Sin boldly?

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

And why are they afraid? A number of reasons:

1. Luther’s foul language (and what may even be termed at times, his downright filthy language). Now Luther knew better. This is proven by the simple fact that, when he had a mind to (and when not seething with rage against the pope or whomever), he could write and say many beautiful and edifying things. So he cannot plead ignorance.
2. Luther’s violent language. For a supposed man of God and a reformer of morals, such language was, is, and always will be out of place.

You can find examples of both #1 and #2 in the English edition of Luther’s Works, available in many libraires to read. Also, individual volumes of Luther’s works are not that expensive.

In regards to Luther’s foul language, it’s small in percentage when evaluated against his total output. Roland Bainton has observed, “The volume of coarseness, in his total output is slight. Detractors have sifted from the pitchblende of his ninety tomes a few pages of radioactive vulgarity” [Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950), 232]. It would be somewhat similar for me to sift through Catholic apologist Mark Shea’s blog and writings and declare his language foul, and then saying he isn’t a good Catholic because of it (I’ve seen Shea use profanity in his writings). Of course, it’s a bogus argument. Shea’s a good Catholic, Luther was a good Protestant.

Luther used harsh language against the Jews. the Papacy, the Turks false brethren, and other groups. For Luther, his use of scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy, behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days, Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches quicker.

Luther also felt he was following the example of Christ. Luther asks rhetorically if the Lord used abusive language against his enemies: “Was he abusive when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.”

As mentioned earlier as well, rough language was part of the fabric of the 16th Century. One need only read some of Thomas More’s writings to compare against Luther’s. Similarly, I suggest reading some of the Catholic controversialists from the the Reformation period- rough language was also used.

raumzeitmc2:

1. Luther’s scandals e.g. Philip of Hesse.

Already answered. Information on this is also found in Luther’s Works, English edition.

raumzeitmc2:

1. Luther’s constant complaints about how morality deteriorated under his “gospel” and how the people were better under the pope.

I’ve looked at a number of these quotes on my blog. Often, they are quotes taken out of context, like this one, for example.

raumzeitmc2:

1. Luther’s lying, his deceiving.

Other than the Philip of Hesse debacle, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

raumzeitmc2:

1. Luther’s attacks on his fellow reformers - [Zwingli et al.

Explained above- by the way, Luther’s Works (English) contains Luther’s major works against Zwingli.

Again, the Lutherans aren’t hiding anything. There isn’t a 4th secret of Fatima locked away in the lutheran Vatican in Wittenberg. Luther’s Works can also be purchased on a fairly affordable CD ROM. If Rome ever decides that her theologians should post all their books for free on the internet, perhaps then the Lutherans will follow such a generous example and do the same.

Regards,
James Swan
[/quote]

 

[TertiumQuid]

7. Luther’s apparent affection for the Mother of God (a mortal sin if there ever was one in some Protestant circles!

This is another myth- that Lutherans are keeping Luther’s alleged Mariology a secret. As Luther’s theology grew, elements of his Mariology were rejected, minimized, or reinterpreted as he clung to and developed his commitment to solus Christus. Luther’s Works English edition does contain Luther’s major writings on Mary. Luther spoke far less about Mary and her attributes than Catholics then and now do. Even when Luther did refer to Mary, his primary concern was to speak about Christ. I refer anyone doubting this to read the many sermons that Luther preached on Marian festivals or specific Marian topics.

I’ve spent a lot of time on Luther’s Mariology over the years. I have done so because some Roman Catholics are misusing history when they claim Luther should be looked to as a Protestant champion of Mary. I say, go ahead, and look at Luther’s statements about Mary (the few and sparse that they are), but read them in context.

Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. It wasn’t always what a modern day Protestant would expect, but it wasn’t exactly “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary” as one Catholic apologist claims. Luther’s Catholic opponents gripped this. For instance, Luther’s interpretation of the “Hail Mary” definitely irked his Catholic contemporaries. It prompted von Schwarzenberg to write against it. Eck’s Enchiridion says “woe ungodly Lutherans” as “hating…all worship of the Christ bearing Virgin…”

8. Luther’s disgraceful contempt for the Fathers and Doctors (with some notable exceptions I should say.).

The Fathers said good and bad things. Luther rejected them as an infallible authority:

"When I say, the Fathers, use, statute have often erred; we must have a stronger and surer authority–Christ cannot err; then they are like the mute fishes, and become as the Scripture saith, like deaf adders that shut their ears lest they hear the voice of the charmer. Or they reply thus to me, in words which they always have on the tip of their tongue: Ambrose saith so; art thou wiser than Ambrose? Do you alone know? And this is all they have to say. As though the question was between Ambrose’s teaching and mine; or as though I could not answer: You misunderstand and misinterpret Ambrose. What is gained, I ask, by disputing with those who are blind and bad-tempered and utterly senseless? "

Various positive and negative comments about the Fathers are found in the English edition of Luther’s Works. There isn’t a cover up.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Now these and many other such things the Lutherans are afraid will do irreparable damage to the cause of the reformation were they to become widely known. After all, the absurdity and hypocrisy of speaking corruption in the Church when the reformers themselves were taking the lead in such things is, well, you know…

The Lutherans haven’t been hiding the facts about Luther. In fact, you can go in to any big chain bookstore and find biographies of Martin Luther that contain all sorts of information about him. In stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble, you can find a chair and read books without paying for them. The Lutherans will not stop you. Similarly, you can find books on line written by Lutherans like this:

Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Revaluation

This book goes into depth on many of the points you bring up, and it’s public domain. I can recommend similar books like this to help you with your historical research.

raumzeitmc2:

Read the Fathers, then read the reformers. There’s simply no comparison.

I’ve never suggested anyone not read the church fathers. As to comparing them to Luther as a response to accurately understanding Luther’s theology, it does not follow.

raumzeitmc2:

As for Luther’s theology, the whole 55 volumes of the American Edition of his Works, when all is said and done, boils down to this one thing: that no sin can damn a man, as long as he believes. That’s the essence of his theology.

This is a caricature, and I’ve addressed it already.You can compare your caricature to this.

raumzeitmc2:

Never seen anyone try to defend bigamy / polygamy the way you have James! You sure you’re not a Mormon??

I’m not a Mormon, nor have I defended bigamy / polygamy. I’ve said Luther was wrong in his involvement in the Phillip of Hesse situation. However, it would also be wrong to ignore other facts involved that shed light on the culture and circumstances, and it would be wrong to indict Luther when he clearly admitted his error, and it would be wrong to caricature him as one who advocated polygamy and bigamy.

raumzeitmc2:

As for violence, have you never read, “On the Jews and Their Lies?”

Yes.

raumzeitmc2:

Or any of the things Luther said against the peasants?

Yes.

raumzeitmc2:

Or how about the simple fact that Luther would even physically strike his good friend Melanchthon on occasion?

I’m not familiar with this, so if you have any information on it, I’d appreciate it.

raumzeitmc2:

Very odd, that’s all I can say. Very odd.

I doubt that’s all you can say, I’ve noticed you said a lot more after this.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Well, then they need to git mor edumacated!

This isn’t a meaningful response to what I’ve posted. It’s ridicule. Recall, you’re the one who stated:

“I have interacted with a large percentage of these anti-Catholic types over the years, and they all say exactly what you said about “moving on” when certain facts about Luther or Calvin are mentioned. They simply do not want to hear the truth. This is truly tragic, though, because like Luther and Calvin, such people deceive and continue to deceive so many unsuspecting souls. And quite frankly, I believe there is a moral duty, a moral obligation to expose such false teachers. They would find it far more difficult to seduce their followers if the truth about the corrupt reformers were better known.”

I’ve been answering you point by point, honestly and with depth. If I don’t have a response to something you’ve written, I’ve posted things like, “I’m not familiar with this, so if you have any information on it, I’d appreciate it.” Ridiculing my words, or saying that I “lectured” you on Denifle is simply a way to avoid what I’ve written rather than respond to it.

raumzeitmc2:

I don’t remember exactly what I said or where I said on this forum. But I have complimented Luther.

All I’m hoping for from you at this point is some balance.

raumzeitmc2:

And if you ask me, I think I’d get along better with him than you would (specially since he’s had a little time now to rethink some things!)

You can speculate on points like this, but I’d rather simply stay with facts and history.

raumzeitmc2:

When he says something good and sensible, then he ought to be recognized for it and people (of all faiths) should be encouraged to listen. And I do think Protestants could learn a lot from what Luther said about Mary.

I addressed Luther’s Mariology earlier, and you can find my writings about it here:

Luther’s Theology of Mary

Luther’s theology of Mary, a Response

Various blog entries on Luther’s Mariology

raumzeitmc2:

One remark in particular struck me as quite noteworthy. Unfortunately, I photocopied the page but forgot to note which volume it was in. However, I have enough info to track it down.

LW 52.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Luther used harsh language against the Jews. the Papacy, the Turks false brethren, and other groups. For Luther, his use of scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy, behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days, Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches quicker.

Is that how we’re to behave when Antichrist comes on the scene??

Luther also felt he was following the example of Christ.

I don’t think I’d compare Luther’s approach to Christ’s!!

One need only read some of Thomas More’s writings to compare against Luther’s.

Way ahead of you! See this.

I’ve looked at a number of these quotes on my blog. Often, they are quotes taken out of context, like this one, for example.

Other than the Philip of Hesse debacle, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

I’ll come back to these.

if Rome ever decides that her theologians should post all their books for free on the internet, perhaps then the Lutherans will follow such a generous example and do the same.

Many of the most significant works of the Father’s are now online. Many more are forthcoming. Eventually, the goal is to put them all online. I should also note that, the Church has been around for two thousand years! In that time, she has amassed a staggering of material, compared to that of the reformers.

Anyway, all of the reformation writings (Catholic and Protestant) are now in the public domain; they merely need to be translated. Maybe someday Catholic and Protestant scholars will engage in a cooperative effort to have these works translated. And who knows, with technology improving the way it is, perhaps machine translations will be half-way decent in, say, oh, I don’t know - maybe three or four hundred years!

But now given the enormous influence of men like Luther and Calvin, it certainly behooves to put as many of their works (at least the major one’s), letters, and sermons online in translation.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This is another myth- that Lutherans are keeping Luther’s alleged Mariology a secret.

In the internet age, it becomes more more difficult. But that many things have been suppressed in the past is simply a matter of record. I cite but one example of this in regard to Mary from an article entitled:

Mary and the Protestant Concern, by Fr. Paul F. J. Palmer, S. J.

The Immaculate Conception. As late as the year 1527, seven years after his excommunication, Luther expressed the following sentiments to commemorate the feast of the Immaculate Conception:

“We could not say to her: ‘blessed are you’ if she had at any time been subject to malediction. Again it is only right and proper that the person from whom Christ was to take flesh which would vanquish all sin should herself be free from sin. For ‘blessed’ in its proper sense means that which is gifted with divine grace, namely that which is without sin.” 23.

Although it is quite likely that Luther would regard Mary’s sinlessness as something extrinsic, as God’s graciousness towards Mary without any corresponding grace or holiness in Mary, it is still remarkable that Luther is so thoroughly Catholic in acknowledging even this extrinsic or forensic holiness in Mary from the first moment of her conception.

Even more remarkable is Luther’s appeal to the argument from propriety, the decuit* of Duns Scotus, an argument that is ridiculed by so many Protestants in discussing not only Mary’s Immaculate Conception but her other privileges including her bodily assumption.

In fact, Luther’s witness to the Immaculate Conception was so Catholic that the passage just cited was expunged from later editions of Luther’s works for the space of some three hundred years. 24.

• “potuit, decuit, ergo fecit" (God could do it, it was appropriate, therefore he did it).

In, The Marian Era, 1961, Mark Hegener, O. F. M., Pub., Marion A. Habig, ed., Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois, vol. 2, pp. 103-104.

Notes:

1. “Kirchenpostille” in Luther’s Saemmtliche Werke (Erlangen ed. of 1828), [vol. 15], pp.15, 55. [Saemmtliche = Sämmtliche = Sämtliche i.e., Complete or Collected. Kirchenpostille = Church-Postils].
   books.google.com/books?vid=0AZ1jqHG4kTlVyIZp7U&id=uqEOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=church+postils
2. Cf. editors note on p. 54 of edition cited above.

I’ve checked the editor’s note in vol. 15 (fünfzehnter Band), p. 54 of the Erlangen ed. cited above, and it reads:

“Von hier bis zum Schluss findet sich nur der ausgabe von jahre 1527.”

“From here to the conclusion [of this sermon] is found only in the edition from the year 1527.”

Here’s an image of this note at the bottom of p. 54.
img4.imageshack.us/img4/5084/vonhieranbiszum.jpg

So in fact the last three paragraphs of this sermon were expunged from later editions of Luther’s Works.
What justification can there be not including this passage about Mary’s sinlessness from 1527 to 1828 – a space of 300 years?!

Primary source: Dr. Martin Luther’s Kirchenpostille.

In, Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke, Homiletische und Katechetische Schriften, Erlangen, Johann Georg Plochmann, verlag von Carl Heyder, (Dr. Martin Luther’s Complete Works, Homeletical and Catechetical Writings, Erlangen, published by Carl Heyder), 1828.
google.de/books?vid=0Wlbc9dpSjU5CldsvND&id=xQMRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=luther&as_brr=1#PPA57,M1

Full text of the sermon in question is found on pp. 42-55, and is entitled:

*Predigt Am Tage der Empfängnis Maria, der Mutter Gottes, Evang. Luc. 11:27-28 *

*Sermon on the day of the Conception of Mary, the Mother of God, the Gospel of Luke, 11:27-28.
*

The Fathers said good and bad things. Luther rejected them as an infallible authority:

And on what authority did Luther, himself infallible, reject the Fathers??

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I’ve never suggested anyone not read the church fathers. As to comparing them to Luther as a response to accurately understanding Luther’s theology, it does not follow.

Luther’s theology, as well as his morality, conflicts with the Fathers. None of the Fathers for example, believed assurance of salvation, nor would they have attacked the Roman See (nor any of the other principle Apostolic Sees). Such would have been simply unthinkable. This is undoubtedly one of the things Denifle had in mind when he spoke of those “runaway monks and fallen priests, who had annihilated their own and other’s decency, modesty, and honor…” To savage the Roman Church, *which the apostle praised *(Rom. 1:8), is indeed to ‘annihilate’ ones “decency, modesty and honor.”

This is a caricature, and I’ve addressed it already.You can compare your caricature to this.

How then do you square that with what Luther explicitly says here his * Pagan Servitude of the Church (or * Babylonian Captivity of the Church)?

“Hence it is no small benefit to a penitent first of all to remember his baptism. Let him recall the divine promise which he has abandoned, and confess it to the Lord. Let him rejoice to be still within the fortress of salvation, for it is still the case that he has been baptized; and let him abhor the impious ingratitude shown when he fell away from the faith and truth of his baptism. His heart will be wonderfully strengthened and inspired with the hope of mercy, if he will but keep in mind the divine promise which has been made to him. It is impossible for that promise to play false. Hitherto it has remained unbroken and unchanged, nor can it be changed by any sin.”

The AdHoc Image and Text Database on the History of Christianity, p. 27.
research.yale.edu:8084/divdl/adhoc/text.jsp?objectid=3157&page=27

And here:

“In this way, you will see how rich a Christian is, i.e., one who has been baptized. Even if he wished, he could not lose his salvation however often he sinned, save only if he refused to believe. No sins have it in their power to damn him, but only unbelief.”

Ibid., p. 28. research.yale.edu:8084/divdl/adhoc/text.jsp?objectid=3157&page=28

I’m not a Mormon, nor have I defended bigamy / polygamy. I’ve said Luther was wrong in his involvement in the Phillip of Hesse situation. However, it would also be wrong to ignore other facts involved that shed light on the culture and circumstances, and it would be wrong to indict Luther when he clearly admitted his error, and it would be wrong to caricature him as one who advocated polygamy and bigamy.

There’s no possible excuse! The reformers bellowed and thundered “corruption!” corruption!" But when it suited their purposes, they simply did as they pleased – until they got caught!! And to make matters worse, they never repented!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The Lutherans haven’t been hiding the facts about Luther.

Well, with the exception of my one post, you won’t find these woodcuts anywhere on the internet. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4147292&postcount=1

And I was pilloried for posting them!

But perhaps you’d like to post them on your site?

With regard to Luther striking, not an enemy, but his dear friend Melanchthon, here is the information you ask for.

So it is that an ordinary mind is shocked when it comes to its task of close investigation, and reluctant to see in the earnest giant-like Luther one flaw after another, grossness and self-ignorance, and unseemly violence; inconsistency that could not foresee its route, with a dogmatism that condemned all who could not at once follow it. 4.

Note 4.

Melanchthon speaks of rough treatment from Luther: “Qui ab ipso colaphos acceperim;”* and after his death unpardonably exclaims, “Tuli servitutem poene deformem.” Luther, the Augustinian, stigmatises Jerome, Erasmus’ idol, as an heretic; he calls Zwingle a fool, and even rejoices in his and Oecolampadius’ deaths: “Erasmus of Rotterdam is the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth,” (Table Talk, Bohn p. 283); where he continues, “he is a very Caiaphas,” and “qui Satanam non odit, amet tua carmina Erasme … with his pitiful prefaces; … accursed wretch, a mere Momus making his mocks and mows at everything, at God and man, at Protestant and Papist, with shuffling and double-meaning terms; … whenever I pray to God, I pray for a curse upon Erasmus.”

Erasmus, The Lothian Prize Essay, 1874, Arthur Lionel Smith, Oxford, Thomas Shrimpton & Son, p. 55.
books.google.com/books?id=ohBXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22ab+ipso+colaphos+%22&lr=#PPA55,M1

• “ab ipso colaphos acceperim.” “I have received blows from him [Luther].”

The above “ab ipso colaphos acceperim” appears in a Letter to Veit Dietrich, aka, Vito Theodoro (1506-1509), February 23, 1544.

Below is the Latin text of this letter in full. No. 2872

D. Vito Theodoro, docenti Evang. in Eccles. Noriberg.

S.D. Ut in toto orbe terrarum velut insignis Stella fulgebat collegium Doctorum Hierosolymae quondam florente republ., quod ibi erat Ecclesiae praecipua Schola; sic nunc Dei beneficio ingenti florent hae civitates et regiones, in quibus sonat vox Evangelii, coluntur literae, explicatur et propagatur doctrina coelestis, mores mediocriter reguntur, imperia sic satis aequabilia sunt. Haec tanta bona, utinam Principes, gubernatores et doctores agnoscerent, et sua moderatione fovere Dei munera studerent. Sed nos agnoscamus et foveamus, doceamus utilia, reprimamus iracundias et alios affectus, qui interdum perniciosos tumultus excitant. Compara tuam civitatem iam ad Pannonias, Austriam, Belgicam, Celticam; dices te coelum ad Tartara conferre. Haec, mi Vite, saepe cogito in precibus quotidianis, eoque omnia dico ac facio moderatius.

Mitto tibi Epistolam Myconii, ex qua leges historiam Arnstadiani Pastoris, qui diu de nugacissimis rebus, + vel de vini pretio litigavit, adversus Senatum fulmen excommunicationes torsit adiunxit sibi etiam Lutherum. Nunc tandem tumultuari desinit, et Friderici diligentia res eo perducta est, ut mutuo iniurias condonaverint, et promiserint [Greek irreproducible]. Cur antea toties a Friderico, me, Menio, Lango rogatus non destitit tumultuari, cum nullam causam haberet? Haec, quia alia nunc quae scriberem non erant, duxi tibi significanda esse, quia arbitror amantibus moderationem utile esse talia exempla cognoscere. Et epistolam Friderici libenter leges. Nunc eo ad Lutherum, ut ei suam exhibeam cura et in hoc ipso negotio aliquoties ***ab ipso colaphos acceperim. ***

De praefatione in Genesin miror te non significare tuum iudicium. De Baptismo Christi ea sententia quam posueras, non videbatur sine longiore explicatione ita nuda ponenda. Ideo dixi communiora.

Bene vale, et de Conventu quidquid habebis significa. Die 23 Februarii.

Philip Melanchthon, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 5, cols. 321-322, February 23, 1544. Epistolarum, Liber IX.
books.google.com/books?q=%22Ab+ipso+colaphos+acceperim+%22&lr=&sa=N&start=10

(Noriberg. = Norinbergensis, Nuremberg, Noribergenis, Nürnberg (Bavaria, Germany)

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

But listen to what Luther says:

The gears have shifted. Now we’re supposed to listen to what Luther says because he said a few nice things about Mary. Previous to this, you portrayed Luther as a liar, a lust driven man possibly infected with syphilis, and one who taught people to have multiple wives. How do we know Luther isn’t deceiving here? You’ve presented a Luther that can’t be trusted, so on what basis do you decide he’s being truthful? How could it be that such an evil man (as you’ve portrayed him), a man driven by lust and deception, be trusted in any way? You can’t have it both ways- either he’s a deceiving liar not be trusted, or he’s not.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is by your citation, but if by posting it you mean to suggest Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, You’re mistaken. The sermon appears to be from sometime around or before 1522, based on information provided in the introduction. This would make sense, as Luther abandoned belief in the immaculate conception sometime after 1527.

raumzeitmc2:

I always try to be balanced.

As one very familiar with Catholic approaches to Luther, you haven’t been balanced so far, except on a few occasions.

raumzeitmc2:

So were back to the “gospel” being proclaimed only by Protestants in the 16th century. Poor Augustine; never heard, never knew the gospel! Same for Cyprian, same for Jerome, same for everyone … Pity.

Augustine misunderstood the term justification. He used it in its Latin sense, not in a Hebrew sense. As McGrath points out, he understood the verb iustificare to mean ‘to make righteous.’ He interpreted -ficare as the unstressed form of facere, by analogy with vivificare and mortificare. Although this is a permissible interpretation of the Latin word, it is unacceptable as an interpretation of the Hebrew concept which underlies it.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Well, what would you call a man who countenanced bigamy?

I already provided detailed responses to this charge.

( this is not “slander” btw, merely a statement of fact). Nor does pointing this out impy even the slightest animus toward the man.

Your base-line opinion is that Luther was an immoral man. This despite the facts that it was on one occasion he was deceived by Phillip of Hesse, and then he subsequently repented of his involvement. By your standards, Peter’s life can be characterized as “immoral” because he denied Christ three times.

raumzeitmc2:

As for “priest,” just a typo. Sorry.

I only pointed it out to demonstrate I check sources and citations, as much as possible. When I speak about Denifle, I do so as one who has read his work.

raumzeitmc2:

You call it “error,” but is there not indeed some justification for the charge, based on the historical facts and logic of the case, among which are these?

No. Denifle was wrong, and you’re wrong. Luther was not a violent and lustful man. Your historical facts are skewed.

raumzeitmc2:

1. Luther himself admitted his problems with lust,

If were to go through the citations, it would be obvious Luther has been misquoted.

raumzeitmc2:

and many of his followers joined his cause simply because they wanted to indulge their carnal appetites i.e., just so they could, “Sin boldly.”

Very few people probably had access to Luther’s letter to Melanchthon during the Reformation period, so they never probably heard “sin boldly”. Luther’s consistent teaching was to avoid sin, and practice good works:

“We now come to consider good works. We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope in patience. You ask, perhaps, what are the good works you are to do to your neighbor? Answer: They have no name. As the good works Christ does to you have no name, so your good works are to have no name. Whereby do you know them? Answer: They have no name, so that there may be no distinction made and they be not divided, that you might do some and leave others undone. You shall give yourself up to him altogether, with all you have, the same as Christ did not simply pray or fast for you. Prayer and fasting are not the works he did for you, but he gave himself up wholly to you, with praying, fasting, all works and suffering, so that there is nothing in him that is not yours and was not done for you. Thus it is not your good work that you give alms or that you pray, but that you offer yourself to your neighbor and serve him, wherever he needs you and every way you can, be it with alms, prayer, work, fasting, counsel, comfort, instruction, admonition, punishment, apologizing, clothing, food, and lastly with suffering and dying for him. Pray, where are now such works to be found in Christendom?” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:34]

raumzeitmc2:

1. If the Catholic faith is true, then the reformation was indeed a terrible injustice against Christ’s one Church

This is a non sequitur, and doesn’t follow as a historical fact that Luther was an immoral lustful man.

raumzeitmc2:

1. History records that the reformers (and their followers) were indeed violent men.

History records the 16th Century was filled with violent people who thought blasphemy deserved the death penalty. When you indict the reformers of violence, you indict your own people as well. As to Luther being “violent” this is simply untrue.

raumzeitmc2:

1. None of the reformers or any of their followers, in fact, had a shred of authority

This is another non sequitur, not serving as historical proof that Luther was an immoral lustful man. That being said, the entire Reformation had an emphasis on spiritual authority and what it meant. To simply claim as Rome does, that she got her authority from Christ is not proof that she did.

raumzeitmc2:

A very brief overview of some of the above may be found in the following small pamphlet of 15 pages:

I’m not going to chase these quotes down. If you want to use obscure quotes, it’s your job to provide the contexts. By the way, if you’re linking to Wikipedia for my benefit, you can save yourself the trouble. I know who the people are without Wikipedia.

raumzeitmc2:

If only you would be willing to at least acknowledge the above, we might be able to have fruitful discussion.

I refuse to do your work. If you want to provide obscure quotes from Luther, prove you care about truth by providing contexts. If you want to have a fruitful discussion, I suggest doing a little *ad fontes *work rather than presenting propaganda materials.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Holly3278]

I was at my college Alma Mater this past weekend for a performance and it happened to be Open House weekend for the incoming freshmen. All the campus organizations had booths up and such, but one booth that really caught my attention was the Lutheran Club’s booth and members. They wore shirts that proclaimed, “Sin Boldly!” I am very familiar with Lutheran and typical Protestant theology, but this really really really bothered me. I just found it very disturbing that fellow Christians are actually endorsing sin. Terrible. I was just curious as to what you all thought on the matter.

It disturbs me as well. Disgusting.

 

[Jacobus]

I was at my college Alma Mater this past weekend for a performance and it happened to be Open House weekend for the incoming freshmen. All the campus organizations had booths up and such, but one booth that really caught my attention was the Lutheran Club’s booth and members. They wore shirts that proclaimed, “Sin Boldly!” I am very familiar with Lutheran and typical Protestant theology, but this really really really bothered me. I just found it very disturbing that fellow Christians are actually endorsing sin. Terrible. I was just curious as to what you all thought on the matter.

One of my high school English teachers used to say “Sin bravely”, for example if someone was being hesitant about answering a question to which he did not certainly know the answer. The teacher used to say that the idea of “Sin bravely” – that is, IF you are going to sin at all, do so confidently – comes from Jesus’ words in Revelation 3:15-16:

15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

The idea is that Jesus can “deal with” saints of great virtue, or sinners of great vice (if they repent) but has little patience for people that are tepid. Or that tepid people have not merited anything.

Jim

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The gears have shifted. Now we’re supposed to listen to what Luther says because he said a few nice things about Mary. Previous to this, you portrayed Luther as a liar, a lust driven man possibly infected with syphilis, and one who taught people to have multiple wives.

Ok, to clarify:

a. Luther said some very nice things about a number of people, but he also said some very terrible things. Shouldn’t we hear both sides of the man?

b. Luther did in fact lie when it suited his purpose. He said, “What is it, if for the good and the sake of the Christian church, one should tell a good strong lie?” books.google.com/books?id=bngAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA381&dq=luther+%22strong+lie%22&lr=#PPA381,M1

c. In his better moments, Luther praises celibacy, but then says almost no one has the gift. For the most part, he and his fellow reformers reject, scorn, and attack celibacy. Again, the Father’s would’ve been appalled.

Now clearly an element of lust, or, carnality, or whatever you wish to call it, forms the backdrop to the reformer’s teachings – except when it comes to the Blessed Mother! Here, Luther especially - curiously- retains much of his Catholic sensibilities. A good example of this is his very praiseworthy words form his Christmas Postil, the Sermon on the Gospel for Christmas Eve. Luke 2:1-14.

"How could he have presented to us a more forceful, a more powerful and purer example of chastity than this birth? How completely do all desires and thoughts, no matter how strong they may be, topple down, when we merely look at this birth and ponder how God’s exalted majesty with all earnestness, with boundless love and kindness goes to works and has to do in the female flesh and blood of this virgin.

“No woman ever gives to a man such pure thoughts as does this virgin, and likewise, no man to a woman as does this child. Pure chastity wells forth from this birth, no matter how we regard it, if only we recognize in it the work of God.”

Luther’s Works, vol. 52, Sermons II, Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., Fortress Press, ISBN 9780800603526, pp. 12-13.

Beautiful and praiseworthy words! Who would not applaud them?

Btw, I found this sermon online, but with the above words about Mary omitted.
pietist.blogspot.com/2005/12/sermon-as-luther-might-have-preached.html

d. I never said Luther had syphilis. On the contrary, I said I believed he* didn’t *have it. But so what if one wants to broach the question? Who goes to pieces when other historical personages, like Abraham Lincoln for example, are suspected of having had syphilis? Besides, it was *you *who mentioned it to begin with.

e.* I * never portrayed him as a man who would permit just anyone to have several wives - that’s how *he portrayed himself *when he said, for example, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.”

How do we know Luther isn’t deceiving here? You’ve presented a Luther that can’t be trusted, so on what basis do you decide he’s being truthful?

Again, I would say that *Luther himself *presented a Luther who can’t always be trusted. But all that any of us can do really is examine his writings and teachings and compare them to what Scripture and the Church teach. Whether he deceives deliberately in some places, or thinks he genuinely has the truth, who but God can ultimately judge?

I’m not sure exactly what your point is by your citation, but if by posting it you mean to suggest Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, You’re mistaken.

I know from your site that you are familiar with these comments:

“[Luther’s] custom of preaching Marian sermons on the Marian feasts continued in the Lutheran Church a hundred years after his death. Following the example of Luther other great songwriters of the Reformation glorified the greatness of Mary’s divine maternity. This lasting piety towards the Mother of God found an outlet in piety so that generally the celebrated pictures of the Madonna and her statues from the Middle Ages were retained in Lutheran churches. According to Heiler, it was only the spirit of the Enlightenment with its lack of understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation, which in the 18th century began the work of destruction.”

“Quite remarkable, too, is that Luther ‘with considerable consistency down to the time of his death in 1546 accepted the immaculate conception of Mary.’”

THE PLACE OF MARY IN CLASSICAL FUNDAMENTALISM, Rev. Peter Stravinskas. ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR94101.HTM

I don’t see where you have refuted them though.

Certainly there can be little doubt that, at least in the early part of his career, Luther held Mary to be exempt from the curse of Eve. In the same Christmas Sermon quoted above, he says of Mary’s giving birth to Christ:

“The birth happened to her exactly as to other women, consciously with her mind functioning normally and with the other parts of her body helping along, as is proper at the time of birth, in order that she should be his normal natural mother and he her natural normal son. For this reason her body did not abandon its natural functions which belong to childbirth, except that she gave birth with sin, without, shame, without pain, and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve, which reads: ‘In pain you shall bear your children’ [Gen. 3:16], did not apply to her.” (pp. 11-12).

(should note that these words also were omitted from the sermon at the above linked site ).

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Augustine misunderstood the term justification.

If Augustine really and truly “misunderstood the term justification,” how explain that no one corrected him?? And what do you think justification is?

Your base-line opinion is that Luther was an immoral man.

No, not true. My ‘baseline opinion’ (if it may be called that), is that Luther was a troubled soul, a man who, by his own repeated admissions, had a “terrified conscience.”

The reformers were “evil" in the sense that their teachings attacked the Church and opened a way to much immorality.

History records the 16th Century was filled with violent people who thought blasphemy deserved the death penalty.

Generally, it was the State, not the Church, which put obstinate heretics to death. And this was done because they were a danger to the whole societal order, civil and ecclesial. But where do you find the people themselves going about pillaging, ransacking monasteries, torturing and murdering priests and violating nuns (as the Donatists of old did) prior to the reformers coming on the scene?

To simply claim as Rome does, that she got her authority from Christ is not proof that she did.

Rome’s authority was recognized by all the early Christians!

I’m not going to chase these quotes down.

Here’s some documentation and context.

Luther, the prime author of that great revolution in religion miscalled “The Reformation,” after some years’ experience of its results, declared:

“The world grows worse from day to day. Men are now more covetous, malicious, and resentful, more unruly, shameless, and full of vice, than they were in the time of Popery." (Mundus in dies fit deterior; sunt nunc homines magis vindictae cupidi, magis avari, magis ab omni misericordia remoti, magis immodest! et indisciplinati, multoque deteriores quam fuerint in Papatu.)

— In Postill super Evaiig. Dotnin. prinicB. Adv., ap. Bellarm. in Append, ad Lib. de Summo Font., c. 23.)

The Reformers on the Reformation (Foreign), Charles Allnatt.
archive.org/details/a636947900londuoft

Below, Luther says essentially the same thing.

People are more avaricious, unmerciful, unchaste, brazen, and evil now than they formerly were under the papacy. Why is this? Simply because people do not accept the Gospel (Predigt) with joy, but everybody ignores it and is more interested in money and possessions than in the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings us.

Advent Sermon of 1533.

What Luther Says (WLS), Ewald M. Plass, vol. 2, p. 574, no. 1745
books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=luther+%22more+avaricious+%22&dq=luther+%22more+avaricious+%22&lr=&pgis=1

And from Luther’s “Second Passion Sermon: The Seizure of Christ in the Garden,” Matt. 26:47-50.

Even at this day, as we see, this scandal prevails that avarice and usury, lasciviousness and gluttony, and other vices are more common among those who boast of the gospel than they were formerly under the papacy. Whence comes this filth? Is it learned from the gospel? Are the preachers to blame? No, such thought be far from us! That would be abusing and culminating God and his dear Word, and the gospel ministry which is God’s most precious gift. But we must blame the very devil, who is chagrined when he sees the field well prepared and sowed with good seed…

Dr. Martin Luther’s House-Postil, or Sermons on the Gospels, or the Sundays and Principal Festivals of the Church-Year, 1884, J. A. Schulze, publisher, Columbus, Ohio, vol. 2, p. 86.
books.google.com/books?id=HvorAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22Gospel+than+they+were+formerly+under+the+papacy%22&lr=

And then there’s Wolfgang Capito to William Farel, 1538 (also from The Reformers on the Reformation).

“The Lord grants me to learn what it is to be a pastor, and how great harm has been done by our hasty judgment and inconsiderate vehemence in throwing off the Papal authority. For the multitude, after being accustomed and well-nigh brought up to do as it pleases, has now absolutely thrown off all restraint ; as though, by breaking down the authority of the Papists, we made void the power of the Word, of the Sacraments, and of the whole office of the ministry. For they cry out: — ‘I know enough of the Gospel; I can read it for myself; what need have I of your assistance?’”

(Dominus videre dat quid sit agere pastorem, et quantum praecipiti judicio vehementiaque inconsulta abjiciendi ita Pontificis nocuerimus. Nam frenum prorsus excussit multitudo, quae assueta est et educata propemodum ad licentiam; quasi auctoritatem Pontificiorum frangendo, vim verbi, Sacramentorum et totius ministerii, evacueremus. Nam clamant, ‘Teneo satis Evangelii, ipse scio legere; quorsum mihi tua opera?’" — Epist. ad Farel., inter Calvini, Epist., tom. ix. p. 2.)

Other sources:

“God has given me to understand the mischief we have done by our precipitancy in breaking with the Pope”
books.google.com/books?id=h4ERAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA137&dq=%22God+has+given+me+to+understand+the+mischief+we+have+done+%22&lr=

“God gives me light to know what it is to be a pastor”
books.google.com/books?id=_uwRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA551&dq=%22God+gives+me+light+to+know+what+it+is+to+be+a+pastor%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES

Primary source:

Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue franc̦aise, Aimé Louis Herminjard, 1878, vol. 5, p. 60.
books.google.com/books?id=HfoQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=%22sit+agere+pastorem%22&lr=&client=firefox

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Historical distortion! Abuses have always been addressed, even in the New Testament! Indeed, there was never a time in the Church when both abuses and those to address them did not simultaneously exist. And so whatever abuses were occurring in the 16th century were already being addressed long before Luther came on the scene.

Your approach muddles history. Lortz is more accurate:

“Theological confusion within Catholic theology was one of the specially important preconditions which precipitated a revolution in the Church. It is one of those keys which to some extent unlocks the riddle of the colossal apostasy” [Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany Vol. 1 (London: Darton Longman & Todd Ltd, 1968) 156.]

“The darkness [religious life before the Reformation] became all the more ominous because Catholics suffered from the illusion that Catholic doctrine had long since been settled on the disputed points. Few theologians were exempt from this illusion. In the polemic of the day- as we shall see- most of them used the unanimous consensus of the Church as an argument, whereas, in fact, on important questions only a more or less hazy opinion was the substitute for sure knowledge. The deliberations at Trent are proof of this” [Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany Vol. 1 , 157].

Or Father Thomas M. McDonough :

“Luther forced the Church to take hold of herself and to reform herself, an action which is still going on today. And in this respect, it is true to say that Luther is partly responsible for saving the Church.” The Essential Luther, 59.

raumzeitmc2:

This is too often the case!

Yes it is.

“Anathematized the gospel?” What does that mean???

Trent’s infallible proclamations on justification as to the relationship of faith and works is not biblical.

raumzeitmc2:

So we must take Luther’s judgment over that of whole Church?? But how, prey tell, do you know he wasn’t wrong??

Your worldview appears to boil down to “something can only be right or wrong if it’s been infallibly decreed by the RCC.” If there was ever a blueprint for moral anarchy, that’s it. If Luther was “so wrong” about the abuse of indulgences, consider John Todd’s (A Catholic writer) analysis. Todd finds that abuse was not uncommon throughout the western church: “

…*t was often said and written that a specified number of Masses would achieve some object, usually the release of some soul from purgatory. This of course was severely denounced at the Council of Trent- but not of course till it had been going on virtually unchecked for centuries."

“Indulgences were similarly abused.”

“…that the abuses were widely tolerated in practice is not in doubt, and the people were in no position to distinguish between what was ‘tolerated’, happening day in and day out, and what was formally taught.”

“We have a picture then, of Christian life and prayer deeply permeating every part of life, and abuses quite widely corrupting it, and mixed with it many pagan habits of thought and action.”

Source:John M. Todd, Martin Luther: A Biographical Study, 12-13.

Todd is critical of the Roman Church that condemned Luther: “Rome is frankly criticized for its whole approach to Luther. Instead of taking his concerns seriously it opted for the “easier” route, ecclesiastical pressure to silence him. The curia was blind to the theological issues, unable to believe that a critical German was really trying to work for the good of the church.” [Fred W. Meuser, Interpreting Luther’s Legacy 52].

James Swan*

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Very convenient.

The Bible says what it says.

raumzeitmc2:

But if “Christ has paid the penalty for my sin,” then why does he still find fault?

Being seen through the work of Christ, God doesn’t find fault. Romans 5:1 says believers have been justified. Christians have peace with God. Paul then exhorts his readers to flee from sin in Romans 6. In Romans 7, Paul describes his own struggle with sin in Romans 7. As to that struggle, Paul declares in Romans 8 that despite this struggle, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. This is a description of the Christian. A Christian is found holy in God’s sight because of Christ’s work, even while the Holy Spirit works sanctification in the life of the believer.

raumzeitmc2:

And why could not Tetzel, for example, have simply dismissed his detractors by saying something like, “Oh, stop whining about the ‘selling’ of indulgences!” What does it matter? “Christ has paid the penalty for my sin!”

Because salvation was big business during the sixteenth century.

raumzeitmc2:

Do you see the absurdity (indeed the blaspheme!) of such a belief system as you profess?

No. Luther understood that even our best efforts were tainted with sin. If God demands perfection in order for one to be justified before Him, no one would ever be justified. For Luther, justification was actually totally of works, but those works were perfect and performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner.

For Luther grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.” But isn’t the Roman Catholic charge against Luther valid? If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why should any Christian ever care about leading a righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Paul answers for Luther in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified, but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness. Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means: good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them. Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

But how curious it is that Protestant sins are always somehow “covered” and “the penalty” for them fully paid, whereas, for Catholic sins - rather than benefiting from the same “indulgence” - are only to be railed and thundered against by “mighty reformers” !!! Guess God is “gracious” alright – but only if you’re Protestant!!

I don’t have the ability to look into anyone’s heart, either Catholic or Protestant. If a person clings to Christ alone by faith in His work, that person has the righteousness of Christ covering them.

raumzeitmc2:

In any event, you really haven’t told me what the gospel is yet. So let rephrase the question: We know that Christ preached the gospel, so what then was it that he preached? What was the essence of his message, his gospel?

Your question demonstrates a fundamental distinction between us. The Gospel is more than the words of Christ in red lettering. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit. In its entirety it is God’s infallible word and proclamation of Christ. Christ in fact notes the entire Old Testament was about Him. So, when I approach the question of how one is made right with God, I go to that part of the Bible that addresses that issue. The Holy Spirit has given the church the book of Romans as a systematic treatment of how one is made right with God. The words of Jesus aren’t somehow more important than the words of Paul: both are the word of God, the word of the Holy Spirit. If Christ had given a detailed explanation of justification and sanctification, I would turn to those passages, but he did not. The Holy Spirit used Paul to do this, and Paul’s words and the red words of Jesus are in harmony, because both are God’s word.

James Swan

 

[mrnobody]

you should not be spreading this error. Sin destroys the soul, no matter whether one believes in Christ or not. And Jesus said that those who love Him are those who keep His commandments. This is the most dangerous teaching in Christendom todya… that you can just sin and you will get into Heaven… without any purgation … or even with purgation. Mortal sin keeps one from even entering Purgatory.

Sin makes a soul not even WANT Heaven…

People who believe in Once Saved Always Saved need to read the Bible…

The only problem is that all sin is deadly to the soul. There is no distinction between mortal and venial sin.

 

[jam070406]

The only problem is that all sin is deadly to the soul. There is no distinction between mortal and venial sin.

1 John 5:16-17

16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Your approach muddles history.

Protestants reject the Church even when abuses have been corrected! Witness your next statement:

Trent’s infallible proclamations on justification as to the relationship of faith and works is not biblical.

So it appears the indulgence issue was just a ruse all along!

Your worldview appears to boil down to “something can only be right or wrong if it’s been infallibly decreed by the RCC.”

Nonsense! Listen, James, my friend, all you have to do is read the Fathers; you’ll soon discover how vastly they differ from Protestantism.

Let’s take the celibate Augustine for example, to cite but one Father.

“wipe out yours sins by daily good works.” Sermon 77B:7:1, p. 336.

“Mind what you do, mind you don’t offend the temple, or he may abandon you, and you will fall into ruin.”Sermon 82:13:2, p. 377

“Take care your putting things off doesn’t deprive you of what he promised to give you.” Serm. 87:8:3, p. 411,

“two things, you see, that kill souls, either despair or wrongheaded hope.” Serm. 87:10:2, p. 413,

“and as believers in the sacrament they drank his blood, which they shed in their frenzied rage.” Serm. 87:14:2, p 416.

Augustine, Sermons 51-94, ISBN 0911782850

“Who can the bread of heaven be, but Christ? But for man to eat the bread of angels, the Lord of angels became man. Because if he hadn’t become this, we would not have his flesh; if we didn’t have his flesh, we would not eat the bread of the altar.” 130:2:1, p. 311.

“what he has earned in his humility he may forfeit in his pride.” Sermon 131:3:1, p. 317.

“There are people, you see, who are ungrateful for grace, who attribute too much to a helpless and wounded nature.” 131:6:1, p. 319

“Let Christ be eaten; when eaten he lives, because when slain he rose again.” 132A:1:1, p. 329.

“He came in the flesh, in order that human beings might eat him;” 132A:1:3, p. 329.

“Don’t promise yourselves life, if you live bad lives; people deceive themselves when they promise themselves what God does not promise.” 132A:2:3, p. 329

“So what can remaining in God’s word mean, but not giving in to any temptations?” Sermon 134:2:1, p. 342.

Sermons 94a-150, ISBN 1565480007

“…I can hear the apostle himself confessing that he had not arrived at such perfection of justice as we believe the angels enjoy; the angels whom we are looking forward to being the equal of, if we finally reach what we desire.” S.154:3:2, p. 70
Sermons, 148-183, ISBN 9781565480070
books.google.com/books?id=jY2VQH-w1gIC&pg=PA70&dq=%22if+we+finally+reach+what+we+desire%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=4_ENSprkAYPGzQS42YiZCw&client=firefox#PPA70,M1

“It does not, however, mean, because I say we cannot be here without sin, that we ought to commit murders, of adulteries, or other deadly sins, which* slay at a stroke*. Such things are not committed by Christians of good faith and good hope; but only the sort which may be wiped off by the brush of daily prayer.” Sermon 181:8:2, pp. 328-329.

“When the apostle James was talking about faith and works against those who thought their faith was enough, and didn’t want to have good works, he said, You believe God is one; you do well; the demons also believe, and tremble.” (Jas 2:19) Sermon 183:13:2, p. 343.

“Worse, though, than the Jews are the heretics; those deny Christ whom they cannot observe; these attack the Church which they can see perfectly well." Sermon 218 B:2, p.192.

“When his body, remember, was pierced by the lance, it poured forth the water and the blood by which he cancelled our sins. Be mindful of this grace as you work out your salvation, since it is God who is at work in you, and approach with fear and trembling to partake of this altar. Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from this side.” 228B :2:1, pp. 261-262.

“He is going to come as a judge, let us not bear the yoke with unbelievers. He is also going to resuscitate the corpses of the dead; let us deserve this transfiguration of the body by a transformation of our minds. He is going to set the bad on his left, the good on his right; let us choose our place with good works." Sermon 229D:1

“But if you want to attain to a life that is everlasting and blissful, have a temporal life that is good. It’s good in its work, it’ll be good in it’s reward. But if you refuse to do the work, how can you have the face to seek the reward? If you can’t say to Christ, ‘I have done what you commanded,’ how will you have the nerve to say, ‘Pay me what you promised?’” Sermon 229H:3:5, p. 298.

“Heretical leaders, though, wish to make their own the sheep that are really Christ’s; all the same they are forced, willy-nilly, to set the stamp of Christ on them; to make them their own private flock, and yet to register them in the Lord’s name. But what does divine scripture say to such people in the Song of Songs? You see, the bridegroom is addressing the bride, Christ the Church, and saying, Unless you recognize yourself, O beautiful among women. What’s beautiful among women? Catholic among heresies.” 229O:3:2, p. 325.

Sermons (184-229), ISBN 1565480503
books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&client=firefox&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=let+us+choose+our+place+with+good+works&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=