Sin boldly?

[raumzeitmc2]

…continuing with Augustine:

“… Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. The fellow who eggs you on to avenge yourself will rob you of what you were going to say – as we forgive our debtors. When you have forfeited that, all your sins will be held against you; absolutely nothing is forgiven!” Sermon 57:11:3, p. 115.

Sermons 51-94 ISBN 0911782850
books.google.com/books?id=4jswAAAAYAAJ&q=%22all+your+sins+will+be+held+against+you%3B+absolutely+nothing+is+forgiven%22&dq=%22all+your+sins+will+be+held+against+you%3B+absolutely+nothing+is+forgiven%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=yQUOStGfMIewzASv0fCsCw&pgis=1

“And there you have before you Christ as your end. You have no need to on looking anymore. The moment you have believed, you have already recognized it. But it isn’t just a matter of faith, but of faith and works. Each is necessary. For the demons also believe –you heard the apostle- and tremble (Jas 2:19); but their believing doesn’t do them any good. Faith alone is not enough, unless works too are joined to it: Faith working through love (Gal 5:6), says the apostle.” Sermon16A:11:2, p, 357
Sermons 1-19, ISBN 0911782753

“The third one said, I’ve married a wife. This represents the pleasure of the flesh. How many people it hinders from coming to the dinner!” Sermon 112:6:1, p. 150. Sermons 94a-150, ISBN 1565480007

“Marriage is lawful, you shouldn’t go looking for anything more. After all, it isn’t a very big burden that has been imposed on you. A greater love has imposed a greater burden on virgins. Virgins have declined to do what was allowed, in order to be more pleasing to the one to whom they vowed themselves. They have aimed at that greater beauty of the heart.” Sermon 161:11:1, p. 142. Sermons 151-183, ISBN 1565480074

"So, my brothers and sisters, let us hold onto this justification insofar as we have it, and let us grow in it insofar as we still small and immature, and let us bring it to perfection … But the whole thing is from God; not however as though we were asleep, as though we didn’t have to make an effort, as though we didn’t have to be willing. Without your will, there will be no justice of God in you.” Serm. 169:13.

"But God made you without you. You didn’t, after all, give any consent to God making you. How were you to consent, if you didn’t yet exist? So while he made you without you, he doesn’t justify you without you.” Serm. 169:13:3, p. 231. Sermons 151-183, ISBN 1565480074

“So Christ is the bridegroom of this Church, which is being proclaimed to all the nations … beginning from Jerusalem; it’s of the Church that Christ it the bridegroom. What do you say? Of whom is Christ the bridegroom: Of the party of Donatus? Not he, not he; not he, my good man; or rather, my bad man, not he. We’ve come to the wedding, let’s read the documents, don’t’ let’s wrangle. So if you say Christ is the bridegroom of the party of Donatus, I read the documents, and I find that Christ is the bridegroom of the Church spread throughout the whole wide world. If you say he is the other thing, and he isn’t the other thing, then you are denying that Christ has come in the flesh.” 183:11:4, p. 341. Sermons184-229Z, ISBN 1565480503

“In that life, which we are now toiling away to earn our rest in, which Truth promises to give us after the death of this body or even after the end of this world, we are never going to sleep, just as we are never, of course, going to die.” Sermon 221: 3:1 ON THE HOLY NIGHT. Date, about 400.

“What shall I do, since I have become a worthless song, repeating my petition: ‘Change yourselves, change yourselves.’ The end of life is uncertain. Every man walks about at his own risk. Why do you delay to live well, thinking that life will be long?”
Sermon 232:8, Vol. 38, The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation, p. 216

“You read God’s book in order to sin, you listen to God’s scriptures for the purpose of doing something that displeases God.” Ps. 50, vs. 1-2, 3:2, p. 412.

“And the same is true of many people who are not ashamed to sin, but ashamed to do penance. What incredible foolishness! If you are not ashamed of the wound itself, how can you be ashamed of the bandage on your wound? Isn’t it more smelly and disgusting uncovered? Ps. 50, v. 5, no. 8:4, p. 416.

“All the same, dearest friends, at a time when there is so much variation in moral standards and such appalling decadence, keep strict control over your homes.” Ps. 50, v.21, No. 24:2, p.429.

“You forgive sinners who confess; yes, you forgive them, but only when the sinners punish themselves.” Ps. 50, v.8, no. 11:1, p. 419.

“for the robe he wore on the mountain, which shone gleaming white like snow, symbolized the Church, cleansed from every stain of sin.” Ps. 50, v.9, no. 12, p. 421.

Expositions of the Psalms 33-50: Volume 2, ISBN 156548147X
books.google.com/books?id=6jswAAAAYAAJ&q=%22but+only+when+the+sinners+punish+themselves%22&dq=%22but+only+when+the+sinners+punish+themselves%22&lr=&ei=W_oNStOpH6GeygTQpuGUCw&client=firefox&pgis=1

“A sharp mind is a great good, but still the sort that the good can use well and the bad badly; it’s not yet a good by which you can become good. All the perversities of all errors, all sects, preaching deviant morals and ungodliness, have had as their authors men of great brilliance. They weren’t the brain-children of any sort of men, they were started by men of the sharpest intelligence.” –Sermon 374:5:2, pp. 394-395.
Newly Discovered Sermons, ISBN 1565481038

 

[mrnobody]

there is so way you can white-wash those words… just no way …

The words do not have any need of white washing. They do not mean to go and sin all you want with maximum zeal any more than Jesus really wanted people cutting their hands off. You do know what hyperbole is right?

 

[mrnobody]

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.

Ezekial 18:4 says “the soul that sins, it shall die”. Now we could probably sit here and play bible verse ping-pong until the end of time, but that would be fruitless. The question to be asked is what the sense of scripture is. Does the passage you pointed to in 1 John support the idea of a distinction between mortal and venial sin? I don’t think so. I will humbly confess that I don’t know exactly what John is talking about, but I think it should be pointed out that John says not to pray for those who commit the sin leading to death. Does the church teach that you are not to pray for someone who has fallen into mortal sin? If not then I don’t think this passage qualifies as support for the aforementioned distinction. Are some sins more serious than others? Yes I think scripture supports that idea. The scripture does not support the idea that some sins will rob you of salvation and some will only land you in purgatory.

 

[jam070406]

Ezekial 18:4 says “the soul that sins, it shall die”. Now we could probably sit here and play bible verse ping-pong until the end of time, but that would be fruitless. The question to be asked is what the sense of scripture is. Does the passage you pointed to in 1 John support the idea of a distinction between mortal and venial sin? I don’t think so. I will humbly confess that I don’t know exactly what John is talking about, but I think it should be pointed out that John says not to pray for those who commit the sin leading to death. Does the church teach that you are not to pray for someone who has fallen into mortal sin? If not then I don’t think this passage qualifies as support for the aforementioned distinction. Are some sins more serious than others? Yes I think scripture supports that idea. The scripture does not support the idea that some sins will rob you of salvation and some will only land you in purgatory.

Why does it not support the idea of mortal and venial sin? It says there is sin that kills and sin that does not kill, mortal and venial.
I can honestly & humbly admit I’m not sure about the praying part either, perhaps it is because mortal sin knowingly and willfully kills your relationship with God and requires sacramental confession to be absolved.

Yes, all sin leads to death. Venial sin, if not repented of, can lead to mortal sin…death.

 

[Dozie]

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…

That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. Luther commands: “Sin boldly”; Jesus commands the woman accused of adultery: “Go and sin no more”; yet some have the audacity to defend the bold contradiction.

 

[JonNC]

That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. Luther commands: “Sin boldly”; Jesus commands the woman accused of adultery: “Go and sin no more”; yet some have the audacity to defend the bold contradiction.

Luther makes no such command. This was a personal letter, written to a fellow theologian who knew Luther, his hyperbole and style of writing, and would understand what Luther was trying to say using exaggeration.

This is not some doctrinal statement. It is a personal letter to a friend. If you think a personal letter written to a friend should be considered doctrine, then read this and see if that standard applies:
Cardinal Ratzinger

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ **Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, *need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord ***[Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.

Jon

 

[kaycee]

That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. That Luther can’t be trusted is precisely the point. Luther commands: “Sin boldly”; Jesus commands the woman accused of adultery: “Go and sin no more”; yet some have the audacity to defend the bold contradiction.

How can you defend this Pope, who has urged his listeners to murder those of the Jewish race?

In his speech at the Holocaust memorial, John Paul II urged that the extermination of the Jews be completed when he said,

“plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people”.

famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Pope_John_Paul/

We must reject everything this evil man said and stood for! This satanic tool, must not be allowed to decieve further multitudes!

Or we could read the quote in context.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This was a personal letter, written to a fellow theologian who knew Luther, his hyperbole and style of writing, and would understand what Luther was trying to say using exaggeration.

Luther sure seems to exaggerate a lot! But was he exaggerating, for example, when he wrote the following?

"‘What a fool is he who takes a wife,’ says the world, and it is certainly true. And many learned scholars have decided that a wise man should not take a wife, even if she were wisdom personified. This, too, is true and well said, for those who believe that there is no life after this one (as such people do) act almost wisely in falling back on free fornication and not tying themselves to the labor of married life. In this way they have at least fewer evil days in this life. Our clergy have also grasped this point and have neatly committed themselves to chastity, that is, to free fornication, as Dan. 11:372 prophesied of them when he said: “They will neither regard nor desire women.”

"But on the other hand the Spirit says: “He is a wise man who takes a wife.” This, too, is certainly true, and this truth leads to the conclusion that a wise man should take a wife, even though she were foolishness personified. This, too, is right and well said, for since a Christian man is waiting for another life after this one, it is a matter of wisdom that he should have fewer good days on earth so that in eternal life he might enjoy only happy ones; and this seemed good to God when He created man and woman and brought them together.

"In other words, there are two different views of matrimony: one derives from the smart alecks and sophisticates, that is, the principal fools and blind men in the sight of God. These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispense with and do without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. Then they fill the world with their foolish and blasphemous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel—and abundantly demonstrate by their actions—that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night.

"Of this kind is that arch-fool, Johann Schmid of Constance, that renowned whoremonger, who has written an immense book, recently printed in Leipzig, against the state of matrimony. He tries to talk everyone out of it but says nothing more than that there is much effort and labor connected with it, as though this were not sufficiently known throughout the world and as if this a*s must first teach us what every village peasant knows. If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage who prefer to see men married; and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and though they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state.

"They are rascals, not only on the surface but in the bottom of their hearts, and they are unworthy of an answer. And what matter if the whole world were to complain about the state of matrimony? We see right before our eyes that God daily creates not only men but also women and maintains their lives; and yet it is certain that he does not create any woman for the purpose of fornication. But since God’s work and Word stare us in the face, declaring that women must be used either for marriage or for fornication,* these heathenish pretenders should shut their blasphemous mouths and leave God’s Word and work uncriticized and unhampered; unless perhaps they would like to teach us according to their own famed sagacity and contrary to God that all women should be strangled or banished. This would make a fine fool of God: what He does is no good; what we do is well done.

“Now therefore since God created woman that she should and must be with man, it should suffice us that God is on our side, and we should honor the married state as a divine and noble institution. And if the wiseacres do not want to enter it, then let them continue in their heathenish blindness to practice rascality and fornication so long as God may allow it. We have God’s Word on our side; that will remain and not be moved by such blundering Smiths, though they were more numerous than the sands of the sea. Still it is a great sin and shame that we Christians have become such great fools that we first have to ponder and decide whether women ought to be married or not, just as though someone should ask whether he ought to eat and drink in this life.”

• Luther’s Preface to his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, A. D. 1523.

• “Weil denn Gottes Werk und Wort da liegen fur Augen, dass Weiber entweder zur Ehe oder zur Hurerei müssen gebraucht werden.” Sometimes translated as: “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”

Luther’s Works, vol. 28: Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, ISBN 0570064287 / ISBN 9780570064282, pp. 6-7
*Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke * (vol. 51), Exegetische Deutsche Schriften (vol. 19), J. K. Imirscher, Frankfurt am Main und Erlangen, Heyder & Zimmer, 1852, pp. 4-6.
books.google.com/books?id=4EEoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22+zur+Ehe+oder+zur+Hurerei+m%C3%BCssen+gebraucht+werden%22&lr=&ei=YCEPSpD-DpnuNMiDlLoJ

 

[JonNC]

Luther sure seems to exaggerate a lot! But was he exaggerating, for example, when he wrote the following?

"‘What a fool is he who takes a wife,’ says the world, and it is certainly true. And many learned scholars have decided that a wise man should not take a wife, even if she were wisdom personified. This, too, is true and well said, for those who believe that there is no life after this one (as such people do) act almost wisely in falling back on free fornication and not tying themselves to the labor of married life. In this way they have at least fewer evil days in this life. Our clergy have also grasped this point and have neatly committed themselves to chastity, that is, to free fornication, as Dan. 11:372 prophesied of them when he said: “They will neither regard nor desire women.”

"But on the other hand the Spirit says: “He is a wise man who takes a wife.” This, too, is certainly true, and this truth leads to the conclusion that a wise man should take a wife, even though she were foolishness personified. This, too, is right and well said, for since a Christian man is waiting for another life after this one, it is a matter of wisdom that he should have fewer good days on earth so that in eternal life he might enjoy only happy ones; and this seemed good to God when He created man and woman and brought them together.

"In other words, there are two different views of matrimony: one derives from the smart alecks and sophisticates, that is, the principal fools and blind men in the sight of God. These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispense with and do without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. Then they fill the world with their foolish and blasphemous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel—and abundantly demonstrate by their actions—that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night.

"Of this kind is that arch-fool, Johann Schmid of Constance, that renowned whoremonger, who has written an immense book, recently printed in Leipzig, against the state of matrimony. He tries to talk everyone out of it but says nothing more than that there is much effort and labor connected with it, as though this were not sufficiently known throughout the world and as if this a*s must first teach us what every village peasant knows. If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage who prefer to see men married; and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and though they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state.

"They are rascals, not only on the surface but in the bottom of their hearts, and they are unworthy of an answer. And what matter if the whole world were to complain about the state of matrimony? We see right before our eyes that God daily creates not only men but also women and maintains their lives; and yet it is certain that he does not create any woman for the purpose of fornication. But since God’s work and Word stare us in the face, declaring that women must be used either for marriage or for fornication,* these heathenish pretenders should shut their blasphemous mouths and leave God’s Word and work uncriticized and unhampered; unless perhaps they would like to teach us according to their own famed sagacity and contrary to God that all women should be strangled or banished. This would make a fine fool of God: what He does is no good; what we do is well done.

“Now therefore since God created woman that she should and must be with man, it should suffice us that God is on our side, and we should honor the married state as a divine and noble institution. And if the wiseacres do not want to enter it, then let them continue in their heathenish blindness to practice rascality and fornication so long as God may allow it. We have God’s Word on our side; that will remain and not be moved by such blundering Smiths, though they were more numerous than the sands of the sea. Still it is a great sin and shame that we Christians have become such great fools that we first have to ponder and decide whether women ought to be married or not, just as though someone should ask whether he ought to eat and drink in this life.”

• Luther’s Preface to his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7, A. D. 1523.

• “Weil denn Gottes Werk und Wort da liegen fur Augen, dass Weiber entweder zur Ehe oder zur Hurerei müssen gebraucht werden.” Sometimes translated as: “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”

Luther’s Works, vol. 28: Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, ISBN 0570064287 / ISBN 9780570064282, pp. 6-7
*Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke * (vol. 51), Exegetische Deutsche Schriften (vol. 19), J. K. Imirscher, Frankfurt am Main und Erlangen, Heyder & Zimmer, 1852, pp. 4-6.
books.google.com/books?id=4EEoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22+zur+Ehe+oder+zur+Hurerei+m%C3%BCssen+gebraucht+werden%22&lr=&ei=YCEPSpD-DpnuNMiDlLoJ

Oh, please. Go find some quotes about women from Aquinas and Augustine. Further, what was the prevailing view of women in the Church, and in Wittenburg at Luther’s time?
You wish to make Luther, a 16th century figure, speak with 21st century sensibilities.
Your seeming vendetta against Luther is really getting old. That said, you’re welcome to think as you want.

Jon

 

[mrnobody]

Why does it not support the idea of mortal and venial sin? It says there is sin that kills and sin that does not kill, mortal and venial.
I can honestly & humbly admit I’m not sure about the praying part either, perhaps it is because mortal sin knowingly and willfully kills your relationship with God and requires sacramental confession to be absolved.

Yes, all sin leads to death. Venial sin, if not repented of, can lead to mortal sin…death.

It doesn’t because John doesn’t say a sin leading to loss of salvation. He says a sin leading to death. We both know that the “mortal” in mortal sin refers to loss of salvation, or spiritual death. I don’t see John refering to the loss of salvation in this passage; do you? In fact the whole epistle is about salvation, what it looks like, and what those who posses it behave like. I don’t see John refering to loss of salvation anywhere in the entire epistle. So what is it about this passage that causes you to see a sin leading to loss of salvation?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Oh, please. Go find some quotes about women from Aquinas and Augustine. Further, what was the prevailing view of women in the Church, and in Wittenburg at Luther’s time?
You wish to make Luther, a 16th century figure, speak with 21st century sensibilities.
Your seeming vendetta against Luther is really getting old. That said, you’re welcome to think as you want.

Jon

That being so well said, I wanted to mention I’m currently busy with some other projects, and I won’t have the same amount of time to work through this thread.Since I began posting in this thread, I’ve written a lot less elsewhere, like on my blog or at aomin. My time was spent here.

While here though, I did work line for line through a lot of raumzeitmc2’s posts, and it would be quite easy to keep going- that is, none of the material against Luther that he (or she?) has posted comes close to the target.

While I appreciated raumzeitmc2’s zeal and cordial discourse, I think it’s fairly obvious his (or her?) Luther research has serious flaws. I will though, try to stop back here, time allowing.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumKid]

In response to my post about what the Catholic Church teaches, you said this on Tertium’s blog:

In this Catholic answers discussion, the stalker, TertiumKid, tells us what the gospel is according to Rome.
\Jesus came to give us the Law?:

I’ll say this. Jesus did not come to Abolish the Law, but to fulfill it
If you can’t recognize that Matt 5, 6, & 7 are recapitulations of the old law, and making it the Law of Christ, then you are seriously lost. It seems all you want to do is cling on to silly defenses of Luther or other such characters, and calling it gospel. Pity

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Oh, please. Go find some quotes about women from Aquinas and Augustine. Further, what was the prevailing view of women in the Church, and in Wittenburg at Luther’s time?
You wish to make Luther, a 16th century figure, speak with 21st century sensibilities.
Your seeming vendetta against Luther is really getting old.

Jon (& James Swan),

I’m sorry you both feel as you do.

I have no “vendetta” against Luther or anyone else; I’ve simply quoted a mere fraction of the many strange things that man said. There are many things which have yet to be said about him and the other reformers. If you find the reformers words offensive, you should blame them, rather than me!

And have you forgotten that I also praised Luther, as, for example, when I posted these praiseworthy words of his:

"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.”

You can review the post here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5201632&postcount=192

Elsewhere on this forum, I said:

“So I for one, see how in Luther, despite his (seemingly endless) cursings and ravings against “popery” as well as occasional lapses into vulgarity of speech, one may nevertheless find many things both beautiful and edifying.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5073970&postcount=71

So you see, despite being critical (which I have every right to be), I’m also able to see, recognize, and even proclaim an individual’s good qualities!
I simply reserve the right to do both. Where’s the blame in that?

I should also point out that, even if the reformers were very holy men, it wouldn’t necessarily follow they were not also heretics. Pelagius was certainly a heretic, yet Augustine calls him a “saintly man.” Nor does it follow that, because they may have had, say, brilliant minds, their teachings were not still heretical.

Listen to what Vincent of Lerins says about Origen in his Commonitorium:

My belief is, that among many instances of this sort of trial which might be produced, there is not one to be compared with that of Origen, in whom there were many things so excellent, so unique, so admirable, that antecedently any one would readily deem that implicit faith was to be placed all his assertions.

… He had a genius so powerful, so profound, so acute, so elegant, that there was hardly any one whom he did not very far surpass. The splendour of his learning, and of his erudition generally, was such that there were few points of divine philosophy, hardly any of human which he did not thoroughly master…

What shall I say of his eloquence, the style of which was so charming, so soft, so sweet, that honey rather than words seemed to flow from his mouth! …Then I suppose he wrote little? No man more, so that, if I mistake not, his writings not only cannot all be read through, they cannot all be found …

From his school came forth doctors, priests, confessors, martyrs, without number. Then who can express how much he was admired by all, how great his renown, how wide his influence? Who was there whose religion was at all above the common standard that did not hasten to him from the ends of the earth? What Christian did not reverence him almost as a prophet; what philosopher as a master? …

Time would fail me to recount, even in a very small measure, the excellencies of this man, all of which, nevertheless, not only contributed to the glory of religion, but also increased the magnitude of the trial. For who in the world would lightly desert a man of so great genius, so great learning, so great influence, and would not rather adopt that saying, That he would rather be wrong with Origen, than be right with others.

What shall I say more? The result was that very many were led astray from the integrity of the faith, not by any human excellencies of this so great man, this so great doctor, this so great prophet …

Hence it came to pass, that this Origen, such and so great as he was, wantonly abusing the grace of God, rashly following the bent of his own genius, and placing overmuch confidence in himself, making light account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, presuming that *he knew more *than all the world besides, despising the traditions of the Church and the determinations of the ancients, and interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a novel way, deserved for himself the warning given to the Church of God, as applicable in his case as in that of others, “If there arise a prophet in the midst of you,”… “you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet,”…“because the Lord your God does make trial of you, whether you love Him or not.” Deuteronomy 13:1

Truly, thus of a sudden to seduce the Church which was devoted to him, and hung upon him through admiration of his genius, his learning, his eloquence, his manner of life and influence, while she had no fear, no suspicion for herself,— thus, I say, to seduce the Church, slowly and little by little, from the old religion to a new profaneness, was not only a trial, but a great trial.

The case is the same with Tertullian…

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Think about all this my friends.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

Jon (& James Swan),

I’m sorry you both feel as you do.

I have no “vendetta” against Luther or anyone else; I’ve simply quoted a mere fraction of the many strange things that man said. There are many things which have yet to be said about him and the other reformers. If you find the reformers words offensive, you should blame them, rather than me!

And have you forgotten that I also praised Luther, as, for example, when I posted these praiseworthy words of his:

"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.”

You can review the post here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5201632&postcount=192

Elsewhere on this forum, I said:

“So I for one, see how in Luther, despite his (seemingly endless) cursings and ravings against “popery” as well as occasional lapses into vulgarity of speech, one may nevertheless find many things both beautiful and edifying.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5073970&postcount=71

So you see, despite being critical (which I have every right to be), I’m also able to see, recognize, and even proclaim an individual’s good qualities!
I simply reserve the right to do both. Where’s the blame in that?

I should also point out that, even if the reformers were very holy men, it wouldn’t necessarily follow they were not also heretics. Pelagius was certainly a heretic, yet Augustine calls him a “saintly man.” Nor does it follow that, because they may have had, say, brilliant minds, their teachings were not still heretical.

Listen to what Vincent of Lerins says about Origen in his Commonitorium:

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Think about all this my friends.

God bless.

And His blessings to you, as well. I pray the next years will put back together what the 16the century tore apart. Perahps wishful thinking that it would happen by Oct. 31, 2017.
Jon

 

[motstraumen]

How many different meanings can those two words have (Sin boldly)? Yet the people we sin against (and ALL sin is hurtful to someone) don’t appreciate being sinned against (adultery, theft, etc)…

What about Sciprttures that contradict this “do whatever you want but believe all the more” idea? (osas…)

What about the one that says: Whatever you do to the least of Christ’s brethren you do to Jesus? (Mt 25:31)…

What about the one where we are told that if we love him, we will keep his commandments?

i could go on and on…

When are poeple going to realize that they can’t pick and choose when it comes to the Word of God?

Yeah, go ahead and sin - just don’t sin against ME… Is that it?

commit adultery… just not with my spouse… Lie… just not to me… Steal, just not from ME…

sounds really Christian… really loving

I am sure you have been responded too as this seems to be a popular forum area…But Luther was writing to his best friend. The language usage was very different than our Victorian and PC type language of the 21st century. This best friend, Melancthon, was worried about making a decision which often occured with him. Luther wrote at one time Phillip (Melancthon) stings with a pin or needle whereas I use a boar-spear. Luther in typical boar-spear style is telling Melancthon don’t be affraid of making a mistake even sin, because there is a gracious God who is there even through our messes. Sometimes not to act is an even more grevious sin, think of the inaction of so many Christians during WWII. Some were saying based on church authority and the Bible that they must follow the leader for he is from God, some were saying I am too affraid to speak out and stand up. What happened? The sin of inaction led countless damage especially to human kind, and in particular the Jewish people. Maybe this letter of Luther should have been kept in tight top secret hands like our Presidents do with some of their letters and tapes, because it has led to so much misunderstanding. Perhaps Luther should have written Act Boldly, get off your duff and make a decision, but he wrote what he wrote. Understanding the context and the way in which Luther wrote in a private letter to a close personal friend sheds light onto the true meaning of the letter. I don’t know if you are clergy, but you should listen in on a private meeting of clergy. The context of their duties places a lot of stress on them and in the confines of a meeting among fellow clergy sometimes jokes and quips are stated to blow off steam. It sounds tasteless, but can you imagine the weight of daily dealing with people’s problems can have on them. THe same can be said for doctors, lawyers, mortiticians, nurses and on and on, I have heard many of them blow off steam in the same way. In familiar groups we speak differently. Does that put their position of ministers caring for their parishoners? I guess you will have to be the judge.

Peace.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

And His blessings to you, as well. I pray the next years will put back together what the 16the century tore apart. Perahps wishful thinking that it would happen by Oct. 31, 2017.
Jon

With God, anything is possible.

God bless.