Question on Luther

[Niblo]

If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now.

Agreed…

 

[TertiumQuid]

If Luther had ever said, or written, that Christ was in error, I think we would have heard about it before now. In error about anything at all, however trivial.

The reason why no one has has ever heard that Luther said “Christ was in error” is because Luther doesn’t say that… Mr. Staples is interpreting Luther to be saying it in his interpretation of a passage from Luther’s book, The Bondage of the Will. I believe Mr. Staples was speaking “off the cuff” or extemporaneously and misspoke that Luther exactly wrote what he attributes to him.

Here is link to an inferior English translation of Luther’s Bondage of the Will. This link goes directly to the page in which Luther begins comments on Matthew 23 (the same passage Mr. Staples was commenting on before his Luther comment).

This translation refers to Christ shedding “useless tears” over Jerusalem. Luther then goes on to contrast this with Paul’s revelation of the secret will of God (p.168).

I believe this is the passage from Luther Mr. Staples is using. Mr. Staples says first of Matthew 23 that Luther was so "adamant… over of the passivity of the will… that Jesus in in his humanity got it wrong there." Mr. Staples then says, “He didn’t have the fullness of the revelation that Saint Paul later got.”

I’ve interacted with Mr. Staples before. I suspect if I ask him about what he was referring to, this is the context from Luther that he had in mind. I suspect also, if given another opportunity, he would flesh out his remarks and make them more cogent.

 

[epizano1]

Right, I think most of the thoughts on this question have been fleshed out. I’d add one must be careful with Lutheran theology. Free will is not different in philosophy than in theology, it is the same doctrine, although considered under different aspects. I do believe Luther’s views were pessimistic and overly stressed the sinfulness of human nature, original sin, but at the same time and perhaps unintentionally undervalued the power of God’s grace. I can’t remember who said this but basically it was said that in Luther’s view, God’s grace on the sinner was like “glitter covering up dog doo doo.” Obviously we are free to accept or reject God’s grace, but does God’s grace impinge on human freedom? In Luther’s view it would have to, and he was ok with that. This is a common theme in Protestant circles to this day. They are completely at ease with the idea “Jesus take the wheel,” theme etc. but perhaps do not see all the harmful ramifications of docetism. Catholics however understand grace builds upon nature, and perfects it, rather than destroys it. It would take a library to fully evaluate Protestant ideas and what is helpful or in error, but I think this topic of grace and justification is the crux of it.

 

[Hodos]

I do believe Luther’s views were pessimistic and overly stressed the sinfulness of human nature, original sin, but at the same time and perhaps unintentionally undervalued the power of God’s grace.

As a Lutheran, I would say that the Roman Catholic view of the sinfulness of human nature attempts to make the problem of sin manageable, and that it actually undervalues the power of God’s grace. But that is why Lutherans and Catholics continue to have valuable discussions about these topics, because it is important, and the doctrinal distinctions matter.

They are completely at ease with the idea “Jesus take the wheel,” theme etc. but perhaps do not see all the harmful ramifications of docetism.

Can you explain this further? Are you claiming that Protestants are docetics? Or are you claiming that perhaps we are missing the significance of some aspect of docetic theology? Some clarification would be beneficial before responding to this.

 

[HopkinsReb]

They are completely at ease with the idea “Jesus take the wheel,” theme etc. but perhaps do not see all the harmful ramifications of docetism.

I’m not quite sure how A follows from B here. What do these two (valid, for much of Protestantism) criticisms have to do with one another?

 

[epizano1]

Hey guys, sorry, newbie here, didn’t realize it was a mixed crowd! I’m not calling Protestants docetists. I’m just describing what I understand as the Protestant positions in contrast to Catholic positions, as it is becoming confusing to me. Not trying to criticize but I can see how that came off. Again, apologies.

 

[Hodos]

Well, thank you for clarifying. I am also not quite sure what you mean by the “Jesus take the wheel” sentiment. To me, the phrase Jesus Take the Wheel would mean coming to the realization that I cannot be saved by my own effort or volition, and that through faith I submit to Christ as my Savior, and similarly I submit myself to his rule. In that sense, the “Jesus take the wheel” sentiment is the Pauline understanding of justification and sanctification.

As far as Docetism, I am not sure where you were going with that. Docetics believe that Christ did not come in the flesh, but that he only appeared to do so, and therefore did not die on the cross or suffer for atonement of sin. Additionally, the docetics believed that the material world is inherently evil, and that the Old Testament God who created the material world, is actually evil. To my knowledge no Protestant group teaches this doctrine. Now many groups take a nuanced view of how Christians should operate in a fallen world tainted by sin, but that really deals more with how we are to live as sanctified Christians, and has less to do with our justification before God. I hope that helps clarify.

 

[epizano1]

Oh, sorry! Not docetism, quietism. Again, nevermind, peace to you all.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I do believe Luther’s views were pessimistic and overly stressed the sinfulness of human nature, original sin, but at the same time and perhaps unintentionally undervalued the power of God’s grace.

Quite the contrary in Luther’s theology. If the will is in bondage, then grace becomes of the greatest value, because only it can set the sinner free.

I can’t remember who said this but basically it was said that in Luther’s view, God’s grace on the sinner was like “glitter covering up dog doo doo.”

That’s a version of a quote attributed to Luther which I’ve never seen substantiated or meaningfully documented. What the quote is intended to imply is that God’s grace covers a sinner so the sinner is seen as righteous in the view of a Holy God. On the other hand, that grace is effectual on a sinner, and works throughout his life to sanctify that sinner.

Obviously we are free to accept or reject God’s grace, but does God’s grace impinge on human freedom? In Luther’s view it would have to, and he was ok with that. This is a common theme in Protestant circles to this day. They are completely at ease with the idea “Jesus take the wheel,” theme etc. but perhaps do not see all the harmful ramifications of docetism.

I would read Luther’s Bondage of the Will if I were you. Stay away from the old versions on Google books. Pick up the Packer translation, then let’s discuss Luther’s views!

 

[Hodos]

Oh, sorry! Not docetism, quietism. Again, nevermind, peace to you all.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying.