.

Edwin

 

[angelmessenger]

Those words of Martin Luther’s,----- regardless his intent---- have probably sent many souls to hell!

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

God bless

Angel

 

[Catholic_Dude]

angelmessenger:

Those words of Martin Luther’s,----- regardless his intent---- have probably sent many souls to hell!

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

God bless

Angel

The thing is most protestant churches dont even have to quote this stuff from Luther word for word, the whole once saved always saved teaching leads to the same conclusions only it doesnt appear to be saying the same thing.

Its clear to me in the almost arbitrary divorces and remarriages that people are being mislead by none other than the so called pastor.

 

[angelmessenger]

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED?

Philippians 2:12, Paul exhorted us to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

If we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. But he who does not remain in his love is “cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6).

Romans 11:22, Paul says, “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell.

In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” This is not the language of “once saved always saved.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, Paul says, “Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.” So, you could believe, but fail to hold fast to the gospel, and not be saved (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20).

This is why Paul spoke in the book of Romans about the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, 16:26). It is not enough that one call Jesus Lord, for, as he said, “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21; cf. Matt. 10:33, 18:35). If we are disobedient, God will “take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city” (Rev 22:19).

Just because you may choose to no longer hold fast to what was freely given to you does not mean that you were ever capable of earning what was given to you in the first place. The same is true of earthly sonship—it cannot be earned. But if you were adopted, you would be free to run away as a prodigal son and lose your inheritance.

The first person to espouse the idea of “once saved, always saved” was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

In the first century, the Didache, commonly known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, said “Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time” (Didache 16 [A.D. 70]).

In the second century, Irenaeus wrote, “To Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ [Phil. 2:10–11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. . . The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [he] may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Such consistent testimony could be given from the dawn of Christianity until today, and no suggestion of “once saved, always saved” can be found on the lips of any Christian before Calvin.

Does anyone from the OSAS movement read these passages from scripture?

 

[Assurance]

angelmessenger,

In all kindness, it would be helpful if you would look at least some of the posts before your own here!

You said:

The first person to espouse the idea of “once saved, always saved” was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as John spoke about in 1 John 5:16–17.

Your quote here I believe to be accurate, but it also illustrates the irrelevance of your post here. This is a thread about Luther and his words - and whether those words are definitive of teaching as a whole. Luther and Lutherans believe that a person CAN lose their salvation. Lutherans don’t believe in OSAS.

You may be right about some people losing their salvation because of that Luther quote. Keep in mind however, that for example 1) this was a pastoral and personal letter to an incredibly scrupulous friend that was terribly frightened about what many Catholics would say or only venial sins and not worth agonizing over 2) Luther contradicts this statement in his later writings, writings that he certainly wished everybody to see (his lectures meant for the public), as Edwin (Comarani) has ably shown here earlier and 3) the fact that many, many people have seen this personal letter that it is highly doubtful Luther would have wanted to be shared is probably due to certain RC apologists wanting to destroy Luther and his credibility 4) do we not all say and write things we regret? Even Popes are not perfect and have said some pretty stupid (I would say “faith-destroying” things)… 5) Rather than broadcasting a person’s mistakes (I’m sure Luther would say he should not have written this, being very familiar with his later writings), should we not, as Luther said about the early Church Fathers, rather “cover their nakedness” when they go astray and say things that contradict Scripture?

I hope all of this makes good sense to you. Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[Fox]

Luther is a heretic that will pay for his sins for drawing away God’s people from His church to this day.

 

[angelmessenger]

Isfatherwrong?:

angelmessenger,

In all kindness, it would be helpful if you would look at least some of the posts before your own here!

I did look at the posts and I replied with the truth. Many Protestants boast of how they are saved---- no matter what! Those who have heard these words and believed this doctrine may have perished!–Isn’t that a frightening thought?

Your quote here I believe to be accurate, but it also illustrates the irrelevance of your post here. This is a thread about Luther and his words - and whether those words are definitive of teaching as a whole. Luther and Lutherans believe that a person CAN lose their salvation. Lutherans don’t believe in OSAS.

I merely pointed out that Calvin had been the one to invent “Once saved always saved” That was relevant to the discussion. I may add that seeing as how Luther also demonstrated his own beliefs by his saying we can all sin and yet not be seperated from God then you should have had no objection to this even if you now say he didn’t mean it in that way!.

You may be right about some people losing their salvation because of that Luther quote.

That was the whole point of my posting

Keep in mind however, that for example 1) this was a pastoral and personal letter to an incredibly scrupulous friend that was terribly frightened about what many Catholics would say or only venial sins and not worth agonizing over 2) Luther contradicts this statement in his later writings, writings that he certainly wished everybody to see (his lectures meant for the public), as Edwin (Comarani) has ably shown here earlier and 3) the fact that many, many people have seen this personal letter that it is highly doubtful Luther would have wanted to be shared is probably due to certain RC apologists wanting to destroy Luther and his credibility 4)

Any heretical beliefs have to be stamped out–once again we are reminded of those souls who are in hell because of these words.

do we not all say and write things we regret? Even Popes are not perfect and have said some pretty stupid (I would say “faith-destroying” things)… 5) Rather than broadcasting a person’s mistakes (I’m sure Luther would say he should not have written this, being very familiar with his later writings), should we not, as Luther said about the early Church Fathers, rather “cover their nakedness” when they go astray and say things that contradict Scripture?

A Pope cannot err in faith and morals. We have this promise from Jesus Himself—“And the gates of hell will never prevail against it”

God bless

Jan