Luther! Read Read!

[Steven_Merten]

Isfatherwrong?:

I say our good works have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with getting us to heaven when it comes to our being accepted before God, for if Abraham was justified by works he had something to boast about - but not before God. Our “justification by works” on the last day is for the benefit of the world ONLY - just like the woman in in Luke who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears. The Pharisees were so blind (as is the unbelieving world) that they needed to see that evidence of her love for Jesus so Jesus could make the point that HER FAITH had saved her.

I say all of this while simultaneously saying that sin drives out faith and that Christians can lose their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t deny that sin has crouched at the door of many Christians (not just Protestants), has been welcomed in, and has driven out true faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Many who believe they are Christians likely have an imaginary friend named “Jesus” who as Paul would say, is no Jesus at all.

Isfatherwrong?:

At a glance, I think the one thing you’re missing in all this is the one thing that I think is the most important issue: certainty of the state of grace.

Hello isfatherwrong,

So you are saying that Protestants get “certainty of the state of grace” then even though they turn to grave sin and loose all thier faith, they still go to heaven? Once saved always saved is the phylosophy right? Even though one turns from faith and goes out and murders a thousand times a day or commits adultery a thousand times a day they still go to heaven, according to your phylosophy. One can use free will to hate God with all their heart and still go to heaven as long as they have at one time in life attained a “certainty of the state of grace”.

Yes we Catholics reject the “Once saved always saved” Protestant phylosophy.

We Catholics believe that if a baptized baby dies they go to heaven without the baby performing any works. Not even the work of “acccepting Jesus as their personal saviour” is needed. As the baptized grow older, if they turn to unrepentant mortal sin, they can loose their state of grace. Baptized who turn to sin can come back to a state of grace again through repentance and the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[J.Boller]

Did this discussion just start over from the beginning?

 

[Steven_Merten]

J. Boller:

Did this discussion just start over from the beginning?

What do you mean J.? Could you expand on your thoughts?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Catholic Dude,

First, my apologies for not reading through this massive thread. I will try to, time allowinging. I’m assuming someone was able to help you understand what Luther was saying.

Secondly, I have written a detailed evaluation of the quote from Luther you are using, found here:

ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm

I look forward to any comments or questions you may have.

Regards,
james Swan

I did get around to reading the first half of that article, but it had a lot of inaccurate info regarding what Catholics believe as well as other things. Here is an one of the many many examples of where you built up an anti-C case but didnt have the facts correct:
Luther then moves on to communion “in both kinds.” During the middle ages, people were denied the element of wine during communion. Since the wine was the actual blood of Christ, people could not be trusted with it- what if it was spilled? … If the Lord’s Supper was both bread and wine, is not failing to partake in both elements a sin? Luther says no… Luther comes down harshly on the papacy as acting sinfully by withholding the wine from the laity.
There are multiple things wrong here, first of all you flip flop on whether or not the wine becomes the blood or is just wine. You build up a case that they were “denied” (which Im not sure of the details if this is true historically) but anyway they were “denied” the “actual blood” of Christ…BUT you end the paragraph saying the grave sin is “denying” people WINE. See what Im saying? Its bait and switch. Next you claim that Luther did not see it as a sin, but then blast the papists for doing what Luther said was not a sin. Finally the mere fact that you dont seem to understand that the CC teaches that it is the actual body and blood (as it always has) and yet you come off sounding as if the Lords Supper is simply a loaf of bread and wine. Again this is one of the many many such misunderstandings and/or errors you have stated in that article. I had a lot more to post, but I didnt want to spend the time breaking it into multiple posts.

 

[J.Boller]

Steven Merten:

What do you mean J.? Could you expand on your thoughts?

A large portion of this thread is dedicated to explaining that Luther did not believe that “once saved, always saved”.

I am not sure if it was you or IsFatherWrong who brought that back into the thread. I didn’t read IsFather’s post that way, but I will leave it to him to reply to that.

Whoever it was, “once saved” is now back in the discussion.

Best regards,
Jakob

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello Catholic Dude,
Catholic Dude:

I did get around to reading the first half of that article, but it had a lot of inaccurate info regarding what Catholics believe as well as other things.:

Thank you for reading it. I am not above error, and I indeed appreciate any pointing out of factual errors I may have made.

That being said, the focus of the paper was not about “what Catholics believe”, but rather, what Luther meant by “sin boldly”. So I’m really not sure how it could have “a lot of inaccurate info regarding what Catholics believe.” Hopefully, your comments will be directed towards any misunderstanding of Luther I may have put forth.

Let’s take a look at your comments:
Catholic Dude:

Here is an one of the many many examples of where you built up an anti-C case but didnt have the facts correct first of all you flip flop on whether or not the wine becomes the blood or is just wine.

This is tangential, since what I think really doesn’t matter. As I just stated, the paper is about Luther’s statement “sin boldly” not about the Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper. The section you’re referring to is “The Context of the ‘Sin Boldly’ Statement.” The section is geared towards looking at the letter and context that the comment “sin boldly” occurs. It is not a section specific to a discussion on transubstantiation. The reason: Luther doesn’t discuss this in his letter to Melanchthon- so there was no “flip flop”. My description is primarily of a historical nature in this section, not a theological nature.
Catholic Dude:

You build up a case that they were “denied” (which Im not sure of the details if this is true historically)

“About 1412 one of Huss’s followers, Jakoubek of Strzibo, had proposed that the early Christian custom of administering the Eucharist in both forms –sub utraque specie- wine as well as bread- should be restored throughout Christendom. When the idea captivated the rank and file of his supporters, Huss gave it approval. The Council [of Constance] forbade it, and defended the abandonment of the primitive custom on the ground that it risked the spilling of Christ’s blood.”

**Source:**Will Durant, The Reformation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957),168.
Catholic Dude:

but anyway they were “denied” the “actual blood” of Christ…BUT you end the paragraph saying the grave sin is “denying” people WINE. See what Im saying? Its bait and switch.

It seems as if you’re saying I deliberately used language in such a way as to deceive. I did no such thing. You’ll notice my comments are quite harmonious with those of Durant above. Contrarily, I would suggest you’re mis-citing me. My primary concern is historical. The wine was held to be the blood of Christ, thus the wine was denied to the laity by your Church. Luther wasn’t discussing transubstantiation, but rather if withholding one of the elements by those in authority was a sinful action.
Catholic Dude:

Next you claim that Luther did not see it as a sin, but then blast the papists for doing what Luther said was not a sin.

Luther’s point:

1. The laity (who are given only one element by church leadership) do not sin because they only have one element. This is no fault of theirs if church leadership denies them one of the elements.
2. Those in church leadership who would deny the laity both elements sin (The Medieval Roman Catholic Church).
3. Those who insist that receiving only one element cause a sin in the laity (Carlstadt) are legalists and also in grave error, thus also sinful.

Catholic Dude:

Finally the mere fact that you dont seem to understand that the CC teaches that it is the actual body and blood (as it always has) and yet you come off sounding as if the Lords Supper is simply a loaf of bread and wine.

When writing a paper, I try not to veer off on tangential subjects. When reading someone’s work, you should try to do likewise. If you would like to discuss transubstantiation, maybe you could read one of Luther many works on the Lord’s Supper. Then you could find a few Protestants interested in this topic. Nowhere in this paper do I explore transubstantiation and the state of the elements.
Catholic Dude:

Again this is one of the many many such misunderstandings and/or errors you have stated in that article. I had a lot more to post, but I didnt want to spend the time breaking it into multiple posts.

The paper is about Luther’s comment “sin boldly” as well as his understanding of faith and works. If the large majority of your criticism is similar in tangent to those I just reviewed, I don’t really foresee an further interaction between you and I.

Cordially,
James Swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hello Catholic Dude,

Thank you for reading it. I am not above error, and I indeed appreciate any pointing out of factual errors I may have made.

That being said, the focus of the paper was not about “what Catholics believe”, but rather, what Luther meant by “sin boldly”. So I’m really not sure how it could have “a lot of inaccurate info regarding what Catholics believe.” Hopefully, your comments will be directed towards any misunderstanding of Luther I may have put forth.

James Swan

Hello James,

Wow! Luther makes Satan look like a great prophet leading man to Christ’s salvation and eternal life.

Luther
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.

Quoted from ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm
NAB GEN 3:1

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!.."

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What about this from TertiumQuids link concerning “no sin can separate us”:That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Secondly, one must recall the recipient of this letter: Phillip Melanchthon. No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once.
The problem was never how many times a person could sin in one day, or if its physcally possible to do it 1000 times each day, the problem is people reading stuff like that and getting the wrong impression on what sin is.
The point is not that Luther was really saying go and be the worst person you can be, I never said otherwise. The point is that people should they sin will have a skewed view of what they are doing, eg the numerous divorices and remarriages by Protestant pastors. People see nothing wrong with divorce today, in fact though it is a form of fornication. This is a perfect example of what Luther caused. Sure they arent going on a rampage with 1000 grave sins per day, but when you compare 1000 fornications per day with one divorce, that divorce doesnt seem so bad.
Next: For Luther, outward sins like murder and adultery were obviously bad. But these were only a symptom of unbelief, which is the root of all outward sin. In a sermon on Luke 18, Luther discusses the faith of the Publican as compared to the works of the Pharisee:

“Now let us better see and hear what the Lord says to this. There stands the publican and humbles himself, says nothing of fasting, nothing of his good works, nor of anything. Yet the Lord says that his sins are not so great as the sins of the hypocrite; … as this Pharisee does here when he says: I thank thee God that, I am not as other men are; and lies enough to burst all heaven. From him you hear no word like: “God, be thou merciful to me a sinner!” God’s mercy, sympathy, patience and love are all forgotten by him, while God is nothing but pure mercy, and he who does not know this, thinks there is no God, as in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath Said in his heart, There is no God.” So it is with an unbeliever who does not know himself. Therefore I say one thing more, if he had committed the vilest sin and deflowered virgins, it would not have been as bad as when he says: “I thank thee God, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” Yes, yes, do I hear you have no need of God and despise his goodness, mercy, love and everything that God is? Behold, these are thy sins. Hence the public gross sins that break out are insignificant; but unbelief which is in the heart and we cannot see, this is the real sin in which monks and priests strut forth; these lost and corrupt ones are sunk head and ears in this sin, and pretend to be entirely free from it.”

In the above statement, one can see Luther’s brilliance with language and theological insight. How many of us think of unbelief as an extreme heinous sin? Compared to blatant fornication or murder, unbelief seems to us as not so bad. Luther though realizes that unbelief is a sin against a holy God, and thus more heinous than any amount of murder or adultery. A sin against a perfect infinite being deserves a perfect infinite punishment. All of us are indeed, mighty sinners.
​

First of all thats a total perversion of that parable, infact Luther “forgot” to read the rest of Luke18. That parable is not about unbeliefe being so much “worse” than adultery and fornication.
The idea that he makes comments like “even if they committed the vilest sins…its not as bad as unbelief” Also lets look at what you said at the end “unbeliefe seems to US as not so bad”…think about what you yourself just said. WHY does unbelief seem not so bad? Because its a totally bogus set up. Thats totally unBiblical to make that claim, but look what happened, Luther made up a situation, the victim takes the bait, and at the end of the “sermon” the reader comes away doubting himself and feeling dumb as to why they didnt know or think that unbelief was worse than fornication. Thats the problem here, the separation of faith and works at its zenith, it doesnt get more clear than this. Works is so far diminished that the average protestant gets goosebumps to even suggest there is a link between faith and works for justification. It gives people a false and unBiblical outlook. Does a pastor go up to a murderer and say “I know you murdered but did you at least have faith in Jesus?” NO. Because there is no separation of faith and works.

 

[J.Boller]

Steven Merten:

Wow! Luther makes Satan look like a great prophet leading man to Christ’s salvation and eternal life.

You quote a piece of TertiumQuid’s paper which makes Luther look bad, then totally ignore the rest of what Luther and TertiumQuid says in that paper. That seems less than open-minded to me.

People see nothing wrong with divorce today, in fact though it is a form of fornication. This is a perfect example of what Luther caused.

Exactly. Many people see nothing wrong with divorce because they don’t consider it a form of fornication. This is due to changes in society and has nothing to do with Luther.
Those who do consider it a sin do see a problem with it. You will find no more Protestants acting against what they consider moral than Catholics.

First of all thats a total perversion of that parable, infact Luther “forgot” to read the rest of Luke18. That parable is not about unbeliefe being so much “worse” than adultery and fornication.

I think most of Luke18 is about faith and very little about deeds. The exception is Luke18:18 but you have already been told how Protestants interpret Luke18:18,

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

So you are saying that Protestants get “certainty of the state of grace” then even though they turn to grave sin and loose all thier faith, they still go to heaven? Once saved always saved is the phylosophy right?

Why are you in this thread if you don’t bother to read the posts? It has been established over and over again that Lutherans do not believe in “once saved always saved.” And since you know that Protestants believe that we are justified through faith, you have no excuse for pretending that we think you can go to heaven without faith.

This post reveals the depth of your blind prejudice, which renders you incapable of reading a simple statement and interpreting it accurately. You are so determined to see the worst in Protestantism that you will resort to ridiculous twisting of people’s words in order to feed your malice. God help you!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m not going to post in this thread any longer. It’s just making me lose my temper. I’ll let IsFatherWrong handle it since he/she seems to be a pretty faithful adherent of Luther’s teaching and is doing an excellent job of explaining it.

When I have time (after my dissertation defense on Monday) I’m going to start a new thread responding to CatholicDude’s posts from way back, which I never got around to responding to because they got buried by new layers of “rah! rah! Luther was EVIL!”

Edwin

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my paper. It always helps me find the strengths and weaknesses in my own writing when an opposing view offers comments and criticism. Let’s take a look at what you offered:
Steve Merten:

Wow! Luther makes Satan look like a great prophet leading man to Christ’s salvation and eternal life.

After this comment, you highlighted the following statements from Luther:
Steve Merten:

if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly,

As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin

No sin will separate us from the Lamb

Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner

Then you quoted Genesis 3:1 with an emphasis on Satan’s comment,
Steve Merten:

“But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!..”

Your argument is exactly the type of misunderstanding of Luther’s words that my paper was geared towards. Rather than promoting a license to sin, Luther’s point (in context of the letter fragment) is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”.

For Luther, the remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”

These comments and quotes come directly from my paper. Steve, I realize that our theologies and perspectives differ. But, this doesn’t mean we can’t at least understand what each other is saying. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the effort to read and understand material an opposing view puts forth. I have many works by Roman Catholic writers. What would be the point of simply reading their work and caricaturing their position? God would not be pleased if I were doing that…remember thou shalt not bear false witness.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello Catholic Dude,

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my paper. It always helps me find the strengths and weaknesses in my own writing when an opposing view offers comments and criticism. Let’s take a look at what you offered:
Catholic Dude:

The problem was never how many times a person could sin in one day, or if its physcally possible to do it 1000 times each day, the problem is people reading stuff like that and getting the wrong impression on what sin is.

As I pointed out in the paper, the “sin boldly” quote is an obscure saying of Luther’s from a fragment of a letter. The letter has no address, salutation, or signature. In other words, it has no beginning or ending, thus lacking a complete context. I strongly doubt anyone besides Melanchthon was aware of this remark until many years (if not a hundred or two or three) after Luther’s death. The letter was originally part of a private collection that was published, I believe in the 1800’s.

After being published, Catholic scholars (and some liberal protestant scholars) with a strong bent against Luther jumped all over it (this is reviewed in my paper as well-see part 5). This is the reason that would cause “people reading stuff like that and getting the wrong impression on what sin is.” In other words, because Roman Catholic authors cited it out of context and blew it out proportion, common laymen (both Protestant and Catholic) were given a faulty understanding of Luther’s theology of justification by faith alone (see particularly my remarks about the Catholic Encyclopedia). Thus, I blame anti-Luther writings (pre-Joseph Lortz) for causing the confusion over this quote.

Luther’s actual consistent understanding of faith, works, sin and sanctification abound throughout his writings, and are detailed extensively in my paper in section VI.
Catholic Dude:

The point is that people should they sin will have a skewed view of what they are doing, eg the numerous divorices and remarriages by Protestant pastors. People see nothing wrong with divorce today, in fact though it is a form of fornication. This is a perfect example of what Luther caused.

I know of no serious conservative bible believing Reformed or Luther congregation that say divorce is okay. Luther was known for a very strong stance against divorce.

In terms of “sin” Luther spoke out strongly against it, repeatedly and often. The remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions."

Further our good works and good lives show that we are really Christians:

“Works only reveal faith, just as fruits only show the tree, whether it is a good tree. I say, therefore, that works justify, that is, they show that we have been justified, just as his fruits show that a man is a Christian and believes in Christ, since he does not have a feigned faith and life before men. For the works indicate whether I have faith. I conclude, therefore, that he is righteous, when I see that he does good works. In God’s eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not. As Paul says, we ought not to trust a faith which is false, as when someone believes he is a part of the church although he meanwhile still whores . In this I see that he is not a good tree and when he glories saying, “I am a part,” I can argue against him, “You are not part of the church, because your works are evil.” Therefore, those works are also evidence to himself and to others about him whether he has the true faith. For those who glory that they are Christians and do not show this faith by such works, as this sinful woman does, but persist up to the present and live in open sins, in whoring and adultery, are not Christians at all. For the Christian shows his life and that he has been made a Christian by love and good works and flees all vices. We should not be a part of the church in number only, as the hypocrites, but also by our works, so that our heavenly Father may be glorified. Love merits forgiveness of sins, that is, love reveals that his sins have been forgiven.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Catholic Dude-

As to the rest of your comments-
Catholic Dude:

First of all thats a total perversion of that parable, infact Luther “forgot” to read the rest of Luke18.

For your benefit, the entire sermon is available online:

trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Luke18_9_14.html

This is how I think you should approach a criticism like this if you want me to interact with you on this point. First, exegete the parable yourself. Then read the entire sermon from Luther to understand what Luther is saying in his own context. Then decide how well Luther understood this parable. Finally, present your findings.
Catholic Dude:

That parable is not about unbeliefe being so much “worse” than adultery and fornication. The idea that he makes comments like “even if they committed the vilest sins…its not as bad as unbelief” Also lets look at what you said at the end “unbeliefe seems to US as not so bad”…think about what you yourself just said.

You’ve misquoted me. As I said in my paper, how many of us think of unbelief as an extreme heinous sin? Compared to blatant fornication or murder, unbelief seems to us as not so bad. Luther though realizes that unbelief is a sin against a holy God, and thus more heinous than any amount of murder or adultery. A sin against a perfect infinite being deserves a perfect infinite punishment. All of us are indeed, mighty sinners. Perhaps you don’t agree that a sin against God is worse than a sin against your fellow man?
Catholic Dude:

WHY does unbelief seem not so bad? Because its a totally bogus set up. Thats totally unBiblical to make that claim, but look what happened, Luther made up a situation, the victim takes the bait, and at the end of the “sermon” the reader comes away doubting himself and feeling dumb as to why they didnt know or think that unbelief was worse than fornication.

If I recall, Luther is simply echoing Augustine, that the root of all sin is unbelief. Luther explains why indeed unbelief is the root of all sin according to the Bible:

“Sin, in the Scripture, means not only the outward works of the body but also all the activities that move men to do these works, namely, the inmost heart, with all its powers. Thus the little word “do” ought to mean that a man falls all the way and lives in sin. Even outward works of sin do not take place, unless a man plunges into it completely with body and soul. And the Scriptures look especially into the heart and single out the root and source of all sin, which is unbelief in the inmost heart. As, therefore, faith alone makes a person righteous, and brings the Spirit and pleasure in good outward works, so unbelief alone commits sin, and brings forth the flesh and pleasure in bad outward works, as happened to Adam and Eve in paradise, Genesis 3.Hence Christ calls unbelief the only sin, when he says in John 16{:8–9}, “The Spirit will convince the world of sin… because they do not believe in me.” For this reason too, before good or bad works take place, as the good or bad fruits, there must first be in the heart faith or unbelief. Unbelief is the root, the sap, and the chief power of all sin. For this reason, in the Scriptures it is called the serpent’s head and the head of the old dragon, which the seed of the woman, Christ, must tread under foot, as was promised to Adam, Genesis 3:15]. (LW 35:369)
Catholic Dude:

Thats the problem here, the separation of faith and works at its zenith, it doesnt get more clear than this. Works is so far diminished that the average protestant gets goosebumps to even suggest there is a link between faith and works for justification. It gives people a false and unBiblical outlook. Does a pastor go up to a murderer and say “I know you murdered but did you at least have faith in Jesus?” NO. Because there is no separation of faith and works.

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

Catholic Dude, I appreciate the fact that you stayed within the context of my paper this time, and did not launch out into tangents as you did earlier. I hope these answers will better help you understand Luther and Protestant theology. Only by attempting to understand each other can we be able to dialog in a God pleasing way- because our hearts provoke what we write…see Luke 6:45.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Contarini:

If you were actually looking at this fair-mindedly, you sould notice that this was in a letter to a friend, not in a formal theological treatise. Luther knew that Melanchthon’s problem was scrupulosity, hence he engaged in rhetorical hyperbole.

Hi Edwin-

I was just curious what type of documentation you had to substantiate this claim about “Melanchthon’s problem was scrupulosity.” I don’t mean this in any type of argumentative way. I have read both pro and con Luther critics utilize this when discussing the “sin boldly” quote. Perhaps you know somewhere in Melancthon’s writings that would substantiate this?- there is nothing in the immediate context of the “sin boldly” statement that suggests it.

I’ve been playing “catch up” with this thread, so my apologies for responding to a point you made some time back. In regard to the other points you made on August 23 in post 5, I strongly agree, and thank you for your well spoken informed comments.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Steve,
Steven Merten:

Hello James, Thanks for your post.

You’re welcome.
Steven Merten:

Can you show us where Luther taught that we will be judged by Jesus into heaven through Him or hell based on our conduct as Jesus does?

Simply because someone has plenteous good works, doesn’t mean they gain entrance to heaven. As Luther points out, “Christ predicted that men would come who would do signs and wonders in order to lead even the elect into error, if that were possible. Therefore we must not rely on any works or miracles unless they are produced by faith and further faith”{What Luther Says 3:1502}

Consider also the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” Now the Tax collector was not the one with good works that was “righteous”- It was the Pharisee. The Pharisee had plenteous good works- but Jesus says that the sinful tax collector who realized his sin “went down to his house justified”.

Don’t forget what Jesus also said: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent”. Luther points out:

“The first, highest, and most precious of all good works is faith in Christ, and as it says in John 6:28–29], when the Jews asked him, “What must we do, to be doing the good work of God?” Jesus answered, “This is the good work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Now when we hear that or even preach it, we pass over it: we think nothing of it and think it easy to do, but actually we ought to pause a long time and think it over properly. For in this work all good works exist, and from faith these works receive a borrowed goodness. We must make this absolutely clear, so that men can understand it.”
Steven Merten:

I understand that Luther taught God’s commandments and he believed them to be important.

Good. I appreciate this.
Steven Merten:

I also think that Luther hated Christ’s teaching that Jesus will judge us into heaven through Him or hell based on our conduct.

This is a caricature of Luther because you’re using a different paradigm to judge him by. You assume “Luther hates Christ teaching” because he doesn’t agree with you. Interestingly, many Catholic scholars see Luther’s theology as Christocentric. I can provide that information for you if you wish.
Steven Merten:

What I really would like to see from you is where Luther teaches, as Jesus teaches, that we will be judged into heaven or hell based on conduct.

Your question assumes your understanding of Catholicism- I don’t know if you would be considered an orthodox Roman Catholic, as your comments seem very Pelagian to me.

Regardless, this quote from Luther should suffice: commenting on Matthew 19:16-22:

“Christ does not say: You keep the commandments. He says: You should keep them. He indicates what we owe God. Now, if we do not keep them, let no man think he will come into the kingdom of heaven. If our adversaries were not blind, harebrained, and stupid, they would see that Christ does not say what I am able to do or have done but what I should do. When one says: Christ bids us keep the Commandments, it does not follow that we may add: Therefore we are able to keep them. He tells me what I should do; but they say that I am able to do it. That is far from right, my fine fellow. There surely is a great difference between ‘shall do’ and ‘can do.’ For instance, I owe a man a hundred gulden. These I must pay him. Am, I, therefore able to do so? {What Luther Says 3:1449}

Just curious- do you know anyone currently alive on earth that fulfills the great commandment? Does anyone actually love God with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind every moment of every day?
Steven Merten:

We Catholics believe that if a baptized baby dies, they go to heaven. I went to a Lutheran baptism. Do the Lutherans not also believe that Lutheran baptized babies who die go to heaven through Jesus without faith or works?

Not sure about “Lutheranism” but Luther believed babies had faith. For instance, John the Baptist kicked in his mother’s womb when Mary approached with Jesus.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

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.

I couldn’t pass up this verse.

Romans 2:6-7 is being used to prove works righteousness in order to be justified. That same “works righteousness” is discussed in Romans 2:12. Paul lets us know that those same moral works are considered “law”. Read Romans 2:17-23- the “law” discussed is the moral law. In 2:25-29, he shifts to the ceremonial law, and notes that really, anyone who keeps the moral law is really keeping the ceremonial law, because the entirety of the law is supposed to be motivated by an inward zeal. Simply keeping outward ceremonial laws like circumcision means nothing if one breaks the moral law inwardly.

But then comes Romans 3. Everyone is guilty. Everyone is a lawbreaker. In actuality, no one keeps any of the law, be it moral or ceremonial. “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowldege of sin.”

The law is the knowledge of sin. That’s what the entirety of the law does.

Now comes the gospel, Romans 3:21-29. Paul tells us its a different kind of righteousness that will justify men, an alien righteousness- the blessed righteousness of Christ-

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

Why are you in this thread if you don’t bother to read the posts?** It has been established over and over again that Lutherans do not believe in “once saved always saved.”** And since you know that Protestants believe that we are justified through faith, you have no excuse for pretending that we think you can go to heaven without faith.

This post reveals the depth of your blind prejudice, which renders you incapable of reading a simple statement and interpreting it accurately. You are so determined to see the worst in Protestantism that you will resort to ridiculous twisting of people’s words in order to feed your malice. God help you!

Edwin

isfatherwrong:

Originally Posted by Isfatherwrong?

*At a glance, I think the one thing you’re missing in all this is the one thing that I think is the most important issue: **certainty of the state of grace. ***

Hello Edwin,

It was not I that brought, "certainty of the state of grace", we get rid of this type of hericy and then there is always some Protestant wanting to slip it in with some other Protestant bashing the Catholic who throws up the red flag.

I do not have malice toward Protestants. I point out the evil perversion of Luther’s teachings for Protestants and Catholics own good.

How come you yourself never reprimand your fellow Protestant posters? Did you go to and bash the Lutheran Misouri synod (2 million members) web site that was promoting the Pope as the anti-christ?

In past posts you implicated that we would all be judged and in danger of eternal damnation for speaking things that put Luther in a bad light. I asked you where to post where Luther states that bad deeds put you in danger of damnation. You said you did not agree with Luther and that you believed bad deeds do put you in danger of damnation. Have you gone over to the Protestant sites and reprimanded and corrected them on this huge error they are believing?

I once had an Evangelical determine that my aunt, a devout nun all her life, was going to hell. The Evangelical had cohabitated and lived a life of the flesh but was now “born again”. The Evangelcal had dettermined that she herself had faith and my aunt, a devoted nun all her life, did not have faith but was trying to earn her way to heaven. Do you ever seek out your own Evangelicals and straighten out such evil wicked judgement on people’s souls?

Tell us the truth Edwin, you are just on the net at primarily Catholic web sites to attack Catholics and gain and maintain as much glory for Luther and the Prostestants as you can. If truth were what you were after, you a Protestant, would be at Protestant sites correcting what you see as their errors. Am I right?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Catholic Dude:

What about this from TertiumQuids link concerning “no sin can separate us”:That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Secondly, one must recall the recipient of this letter: Phillip Melanchthon. No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once.

The problem was never how many times a person could sin in one day, or if its physcally possible to do it 1000 times each day, the problem is people reading stuff like that and getting the wrong impression on what sin is.

Hello Catholic Dude,

Luther greatly opposed Jesus’ teachings to obey the God’s commandments, which is love for God, if you wish to go to heaven. Luther hated Jesus teaching that Jesus will judge people into heaven through Him or hell based on their conduct. Luther kept all of Jesus many teachings, especially those to obey God if we wish to go to heaven, out of his new theology. Then Luther starts telling people to sin boldly. By combining these two actions, telling people to sin boldly and hiding all Jesus teachings to obey God if we wish to go to heaven, Luther certianly resembles Satan.

The masses of people hearing Luthers words to sin and not hearing Jesus’s teaching not to sin if we wish to enter into life from Luther, would certianly lead people astray. Many of the people I talk to today believe that they will not go to hell for unrepentant sinning. Luther did a great disservice to Jesus’ teachings on eternal life.

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

NAB MAT 19:16

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

NAB LUK 10:25**“Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus answered him:** "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

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

INT 1JO 5:3

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.INT JOH 14:15

"If you love me, you will obey what I command."

 

[Steven_Merten]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my paper. It always helps me find the strengths and weaknesses in my own writing when an opposing view offers comments and criticism.

These comments and quotes come directly from my paper. Steve, I realize that our theologies and perspectives differ. But, this doesn’t mean we can’t at least understand what each other is saying. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the effort to read and understand material an opposing view puts forth. I have many works by Roman Catholic writers. What would be the point of simply reading their work and caricaturing their position? God would not be pleased if I were doing that…remember thou shalt not bear false witness.

Regards,
James Swan

Hello James,

Can I ask that you read my Jesus, What Must I Do To Share In Everlasting Life? and Choices Of The Heart Each is broke into two web pages. Please be sure to follow the “continued” at the bottom of the page.

I have not read all of your paper but if you read mine I will try to find time to read the whole content of your long paper. Then we can compare notes. We will both know where the other is coming from.

What do you think?

Peace in Christ,
Steven
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com