Luther: Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Sin":

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day" ['Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther promoted sin.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites multiple references:

'Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404.

The "Wittenberg Project" refers to Project Wittenberg, an on-line source for Luther-related documents. " 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521" refers to this web page from Project Wittenberg. If one looks at the page carefully, it isn't "The Wartburg Segment" but rather It's a letter Luther composed "From the Wartburg" and only a segment is translated. This appears to be the typewritten translation from Erika Bullmann Flores. 

"Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. II, pg. 404" refers to Heinrich Denifle's second volume on Luther (in French, not available in English). Page 404 can be found here. and there is nothing remotely similar to the quote on this page. I would speculate that Luther, Exposing the Myth probably didn't use Denifle, but rather fished this reference out of Antonin Eymieu, Two Arguments for Catholicism (Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1928 ) p. 47. They actually mis-cited the reference, as Eymieu cited page 207 (note 4) of Denifle for this quote, and then cited page 404 for an entirely different quote. Luther, Exposing The Myth didn't even lift this quote correctly from a secondary source!

The context for this quote is easy to track down. It's found in WA, Br 2, No. 424 , DeWette 2, 34, and in English in LW 48:277-282. On August 1, 1521 Luther wrote a letter that most scholars think was addressed to Phillip Melanchthon. The letter is now but a fragment. It has no address, salutation, or signature.

Context

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282].

Conclusion
I've written an extensive treatment of this quote: Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology.

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and this statement is a perfect example. The first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther's point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith.

But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure[Ewald Plass, What Luther Says 3:1315].

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther compares the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Addendum
Sometimes this quote is cited like this:

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”(Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82)

This is the way Shoebat.com's article, Martin Luther The Bare Truth Unfolded cites it, as well as their article, Martin Luther Was Satanic, If He Were Alive Today He Would Be No Different Than Any Of These Sick Heretics Who Encourage Evil And Sin.  If you find the quote cited this way, the source for this appears to have originally come from Father William Most, Luther's Morals. Most put's forth the quote as follows:

<Letter to Melanchthon>, August 1, 1521 (American Edition, , vol. 48, pp. 281-82, edited by H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1963): "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p. 282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. "(emphasis added).

Blog Spotting & Tidbits

I'm often so caught up in my own research projects that I don't have a chance to surf through the blogosphere, and then when I do it's off to view about 10 - 20 different Romanist blogs. This morning though I took some time to read positive materials, and catch up on other things. See, I do read more things than Luther.

Paul Helm has written some wonderful books on John Calvin. I was pleased to find some time back he also has a blog: Helm's Deep. He's re-posted an article which originally appeared in Ligonier's Table Talk devotional: Problems of Evil. This is probably one of the best short expositions on this topic I've ever seen.

Speaking of Calvin, Jamin Hubner has begun a new series critiquing John Calvin's arguments for Paedo-baptism. Even though I'm not a Baptist, I did appreciate this opening post because it pointed out Calvin's incredible intellect, which many take for granted: "I have to say that, given that Calvin didn’t have a) a typewriter, b) any digital books with any search function, c) any digital Bibles with any search function, I am continually amazed at the depth and mastery of the Scriptures that Calvin demonstrates. I feel lost when the internet is down. Calvin would probably laugh in my face and recite in your choice of languages (French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc.) any Scriptural citation you wanted." For a quick treatise on infant baptism, I'm fond of this article by B.B. Warfield.

This is a hard one to listen to at times because of the venue and recording, but Paul Manata posted audio of a dialogue at an Atheist Booth at an Earth Day celebration. If you like a free-for-all-hear-the-atheists-squirm type of thing, this is for you. Thanks Paul!

I haven't listened to to this yet, but I found an mp3 entitled In Memory of Walter Martin (1928-1989): The Original Bible Answer Man Ken Samples Reflects on the Life and Times of Walter Martin found on this web page. Back in my youth, I really enjoyed Walter Martin's stuff. Now as a Reformed person listening back I can appreciate some of his work while knowing where I would disagree with him. He really was one of the first to popularize apologetics and deal with cults. There are other interesting mp3 links on this page as well from Christ Reformed Church.

OK, so I'm not a Federal Vision guy (at all), but this short piece from Doug Wilson makes a good point about defending ourselves.


Harold Camping Tidbits


I live in an area with a strong Family Radio FM signal, and I even get a Family Radio TV channel on my Cable system. There were a number of Camping-ites in my church (they're gone now), but we still have a number of folks listening to Family Radio because they enjoy the music. Well, music is a personal choice, but after about an hour of Family Radio music I may run screaming from the radio.

I found a few recent articles on the Camping phenomenon:

Billboard says that Christ is coming in May

End of Days in May? Believers enter final stretch

'The End of the World Is Coming!' My Experience With Harold Camping

Also if you want to catch up on end times stuff, why not play a board game?

“TheDen” and Ratzinger vs Louis Berkhof on Union with Christ

In comments on my previous post, “The Den” said,

I think the misconceptions that you and John have with Ratzinger’s writings really delineates the chasm between Protestant and Catholic thought. I “think” (Ratzinger's thinking is above mine) I can explain it but it would take A LOT of time and it would require you to understand it from a Catholic mindset.

I have to confess, I’ve been fascinated with what “TheDen” has to say, because he is what I’d call a real, genuine Roman Catholic, as opposed to the epistemologically metastasized variation of Roman Catholic, known generically as a “Catholic apologist” that we frequently encounter here.

I responded by saying, “‘TheDen’, I would be interested in knowing what you know about ‘the Catholic mindset’ that I didn’t grow up with. And he graciously followed up with a brief explanation, which has given us an opportunity not to pick on “TheDen,” but to begin to systematically think about the many differences between Roman Catholicism and Reformed doctrine and theology.

“TheDen” said:

Alright...here goes.

In Catholic thought, we are united to Christ. We become one with Him per John 15. How does this happen? It happens through our obedience to Him. We no longer follow our will but rather we follow Christ. It’s no longer I--it’s now Christ. And then, per Galatians, it’s “no longer I who live but rather Christ who lives inside me.” In essence, we become Christ but only in obedience to Him. We are united to Him and He nourishes us and in doing His will, we spread forth His message. (emphasis added).

I just want to focus on this one point for now. (I’ll refer you to the discussion thread for “TheDen”’s further explication of “the Catholic mindset.” I’d like to give “TheDen” (or any other Roman Catholic) an opportunity to defend this particular item from the CCC or Denzinger or the Bible (if they can find it), but I wanted to point this out. This is exactly the mindset I grew up with. And it is illustrative of one reason why I came to the conclusion that I could not remain as a Roman Catholic.

The Reformed doctrine of “Union with Christ” was prevalent in Calvin’s Institutes, and it has undergirded Reformed thinking on salvation ever since. In the traditional order of “systematic theology,” Soteriology, or the doctrine of Salvation, is not the first thing to be discussed. Prior to Soteriology, it is most important to discuss Revelation, the Doctrine of God, the Works of God, Anthropology (that is, the Doctrine of Man in relation to God), the Doctrine of Christ, and the person and work of Christ. And I don’t want to criticize TheDen for a knowledge or lack of knowledge of systematic theology. But what I do want to point out is that his thinking is fairly characteristic of “a good Catholic”. It is, I think, a result of faulty Roman Catholic understandings of things like Revelation, the doctrine of God (Pseudo-Dionysius, for example), the Doctrine of Man (the donum superadditum, for example, and on and on).

At this point, “TheDen” was complaining that the song “Good Morning Starshine” had gotten stuck in his head. So as a public service to “TheDen”, I’ll provide another song that will stick inside his head, with the hope of moving that one out. A warning to my Reformed brethren: this is a point at which “the Catholic mindset” – very bad Roman Catholic theology -- has reached into popular culture, in the popular song “Last Kiss,” written by Wayne Cochran in 1962, and performed a number of times over the last 50 years, most recently here by Pearl Jam.

Oh where oh were could my baby be
The lord took her away from me
She's gone to heaven so I've got to be good
So I can see my baby when I leave this world

Not to spend too much time on that sort of thing, but it’s just to say, I guess, that is why theology matters and precisely why it matters on so many fronts.

We’ve had so many Roman Catholics come here and talk about “the Church” (meaning “the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, constituted and organized in the world as a society, [which] subsists in the [Roman] Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”), as “the ongoing Incarnation of Christ” or for short, “The Church = Christ”, that I thought it would be best to provide a Reformed and thoroughly biblical explanation of what “Union with Christ” actually means.

It seems as if Roman Catholics like to throw this out to Protestants as if to say, “our Church is better than your church.” But this is not at all the case. We do not have to work for “Union with Christ”; it is a gift of God, established (as in Ephesians 1:4, for example) “from before the foundation of the world”. In “the Catholic mindset,” this union “happens through our obedience to Him.” In Reformed theology, “those who will be saved were not even contemplated [apart from union with Christ] by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love … —they were chosen in Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain, we find ‘union with Christ’; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset.” (Robert Reymond, “Systematic Theology,” Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing, ©1998, pgs 736-737, citing John Murray, “Redemption—Accomplished and Applied, 162).

Here is Berkhof’s exposition:

Calvin repeatedly expresses the idea that the sinner cannot share in the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, unless he be in union with Him, and thus emphasizes a very important truth. As Adam was the representative head of the old humanity, so Christ is the representative head of the new humanity. All blessings of the covenant of grace flow from Him who is the Mediator of the covenant. Even the very first blessing of the saving grace of God which we receive already presupposes a union with the Person of the Mediator…. Every spiritual blessing which believers receive flows to them out of Christ. Hence Jesus in speaking of the coming Paraklete could say unto his disciples: “He shall glorify me; for He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you,” (John 16:14). Subjectively, the union between Christ and believers is effected by the Holy Spirit in a mysterious and supernatural way, and for that reason is generally designated as the unio mystica or mystical union.

(The Ford Lewis Battles translation of The Institutes notes that “Calvin nowhere teaches “the absorption of the pious mystic into the sphere of the divine being,” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ©1960, Vol 1, pg 737, 3.11.20, n.20) as we’ve seen Ratzinger do, on multiple occasions.)

Reformed theology … deals with the union of believers with Christ theologically, and as such … employs the term “mystical union” in a broad sense as a designation not only of the subjective union of Christ and believers, but also of the union that lies back of it, that is basic to it, and of which it is only the culminating expression, namely, the federal union of Christ and those who are His in the counsel of redemption, the mystical union ideally established in that eternal counsel [within the Trinity, in eternity past], and the union as it is objectively effected in the incarnation and the redemptive work of Christ.

1. The Federal Union of Christ with Those Whom the Father has Given Him, in the Counsel of Redemption.
In the counsel of [redemption], Christ voluntarily took upon Himself to be the Head and Surety of the elect, destined to constitute the new humanity, and as such to establish their righteousness before God by paying the penalty for their sin and by rendering perfect obedience to the law and thus securing their everlasting life. In that eternal covenant the sin of His people was imputed to Christ, and His righteousness was imputed to them. This imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people is sometimes represented as a justification from eternity. It is certainly the eternal basis of our justification by faith, and is the ground on which we receive all spiritual blessings and the gift of life eternal. And this being so, it is basic to the whole of soteriology, and even to the first states in the aplicationof the work of redemption, such as regeneration and internal calling.

2. The union of life ideally established in the Counsel of Redemption.
In the case of the first Adam there was not only a federal, but also a natural and organic union between him and his descendants. There was the tie of a common life between him and all his progeny, and this made it possible that the blessings of the covenant of works, if these had eventuated, could have been passed on to the whole organism of mankind in an organic way. A somewhat similar situation obtained in the case of the last Adam as the representative Head of the covenant of redemption. Like the first Adam, He did not represent a conglomeration of disjointed individuals, but a body of men and women who were to derive their life from Him, to be united by spiritual ties, and thus to form a spiritual organism. Ideally this body, which is the Church, was already formed in the covenant of redemption, and formed in union with Christ, and this union made it possible that all the blessings merited by Christ could be passed on to those whom He represented in an organic way. They were conceived of as a glorious body, a new humanity, sharing the life of Jesus Christ. It was in virtue of that union, as it was realized in the course of history, that Christ could say: “Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me,” (Heb. 2:13).

3. The union of life objectively realized in Christ.
In virtue of the legal or representative union [“forensic” union, through “imputation”] established in the covenant of redemption Christ became incarnate as the substitute for His people, to merit all the blessings of salvation for them. Since His children were sharers in flesh and blood, “He also in like manner partook of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” (Heb 2:1-15). He could merit salvation for them just because He already stood in relation to them as their Surety and Mediator, their Head and Substitute. The whole Church was included in Him as her Head. In an objective sense she was crudified with Christ, she died with Him, she arose in Him from the dead, and was made to sit with Him in the heavenly places. All the blessings of saving grace lie ready for the Church in Christ; man can add nothing to them; and they now only await their subjective application by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is also merited by Christ and is sure of progressive realization [sanctification] in the course of history.

4. The union of life subjectively realized by the operation of the Holy Spirit.
The work of Christ was not finished when He has merited salvation for His people and had obtained actual possession of the blessings of salvation. In the Counsel of Redemption He took it upon Himself to put all His people in possession of all these blessings, and He does this through the operation of the Holy Spirit, who takes all things out of Christ, and gives them unto us. [Note that Christ does not further empower “the Church” to hand “possession of blessings” to people. This is a direct mediation by the Holy Spirit, and in fact, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heresies, 28, refers specifically to the Holy Spirit as “The Vicar of Christ”.] We should not conceive of the subjective realization of the mystical union in the Church atomistically, as if it were effected by bringing now this and then that individual sinner to Christ. It should be seen from the point of view of Christ. Objectively, the whole Church is in Him, and is born out of Him as the Head. It is not a mechanism, in which the parts precede the whole, but an organism, in which the whole is prior to the parts. The parts come forth out of Christ through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and then continue in living relationship with Him. Jesus calls attention to this organic relationship when he says: “I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing,” (John 15:5). In view of what was said, it is quite evident that it is not correct to say that the mystical union is the fruit of man’s believing acceptance of Christ, as if faith were not one of the blessings of the covenant which flow unto us from the fullness of Christ, but a condition which man must meet partly or wholly in his own strength, in order to enter into a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Faith is first of all a gift of God, and as such a part of the treasures that are hidden in Christ. It enables us to appropriate on our part what is given unto us in Christ, and it enter ever increasingly into conscious enjoyment of the blessed union with Christ, which is the source of all our spiritual riches. (Berkhof, “Systematic Theology,” pg 447-449).

So Ratzinger and “TheDen” get it precisely backwards.

Luther: We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "The Commandments":

“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (De Wette 4, 188).

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ said keep the commandments, while Luther says the opposite.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "De Wette 4, 188." De Wette" refers to a collection of Luther's letters. Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette compiled five volumes of Luther's letters: Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken (the set was later expanded). Page 188 of volume 4 is a section from a letter Luther wrote to Jerome Weller, 1530. The letter begins on page 186. On page 188, the text reads:

Luther, Exposing the Myth probably didn't take this quote from De Wette 4. Rather, they probably took it from Patrick O’Hare's The Facts About Luther (Illinois: Tan Books, 1987), p. 311 (315). O'Hare offers, "We must," he says, "remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart" (De Wette, 4, 188). If you do a simple search, you can see how far this quote has traveled.

This letter is not available in the English edition of Luther's Works. It has though been cited either in full or partially in a number of works. The letter itself also has quite a polemical history, cited often by Roman Catholic sources. The English translation below comes from W.H.T. Dau, Luther examined and reexamined: a review of Catholic criticism and a plea for revaluation (Concordia Pub. House, 1917 ), pp. 119-122 [another translation can be found here]. There is some ambiguity as to the date. Dau dates the letter "sometime in July." Others date the letter to November. Hartmann Grisar goes with July and points out, "In the older reprints the letter was erroneously put at a later date" [source].


Context

Grace and peace in Christ. My dearest Jerome, you must firmly believe that your affliction is of the devil, and that you are plagued in this manner because you believe in Christ. For you see that the most wrathful enemies of the Gospel, as, for instance, Eck, Zwingli, and others, are suffered to be at ease and happy. All of us who are Christians must have the devil for our adversary and enemy, as Peter says: 'Your adversary, the devil, goeth about,' etc., 1 Pet. 5, 8. Dearest Jerome, you must rejoice over these onslaughts of the devil, because they are a sure sign that you have a gracious and merciful God. You will say: This affliction is more grievous than I can bear; you fear that you will be overcome and vanquished, so that you are driven to blasphemy and despair. I know these tricks of Satan: if he cannot overcome the person whom he afflicts at the first onset, he seeks to exhaust and weaken him by incessantly attacking him, in order that the person may succumb and acknowledge himself beaten. Accordingly, whenever this affliction befalls you, beware lest you enter into an argument with the devil, or muse upon these death-dealing thoughts. For this means nothing else than to yield to the devil and succumb to him. You must rather take pains to treat these thoughts which the devil instills in you with the severest contempt. In afflictions and conflicts of this kind contempt is the best and easiest way for overcoming the devil. Make up your mind to laugh at your adversary, and find some one whom you can engage in a conversation. You must by all means avoid being alone, for then the devil will make his strongest effort to catch you; he lies in wait for you when you are alone. In a case like this the devil is overcome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing with him. My dear Jerome, you must engage in merry talk and games with my wife and the rest, so as to defeat these devilish thoughts, and you must be intent on being cheerful. This affliction is more necessary to you than food and drink. I shall relate to you what happened to me when I was about your age. When I entered the cloister, it happened that at first I always walked about sad and melancholy, and could not shake off my sadness. Accordingly, I sought counsel and confessed to Dr. Staupitz, --I am glad to mention this man's name. I opened my heart to him, telling him with what horrid and terrible thoughts I was being visited. He said in reply: Martin, you do not know how useful and necessary this affliction is to you; for God does not exercise you thus without a purpose. You will see that He will employ you as His servant to accomplish great things by you. This came true. For I became a great doctor--I may justly say this of myself--; but at the time when I was suffering these afflictions I would never have believed that this could come to pass. No doubt, that is what is going to happen to you: you will become a great man. In the mean time be careful to keep a brave and stout heart, and impress on your mind this thought that such remarks which fall from the lips chiefly of learned and great men contain a prediction and prophecy. I remember well how a certain party whom I was comforting for the loss of his son said to me: Martin, you will see, you will become a great man. I often remembered this remark, for, as I said, such remarks contain a prediction and a prophecy. Therefore, be cheerful and brave, and cast these exceedingly terrifying thoughts entirely from you. Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the company of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play some jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a person must drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even commit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to leave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most trifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear that we may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. Accordingly, if the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you must tell him: Just because you forbid it, I shall drink, and that, liberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satan forbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the whole law entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide."

Conclusion
Usually this letter is singled out because of the counsel Luther gave to his friend to "drink more freely." For this quote though, Luther's alleged aversion to the Ten Commandments is in view. This is hardly the case, as I've documented here. When Luther makes strong statements against the Law, it's always the Law considered as a means of salvation or justification. While Luther, Exposing the Myth sees Luther as a gross antinomian hoping to "remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart," the actual advice to Jerome Weller  is quite sound. W.H.T. Dau notes,

In Luther's remarks about sinning to spite the devil we have always heard an echo from his life at the cloister. One's judgment about the monastic life is somewhat mitigated when one hears how Dr. Staupitz and the brethren in the convent at Erfurt would occasionally speak to Luther about the latter's sins. Staupitz called them "Puppensuenden." It is not easy to render this term by a short and apt English term; "peccadillo" would come near the meaning. A child playing with a doll will treat it as if it were a human being, will dress it, talk to it, and pretend to receive answers from it, etc. That is the way, good Catholics were telling Luther, he was treating his sins. His sins were no real sins, or he had magnified their sinfulness out of all proportion. This same advice Luther hands on to another who was becoming a hypochondriac as he had been. When the mind is in a morbid state it imagines faults, errors, sins, where there are none. The melancholy person in his self-scrutiny becomes an intolerant tyrant to himself. He will flay his poor soul for trifles as if they were the blackest crimes. In such moments the devil is very busy about the victim of gloom and despair. Luther has diagnosed the case of Weller with the skill of a nervous specialist. He counsels Weller not to judge himself according to the devil's prompting, and, in order to break Satan's thrall over him, to wrench himself free from his false notions of what is sinful. In offering this advice, Luther uses such expressions as: "Sin, commit sin," but the whole context shows that he advises Weller to do that which is in itself not sinful, but looks like sin to Weller in his present condition. When Luther declares he would like to commit a real brave sin himself as a taunt to the devil, he adds: "Would that I could!" That means, that, as a matter of fact, he could not do it and did not do it, because it was wrong. What bold immoral act did Weller commit in consequence of Luther's advice? What immoralities are there in Luther's own life? Luther's letters did not convey the meaning to his morbid young friend that Catholic writers think and claim they did. (Luther Examined and Reexamined, p.124-125).

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Green Baggins in discussion with Roman Catholics

There are some good discussions at Green Baggins; they have begun a review of the Robert Sungenis work, Not By Scripture Alone.

Subsequent posts include:

Sungenis's Preface
A Blueprint for Order
Some Presuppositions and Rules for Protestant/Catholic discussions on GB

Key to these discussions is the way that Rome understands the word "church," and the subtle way it defines itself as "church" while it simultaneously excludes Protestants from being "church".

The key document is the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, and section 8, which contains this definition:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy [Roman] Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". [Note the abuse of 1 Tim 3:15 as a proof-text here]. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the [Roman] Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

The key word from that selection is the word subsists in, which is a change from prior documents, which expressed that "this [Roman Catholic] Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Roman Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him ..." It actually went further than that. The language surrounding "the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" is a scale-back of the language of Vatican I.

But what Rome seems to give, in terms of "good will towards Protestants" with one hand, it takes back with the other. While some theologians understood the word "subsists" as allowing for other Ratzinger, it has been noted that Ratzinger sees the word "subsists in" as meaning "integral existence as a complete, self-contained subject."

See the Avery Dulles article in the February 2006 issue of "First Things," From Ratzinger to Benedict.

It is Ratzinger who is behind the documents that prohibits addressing Protestant churches as "churches," but rather, calls them "ecclesial communities."

Please note this well:

Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness (unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, “nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.”

From the document: "COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENT 'RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH'"

This is the attitude that we are dealing with when you speak with the more informed Roman Catholics here. Some of the luddites merely echo these sentiments in their own bad way.

Good Morning, Pope Starshine, Part 3: Michael Horton’s New Systematic Theology Would Categorize You as a Panentheist.

Here is Ratzinger in 1969, from “Introduction to Christianity”:

...If Jesus is the exemplary man, in whom the true figure of man, God’s intention for him, comes fully to light, then he cannot be destined to be merely an absolute exception, a curiosity, in which God demonstrates to us just what is possible. His existence concerns all mankind. The New Testament makes this perceptible by calling him an “Adam”; in the Bible this word expresses the unity of the whole creature “man”, so that one can speak of the biblical idea of a “corporate personality” [emphasis added]. So if Jesus is called “Adam” this implies that he is intended to gather the whole creature “Adam” in himself. But this means that the reality which Paul calls, in a way that is largely incomprehensible to us today, the “body of Christ” is an intrinsic postulate of this existence, which cannot remain an exception but must “draw to itself” the whole of mankind (cf John 12:32).(176)

It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he re-thought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency towards the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again. Let us listen to his own words: the human monad [monad being Ratzinger’s word; Teilhard de Chardin’s words are in “quotes”] “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely the order of the infinitely complex. It is the real goal of the ascending powers of growth or becoming; it reaches a first peak in the genesis of living things and then continues to advance to those highly complex creations which give the cosmos a new centre: [emphasis added] “Imperceptible and accidental as the position which they hold may be in the history of the heavenly bodies, in the last analysis the planets are nothing less than the vital points of the universe. It is through them that the axis now runs, on them henceforth concentrated the main effort of an evolution aiming principally at the production of large molecules.”

The examination of the world by the dynamic criterion of complexity thus signifies “a complete inversion of values. A reversal of the perspective.”

But let us return to man. He is so far the maximum in complexity. But even he as a mere man-monad cannot represent an end; his growth itself demands a further advance in complexity: “At the same time as he represents an individual centred on himself (that is, a ‘person’), does not Man also represent an element in relation to some new and higher synthesis?” That is to say, man is indeed on the one hand already an end that can no longer be reversed, no longer be melted down again; yet in the juxtaposition of individual men he is not yet at the goal but shows himself to be an element, as it were, that longs for a whole which will embrace it without destroying it. Let us look at a further text, in order to see in what direction such ideas lead: “Contrary to the appearances still accepted by Physics, the Great Stability is not below – in the infra-elemental – but above – in the ultra-synthetic.”

So it must be discovered that “If things hold and hold together, it is only by virtue of ‘complexification’, from the top”. I think we are confronted here with a crucial statement; at this point the dynamic view of the world destroys the positivistic conception, so near to all of us, that stability is located only in the “mass”, in hard material. That the world is in the last resort put together and held together “from above” here becomes evident in a way that is particularly striking because we are so little accustomed to it.

Then in July 2009, in an address in Aosta, Italy, Benedict again, as pope, cites Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his pantheistic vision, far beyond what was said in “Introduction to Christianity” and claims that “the cosmos becomes a living host” (From this post.):

“Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice”. This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

Now, a brief selection from Michael Horton’s new Systematic Theology is online. He provides these definitions for both “Pantheism” and “Panentheism”:

A. Pantheism and Panentheism: Overcoming Estrangement

The first grand narrative erases (or tends to erase) the infinite-qualitative distinction between God and creatures. Narrated in myriad myths across many cultures, this is the story of the ascent of the soul — that divine part of us, which has somehow become trapped in matter and history. Although it originates in dualism — a stark (even violent) opposition between finite and infinite, matter and spirit, time and eternity, humanity and God, the goal is to reestablish the unity of all reality. In some versions, only that which is infinite, spiritual, eternal, and divine is real, so all else perishes or is somehow elevated into the upper world. Nevertheless, the goal is to lose all particularity and diversity in the One, which is Being itself….

Within the history of Western Christianity there have been tendencies among some mystics to move in a pantheistic direction. An extreme example is the fourteenth- century mystic Meister Eckhart, who wrote in a characteristic sermon, “To the inward-turned man all things have an inward divinity. . . . Nothing is so proper to the intellect, nor so present and near as God.” The connection between rationalism and mysticism is as old as Platonism itself. This outer-inner dualism has characterized much of radical mysticism in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as well as in Sufi Islam and Jewish Kabbalism. This trajectory continued in radical Protestantism from the Anabaptists to the early Enlightenment. It is especially evident in the philosophy of Benedict Spinoza (1632-77), which was revived in German Romanticism and American Transcendentalism. Its influence is evident in the dominant forms of theological liberalism and especially today in New Age and neopagan spiritualities.…

Some have tried to blend pantheism (“all is divine”) with belief in a personal God (theism). Often identified as panentheism (“all-within-God”), this view holds that “God” or the divine principle transcends the world, although God and the world exist in mutual dependence. In varying degrees of explicit dependence, panentheism is the working ontology of process theology and the theologies of Teilhard de Chardin, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann among many others, especially those working at the intersection of theology and the philosophy of science. Some panentheists envision the world as the body of God. (Michael Horton, “The Christian Faith,” Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, ©2011, pgs 36-39.)

World Magazine reports mass exodus from Roman Catholicism

World Magazine has picked up on a theme that we've noted here many times: people are leaving the Roman Catholic church in droves.

Tim Pereira was an altar boy and his father played guitar in the church's folk music group. The family often gathered in the church basement after Mass to drink coffee and eat doughnuts with friends in their tight-knit parish. They ate spaghetti dinners with the rest of the church, browsed church bazaars, and went on family retreats. Their priest was a caring man who oversaw a close congregation.

Pereira remembers only community and warmth from his childhood in the Roman Catholic Church. He has no horror stories of cold churches or abusive priests. So why is Tim Pereira, 30, now an evangelical?

Pereira joins the 10 percent of Americans who have left the Catholic faith. While some high-profile Protestant intellectuals, such as Richard John Neuhaus in the 1990s, have converted to Roman Catholicism, the overall trend seems to be in the opposite direction. According to David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam in American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, the Roman Catholic Church is "hemorrhaging members." The Pew Forum's 2007 "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" found that Catholics have experienced the greatest net loss of any American religious tradition....

Pereira, whose grandparents immigrated from Portugal, said his Catholic identity was "almost like a nationality." Chris Castaldo, author of Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic, echoes Pereira: "Catholicism is more than propositions that you believe. It's your culture. It's your identity. . . . It's hard to just walk away from that."

As Carl Trueman recently noted, most Roman Catholics are so for cultural reasons.

Norman Geisler put it into perspective:

So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. So, invite a Catholic to your Bible study or church. There is a good possibility that they will get saved! They have a least been pre-evangelized by Roman Catholicism to believe in God, miracles, Christ, His death and resurrection. Once they find that works are not a necessary condition for salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-6) but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, they will make great evangelical Christians. They will realize that we can’t work for grace but that we do work from grace.

Of course, there are some of us, many of us, who are rejecting Rome because of its ungodly doctrines.

HT: Constantine

Taylor Marshall on "signs of Predestination" and David Meyer on Limited Atonement at Called to Communion

Taylor Marshall has written a short blog article on "Signs of Predestination" at Called to Communion.See, "Signs of Predestination"

David Meyer, a new convert to Roman Catholicism from a Reformed background
also commented in the comboxes on the difficulty of letting go of "Limited Atonement". (Comment # 7; see below)


I wrote two responses, now awaiting moderation. For this article, I corrected some phrases and added a few thoughts, but it is basically the same as what I left in the comboxes. I hope my comments go through.

Taylor, you wrote:
However, it would be wrong to suppose that Catholic deny predestination per se. Rather, the doctrine of predestination is upheld, albeit with a important qualifications.

Arminians, RCs, and EOs, all must confess some kind of doctrine of Predestination, because the word is there in Scripture, along with the concepts of God’s Sovereignty and election. Ephesians 1:4-5; I Peter 1:1-2; Romans 8:28-34; Acts 2:22-23; Acts 4:27-28; Romans chapter 9, and many others.

Is the Roman Catholic view of predestination the “foreknowledge of future faith and perseverance in some, and then God responds to future faith” ? Or is the Roman Catholic view the “chosen in the Chosen One” view? Or what?

How do you get around the fact that foreknowledge is about knowing a person, not about knowing that they will have faith; (although God knows all things infallibly) ? “whom He foreknew” (Romans 8:29); “Before I formed in the womb, I knew you” (Jer. 1:5)

As a Catholic, what is now more important to me is the “signs of predestination.” In other words “faith alone” is by no means a sign that one is among the elect of God.

Taylor, you make it sound like “faith alone” is taught by Protestants as the only sign or evidence of Predestination. “Faith alone” historically refers to the only way in which someone is justified before God. Luther spoke of living faith and the results of true faith. Calvin and the Westminster Confession says, “we are justified by faith alone, but that faith does not stay alone”, that is, it results in good works, fruit, patience, perseverance, love – very close to those first seven things you mention in your article. Number 8, devotion to Mary, is no where in the Scriptures, so that one is wrong. In fact Devotion to Mary is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. So, it seems that you and the Dominican father that you quote do not believe in the material sufficiency view, but the partim partim view of Scripture and tradition. It seems that that really is the view of the RCC, that “God’s word” is found partly in Scripture and partly in tradition, and tradition according to Rome, is the ability of the church to bring out new doctrines and dogmas that did not exist in the Bible or the earliest centuries.


So follow the eight signs of predestination, but especially foster a deep filial love for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Where is that in Scripture that devotion to Mary is a sign of Predestination? And then, you make it even harder by the word “especially” as if it is more important that the other seven, yet the other seven are in Scripture, at least in principle.

When Jesus gives His mother to the apostle John as the cross, sound exegesis shows that that this is historical narrative and Jesus is giving her specifically to John for John to take care of her. It seems like “adding to the word of God” to then say that Jesus is giving Mary to be the mother of all believers. Even if one wants to say that this shows that Mary is the spiritual mother of all believers, which it doesn’t; beyond that [originally, “then”], Scripture is silent on prayers or praises or devotions to Mary. Praying in front of her picture or statue is wrong and looks like idolatry.

[I add for this article: Taylor, you have added to the word of God, and you do what Jesus condemned the Pharisees and scribes of doing in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. ]

What version of 2 Peter 1:10 are you using? “as long as you practice these things” – these things refers to the things in verses 5-9, and nothing there indicates any Marian devotion, so your argument is defeated.

Taylor, [you called Peter, “that holy pontiff” when quoting 2 Peter 1:10. ] If Peter was the “holy pontiff” or “Pope” or “bishop of Rome” or “bishop of bishops”, he failed to mention it in both of his letters. In I Peter 5:1 he calls himself “fellow – elder”; and in 2 Peter he says that the way he is diligent so that the believers will have a way to stir up their sincere minds in the truth by way of reminder is by his writing this second letter. (2 Peter 1:12-18; 3:1) If there was a such thing as a pope, then he would have mentioned it here, since he knows he is going to die and he is being diligent so that they will have a writing to read and meditate on after he is dead and gone.


David Meyer wrote:
I have always thought that Limited Atonement was really the center of TULIP. . . . It is also one doctrine that I continue to struggle to let go of. (well worn mental paths need some magisterial grass seed thrown on them!)

David,
Thanks for your honesty about having a hard time letting go of the Scriptural teaching of Christ’s particular, powerful, effective Atonement. That is very interesting. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 show that the people that Christ redeemed by His blood are “out of” (ek ) every tribe, and tongue, and people and nation. It is clear; and that helps us interpret I John 2:2 and II Cor. 5:14-15 properly.

Without that, then you are left with an atonement where Christ died for every individual, but only makes them savable, and does not actually save them. A universal atonement for all individuals does not turn the wrath of God away from anybody. How can it be a saving, powerful, effective atonement? It is up to the person then by the moral power of his own will to chose Christ, which seems like Pelagianism or at least semi-Pelagianism, even if the RCC denies them officially.

“magisterial grass seed” are thorns and thistles that choke out the word of God. The reason why it is so hard to get rid of, is because it is Scriptural and Scripture is more powerful and over all the RCC additions to the word of God. This desire for extra things to crowd out the word of God really speaks volumes, and shows that you have to go outside of Scripture in order to “convince yourself” of the RCC doctrines.

Sola Scriptura As Against Division

We're often told that sola Scriptura is a "blueprint for anarchy." Yet here John Frame utilizes the sola Scriptura principle to produce something of an opposite result:

Remarkably, Scripture itself never says that believers should leave a church organization and form a new one because of false teaching. Israel in the Old Testament was often guilty of idolatry. Revivals of true worship occurred from time to time, but the nation, including the religious establishment, relapsed. After the exile, the Scribes and Pharisees represented movements toward religious purity; but Jesus said they "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces" (Matt. 23:13) and made each proselyte "twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (verse 15). They are "full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (verse 28). Jesus says that God will judge these religious leaders (verses 32-36), a threat fulfilled in the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

But nowhere in the Old Testament, nor in Jesus' teaching, does God command believers to abandon Israel and to form a new nation, church, or denomination. God himself brings a separation between the followers of Christ and Judaism, when the synagogues expel Christians from their fellowship, and when the temple is destroyed. But there is no exhortation in the New Testament for Jewish Christians voluntarily to leave the synagogues. Rather, it is assumed that believers, like the apostles, will bear witness within the synagogues to God’s grace in Christ, as long as they are able to do so. This was the practice of the apostle Paul, who preached the gospel in the synagogues wherever he traveled.

As we have seen, there is doctrinal and practical corruption in the New Testament church as well. But again, the apostles do not call on believers to leave their churches and form new ones because of corruption. Rather, the churches themselves are to take action against it (as 1 Cor. 5:1-13). Even the church at Laodicaea, which Jesus threatens to spit out of his mouth (Rev. 3:16), is still a church (verse 14), and Jesus does not counsel true believers to leave it. Rather, he tells the whole church to repent.

The apostolic church of the New Testament is not a voluntary association. Every believer is joined to it in the body of Christ. That church is both organism and organization: it is a body, held together by the Spirit, and it is an organization, ruled by apostles, prophets, elders, and deacons. Where disputes exist, there is an orderly pattern for resolving them (Matt. 18:15-20) including provision for excommunication (verse 17, 1 Cor. 5) in extreme cases. Rightly appointed leaders are to be obeyed (Heb. 13:17). So in the first century nobody had the right to leave the apostolic church and start a new denomination (The Doctrine of the Christian Life [P & R Publishing, 2008], 399-400).

Frame has much more to say on this issue, but this suffices for the point at hand.

(Interested readers can request a larger excerpt from this chapter by e-mail. The address is located on my blogger profile.)

Luther allowed marriages between brother and sister & parent and child?

ht: Ben

Luther allowed marriages between brother and sister as well as parent and child? So says Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle. His findings rest on one word from Luther, "dead":

In 1528, all the marriage impediments juris ecclesiastici were declared by him to be dead, i.e., set aside; also even such as are juris naturalis, or nearly akin to it, consanguinitas, affinitas, and publicae honestatis. This follows from Luther's marginal note, "dead," on Spalatin's general paragraph: "What blood-relationship, marriage-relationship, and spiritual affinity hinder marriage." In an incredible but logical manner, he then declares "dead," i.e. set aside, the impedimenta consanguinitatis (969) also consanguinitas in linea recta, at least insofar as it forbids marriage in infinitum (a), and consanguinitas in linea obliqua, even in the first degree between brother and sister (b). Naturally there was less difficulty in the cases of marriage with the daughter of one's brother or sister, and with the sister of one's father or mother (a), or in the degrees of affinitas or marriage relationship (c, d), or in publica honestas (e).

All this was included in Luther's conception of Christian liberty, i.e., unbounded and unbridled licentiousness, not less, indeed, than in his endeavor to do the opposite of the provisions of the laws of the Church. Of the permissibility of marriage in the first degree of blood-relationship, Protestants of that time said nothing, as neither did Luther to my knowledge. But here and there in the circles of his followers, people were scandalized on account of the marriages of persons related in the second or third degree, such marriages being considered contrary to natural decorum.

(969)On Jan. 3, 1528, John, Elector of Saxony, asked Luther to revise and correct Spalatin's memorial on marriage matters. Luther did so. Spalatin's memorial, with Luther's corrections and marginal notes, was printed in Burkhardt's "Martin Luthers Briefwechsel", p. 123-130 (thence taken by Enders, VI, 182-186). The portions that interest us are found on p. 130. The general section in Spalatin's memorial reads : "Welche Sippschaft und Magschaft nach Vermuge und Ordnung die Ehe verhindern." On this Luther wrote the all-annihilating word "tod"—dead, i.e., set aside. In detail: (a) "Zum ersten so ist den Personen, so einander in der aufsteigenden und neidersteigenden Linie verwandt, die Ehe in infinitum durch und durch allenthalben verboten." On this proposition Luther made the marginal annotation, "tod." Spalatin continues: (b) "Zum andern : Bruder und Schwester mogen sich nicht verehelichen, so mag einer auch seines Bruders oder Scliwester Tochter oder Enkel nicht nehmen. Desgleichen ist verboten seines Vaters, Grossvaters, der Mutter, Grossmutter Schwester zu heiraten." Luther wrote on the margin of the first line, and at the same time for the whole proposition, "tod." Propositions on affinitas (c, d) and publica honestas (d) follow. Moreover, the lawfulness of marriage between brother and sister according to Luther is a consequence of his principles, and only the imperial law would have been able to determine him for its unlawfulness. From his "tod" on proposition a, it would also have been possible to prove that, according to him, even marriage between father and daughter, mother and son was lawful [source].

This charge was evaluated by Preserved Smith in his review of Denifle's book:

Luther And Lutherdom. From Original Sources by Heinrich Denifle. Translated from the Second Revised Edition of the German by RayMund Volz. Vol. I, Part 1. Torch Press. Somerset, Ohio. 1917. Pp. lii, 465.

To call, with Gooch, "Denifle's eight hundred pages hurled at the memory of the Reformer among the most repulsive books in historical literature," is not a bit too strong. That the author's feelings were so immensely enlisted would not matter if the man only had a spark of the candor and real desire to be fair that distinguishes the work of scholars like Pastor and Acton. But Denifle's mind was so warped by hatred that, while preternaturally sharp-sighted in detecting the slightest faults of Luther or the most trivial errors of modern Protestant scholars, he was, to the larger aspects of his subject, portentously blind. Luther and Lutherdom is a learned and elaborate libel.

Let us take a single example of its famous " method." The Dominican asserts that Luther set aside all prohibitions of consanguineous marriages, even that of parent and child and of brother and sister (p. 324). Any other scholar, in making so startling a charge, would examine the evidence carefully. In proportion to the vast improbability that the Reformer should here have gone counter not only to all Christian sentiment but to that of the whole world, savage as well as civilized, the historian should have demanded copious proof and have sifted it judicially. One would expect that in a point like this a great stir would have been made and much would be forthcoming. But Denifle bases his assertion on a single word. When Spalatin drew up a table of forbidden degrees for the use of the Saxon Visitors, he wrote: "Bruder und Schwester mugen sich nicht verehelichen; so mag einer auch seines Bruders oder Sch wester Tochter oder Enkel nicht nehmen." In revising the list Luther wrote opposite this section "Todt," which Denifle interprets to mean that he repealed the whole law (Enders: Luthers Briefweciisel, vi, 186). The intrinsic improbability of this interpretation is so enormous, unsupported as it is by a single other passage in all the Reformer's voluminous works, that, even if the document in question stood alone, the careful searcher for truth would be forced to conclude that, whatever "todt" meant, it could not mean this. But the document does not stand alone. With it Luther sent a letter (De Wette: Luthers Briefe, iii, 260), in which the real meaning of the word is clearly shown to be merely "strike out," and the reason is distinctly given, namely that it is better on such points to allow the Visitors to give oral instruction when necessary. In the same letter and paragraph Luther discusses the marriage of uncle and niece, which on Biblical precedent he allows, but he says not one word on the marriage of kinsmen in the first and second degrees, proof positive that he never even so much as contemplated the possibility of it.

Of course Denifle's work is not all as worthless as this. His wide reading in scholastic and patristic literature served to elucidate some of Luther's ideas and to point out the failings of his recent editors and biographers. But though the scholar can still learn something from this work, yet its value has greatly decreased since it was first published fourteen years ago. Luther's commentary on Romans, known to Denifle in manuscript, has since been published in model form, and the researches of Scheel and Ficker and A. V. Miiller and Grisar and many other scholars have left the learned Dominican far in the rear.

The worst that can usually be said of the present translation is that it is extremely inelegant, and the proof poorly read ("Eues" for "Cues," p. xlvii, "Raumburg" for "Naumburg," p. 143). The inelegance is due in part to the desire to be literal, as when Volz renders, "Aurifaber omitted this passage, likely as smutty" (p. 105). In some cases, however, the sense of the original is totally missed. Where Denifle wrote: "Man mtisse meinem Werke gegenüber den Standpunkt Niedriger hangen, einnehmen: Luther und der Protestantismus werde durch dasselbe nicht berührt," Volz translates: " My work is to be offset by the viewpoint of Niedriger — assume that Luther and Protestantism are not touched by it" (p. viii). "Niedriger," of course, is not a proper name, but a common noun meaning "obscure people."

Preserved Smith. Poughkeepsie, N.Y. [source]

Luther: Man is like a horse. Does God or Satan leap into the saddle?

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Free Will":

"Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider... Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate" ['De Servo Arbitrio', 7, 113 seq., quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther denies free will and says God is the author of "what is evil."

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites " 'De Servo Arbitrio', 7, 113 seq., quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267." Working backwards in this documentation, Luther, Exposing the Myth cites " O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267." This refers to the 1987 TAN reprint this old book from Father Patrick O'Hare. On page 266-267 (or p. 271-272) Father O'Hare states,

"Man," he says, "is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider. The will cannot choose its rider and cannot kick against the spur that pricks it. It must go on and its very docility is a disobedience or a sin. The only struggle possible is between the two riders, who dispute the momentary possession of the steed, and, then, is fulfilled the saying of the Psalmist: I am become like a beast of burden.' Let the Christian, then, know that God foresees nothing contingently, but that he foresees, proposes and acts from His internal and immutable will. This is the thunderbolt that shatters and destroys free-will. Hence it comes to pass that whatever happens, happens according to the irreversible decrees of God. Therefore, necessity, not free-will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil in us as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also, does He damn others who deserve not their fate." (De Servo Arbitrio, in op. lat. 7, 113 seq.

Father O'Hare cites "De Servo Arbitrio, in op. lat. 7, 113 seq" as does Luther, Exposing the Myth. This is not a coincidence, but rather the result of cut-and-paste because the reference Father O'Hare provided is somewhat spurious, and those utilizing O'Hare never bothered to check it for accuracy.  The reference is not to a specific section of text from Luther. It is actually a reference to where De Servo Arbitrio (The Bondage of the Will) begins in D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII. That is, the treatise, De Servo Arbitrio begins on page 113 in volume 7.

Another major problem with O'Hare's quote is that it appears to have been taken from different pages of De Servo Arbitrio . It doesn't appear to me to be one Luther quote, it's multiple quotes placed together in a paragraph taken from different places in the text. Someone took a few different sentences from the entirety of the book and placed them together into one paragraph. There's a good chance Father O'Hare took the quote from History of the Church, Volume 3 By Johannes Baptist Alzog. Father O'Hare quotes from this Roman Catholic source a few times in his book, and it contains the same Luther quote in almost the exact same form with the exception of two additional words ("he continues").

Without actually having an exact reference for multiple sentences it's very difficult to locate the pages in D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII where the quote occurs. It requires working backward from English to Latin. My speculation is that there are three or four different sentences being cited.

The first part of the quote used by Luther, Exposing the Myth is "Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider." The quote can be found in WA 18:635 and on page 157 of D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII:

The second part of the quote is "Therefore, necessity, not free-will, is the controlling principle of our conduct." This solo sentence may possibly be found in WA 18:636 and also on page 158 of D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII:

The third quote used by Luther, Exposing the Myth is "God is the author of what is evil in us as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also, does He damn others who deserve not their fate" might actually be two separate quotes (connected by "and"). The first part might possibly be found in WA 18:667 and on page 196 of D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII:

The second part of the third quote may possibly be found in WA 18:784 and on page 363 of D. Martini Lutheri Opera Latina Volume VII:

Context

Quote #1: The Horse and Rider Analogy

In short, if we are under the god of this world, away from the work and Spirit of the true God, we are held captive to his will, as Paul says to Timothy [II Tim. 2:26], so that we cannot will anything but what he wills. For he is that strong man armed, who guards his own palace in such a way that those whom he possesses are in peace [Luke 11:21], so as to prevent them from stirring up any thought or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan being divided against itself would not stand [Luke 11:18], whereas Christ affirms that it does stand. And this we do readily and willingly, according to the nature of the will, which would not be a will if it were compelled; for compulsion is rather (so to say) “unwill.” But if a Stronger One comes who overcomes him and takes us as His spoil, then through his Spirit we are again slaves and captives—though this is royal freedom—so that we readily will and do what he wills. Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills, as the psalm says: “I am become as a beast [before thee] and I am always with thee” [Ps. 73:22 f.]. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control of it [LW 33:65].

Quote #2: Whatever Happens is by Necessity, not Free Will

It is settled, then, even on your own testimony, that we do everything by necessity, and nothing by free choice, since the power of free choice is nothing and neither does nor can do good in the absence of grace—unless you wish to give “efficacy” a new meaning and understand it as “perfection,” as if free choice might very well make a start and will something, thought it could not carry it through. But that I do not believe, and will say more about it later. It follows now that free choice is plainly a divine term, and can be properly applied to none but the Divine Majesty alone; for he alone can do and does (as the psalmist says [Ps. 115:3]) whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth. If this is attributed to men, it is no more rightly attributed than if divinity itself also were attributed to them, which would be the greatest possible sacrilege. Theologians therefore ought to have avoided this term when they wished to speak of human ability, leaving it to be applied to God alone. They should, moreover, have removed it from the lips and language of men, treating it as a kind of sacred and venerable name for their God. And if they attributed any power at all to men, they should teach that it must be called by another name than free choice, especially as we know and clearly perceive that the common people are miserably deceived and led astray by that term, since they hear and understand it in a very different sense from that which the theologians mean and discuss. [LW 33:67].

Quote #3a: God is the author of what is evil

Out of one opinion on free choice you make three. You regard as hard, though probable enough, the opinion of those who deny that man can will the good without special grace. They deny that he can begin, progress, or reach his goal, etc.; and this you approve because it leaves man to desire and endeavor, but does not leave him with anything to ascribe to his own powers. Harder, you think, is the opinion of those who contend that free choice is of no avail save to sin, that grace alone accomplishes good in us, etc. But hardest is the view of those who say that free choice is a mere empty name, that it is God who works both good and evil in us, and that all things which happen come about by sheer necessity. It is against these last two positions that you profess to be writing. Do you really know what you are saying, my dear Erasmus? You express here three opinions as if they belonged to three different schools, not realizing that they are the same thing variously stated, in different words at different times, by us who remain the same persons and exponents of one school only; but let us draw your attention to this and point out the carelessness or stupidity of your judgment [LW 33:111].

Quote 3b God damns others who deserve not their fate

Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable, but are compelled by a necessity of nature to sin and to perish (as Paul says: “We were all children of wrath like the rest,” since they are created so by God himself from seed corrupted by the sin of the one man Adam)—rather must God be honored and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be at least some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his righteousness were such that it could be judged to be righteous by human standards, it would clearly not be divine and would in no way differ from human righteousness. But since he is the one true God, and is wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper and indeed necessary that his righteousness also should be incomprehensible, as Paul also says where he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!” But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able in every instance to grasp how they are righteous. What is man, compared with God? How much is there within our power compared with his power? What is our strength in comparison with his resources? What is our knowledge compared with his wisdom? What is our substance over against his substance? In a word, what is our all compared with his?[LW 33:289].

Conclusion
With quote #1, the illustration of the horse and rider isn't Luther's invention, but rather had been used in a variety of ways by others preceding Luther: see Roman Catholic scholar Harry McSorley, Luther Right or Wrong? pp. 337-340. McSorley notes that Trent rejected using the analogy "possibly as a reaction against Luther's use of the image." McSorley rightly points out that several times in De Servo Arbitrio Luther mentions he is not discussing what the will can do with grace, and that "Luther correctly emphasizes the biblical doctrine that the sinner is Satan's captive and is not free to escape" (p. 339). McSorley though sees God's riding the horse as an example of the will being in bondage to God, thus a denial of Roman Catholic views on free will.

If I've got the right context for quote #2, Luther had been arguing that man as slave to sin has no free will (LW 33:64-65). Luther notes Erasmus argued in effect that free choice exists and has some power, but that it is an ineffective power. Luther takes this apart concluding "It is settled, then, even on your own testimony, that we do everything by necessity, and nothing by free choice."

For quote 3 (A), Luther's taking apart Erasmus' views on free will and grace, pointing out the contradictions in his earlier definitions. He notes that Erasmus was troubled by the view which held "free choice is an empty name and all that we do comes about by sheer necessity" (LW 33:113). Luther responds that if Erasmus grants in any sense that man can't will freely without special grace, he is in effect granting necessity.

For quote 3 (B), Luther is arguing that God's righteousness in damning the wicked and choosing a people to save is an incomprehensible righteousness.

Interestingly Harry McSorley argues the views on views on grace and free will put forth by Erasmus are not normative for Roman Catholics, and that Luther "presents the most powerful biblical argument for fallen man's bondage to sin that the Church had heard since St. Augustine"[source].

This was one of the harder quotes to determine the context for, and I'm still not completely satisfied I've nailed the references entirely. The only way to be certain would be to track down the Jenna and Wittenberg editions of Luther's Works. The reason why Father O'Hare cited the first page of De Servo Arbitrio as his reference is he probably couldn't find all the quotes in the text! Whoever originally compiled this quote probably was only intending to put forth a summary statement of Luther's treatise. The quotes were put together to "shock" but rather serve as a caricature of Luther's argumentation.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2011. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.