Question on Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter stmax
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stmax

Guest
In a recent episode of Catholic Answers focus, Tim Staples said that there was an instance where Martin Luther said Christ in his human nature was in error on the subject of free will and that St. Paul was more reliable. I had never heard this and would be very interested to read where Luther said that. Could anyone here point me to a citation?

Thanks
 
Hello.

In the ‘Triglot Concondia’ of the Lutheran Church is a section headed: ‘The Formula of Concord – Summary Content of the Articles in Controversy’. Part 2 of this section is headed: ‘Of Free Will’, and contains the following statement:

'For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15, 5: ‘Without Me ye can do nothing’ . With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God.’

Note the words: ‘He denies to the free will……’

It is possible that someone has misread (or misquoted) these words, and taken them to mean that Christ denied free will altogether. This, of course, would place Christ in error.

Luther believed that Christ was both wholly man and wholly God. It is unlikely that he would attribute error to Christ in matters of faith and morals. However, Lutheranism is not my field, and I could well be mistaken.

I’ve left a message with the ‘go-to’ Lutheran on another Christian Forum. Not sure that he is still active (I’ve not been on that site for some while); but, God willing, I’ll pass on any reply he gives.
 
I grew up Lutheran (learned the Augsburg Confession in “small catechism” class) and am familiar with the Book of Concord. I think Niblo got that right, it would seem to be a misunderstanding if that’s what Tim Staples is referencing. Luther was incredibly industrious, wrote a lot and lectured a lot. I visited his study once in Augsburg where the shelves have a few incredibly huge volumes of his work, and that was only a fraction. [Some accounts number 600 or so titles, counting everything he produced.] As far as I know, nothing like that made it into any official Lutheran teachings, but I would be very surprised if he actually said Christ was in error on anything. I think there are some places where he took the teaching that “Christ became sin” more literally. Perhaps you could contact Tim Staples directly for a citation?
 
Last edited:
So that is something I didn’t realize. There may be a difference between the whole corpus of what Luther wrote and the section of it that we recognize as Lutheran theology.
 
I would take anything that Tim Staples says about Lutheranism or Luther with a huge grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
stmax said:
In a recent episode of Catholic Answers focus, Tim Staples said that there was an instance where Martin Luther said Christ in his human nature was in error on the subject of free will and that St. Paul was more reliable. I had never heard this and would be very interested to read where Luther said that. Could anyone here point me to a citation?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Hello again.

The Lutheran I wrote of (in my first post) has come back with this:

‘I’ve never heard anything like that. My instinct is to say that I very much doubt that Luther made such a remark.’

I hope this helps.
 
Niblo said:
Hello again.

The Lutheran I wrote of (in my first post) has come back with this:

‘I’ve never heard anything like that. My instinct is to say that I very much doubt that Luther made such a remark.’

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I would echo that sentiment. This sounds like a case where Luther was probably saying something to the effect that we look at passages that speak directly to an issue to clarify the meaning of a passage which does not address an issue directly. This is a standard tool of hermeneutics, you use clear passages of scripture to interpret unclear passages or passages mentioning something tangentially. Tim Staples is likely bending something out of context.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
I would echo that sentiment. This sounds like a case where Luther was probably saying something to the effect that we look at passages that speak directly to an issue to clarify the meaning of a passage which does not address an issue directly. This is a standard tool of hermeneutics, you use clear passages of scripture to interpret unclear passages or passages mentioning something tangentially. Tim Staples is likely bending something out of context.
Click to expand...
My source has added this:

When Lutherans talk about “free will” we aren’t speaking philosophy, we are speaking theology. So when Lutherans speak of the will as not free we are not advocating cosmic fatalism, as though all our actions are predetermined by fate. What we are saying is that the human will is held in bondage to sin and death, and so our volition is tainted by sin, and is directed toward selfishness. Thus the sinful human will is unable to act in true freedom, that is freedom from sin and death.

We believe that the consistent and repeated teaching of Scripture is that human beings are sinful and in our sin we are in bondage, which is why we need the freedom that comes from grace and the love of God outside of ourselves. It has nothing to do with philosophical questions about free will, but with the theological question of human nature as held in bondage by sin and death; and thus our need of salvation, and the freedom that comes from Christ.
 
Niblo said:
When Lutherans talk about “free will” we aren’t speaking philosophy, we are speaking theology.
Click to expand...
That is a true statement. Luther’s use of “free will” is normatively meant in the realm of soteriology. In that sense, there is no “free will” because I cannot of my volition be justified before God. It is Christ who justifies me, and it is the Holy Spirit who calls me to faith that I may be justified by Christ. In Lutheran (and quite frankly, Christian doctrine) soteriology, justification is the sole act of God.
 
Well, of course you would. Do you have a bias? If you are going to stake your eternity on one man’s opinion, I would choose almost anyone other than ML.

Did he have human dignity? Yes! As much as any man who ever walked this earth. Was he deeply disturbed psychologically? Without doubt.
 
po18guy said:
If you are going to stake your eternity on one man’s opinion, I would choose almost anyone other than ML.
Click to expand...
No kidding? Oh, what the heck, I’ll bite. Here’s a list of people whom I’d guess you’d choose ML’s opinion before:
  1. Adolph Hitler
  2. Pol Pot
  3. Jack the Ripper (who apparently, we have the DNA of now?)
  4. Charles Manson
  5. Ted Bundy
  6. Anyone who thinks golfers aren’t athletes
  7. People who double park on purpose
  8. The guy who cut me off in traffic to get out of the left turn only lane
  9. A Yankee fan
  10. The lady who has materially more than 15 items to check out in the express checkout line at the supermarket (I’m talking like 30 things - and yes - I’m only counting the bottled water case as 1 item)
There’s 10 people who’d be behind ML with respect to their views on eternity.
 
Last edited:
stmax said:
In a recent episode of Catholic Answers focus, Tim Staples said that there was an instance where Martin Luther said Christ in his human nature was in error on the subject of free will and that St. Paul was more reliable. I had never heard this and would be very interested to read where Luther said that. Could anyone here point me to a citation?
Click to expand...
If possible, could you provide the date of the broadcast? I would be interested in hearing exactly what Mr. Staples said before completely determining he’s in error in his recounting of his Luther facts.

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. Mr. Staples could easily be referring to an obscure Table Talk comment. Often those comments lack clear contexts that secure a definite theological position.
 
Hodos said:
40.png
Niblo:
When Lutherans talk about “free will” we aren’t speaking philosophy, we are speaking theology.
Click to expand...
That is a true statement. Luther’s use of “free will” is normatively meant in the realm of soteriology. In that sense, there is no “free will” because I cannot of my volition be justified before God. It is Christ who justifies me, and it is the Holy Spirit who calls me to faith that I may be justified by Christ. In Lutheran (and quite frankly, Christian doctrine) soteriology, justification is the sole act of God.
Click to expand...
Where we do have free will is the freedom to reject grace.
 
Niblo said:
The Lutheran I wrote of (in my first post) has come back with this:

‘I’ve never heard anything like that. My instinct is to say that I very much doubt that Luther made such a remark.’
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Yup. If any Luther bashing person (I would like to correct that, (ANYTHING USEFUL should be added) care to take the stand?
 
Last edited:
“stmax said:
Sure thing.

(Faith and Works Are Necessary for Salvation (Part 2) | Catholic Answers)

Go to 15:55
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks so much for providing the link. Without actually contacting Mr. Staples to clarify, I have a theory as to what he may be referring to.

Mr. Staples launches into his discussion of Luther by first commenting on Matthew 23:37. The obvious place to look for such a quote as described is Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The passage is discussed, but not quite as explained by Mr. Staples.

See LW 33:144-147 (or Packer’s translation 175-177). There Luther explains that God incarnate weeps and laments over “the perdition of the ungodly.” Then he states, “Nor is it to for us to ask why he does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do, such things.” God as the incarnate word weeps for those who rejected him. Then Luther presents a typical counter to this… that some would say this explanation is one of convenience -to run to the secret will of God when things don’t add up. He then states it’s not his argument, but Paul’s in Romans, that God is the potter and he can do what he wants to in his hidden and secret will.

I can sorta see how Mr. Staples could make the interpretation he’s making, if this is the passage from Luther he has in mind. I think its misconstruing Luther’s words, but only Mr. Staples can clarify if this is the passage from Luther he has in mind, and then explain how he reads it.

Edited to add: The more I think about it, the more I think this is the passage from Luther Mr. Staples has in mind. The reason? Luther first expounds on Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, and then explains the incongruity by appealing to Paul in Romans 9.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top