Luther! Read Read!

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-

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.

I havent been interested in the quote “sin boldly”, I dont recall making any reference to this quote, I was interested in the “no sin will separate us” quote. Also I was willing to look into what Luther did have to say from what Contarini put out, the commentary on Galatians.

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.

If you have been following this thread you will see I have used multiple quotes of Luther. The “people reading stuff like this will get the wrong impression” is one main theme in this thread, I have used multiple quotes and am interested in other works of Luther to see what he believed.

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.

I did see that, but I didnt know what the context of all those quotes were, I have looked on google to find a place that lists all his works but I cant find any page that does.

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.

Of course no pastor would say its ok. But do they deny a marriage to previously divorced people?

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:

I never held the impression that luther encouraged grave sins. What I did have the impression was that of cheap grace and should a person do even a single grave sin the magnitude of it would be diminished. Thats really the sticking point which you didnt address in your page, what happens afterwards, ie when a person commits a grave sin after “justification” by faith alone.

Also I have been interested in what exactly Luther had in mind for justification, ie did the person really have their sins erased? I ask because I have heard of the accusation of Luther saying something to the effect, “our sins are like a pile of dung, when justified it is as if that dung is COVERD with snow”. I am interested in finding the work that came from. Also I have heard something to the effect of Luther believed justification was like being in a courtroom, the person on trial was impure, but God as judge would overlook that fact on those whom were justified. Again, I dont believe these things till I see the quote from Luther, at the same time I dont think people would make this up.

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

I agree with this, but the idea that they are separate from justification is where the issue lies. A person should not have to show their works to anyone, if they must show their fruits then works are a part of the equation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-

For your benefit, the entire sermon is available online:

trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Luke18_9_14.html

Quotes from that link by Luther:Consequently** it sounds as though Luke everywhere taught that righteousness came by works**; as you have recently heard: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; and, make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. And here it appears as though the publican had obtained his goodness by praying and smiting his breast. So this Gospel appears as though we should become good or pious by our works.
What kind of talk is this? Is Luke trying to pull a fast one?
4. …Who dare say that fasting is not good; or that to praise God and give everyone what we owe them is evil? When I see a priest, monk, or nun with such apparent noble conduct, I regard them as pious. Who can say otherwise? Hence if I am to judge whether this one is good and the other evil, I must be able to look into the hearts of both. But I cannot see into the heart, and must make the proper distinction from their works, as Christ says: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Mat. 7:20.
This is double speak. This only shows that by their fuits you cant conclude anything. All that talk about knowing someone is justified when they produce good fruit means nothing.
6. Hence the beginning of goodness or godliness is not in us, but in the Word of God. God must first let his Word sound in our hearts by which we learn to know and to believe him, and afterwards do good works. So we must believe from this that the publican had learned God’s Word. If not, it would certainly have been impossible for him to acknowledge himself to be a poor sinner, as this Gospel reports. Indeed, it has a different appearance here, because St. Luke seems to insist more strongly on external works and appearances than on faith, and lays the emphasis more on the outward character and conduct than on the root and on the faith of the heart within.
Again, what kind of talk is this about a Gospel account? “well it sounds like good works are part of it, but in reality what the writer didnt say was faith alone” Here is what Luke18 says a few verses down:
28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he [Jesus] said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
Now compare this to Luther above and see how that comment by Luther was unfounded, there is no separation of faith and works.
8. Thus we have learned from his fruits the publican’s faith. But how shall we understand what Christ says: “This man went down to his house justified,” as he had already been just through faith, before he smote his breast? He certainly must have been just before. Why then does Christ say here: “He went down to his house justified?” This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit.
Notice what Luther is doing here? Right with the very words of Jesus does Luther shift focus to something not found in the text. It says he went “justifiED”, but luther forces the conclusion it must refer to through faith before the publican even smote his breast and asked for forgiveness. This is a perfect example of Faith active with and completed by works, but what does Luther do? He openly teaches something else. That is a clear agenda going on.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)
10. We find this also in Abraham when he offers his son Isaac. Then God said: “For now I know that thou fearest God,” Gen. 22:12. Surely, if he had not feared God, he would not have offered his son; and by this we know the fruit to be thoroughly good. Let us now heartily apply this to ourselves.
Im dumbfounded here. I dont believe what I am seeing here, look at James2:
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
How do I respond?

1. Thus we err on both sides in saying, a person must only believe, then he will neglect to do good works and bring forth good fruits. Again, if you preach works, the people immediately comfort themselves and trust in works. Therefore we must walk upon the common path. Faith alone must make us good and save us. But to know whether faith is right and true, you must show it by your works. God cannot endure your dissembling, for this reason he has appointed you a sermon which praises works, which are only witnesses that you believe, and must be performed not thereby to merit anything, but they should be done freely and gratuitously toward our neighbor.
   ?Again? Totally unBiblical, where does Faith Alone come out of this? There was a sermon teaching and praising works, but somehow its Faith Alone?
2. This must be practiced until it becomes a second nature with us. For thus God has also introduced works, as though he would say: if you believe, then you have the kingdom of heaven; and yet, in order that you may not deceive yourselves, do the works.
   Is this really what the Bible teaches? Look what he is teaching people! IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE KINGDOM, bang, done, saved, who honestly thinks they are going to deceive themself after they have the kingdom? This can easily be seen as the roots for OSAS.
3. But God is the first to come and say, that all the work of the Pharisee is blasphemy. God help us, what an awful sentence this is! Priests and nuns may well be terrifled by it, and all their bones quake, as you scarcely ever find one of them as pious as this Pharisee. Would to God we could have many such hypocrites and Pharisees; for then they could be taught better things.
   Again, we have Luther destroying works infront of his audience, he misapplies this passage to be talking about priests and nuns! He just villified them and denounced them. Read what Luke18 says about those who give up everything to follow Jesus, read read! Luther is very smart in this issue, he knows when to make works necessary and when to villify them.
   (cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

First of all here is the punchline to that parable, and its not faith alone:
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other;** for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted**.
Nothing to do with faith alone, it has to do with tooting your horn when God knows that no one is mr perfect so the pharisee shoundnt pretend to be.
This destroys what Luther said above if you read the next few verses of Lk18:
18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’" 21 And he said, "All these I have observed from my youth.” 22 And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. 24 Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” 28 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."
Nowhere in a million years is faith alone hinted at in that chapter. Look what they said, “WHO CAN BE SAVED”, if it was faith alone do you think they would have asked this? The first half of the test was if they are keeping the commandments, the second half is denying the things of this world and following Christ. Notice that “following” is a continuous thing, there is no moment of justification that lasts and lasts. There is no faith alone, and then :works to prove it".

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?
I havnt misquoted you, you just reaffirmed what I said. I said why would you even ask such a question of why unbelief sounds so henious in light of blatant grave sins. Why does it seem “not so bad” thats my question to you. Since when is mortal sin only against fellow man and not against God? Its BOTH. Read what your saying. I dont deny any sin against a perfect infinite being is bad. Im calling to question the separation of faith and works and turning them against eachother.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

I havent been interested in the quote “sin boldly”, I dont recall making any reference to this quote, I was interested in the “no sin will separate us” quote.

Hi Catholic Dude- The “no sin will seperate us” sentence is part of the “sin boldly” quote. See section IV of my paper, and footnote 23 for alternate translations. Thus, my charge stands that Roman Catholic authors cited it out of context and blew it out proportion. Catholics thus caused common laymen (both Protestant and Catholic)to have 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. (Recall your charge:“people reading stuff like that and getting the wrong impression on what sin is”). Again- Roman Catholics have done the damage here- not Luther.
Catholic Dude:

If you have been following this thread you will see I have used multiple quotes of Luther. The “people reading stuff like this will get the wrong impression” is one main theme in this thread, I have used multiple quotes and am interested in other works of Luther to see what he believed.

I’ve been trying to catch up on this thread, so my apologies for any back tracking I may cause.
Catholic Dude:

I did see that, but I didnt know what the context of all those quotes were, I have looked on google to find a place that lists all his works but I cant find any page that does.

Many of the quotes I used in section VI of my paper come from the 7 volume set of Luther’s Sermons. I used the actual books, but many of the sermons are on-line, so you should be able to find many of the quotes by simply taking the first 6 or 7 words from a quote and putting them in a search engine.

For instance, The first quote I used begins, "I have often said that there are two kinds of faith. First" Puth that in a search engine and you’ll get:

trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Mathew21ConcerningFaith.html
Catholic Dude:

Of course no pastor would say its ok. But do they deny a marriage to previously divorced people?

This is really off-topic. Some do, some don’t, but both usually consider divorce a devestating sin.

Your other comments will have to wait. Time to go to work.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[johnnycatholic]

Didn’t Martin luther teach that te pope is the antichrist, and wasn’t this mostly because it was easier for him to do this than to engage in actual theological argument with the Church?

 

[J.Boller]

Didn’t Martin luther teach that te pope is the antichrist,

I think he called the pope Antichrist, but I might be confusing him with another Protestant thinker. I am not the best scholar here, you will notice. At any rate, *if * he did say that it was probably a testament to the polemic language he liked to use (I hate people who do that) than to him being convinced that the pope directly served Satan.
There is also a school which believes that the office of the pope is antichristian, even if individual popes may be good Cristians. IsFather can probably tell you about that.

and wasn’t this mostly because it was easier for him to do this than to engage in actual theological argument with the Church?

I doubt it. He wrote a lot of theological theses, and most of them are well thought-out whether you accept his arguments and conclusions or not. Not only didn’t he need to stoop that low in order to win the argument, he would never have split from the Catholic church if he didn’t think he knew the truth.

 

[johnnycatholic]

I would suggest the catholics on this thread to read this church-in-history.org/pages/leaflets/no-popery.htm

 

[Steven_Merten]

johnnycatholic:

I would suggest the catholics on this thread to read this church-in-history.org/pages/leaflets/no-popery.htm

Hello johnnycatholic,

Well I guess you answered your own question. Luther made the Pope out as the anti-christ and he made the Church out as the “whore of Babalon”.

Thanks for the link.

So what do you think about Protestants coming to Catholic Answers trying to protect Luther’s teachings and actions from the truth? I think that Protestants, if they truly are in search of ecumenanism, should be reprimanding anti-Catholic sediment in Protestantism first and foremost rather than insisting that Catholics see Luther as not such a bad guy. What do you think?

A Brief History of No-Popery
When Martin Luther proclaimed his non-scriptural teaching, ‘salvation by faith alone’, the over scrupulous and those tired of the battle to maintain virtue, found it attractive. But in the opening battles of Luther’s revolt, theological arguments were of little interest to those outside narrow circles. So almost from the beginning, doctrinal disputes began to shift to historical terrain. Luther found it easier to persuade men and women that the Pope was the Antichrist than to explain shades of theological opinion.

The Centuriators combed history for scandals and calumnies designed to prove that the whole body of Catholics had always been the foulest of humans. This would befit a Church which Luther had proclaimed as: ‘‘The Whore of Babylon”. They specialised in misrepresentation and in mutilated and forged documents. Between 1559 and 1574, thirteen volumes of the history were published. The story of a ‘Pope Joan’ was typical of its output, and the alleged finding of 6000 heads of children in a convent fishpond so as to explain why convents were built close to large lakes and swamps. The stories were propagated in foul language, which probably aided rather than hindered their circulation.

Quoted from: http://church-in-history.org/pages/leaflets/no-popery.htm

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Steven Merten:

Hello johnnycatholic,

Well I guess you answered your own question. Luther made the Pope out as the anti-christ and he made the Church out as the “whore of Babalon”.

Thanks for the link.

So what do you think about Protestants coming to Catholic Answers trying to protect Luther’s teachings and actions from the truth? I think that Protestants, if they truly are in search of ecumenanism, should be reprimanding anti-Catholic sediment in Protestantism first and foremost rather than insisting that Catholics see Luther as not such a bad guy. What do you think?

A Brief History of No-PoperyWhen Martin Luther proclaimed his non-scriptural teaching, ‘salvation by faith alone’, the over scrupulous and those tired of the battle to maintain virtue, found it attractive. But in the opening battles of Luther’s revolt, theological arguments were of little interest to those outside narrow circles. So almost from the beginning, doctrinal disputes began to shift to historical terrain. Luther found it easier to persuade men and women that the Pope was the Antichrist than to explain shades of theological opinion.

The Centuriators combed history for scandals and calumnies designed to prove that the whole body of Catholics had always been the foulest of humans. This would befit a Church which Luther had proclaimed as: ‘‘The Whore of Babylon”. They specialised in misrepresentation and in mutilated and forged documents. Between 1559 and 1574, thirteen volumes of the history were published. The story of a ‘Pope Joan’ was typical of its output, and the alleged finding of 6000 heads of children in a convent fishpond so as to explain why convents were built close to large lakes and swamps. The stories were propagated in foul language, which probably aided rather than hindered their circulation.

Quoted from: http://church-in-history.org/pages/leaflets/no-popery.htm

Good quote, I do believe there was a lot of hate propaganda that was either half truth or total lie fed to the early mainline protestant who bought into what Luther and local authorities were forcing.

Most modern day protestants dont realize that back then they didnt follow Luther all hoding up their personal copy of the Bible chanting Scripture Alone, Faith Alone, etc they were mostly uneducated and uninformed which simply follwed the colorful banners Luther held up and were fed lies which after time they believed. Protestantism was not about any type of freedom, it was about Luther trying to take over the controls and make himself the head leader.

 

[Assurance]

For everyone’s information, this is isfatherwrong? (Edited reference to moderator activites. No foul.)

Steve,

You said to Edwin (who I note, said he wasn’t coming back here):

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.

I ask this without any bad assumptions about you! - do you know where the link is where Edwin said that? I am only asking because Luther most definitely taught that bad deeds put you in danger of damnation, in that they drove out faith. This type of thinking is all over the Lutheran Confessions and I can give you some quotes if you’d like.

Also: “certainty of the state of grace”. This is not the same as OSAS. This means that a person may have complete and total confidence that they are currently in a state of grace, and that were they to die at that moment, they would be with Jesus (via purgatory of course if you’re a Catholic!). As a Lutheran I believe this and all pious Lutherans have always believed this. As a matter of fact, we say a believer should and must have this certainty in the external promises of God to forgive us for Christ’s sake. This however, does not mean that a believer can not lose their salvation through faith-destroying and doubt-inducing sin - they can, and all faithful Lutherans, including Luther, have always believed this. I hope this clears things up.

By the way, maybe you can find some time to comment on some of my points about perfect (whole, complete) obedience and loving God with all (whole, complete) one’s heart.

TertiumQuid - glad to hear from you. What does your name mean? Curious - what kind of Christian are you (denomination)?

Love in Christ,
Assurance (formerly isfatherwrong?)

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Assurance,

Glad to hear everything worked out and you are back. Here is the link to the post numbers, on this thread, in which Edwin made the comments I am reffering to in my statement you have quoted.

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

Assurance:

For everyone’s information, this is isfatherwrong? (Edited reference to moderator activites. No foul.)

Steve,

You said to Edwin (who I note, said he wasn’t coming back here)ost 353: Steven Merten said, "I asked you 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 ask this without any bad assumptions about you! - do you know where the link is where Edwin said that? I am only asking because Luther most definitely taught that bad deeds put you in danger of damnation, in that they drove out faith. **This type of thinking is all over the Lutheran Confessions and I can give you some quotes if you’d like. **

Love in Christ,
Assurance (formerly isfatherwrong?)

Post 242

Contarini:

bishopite,

You are completely wrong in your interpretation of Luther. Luther did not think that faith was simply an intellectual assent. No Luther scholar would maintain such a thing. This is an ignorant caricature. Apparently few people on this thread are actually interested in the truth. You would rather keep your stereotype. OK, keep it.

Sorry for the anger, but I’ve spent post after post pointing out (with ample documentation) what Luther’s views actually were, and people simply ignore the evidence. Well, have your distortions if you love them so much. But you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about other Christians’ beliefs.

Edwin

Post 245
Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

So are you saying that Luther condemned Christ’s teaching, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” But Luther taught “you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about Luther’s beliefs”?

Can you give us quotes from Luther as to what actions, works, disobedience, conduct, which Luther did teach that Jesus will judge and condenm people to hell for committing?

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."

Post 247

Contarini:

My post said nothing about what Luther taught on the subject. Why do you assume that I agree with Luther? Is the concept of historical fairness and accuracy totally alien to you?

BTW, in response to your earlier question, to which you now allude, I can’t find Luther teaching that believers are judged on the basis of their works. As far as I can tell, he believed that believers are covered with Christ’s righteousness at the judgment.

And like you, I think this is flatly contrary to the plain sense of Scripture. So please spare me your endlessly repeated proof-texts!

Edwin

 

[Steven_Merten]

Oh! And Assurance, I know how much Edwin enjoyed my proof texts. Just kidding. But then again, here they are.

NAB JOH 5:27

"The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned."

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.

**NAB **REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”

NAB MAT 25:31

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello Catholic Dude,
Catholic Dude:

I never held the impression that luther encouraged grave sins.

What I have gleaned from skimming through your comments is not that Luther encouraged people to go out sin, but that Luther held sin is really no big deal if one commits it. Since Luther believed in Christ’s perfect righteousness applied to the sinner, he must’ve taught an “easy believism” and “cheap grace”.

Here are a few selections of what you have said previously to substantiate my understanding of your approach to Luther:
Catholic Dude:

“Well I looked around and it means what it says.”

“He is saying that sins dont have any effect on his salvation! Thats not what the Gosple teaches, it says TURN from you sins, and REPENT if you do. He is saying admit your a sinnner but you dont have to stop because its faith alone.”

“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.”

“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?”

“The only logical conclusion is that evil (or good) works have no bearing on a “justified” Christian.”

“Sins (as well as good works) do nothing to the person who has faith alone.”

“Especially in the underlined part, I see a strong urge to not require reparation for sin, in fact as you say “only for those who are troubled”. I cant help but read into this what I see in Protestantism in general today, that is nothing is really required in terms of changing ones ways, and worse yet “those who are troubled” is really a non issue once a person’s conscience is separated from the act/consequenses the way I see nowdays.”

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

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

I would say, even though you haven’t held to the mistaken notion that Luther encouraged people to go out and sin, you have put forth an equally mistaken interpretation of Luther that misrepresents Luther’s understanding of the relationship of faith and works, and Luther’s understanding of a “Christian”. That is, what I read you saying is that Luther held sins shouldn’t really be worried about or fought against. Your mistaken interpretation of Luther seems to be that Luther taught “cheap grace” which will be covered in the next post.

-continued-

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

What I did have the impression was that of cheap grace and should a person do even a single grave sin the magnitude of it would be diminished. Thats really the sticking point which you didnt address in your page, what happens afterwards, ie when a person commits a grave sin after “justification” by faith alone.

In my paper, I pointed out that Luther consistently and continually exhorted his readers and hearers to fight against sin. 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. ”

For Luther, any sin was a “grave sin.” In Contrast, Christ’s righteousness prevails. Luther isn’t teaching “cheap grace” but rather blessed comfort for a true believers who realizes the sinfulness of sin in our every thought, word, and deed. Knowing that our sins are forgiven by Christ is a totally humbling experience to a true Christian. Rather than feeling an “oh well, big deal I sinned again” attitude, a true Christian is humbled by the knowledge that a savior suffered and died and had their sins nailed to a cross and atoned for. This humbling provokes a person to be conformed into the image of Christ, and also frees a person from the fear of continual damnation- in order to be free to actually live the Christian life, which is a life of joyful service of loving one’s neighbor and doing good works. For Luther, one does not love one’s neighbor and do good works because he wants to be justified, he does them because he is justified. How could it not be so?

On the other hand, I think it is entirely possible for a Christian to commit sins that we view as worse, though this is not the normal Christian life, and please remember- Luther taught that Christian faith was a living faith that showed itself by its works.

The Scriptures prove that God uses sinful people to proclaim his truth. I would have never imagined that Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ, would deny the Gospel and face correction by Paul (Galatians 2:11-21), and also deny the Lord boldly at one point. Solomon “offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 3:3) to appease the multiple “foreign women” he married (1 Kings 11). The most striking example is King David, whose legacy includes adultery and conspiracy to murder. Yet God saved and used these men despite sin. The Bible presents the Christian life as a struggle with sin (1 John 1:8-10; Romans 7). It also presents the normal Christian life as a living faith showing itself alive by its works (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:8-10).

In my paper I noted Luther pointed out the seriousness of sin. While Christ’s sacrifice and work are infinite enough to cover the most heinous of sins, any sin in a person’s life makes them a “mighty sinner” in need of a savior. A little sinner winds up in Hell just as the mighty sinners do, thus we are all really mighty enough sinners to deserve damnation. Yet God uses and saves sinful people. Amazing.

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. An honest person would have to admit they violate this commandment every day in thought, word, and deed. How could violating the greatest commandment every day not be a mortal sin in catholic theology? Luther knew it was, I’m sure. This is why the gospel has to be faith alone and the righteousness that saves has to be the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner. The Gospel is good news. It is not good news that I need to work to get myself justified, eventually. If I’m breaking the greatest commandment continually, I will never be saved by my works, not in a million years. Again, the gospel is good news, not bad news.

-continued-
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

Also I have been interested in what exactly Luther had in mind for justification, ie did the person really have their sins erased?

Luther’s concept of the atonement focuses on how worldly wisdom would see the impotence and the foolishness of the cross, but in reality it was the triumph of the cross that brought about the swallowing up of death and the claiming of life again for His people. He called this the “joyous exchange.” In this, we exchange our sins for Christ’s righteousness. Sinners die in Christ and receive a new creation, a new life.
Catholic Dude:

I ask because I have heard of the accusation of Luther saying something to the effect, “our sins are like a pile of dung, when justified it is as if that dung is COVERD with snow”. I am interested in finding the work that came from.

I’ve never seen a citation for the quote you’re looking for, though It does seem to me like something Luther could’ve said:

“Into the world that we might live through Him. This is an emphatic statement, since the kingdoms of the devil, by which the elect are oppressed, are in the world. Consider the inestimable love of God, and show me a religion that could proclaim a similar mystery. Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousnesses as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone." (LW 30:294)

“Explanation of Martin Luther: It is customary to ask whether it is permissible for a man to glory in the righteousness of the law and the performance of his duty, as Paul glories, although our righteousness is imperfect, yes, dung and uncleanness before God. I say that it is so.” (LW 34:178)

“Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer.” (LW 34: 184)

Note that the emphasis for Luther is the comparison between our righteousness and Christ’s. This is key with Luther. He reveled in contrast and comparison. It would be something Luther would’ve probably said, but probably only to point out the comparison between our righteousness and Christ’s.

-continued-
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Dude:

Also I have heard something to the effect of Luther believed justification was like being in a courtroom, the person on trial was impure, but God as judge would overlook that fact on those whom were justified. Again, I dont believe these things till I see the quote from Luther, at the same time I dont think people would make this up.

Justification is the action of the word of God. For medieval theology “to justify”
meant “making righteous, or “to make righteous.” There was a focus on human deeds of righteousness. “To make righteous,” meant “to make the human sinner capable of doing righteous deeds.” After studying this medieval tradition, Luther was unsure that from his purely natural powers of doing the best he could, that he had earned the grace that would make his works worthy of “justifying” him.

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

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

I agree with this, but the idea that they are separate from justification is where the issue lies. A person should not have to show their works to anyone, if they must show their fruits then works are a part of the equation.

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.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Steven Merten:

Hello James,

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?

Hi Steven,

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

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

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

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TertiumQuid-

For Luther, any sin was a “grave sin.” In Contrast, Christ’s righteousness prevails. Luther isn’t teaching “cheap grace” but rather blessed comfort for a true believers who realizes the sinfulness of sin in our every thought, word, and deed. Knowing that our sins are forgiven by Christ is a totally humbling experience to a true Christian… humbled by the knowledge that a savior suffered and died and had their sins nailed to a cross and atoned for. …

The issue of any sin “grave sin” is another thing I see as very misleading and unBiblical. A white lie is not as grave as a murder.
It almost brings to mind this parable in Matt21:28 "What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, 'I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
Did the first son really commit a sin as gave as the second? As far as the faith alone idea goes, the second man should have been considered justified WITHOUT looking ahead. If you look ahead then that wrecks the Lutheran idea that a person can take comfort in knowing they are justified by a single act of faith.
Thats a major problem with the simplified notion that all sin is just as grave as another. The first son said “no” but the second son didnt go, must the second son go and prove himself by doing some work or can he feel justified by a prayer for forgiveness but not have to go? I dont really know how to explain what Im getting at. Must he go to prove that he is not full of hot air after asking for forgiveness?
I guess its the idea that a single moment of faith cant be considered instant complete justification if your not going to go out to do the work. The problem is thats what I hear a lot of protestants today say, and I see Luther almost, if not fully saying the same thing. That a moment of faith alone justifies totally and perfectly, (good works are supposed to follow but thats really secondary). The important point is AFTER that moment of FA can a person really tell themself that they are sure of their justification?
I see people like “isfatherwrong” saying this very thing here, paraphrased loosely:
“Im so glad that I can be assured of my justification, unlike you Catholic’s who are subject to doubts like ‘did I do enough’, etc”.
Im not getting mad here, Im just trying to reconcile this idea that a single moment of faith is certain justification.

And as I have said before it all hinges on the idea of what sin is, is all sin “grave sin” or are there different degrees?

For Luther, one does not love one’s neighbor and do good works because he wants to be justified, he does them because he is justified. How could it not be so?

This doesnt make sense, how hard is being justified then? It looks like it takes no effort at all then, if works are not part of it then what is left? Faith? How hard is it to have faith in Jesus? It should be easy enough for anyone. Yet is this what Jesus teaches?
This kind of mentality of faith—>Justification—>works by Luther flies in the face of what Jesus said to a crowd to which the people were so shocked they said in Lk18:26-
**“Then who can be saved?”
**Why would they ask such a question if there was instant justification and good works to follow?
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

On the other hand, I think it is entirely possible for a Christian to commit sins that we view as worse, though this is not the normal Christian life, and please remember- Luther taught that Christian faith was a living faith that showed itself by its works.

Then the idea that a person can feel justified at a single moment in time by faith is totally hollow and pure deception. Do these works come by the free will of the person or do they come all of the sudden and you dont realize you did them till after they were done? When a person leaves that church building after the sermon and they dont show good works then what? Do they conclude their faith was weak and unaccepted by God?
A Catholic is assured by Jesus that things like the Sacraments really do forgive sins and edify, thats not the picture I see being painted by Luther. All these years I have come to understand by Protestants and Protestant pastors that with Faith Alone is a sure path because you know your justifed, unlike the Catholic who is constantly questioning himself about did he do enough. Well to tell the truth, I actually see the exact opposite case with this as well as with many other protestant teachings I have encountered.

The Scriptures prove that God uses sinful people to proclaim his truth.

Very true, thats a testament to us that Christianity is not about people who never sinned before, its about sinners changing their ways. And if they can do it anyone can.

The Bible presents the Christian life as a struggle with sin (1 John 1:8-10; Romans 7). It also presents the normal Christian life as a living faith showing itself alive by its works (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:8-10).

I agree.

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. An honest person would have to admit they violate this commandment every day in thought, word, and deed. How could violating the greatest commandment every day not be a mortal sin in catholic theology? Luther knew it was, I’m sure. This is why the gospel has to be faith alone and the righteousness that saves has to be the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner. The Gospel is good news. It is not good news that I need to work to get myself justified, eventually. If I’m breaking the greatest commandment continually, I will never be saved by my works, not in a million years. Again, the gospel is good news, not bad news.

Your admitting what I have been saying the whole thread. Two things. One the idea that you cant stop sinning. I see this over and over by you, contarini and Luther. It is totally unBiblical. A good Christian with a well formed conscience doesnt sin in a grave way every day in thought word and deed. Yes they might be tempted, and be drawn to sin, but a Baptized Christian knows thats due to human weakness, it is in no way the chasm that Luther paints is. Luther’s view is unBiblical. And as I have said over and over again, this error FORCES the protestant to say “it HAS TO BE Faith Alone” because you paint yourself falling down a bottomless pit and only a magic wish can save you. Thats not Biblical. Jesus and Paul call the person to be holy and blameless, thats not impossible, not easy, but not impossible. Protestant “expectations” for salvation are not only too out of reach of reality, they make the person totally powerless. Can you tell anyone “all you do is sin night and day” and expect them to think they can ever do good?

The Biblical-Catholic Gospel finds the person in a pit, Jesus throws them a rope, they can chose to grab on or not. If they grab on they are not out of the doghouse, but none the less in a position to be pulled out of the hole. They respond to the commands of Christ and obey what He says, they do this by faith since they must trust in Him 100%, but at the same time prove this faith by works. This whole time they are being pulled down by gravity and their hands are getting chafed, they may slip but Jesus is ready to toss them the rope again. They are subject to gravity and chaffing the whole rescue time, but if they remain steadfast Jesus will pull them out.

The Protestant view is you find yourself falling in a bottomless pit, you hear Jesus can save you, you pray he saves you, and all of the sudden you find yourself in an elevator going up. Can you fall? If you could, wouldnt FA put you right back on track?

I dont know what more to say other than, if you think your breaking the greatest commandment every day then you need to show me where the Bible says this is what Christians do. I dont know of a single time when Jesus, Peter, Paul or John ever talked like that. Show me where the Bible says that a person breaks this commandment everyday. Either you or I am in serious error on this issue, show me where in the Bible Jesus talks like what you just said.