The Reformers naturally abandoned all but the legitimate two that Jesus taught.
Luther maintained that Penance was a sacrament.
“Come near to Me, listen to this: from the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.” [Isaiah 48:16 (NASB)]
irrespective, you said the Reformers held to two sacraments, whereas the original Reformer held to three
Repentance was not instituted by Jesus.
Surely Jesus said nothing of repentance...
“Come near to Me, listen to this: from the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.” [Isaiah 48:16 (NASB)]
I'm not sure which "Luther" you're referring to. The one from the 16th century only held to there being two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Nevertheless, it has seemed proper to restrict the name of sacrament to those promises which have signs attached to them. The remainder, not being bound to signs, are bare promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the church of God—baptism and the bread. For only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I added to these two, lacks the divinely instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a way and a return to baptism. (LW 36:124)
What's interesting about this quote (at least to me) is that earlier in the same writing, he said penance was a sacrament (LW 36:21-22), but by the end of the treatise, he had changed his mind (the quote above). The editors of LW note: "Penance he would retain in purified form, but not as a sacrament, because it lacks a visible sign appointed by God; however, he strongly rejects priestly absolution" (LW 36:7-8). While Luther denied that penance was a sacrament, I recall he still confessed his sins the rest of his life.
Doubtful since it is not mentioned at all in the NT.
JohnR
I mentioned this earlier in this discussion. See Luther's discussion in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). Earlier in this writing, he allows for penance to be a sacrament, by the end he had changed his mind. That's hardly "maintained." Perhaps in his research, Curious Joe has this book, but didn't read it to the end.
It's not that Luther "changed his mind" on what a Sacrament was, or that he held the post-Tridentine position that your opponent tried to press. Rather, Luther was simply... well, a Lutheran.
I think it's safe to say Luther held to the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments, which is to say that they're not numbered. At all. Depending on how one defines them, there may be "Two or three" (as the Defense of the Augsburg Confession states: http://bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php), or even more. If even the Lutheran Confessions allow for flexibility, then it's no wonder that Lutherans today even tolerate different numberings. What they're more concerned about (and what the point of Luther's comments were) is how the sacraments are used.
You're both right and both wrong?
ReplyDeleteIt's not that Luther "changed his mind" on what a Sacrament was, or that he held the post-Tridentine position that your opponent tried to press. Rather, Luther was simply... well, a Lutheran.
I think it's safe to say Luther held to the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments, which is to say that they're not numbered. At all. Depending on how one defines them, there may be "Two or three" (as the Defense of the Augsburg Confession states: http://bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php), or even more. If even the Lutheran Confessions allow for flexibility, then it's no wonder that Lutherans today even tolerate different numberings. What they're more concerned about (and what the point of Luther's comments were) is how the sacraments are used.
Hi Don, thanks for the comment and clarification. Are you still posting on CA?
ReplyDelete