Timothy Kauffman on James 2:14-26

 Timothy Kauffman on James 2, justification, works

Please read the whole article.  Kauffman does a great job of demonstrating the whole book of James and it's relationship to the parable of the soils that Jesus told in the synoptic gospels.  (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8)  

These 2 paragraphs are especially good, as he points out that dikaow (δικαοω, to justify), can have different meanings according to context.  Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35, Romans 3:4, and 1 Timothy 3:16 mean "to vindicate", "to prove", "to demonstrate to be true", "to prove right", "to show".  This is what James 2:14-26 means, " a man is proved to be justified by faith, by works" or "a man demonstrates he is justified by faith, by works.  (James 2:21, 2:24)

"We emphasize this connection between the saying and the doing, first because this is so plainly, explicitly and emphatically James’ emphasis in the epistle; and second because there is in biblical parlance a “justification” that has nothing to do with the ground of a man’s acquittal in a legal sense, but has to do with consistency between what a person says and what he does. In this sense, a man is justified when what he says is found to be true. Paul used it in this sense when he wrote that God will be shown to be faithful to His promise: “That Thou mightest be justified in thy sayings” (Romans 3:4). Jesus used it in this sense when He said “Wisdom is justified of her children” in response to His critics (Matthew 11:18-19; c.f. Luke 7:33-35). When Jesus was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16), it means that His claims were proven true."

"This is not the justification Paul speaks of when he says we are “justified by faith” or “justified by His blood” or “justified by Christ” (Romans 5:1,9; Galatians 2:17). Rather, it is a justification that occurs when a man claims to be religious, and his works show that he truly is. It is a justification that occurs when a man says he has wisdom, and the fruits show that he is truly wise. It is the justification that occurs when a man says he has faith, and he loves his neighbor, showing that his profession of faith is genuine. James could as well teach—and we know it is true—that a man is not proven to be wise by saying he has wisdom, and a man is not proven to be religious by saying he is religious. Nor is a man proven to believe by saying he has faith. He is justified “in his sayings” when there are fruits to show for wisdom, when fruits show that he is truly religious, and when a profession of faith is proven through trial. That this is James’ use of justification is evident from the two examples he gives from Scripture—Abraham and Rahab. In both cases, faith was tested and proven. "  Timothy Kauffman

Did Ignatius teach "the real presence" in the Eucharist?

This is an excellent article by Timothy Kauffman that shows that Ignatius did not teach the "real presence" (physical) of Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist, or celebration of the Lord's Supper.

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/

Tradition

μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

 "And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" Mark 7:7


 

ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων

 "leaving/abandoning the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of men"

Mark 7:8

 The Aorist participle of "leaving"/ "neglecting" / "abandoning" (aphentes- αφεντες, from aphiaemi αφιημι ) seems to be contrasted with the present active verb of "holding onto" ( κρατειτε )- because they are so focused on teaching as doctrine, the commandments of men (verse 7), or they are so focused on holding onto their own man-made traditions (8b), it caused them to neglect, abandon, leave the commandment of God (the word of God, the Scriptures).  Or, it could be an adverbial participle of means or manner, modifying the way they are holding onto the traditions of man - "by abandoning" or "by neglecting" . . . "you are holding onto". Or it could be a causal participle, "because you neglected the commandment of God, you are holding onto the traditions of man".  Or it could be a temporal participle:  "while neglecting the commandment of God" or "after neglecting the commandment of God".   Any of these three fit the context.  This is exactly what the church started doing little by little in history.

 It is interesting to me that the word for "leaving" ("abandoning" or "neglecting") is also the word used in Revelation 2:4 - "you have left your first love"
ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love"

 and
Matthew 23:23 - "you have neglected the weightier provisions of the law . . . "

Dr. Plummer pointed out in the video that this word, aphiaemi / αφιημι - has a wide range of meaning, many times, in context, it means "to forgive" sins, and other times "to divorce", but you can see the idea of "leaving", "abandoning", "neglecting", "forsaking" in the basic concept.

This is what the Roman Catholic Church did in history, by clinging to man-man traditions and holding onto them, they neglected and abandoned important doctrines such as justification by faith alone; and emphasized Mary too much and exalted her too much, and created doctrines such as Purgatory; and said that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of a RC priest. They emphasized and clung to external works and relics and penances and pilgrimages, and clinging to those things caused them to not see the main issues. Justification by faith alone was there all along in the Bible, and hinted at by some early church fathers, but it was left behind and neglected by their emphasis on external works, focus on non-Biblical things about Mary, statues, priests, penances, relics, etc.

Some Roman Catholics like to say that Protestants treat "tradition as a dirty word" or "always negative" and some (far too many) Evangelicals have done that; but that should not be and everyone should be able to handle the passages that speak of "traditions" in a positive way, since they are the true apostolic traditions.

 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you rom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

I have never understood why former Evangelicals who have converted to Rome say that they could not explain or handle verse 15.  As in the following in Scott Hahn's testimony of how he just melted into goo when the question was posed to him about 2 Thessalonians 2:15:    (to see where this is, scroll down to the paragraph with the heading "Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary")  ( As I recall, a lot of the Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid) testimonies also told of how they were unprepared to deal with that verse.)

Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'"
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer." I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'" He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."
I don't think they realized the panic I was in. When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question? Why have I never found an answer? 

Aside for failing to distinguish between 1 or 2 Timothy, it is amazing to me, that he could not handle this, when one looks at the context of verses 13 and 14; and the date and historical background of when 2 Thessalonians was written.

1.  The historical context of when the Thessalonians epistles were written.  (50-52 AD) Obviously, at this point, the only other letters that Paul has written are Galatians (48-49 AD) and 1 Thessalonians (50 AD), so it seems obvious that the apostle was preaching and teaching content that will be later included in letters such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, etc. There is no evidence at all that the apostle taught anything that Roman Catholics claim he may have, RC traditions like Mary as a perpetual virgin, or purgatory, or priests as a NT office, or indulgences, or the Papacy, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, external penances, relics, praying to Mary. No; it is obvious that Paul means was essential doctrine that will be later in the rest of Scripture. There is no evidence that the apostles taught any of those things that Roman Catholics developed centuries later. They read their own traditions back into the word "tradition".

2.  The context of the verse within the paragraph.  Verse 14 identifies the traditions of verse 15 as the gospel ("our gospel"), and verse 13 shows the doctrines of election, salvation, "sanctification by the Spirit", "faith in the truth" as part of the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
This verse points to the context of the teachings in verses 7-14, and what Paul already taught them in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 and 5:14.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - same principle here; 1 Corinthians is early also, around 55 AD, so the same principle goes, and by the rest of the content of the whole letter of 1 Corinthians, especially in the rest of chapter 11 and 15, but not excluding any of the letter.   Paul considers his teaching and letters as spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) that he is passing on/delivering/handing over = "traditioning" to them. Since they have written questions about issues that were raised after he taught them (see 1 Cor. 7:1); and he will also write another letter to them (2 Corinthians, which may have as part of it embedded in it, the same content as the "painful letter" about church discipline mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:12 and possibly with 2 Corinthians 2:2, or it may also refer to 1 Corinthians 5 about church disciple), (or it may be a lost letter); it seems obvious the traditions are basic gospel issues and teachings.  These essential teachings will all be included in writing, that will eventually all be finished by 96 AD.  All Scripture is written down by either 70 AD or 96 AD.  Also, the context is on the content of what he writes to them in chapter 11.

1 Corinthians 15:3 has the verbal form of "tradition", "to deliver", which is also used in Jude 3 - "the faith once for all delivered to the saints". It seems obvious that the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about gospel essentials (which agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15, and that Jude 3 shows that all the truths of the faith necessary for the saints was already delivered once for all. This, along with Jesus' promise that when the Holy Spirit comes, He would lead the apostles into all the truth (John 16:12-13) and bring to their remembrance everything (John 14:26); it is reasonable to assume that all the truths needed would be written down.

 It seems to me easy to see, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is God-breathed", that whatever is God-breathed or inspired is revelation from God, and when that revelation is written Scripture; and since it is God-breathed, is also "canon", since "canon" meant "principle", "law", "criterion", "standard", before it meant "a specific list of books" recognized / discerned as "God-breathed".
As Dr. White has said many times, and James Swan in an article below, 

"The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation."  

This means it is physical evidence and a result of revelation, a proof that revelation happened in history, since all 27 books were first individual scrolls in the first century, and each one was God-breathed Scripture, the list is merely the "footprint" or evidence or product of them all together. 
 Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God in the church for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17; verse 17 is important to include), for ministry and teaching and counseling people (rebuking, correcting, training). Paul assumes that the "man of God" is a man like Timothy who has already been qualified to be an elder/pastor/teacher/overseer in the local church (see the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus).  Things like the local church (1 Timothy 3:14-16), teaching, being an elder/pastor/teacher, a man of God, a man of prayer, qualified, are assumed in the whole context of the whole letters of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.  The fact that Paul quoted gospels with law in 1 Timothy 5:18 as Scripture, and that Peter wrote that all of Paul's letters are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), along with the "once for all" of Jude 3, rounds things out as logical and reasonable to assume that all things that were needed for the church were written down in Scripture.   2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT only, but 2 Timothy 3:16 expands it to "all Scripture", including by principle, all of the NT books, even those written in the future.

Colossians 2:8 and 2:20-23 are also negative on man-made traditions.  They also point to man-made traditions,  (as Mark 7 and Matthew 15 do), philosophy, and the "elementary principles of this world" (see with Galatians 4:9-11) - these things seem to point the things that Roman Catholicism emphasizes - external rituals and laws, asceticism, rites and things that humans can do to make themselves feel religious - like visiting graves and praying to the dead, kissing relics, and the legalisms of adding things to faith as being necessary to do in order to merit finally that one may be justified before God in the future.

Those gospel essentials or essential doctrines are what Irenaeus (180-200 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD), and Athanasius (297-373 AD) refer to when they explain what "the tradition of the apostles" or "the faith" or "the preaching" is to their readers in the centuries that follow.  When they explicate what the tradition is, it never includes any of the things that Roman Catholics read back into it.  They are the same basic content as the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed.  More on that later, Lord willing.

See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 to 1:11:1
and 1:22:1
and 3:4:2.

Tertullian, Presciption Against Heretics, 13:1-6
Against Praxeas 2:1-2

Origen, On First Principles, 1. preface. 2-8

Athanasius, To Serapion, Concering the Holy Spirit Against the Tropici Heretics, Book 1, 28-32
This work, unforuntately, is not available at the www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org site.

But the others are there for all to see and read.

The Dividing Line earlier today

Dr. James R. White discusses 4 different issues:
1. the Popes and the change of Roman Catholic Theology since Vatican 2; (Francis is different than Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) But why didn't Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) say any of this while he was Pope? 

2. Rachel Held Evans and her liberalism and support for Trans-genderism;

3. a troubling article at Desiring God (by Nick Roen) about homosexuality and same sex desires (I also had trouble with this article when I read it; Dr. White nails the problems); (parts of the article by Roen are right; and it is no way like the Rachel Held Evans article; but it is troubling nonetheless. It needs to be re-written and clarified.)

4. the issue of "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God" with Joseph Cumming and Nabeel Qureshi on Unbelievable Radio Program. 

Addendum:
From the article about Pope Benedict XVI, that Dr. White referenced:

Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the importance of the salvation of souls:“The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the faith loses its foundation.”He also speaks of a “profound evolution of dogma” with respect to the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change has led, in the Pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church — “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”Pope Benedict asks this piercing question: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, have become less attached to their faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian faith and its morality?” asks the Pope Emeritus. And he concludes: “But if faith and salvation are not any more interdependent, even faith becomes less motivating.”Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.He says: “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.”

Link to Rachel Held Evans article.

Link to the Desiring God by Nick Roen article that has many of us troubled.

In the section on Joseph Cumming vs. Nabeel Qureshi:
Who is Joseph Cumming?   (former missionary in North Africa and one of the founders of the Evangelical Yale Reconciliation Movement)  

The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition

This originally appeared on the aomin blog, 03/20/2010.

"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.

One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:

If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.

In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."

An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.

The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.

The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.

First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?

Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.

How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.

If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

In an age of Jihad and political fear-mongering, Jesus said, "I will build My Church" - "among all peoples" - sermon by John Piper

This an excellent missions sermon from Matthew 16:13-26, that is very applicable and timely to today's American Christians and the threat of Islamic terrorism and Jihad and the comments that the Jihadism and terrorism of Islam will cause the true believers to live for His kingdom and stop putting their trust in economic strength and military power and politics.  (in light of the current political circus.)

http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/i-will-build-my-church-from-all-peoples

Please listen to Piper's sermon; he says some convicting things that are not all written out in the print version.  Here is an excerpt from the print version:

I listened to Oscar's message last Sunday by tape as soon as I got home from England. It was, as I knew it would be, a powerful call to make disciples and prepare elders for new churches in the age of Jihad, by avoiding unnecessary controversy, being saturated with the Bible, and throwing yourself into difficult ministry where boldness in the Word is necessary. He said the outrageous truth that Jihad is a gift to the American church. Why?

1. Because it forces the nominal Christian bluff; either we get make disciples and plant churches or we will be converted. Islam is out to take the world.
2. It produces economic instability so we are pressed toward the wartime lifestyle we should have been living all along.
3. It helps us identify with the church in the rest of the world, which has known this threat and instability all along. Now we can learn how to prepare elders for the real church.
4. It presses us to center the discipling of our children in the home, because the church building and Pastor John may be blown up anyway. You can't lean on the building or the preacher.
5. It wakes us up to the glorious truth that in the end what matters is the resurrection with Christ. To live is Christ and to die is gain.

Some of my own general comments, inspired by Piper's sermon:

Jesus said, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it."  Matthew 16:18

The "Church" is not a building, as buildings can be blown up by Jihadists.  Jesus' Church is not local churches, although Jesus Church is made up of true believers who are members of local churches.  Christ gave Himself for the Church and purchased the Church with His blood (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28; Revelation 5:9), so though the first church in Jerusalem was local and visible (Acts 2:37-46) and local visible churches were started and built all over the Roman Empire and all through history, Jesus' statement about His Church has to be interpreted in the light of those three key passages.  The apostle Paul described "the Church' in very cosmic and universal terms.  (Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-10; 3:20-21)

This has been proven in history by the fact that many local and visible churches have disappeared from history - especially by the advance of Islam in North Africa and the Middle East and Turkey; and the advance of liberal theology in western Europe and USA.  Liberal churches are not true churches anymore.  The Roman Catholic Church is not a true church anymore, since it condemned the Biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.  Part of the "rock" of the message is that one must repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation, apart from the merit of good works. (Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; 10:9-10; Galatians 2:16; Acts 15:9; 16:31; John 5:24; 3:16; 11:25; 20:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9; Acts 13:38-39)  Christ Himself is the rock and foundation (1 Corinthians 10:4; 3:11); and the apostolic doctrine about Christ (Ephesians 2:19-20).

The Church is all the true believers from all nations and cultures who have been purchased by the blood of Christ, those who are truly born again.  (Revelation 5:9; Ephesians 5:25-27, 32; Acts 20:28)

Hades means death.  Hades does not mean the devil or demons or heresies or false doctrines.  Local churches disappeared in history.  (Revelation 2:1-7)  But the one who perseveres and overcomes, that one will be saved.  (verse 7)

Jesus enters the gates of hades and rescues people out of death, because He has the keys of death and hades.  (Revelation 1:18; 20:14-15)

Jesus promised eternal life out from death to true believers.  John 5:24; 11:25  Spiritual Death in hell (the lake of fire) will not overtake true believers - Revelation 20:14-15.

The rock that Jesus builds His church upon is the firm foundational truth of the doctrinal statement that Peter spoke:  "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God."  (Matthew 16:16) That was the apostolic message that was also given to the other apostles and they preached this, and the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and Trinity are natural truths that are implied by the phrase "the Son of the Living God", along with the explanation of more details of many other verses.

Addendum (Monday, Feb. 29, 2016):  To trust in the Messiah, the Son of the Living God alone, means by necessity, not trusting in one's own good works, and not trusting in Mary or prayers to Mary or other saints also.  It carries with it an implicit confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  No wonder Luther said statements that were close to this sentiment, "justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.".  It means that Roman Catholicism, with it's emphasis on external rituals and the doctrine of faith plus the merit of works in order to be finally saved out of the possibility of committing mortal sin and winding up in hell and out of purgatory after a "good" RC has to have his/her venial sins purged, and the doctrines of the Papacy, is impossible with a full and genuine trust in Christ alone, as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Luther: Have "Ineffable Joy" if You're Predestination to Hell (Part Two)

Previously I looked at a quotation from Luther's Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans concerning his alleged teaching of "ineffable joy" in discovering one is predestined to Hell. Typical of Rome's defenders, when a context was presented, their analysis doesn't equal what was originally said. Sometimes in cyberspace another Luther quote is presented along with the "ineffable joy" comment:

It gets even more bizarre than that, for those who are interested in the history of doctrine and theology. Luther thought that men should have an "ineffable joy" if they discovered that they were damned, because they were resigned to God's will: "If men willed what God wills, even though He should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in that [in the predestination to hell which he teaches]; for, as they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation, the will of God in them." [source]

Documentation
The "ineffable joy" phrase is linked with this additional Luther quote in italics. I would posit again this additional quote is taken from Hartmann Grisar's Luther Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., LTD, 1913) rather than any actual reading of Luther's Lectures on Romans. I base this on the phrase "in the predestination to hell which he teaches" which is an addition by Grisar, rather than a phrase in Luther's actual text. Note Grisar's statement:

"If men willed what God wills," he writes, "even though He should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in that [in the predestination to hell which he teaches]; for, as they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation, the will of God in them." Does he mean by this that they should resign themselves to hating God for all eternity ? Luther does not seem to notice that hatred of God is an essential part of the condition of those who are damned ("damnari et reprobari ad infernum"). Has he perhaps come to conceive of a hatred of God proceeding from love? He seems almost to credit those who think of hell, with a resolve to bear everything, even hatred of God, with loving submission to the will of Him Who by His predestination has willed it. He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of "ineffable joy" ("ineffdbili iucunditate in ista materia delectantur"); for the perfect this is "the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the greatest bitterness," because under charity the cross and suffering is always understood" (p.238).

Grisar cites "'Schol. Rom.,' pp. 213, 223" as the source for this quote. This appears to be
Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, 1515/1516. Grisar has cited the text backwards. The quote appears to be on page 223, while the "ineffable joy" comment he cites afterward actually precedes this quote on page 213.

The lines in question are 14-6: "Si enim vellent, quod vult Deus, etiamsi damnatos et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum. Quia vellent, quod vult Deus, et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam." This text can also be found in WA 56:396-397 (lines 2-5 on page 397).

One of the ironies of Luther's Lectures on Romans was that we have the Vatican to partially thank for it. By the late sixteenth century, the manuscript was thought to be lost, then found, then lost again. A copy of it was eventually found, in of all places, the Vatican Library. Prompted by this discovery, Johannes Ficker went on to locate the original. Grisar therefore, was citing Ficker's publication of this newly rediscovered lost Luther writing.

This has been translated into English LW 25.386. The "ineffable joy" statement is from Luther's comment on Romans 8:28. This additional quote is from Luther's comment on Romans 9:14 which appears many pages later. By linking the two quotes together (and backwards by Grisar!), the caricature is created. We saw previously that rather than Luther teaching the damned should have "ineffable joy" about going to Hell, Luther actually meant that God's eternal election serves as a comfort to his chosen people: "Those who have the wisdom of the Spirit become ineffably happy through the doctrine." With this caricatured Roman Catholic presentation, we see the first citation combined with the additional quote meant to accentuate Luther's alleged teaching that the ineffably joyful damned won't have any problem or anger about being damned, but have happily resigned themselves to the will of God. At least Grisar asks questions of what exactly Luther is saying, and interprets in the form of speculation.

Context
What does Luther's Romans Lectures actually say? Here is a bit of the context From Luther's comments on Romans 9:

9:11. Though they had done nothing either good or bad. [Paul] very nicely uses the term “they had done” rather than “they were.” For there is no doubt that both of them were evil because of the disease of original sin, although regarding Jacob some feel that he had been sanctified in the womb. But by their own merit they were the same and equal and belonged to the same mass of perdition.

9:14. Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! The apostle gives no other reason as to why there is not injustice with God than to say: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (v. 15), which is the same as saying: “I will have mercy on whom I wish,” or to him who is predestined to receive mercy. This is a harsh answer for the proud and those who think they know everything, but for the meek and the humble it is sweet and pleasing, because they despair of themselves; and thus God takes them up. For the fact is that there neither is nor can be any other reason for His righteousness than His will. So why should man murmur that God does not act according to the Law, since this is impossible? Or will it be possible for God not to be God? Furthermore, since His will is the highest good, why are we not glad and willing and eager to see it be done, since it cannot possibly be evil? But do I hear you say: “It is evil for me”? Perish the thought! It is evil for no one. But because we cannot affect His will nor cause it to be done, this becomes an evil thing for men. For if they were willing to do what God wills, even if He should will that they be damned and reprobated, they would have no evil. For they would will what God wills, and they would have in themselves the will of God in patience. [LW 25: 386]

Conclusion
Luther explains God's sovereign will is absolutely good. It cannot be otherwise. Men have no right to complain that God's will is not good. Luther then presents an imaginary detractor/complainer who states, "Is God's sovereign will evil for me personally?" Luther responds: No! God's will is evil for no one. But men do not like that they are powerless against God's will, so for these people, God's good will is seen as an evil thing in their minds. Now, contrarily, if they saw God's will as a good thing, they would want what God wills to come to pass, even if it meant their damnation. They would actually patiently bear what God wills. But they are the wicked, and do not want God's will to be done.

I grant this is a difficult Biblical text, both to understand and to actually digest theologically for those used to ascribing power to the human will. As I read Luther's text, it is a hypothetical in which the point is about God's eternal goodness rather than about the ineffably joyful damned happily resigning themselves to the will of God. Why would the wicked patiently bear what God wills? It is an attribute of their hatred of God that they do no such thing. But even if they hypothetically could patiently bear what God wills, God would still not be doing them any evil. Of course, allowing God to save whom he wants is offensive to the human mind. God's free will not being subject to human will seems absolutely wrong to the sinful mind. Luther himself realizes this, and goes on to state:

I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (9:15).That means: I will give grace, in time and life, to him concerning whom I purposed from eternity to show mercy. On him will I have compassion and forgive his sin in time and life whom I forgave and pardoned from all eternity. In doing this. God is not unjust, for so He willed and was pleased to do from eternity, and His will is not bound by any law or obligation. (God's) free will, which is subject to no one, cannot be unjust. Indeed, it is impossible that it should be unjust. God's will would be unjust only if it would transgress some law, (and that means that God would go counter to Himself).

This statement seems hard and cruel, but it is full of sweet comfort, because God has taken upon Himself all our help and salvation, in order that He alone might wholly be the Author of our salvation. So also we read in 11:32: "God hath concluded them all in unbelief, (not with cruel intention, but) that he might have mercy upon all"; that is, in order that He might show mercy to all, which otherwise He neither would nor could do, if we would oppose Him with the arrogant pride of our own righteousness.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy (9:16). This does not mean that God's mercy altogether excludes our willing or running. But the words mean: The fact that a person wills and runs, he owes not to his own strength, but to the mercy of God; for it is He who gives us the power to will and to do. Without this (power) man of his own accord is unable both to will and to do. This truth the Apostle expresses in Philippians 2:13 thus: "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Just that the Apostle says in our text in different words: It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, that is, who (of himself) accomplishes (his salvation), but of God that showeth mercy, that is, who grants to men the gift of His grace.

Here let me add an admonition: Let no one lose himself in speculation (on this point) whose mind is not yet sanctified, in order that he may not fall into abyss of terror and despair. Let him rather first purify (enlighten) the understanding of his mind by considering the wounds of Jesus Christ (whose blood flows with salvation for all sinners). This is theology in the most excellent sense of the term. Of this the Apostle writes in I Corinthians 2:6: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect." I myself am still a babe that requires milk and not meat (I Cor. 3:2); and so let everyone do who is a babe in Christ, as I am. The wounds of Jesus Christ, the "clefts of the rock" (Ex. 33:22), give us sufficient assurance (of our salvation'). [This is an edited version of the text from LW 25- Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976, pp. 139-140 ].

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2008. 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.

Luther: Have "Ineffable Joy" if You're Predestination to Hell (Part One)

Luther said that men should have "ineffable joy" if they discover God predestined them to Hell? Not quite.

This quote comes from Luther's Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. These lectures began on November 3, 1515, and ended on September 7, 1516. Notice his work on Romans precedes the 95 Theses, and I would argue this writing contains certain thoughts from Luther that he later revised, abandoned or simply delineated to speculation about the hidden god. Roman Catholic writers coming across this material view these early writings as an all out assault on Roman doctrine. Luther speaks about the bondage of the will and God's sovereign election and predestination- doctrines that typically are abhorrent to those championing free will like Rome's defenders. Here's what's been published on the Internet:

Luther thought that men should have an "ineffable joy" if they discovered that they were damned, because they were resigned to God's will. [source]

He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of  "ineffable joy." [source]

His assurance to souls, affrighted by their inevitable predestination to Hell, that for the truly wise acceptance of eternal punishment is a source of "ineffable joy", seems more a mockery than anything else. [source]

Martin Luther had started to dissent from received Catholic doctrine as early as 1516, in his Commentary on Romans. In this work, he denied both venial sin and merit. He also taught more bizarre doctrines, such as that men should have an "ineffable joy" to discover that they were damned, because they were in accord with God's will. [source]

One can venture into these web pages for further clarification to see how this concept is used. However, on a bald reading these Roman Catholic writers appear to be stating that Luther held those who somehow know they are damned should be very happy about it. One writer calls it one of Luther's "bizarre doctrines." It certainly smells a lot like fatalism, and indeed, if Luther was stating that a revelation of being damned to hell by one on the way to hell should have an "ineffable joy," I heartily agree it is quite bizarre, if not flippant and cold-hearted,  but that's not what the context says.

Documentation
These conclusions from Rome's modern defenders may be based on an older Roman Catholic polemical work: Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., LTD, 1913). At least Grisar hints at an explanation of why the young Luther used the phrase "ineffable joy," whereas, those quoted above leave the phrase hanging in ambiguity. Grisar states:

[Luther] even dares to say to those who are affrighted by predestination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is, for the truly wise, a source of "ineffable joy" ("ineffdbili iucunditate in ista materia delectantur"); for the perfect this is "the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the greatest bitterness," because under charity the cross and suffering is always understood" [p.238].

Grisar cites "'Schol. Rom.,' pp. 213, 223" as the source for this quote. This appears to be
Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, 1515/1516.  The quote appears to be on page 213:

This text can also be found in WA 56:386, lines 24-30. Luther's Lectures on Romans were never intended for publication (LW 25:xii).By the late sixteenth century, the manuscript was thought to be lost. A copy of it was eventually found, in of all places, the Vatican Library. Johannes Ficker eventually found the original. Grisar therefore, was citing Ficker's publication.

This has been translated into English LW 25.377. An edited version also exists: Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976, p.131]  LW 25 is a more complete word for word translation (see addendum #2 below). For clarity, I prefer Kregel's simpler reading much more than that presented in LW 25, but both say the same thing. Below is the Kregel context for Luther's "ineffable joy" of those learning they are damned to hell.

Context
The comment is from Luther's lengthy treatment of Romans 8:28, and falls within a specific treatment on the subjects of predestination and election. Luther has argued first, in connection with studying divine predestination, God has an unchangeable election of individuals. Second, All objections to to this type of individual predestination proceed from fallen human reason. Luther's third point provides the pertinent context:

The third thought (that we could consider in connection with God's eternal election) is that this doctrine is indeed most bitter to the wisdom of the flesh, which revolts against it and even becomes guilty of blasphemy on this point. But it is fully defeated when we learn to know that our salvation rests in no wise upon ourselves and our conduct, but is founded solely upon what is outside us, namely, on God's election. Those who have the wisdom of the Spirit become ineffably happy through the doctrine, as the Apostle himself illustrates this. To them, (His elect), Christ says: "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). So also God says in Isaiah 35:4: "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not:behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." Everywhere in Scripture those are praised and encouraged who listen to God's Word with trembling. As they despair of themselves, the Word of God performs its work in them. If we anxiously tremble at God's Word and are terrified by it, this is indeed a good sign.

If one fears that he is not elected or is otherwise troubled about his election, he should be thankful that he has such fear; for then he should surely know that God cannot lie when in Psalm 51:17 He says: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise." Thus he should cheerfully cast himself on the faithfulness of God who gives this promise, and turn away from the foreknowledge of the threatening God. Then he will be saved as one that is elected. It is not the characteristic of reprobates to tremble at the secret counsel of God; but that is the characteristic of the elect. The reprobates despise it, or at least pay no attention to it, or else they declare in the arrogance of their despair: "Well, if I am damned, all right, then I am damned."

With reference to the elect we might distinguish between three classes. First, there are those who are satisfied with God's will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, but rather believe that they are elected. They do not want to be damned. Secondly, there are those who submit to God's will and are satisfied with it in their hearts. At least they desire to be satisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them. Thirdly, there are those who really are ready to be condemned if God should will this. These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom. And these experience the truth of Canticles 8:6: "Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death." Such love is always joined with cross and tribulation, for without it the soul becomes lax, and does not seek after God, nor thirst after God, who is the Fountain of Life. [pp. 131-132].

Conclusion
So rather than Luther teaching the damned should have "ineffable joy" about going to Hell, Luther here states that God's eternal election serves as a comfort to his chosen people. Luther, heavily influenced at this time by German mysticism, lastly speaks of those of the elect that so trust in God's eternal decrees that even if they were to learn God had decreed to damn them, their love for God's eternal divine sovereignty would keep them at peace with such a decree. Of course, the argument is more about one "being cleansed of their own will and carnal wisdom" rather than God actually sending one of his elect into eternal damnation. In other words, Luther is making the point that those really seeking to live a life of holiness could arrive at say, something similar to what Abraham experienced when God asked him to offer his son Issac as a sacrifice, or Job's famous words, "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him." One could arrive at being cleansed of our own will and carnal wisdom and trust in God's sovereign plan, despite what we see through our sinful eyes.

Grisar though sees differently:

Several times in his Commentary on Romans he represents resignation to, indeed even an actual desire for, damnation- should that be the will of God- as something grand and sublime. Thereby he thinks he is teaching the highest degree of resignation to God s inscrutable will; thereby the highest step on the ladder of self-abnegation has been attained. In reality it is an ideal of a frightful character, far worse even than a return to nothingness. He lets us see here, as he does so often in other matters, how greatly his turbulent spirit inclined to extremes [p.238].

But, according to Grisar, Luther abandoned this form of mystical purity, replacing it with the understanding of God's gift of faith in justification by faith alone. Grisar sums up Luther's mysticism as follows:

Luther s mysticism is veritably a mysticism of despair and the "humilitas" with its love ready even for hell, which he belauds as the anchor of safety, is a forced expedient really excluded by his system, and which he himself discarded as soon as he was able to replace it by the (God- given) fides, in the shape of faith in personal justification and salvation. [p.240].

These are only snippets from Grisar, who actually gives a lengthy treatment. The second part of this series looks at another quote from Luther's Romans Commentary quoted by Grisar and subsequently used by Rome's defenders. The next quote is typically linked with the "ineffable joy"statement- though in Luther's Commentary it comes 6 or 7 pages later, in Luther's comments on Romans 9.

Addendum 1
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2008. 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. Part two of this series will be revised in a future blog post.

Addendum 2

Here is the translation of the quote in question from LW 25:376-377. You'll notice that the text is more complete than the Kregel edition, but a bit more of a cumbersome read:

Although this matter is very hard for the “prudence of the flesh,” which is made even more indignant by it and brought even to the point of blasphemy, because here it is strangled to death and reduced to absolutely nothing, it understands that salvation comes in no way from something working in itself but only from outside itself, namely, from God, who elects. But those who have the “prudence of the spirit” delight in this subject with an ineffable pleasure, as the apostle makes clear here and as is seen in the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel in 1 Sam. 2. Among these are those people in the middle who have begun to turn away from the “prudence of the flesh” or are coming close to the “prudence of the spirit,” people who gladly want to do the will of God, but they are pusillanimous and tremble when they hear these teachings. Thus even though these words of the most perfect and nourishing food are still not entirely pleasant to them, yet by the process of antiperistasis, that is, through the fact that opposites attract, they find these words soothing and consoling. Thus, for example, no words are more effective than these for terrifying, humbling, and destroying our arrogant presumptuousness regarding merits. But those who are fearful and become pale before them have here the best and happiest sign, for the Scripture says: “Upon whom does My Spirit rest except on him who is humble and trembles at My Word?” (Is. 11:2; 66:2). To these people Christ also says: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (Luke 12:32). And Is. 35:4: “Say to those who are of a fearful heart, ‘Be strong, fear not! Behold, your God will come.’ ” For if He had not seen that they were thinking the opposite, namely, fear and despair of the Kingdom, He would not have said, “You who are of fearful heart, ‘Be strong! Behold, your God will come.’ ” And again: “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord” (Ps. 112:1). And everywhere in the Scriptures, people of this kind who fear the Word of God are commended and comforted. For they despair of themselves, and the Word of God accomplishes its work in them, that is, creating the fear of God in them. For just as those who are hardened toward the Word of God and trust in themselves have a very bad sign so they who tremble before it and are frightened have the very best sign; as it is written in Ps. 144:6: “Send out Thy arrows and rout them.”

Therefore he who is overly fearful that he is not elect or is tested concerning his election, let him give thanks for this kind of fear and rejoice that he is afraid, for he knows with confidence that God, who cannot lie, has said: “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken,” that is, a despairing “spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). Moreover, he himself knows what “broken” means. Therefore he should boldly lay hold on the truthfulness of the God who promises and thus free himself from his former idea of a terrifying God and be saved and elect.

It is surely not a characteristic of reprobate men, at least in this life, that they fear the hidden judgment of God, but rather it is a quality of the elect. For the reprobate despise it and pay it no attention, or in desperation they become presumptuous, saying: “If I am damned, I will be damned.”

And there are three degrees of the company of the elect.

The first belongs to those who are content regarding this will of God and do not murmur against God but rely on the fact that they are elect and do not wish to be damned.

The second degree is better than the first. They are resigned and content in this feeling or at least in the desire for it, should God not want to save them but consider them among the reprobate.

The third degree is the best and highest of them, who in effect resign themselves to hell if God so wills, as is probably the case with many at the hour of death. These people are perfectly cleansed of their own will and the “prudence of the flesh.” They know the meaning of the passage: “Love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave” (Song of Sol. 8:6). A marvelous comparison, because love is compared with harsh things, although it seemingly is a soft and sweet thing. But it is true that love is the pleasure in someone else, for it enjoys the beloved. But in this world God gives this love to His elect fleetingly and sparingly, for it is a most dangerous thing to have it frequently and for a long time; “for they have their reward” (Matt. 6:2). But this love for something we long for, I say, is like hell, hard and strong, and in this God trains His elect in this life in wonderful ways. Thus the bride says in the Song of Solomon: “I am sick with love” (Song of Sol. 2:5). Therefore under the term “love” or “charity” we must always understand the cross and sufferings, as is clear in this passage. For without these the soul becomes lazy and tepid, neglects the love of God and no longer thirsts for Him, the living Fountain. This love is sweet indeed, but not in passively receiving but in actively demonstrating itself, that is, to speak in common language, it is sweet toward its object but bitter to its subject. For it wishes all good things for others and demonstrates them, but it receives all evils upon itself and takes them as its own. For “it does not seek its own, but bears all things and endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:5, 7).

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 25: Lectures on Romans. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 25, pp. 376–378). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther on Soul Sleep: "Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all"

Here's an obscure Luther quote being used in the webpage, Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded:

Shocking but true, and in fact, Luther has his admirers in none other than the Seventh Day Adventists, for this heresy of annihilationism also known as soul sleep. Luther clearly taught this:

“Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when are awaked, they shall seeme to have slept scarce one minute.”

An Exposition of Salomon’s Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1553, folio 151v. (A direct English translation of Luther’s German done in 1553)

What Seventh Day Adventists Believe

According to this webpage, Luther "clearly taught" the Seventh-Day Adventist view of "annihilationism also known as soul sleep."  It's my understanding that Seventh-Day Adventism holds that after death, once the soul awakes, it is either sent off to eternity or annihilated- thus they deny the immortality of the soul (that the soul is necessarily immortal). For Adventism, soul sleep is not equivalent to annihilationism. This website points out that these terms would be more equivalent in the way Jehovah's Witnesses use them:

Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh-day Adventists hold to this doctrine. But the Jehovah's Witnesses teach annihilation. This means that after death, a person ceases to exist. At the future resurrection they maintain that the soul is made again. Basically, it is a re-creation of the individual. The Seventh-day Adventists teach that the soul is simply inert and resides in the memory of God.

The official site the Seventh-Day Adventists affirm soul sleep for all, and annihilation for some:

At death, all consciousness ends. The dead person does not know anything and does not do anything (Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10). Jesus and the apostles (as well as writers in the Old Testament) frequently referred to death as sleep (e.g.,Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:39; John 11:11-14; 1 Cor. 15:51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Peter 3:4; Dan. 12:2; Job 14:10-12; Ps. 13:3). The image of sleep emphasizes that death is not the end, but is rather an unconscious state prior to the resurrection (note in this regard the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11:11-14,23-25, 43).

And also:

The punishment of the unrepentant is called the second death: After the final judgment the unrepentant receive their punishment. This punishment is called the second death. “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14, 15; see also 21:8). The Bible also uses words such as “perishing” and “destruction” in speaking of the ultimate fate of the unrepentant (e.g., 
2 Peter 3:7, 9; John 3:16; Heb. 10:28; Mal. 4:1). These descriptions confirm that the second death refers to annihilation (or extinction) of the unrepentant, rather than a continual and eternal conscious torment.

Luther did not believe in annihilationism for the damned- see his comments on Psalm 21:9 (WA 5:590) "Constantly the damned will be judged, constantly they will suffer pain, and constantly they will be a fiery oven, that is, they will be tortured within by supreme distress and tribulation"; and his sermon on Matthew 22:1-4, "...their hands and feet shall be tied, and they shall be cast into outermost darkness, that is, they must eternally lie captive with the devil in hell-fire" (WA 52:513).

Whatever Luther's view was on soul sleep (see discussion below), there is a fundamental mistake with how the argumentation is presented: the comparison is being made between Luther and an incorrect presentation of Seventh-Day Adventism. 

Documentation

The documentation provided refers to "An Exposition of Salomon’s Booke, called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1553, folio 151v. (A direct English translation of Luther’s German done in 1553)." The reference is probably wrong at least in two respects. First, the English translation was probably from 1573, not 1553. I could find no verification of any such English translation being done in 1553, and even the source I believe first pulled this quote said 1573, not 1553. Second, Luther didn't write this in German. Luther's material on Ecclesiastes is the result of lectures notes taken in Latin by Georg Rörer who listened to Luther's lectures on Ecclesiastes.

Given that so many of Luther's writings have been translated into contemporary English (including his exposition on Ecclesiastes), I found this reference curious. I believe that this quote probably was taken from a 1957 Seventh-Day Adventist publication: Seventh-Day Adventists Questions on Doctrine. The reason why they relied on such an old English translation is because that's probably all there was at the time in regard to Luther's Exposition of Ecclesiastes in English. The current English version contained in Luther's Works came out in 1971,  so, some Adventist managed to track down the 1573 old English edition!

In Questions on Doctrine (page 517) the Adventists state:

Here are sample Luther citations. In the quaint 1573 English translation we read:

Salomon iudgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when they are awaked, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute.—An Exposition of Salomon's Booke, Called Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 1573, folio 151v.

There's the quote in its exact form. The Latin this was taken from can be found in WA 20:162.

This text was translated into English in LW 15:150. It's Luther's comments on Ecclesiastes 9:10. Luther's lectures on Ecclesiastes date from 1526.


Context

10. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the pit, to which you are going.

This is the second part of the exhortation. In it he opposes those idle men who, because they see that the world is ungrateful and because they are aware of its pain, refuse to achieve anything at all or to do any good. Therefore he commands both, that we should be merry, but in such a way that we do not become idle but labor in accordance with the command in Gen. 3:17–19. The labor must be present, but the burdensome and troublesome anxieties must not. One must tire his body with labor, but one’s heart must be free of anxiety and be content with what is in the present. Add a third element: Do not afflict your heart with grief because you see that the world is ungrateful. Now, he says finds deliberately; that is, “do not pursue your own plans but what lies at hand, what God has commanded and provided, without any concern about the future.” When he says with your might, he is demanding industry and diligence. For there is no work, etc., in the pit. This is another passage which proves that the dead do not feel anything. There is, he says, no thought or art or knowledge or wisdom there. Therefore Solomon thought that the dead are completely asleep and do not feel anything at all. The dead lie there without counting days or years; but when they are raised, it will seem to them that they have only slept for a moment. Pit means the grave or the sepulcher. In my opinion it refers to the hidden resting-place in which the dead sleep outside of the present life, where the soul departs to its place. Whatever it may be, it cannot be physical. Thus you should understand the pit to mean the place where the souls are kept, a sort of sepulcher of the soul outside this physical world, just as the earth is the sepulcher of the body. What this is, however, is unknown to us. So in Gen. 42:38 and 44:29: “I shall descend with sorrow to the pit” and “You will bring down my gray hairs in sorrow to the pit.” For true saints do not descend to the pit in order to suffer something there. Therefore the dead are outside of space, because whatever is outside of this life is outside of space. In the same way we shall be removed from space and time after the resurrection. Thus also Christ is outside of space. This we say in opposition to those who want to take Christ captive in space, although He is everywhere. The Word of God is not separated from the flesh. Where God is, there the flesh of Christ is. But God is everywhere; therefore Christ is everywhere also. [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 15: Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Last Words of David, 2 Samuel 23:1-7. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 15, pp. 150–151). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Conclusion
Did Luther believe in soul sleep? The answer is a hesitating yes, speculatively at times. He did so in somewhat undogmatic terms, at times cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. At times he says things that contradict "soul sleep."’His was not a dogmatic conclusion. Luther knew that describing the state of the dead was speculative theology. The state of the dead was prone to wild speculation during his time. This can be seen early in his career in a letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf (January 13, 1522). Luther responded to the question of what happens to the soul after death. Note how Luther responds cautiously:

“Concerning your “souls,” I have not enough [insight into the problem] to answer you.  I am inclined to agree with your opinion that the souls of the just are asleep and that they do not know where they are up to the Day of Judgment. I am drawn to this opinion by the word of Scripture, “They sleep with their fathers.”  The dead who were raised by Christ and by the apostles testify to this fact,  since they were as if they had just awakened from sleep and didn’t know where they had been. To this must be added the ecstatic experiences of many saints. I have nothing with which I could overthrow this opinion. But I do not dare to affirm that this is true for all souls in general, because of the ecstasy of Paul,  and the ascension of Elijah and of Moses (who certainly did not appear as phantoms on Mount Tabor). 

Who knows how God deals with the departed souls? Can’t [God] just as well make them sleep on and off (or for as long as he wishes [them to sleep]), just as he overcomes with sleep those who live in the flesh? And again, that passage in Luke 16 [:23 ff.] concerning Abraham and Lazarus, although it does not force the assumption of a universal [capacity of feeling on the part of the departed],yet it attributes a capacity of feeling to Abraham and Lazarus, and it is hard to twist this passage to refer to the Day of Judgment.

I think the same about the condemned souls; some may feel punishments immediately after death, but others may be spared from [punishments] until that Day [of Judgment]. For the reveler [in that parable] confesses that he is tortured;  and the Psalm says, “Evil will catch up with the unjust man when he perishes.” You perhaps also refer this either to the Day of Judgment or to the passing anguish of physical death. Then my opinion would be that this is uncertain. It is most probable, however, that with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling. Consider now who the “spirits in prison” were to whom Christ preached, as Peter writes:  Could they not also sleep until the Day [of Judgment]?  Yet when Jude says concerning the Sodomites that they suffer the pain of eternal fire, he is speaking of a present [fire]."[LW 48:360-361]."

The same sort of caution was peppered throughout his writings. Some years back I put forth a number of quotes from Luther demonstrating that his position on this subject was undogmatic and speculative. See Luther's Understanding of soul Sleep (Part three). A fascinating study on Luther's view of the state of the dead can be found in Concordia Theological Monthly (July - August 1967) in the article, "Martin Luther's View on the State of the Dead" by Philip J. Secker. The article surveys numerous writings from Luther demonstrating how varied Luther was on this topic. The author presents such a numerous amount of citations so that "the reader can evaluate for himself the conclusion of this study that Luther was not wholly consistent in his teachings about the state of the dead." Or, note the conclusion of another study on the same topic cited by Secker:

Although Luther sometimes expressed opinions in favor of the unconscious state of the dead and placed their punishment or reward after the last judgment, the main bulk of his teaching indicates that he believed in the conscious state of the dead and its attendant immediate punishment or reward. As a rule, he considered the righteous dead as being in a place of reward and the ungodly dead as being in a place of punishment although he plainly taught that it can be neither real hell or [sic] purgatory" (Toivo Nikolai Ketola, A Study of Martin Luther's Teaching Concerning the State of the Dead [A master of arts thesis presented to the faculty of the SeventhDay Adventist Theological Seminary, Takoma Park, Washington, D. c., January 1956].

Interestingly as well, The Journal of the Adventist Theological Society put forth an article in 2011 entitled, "A Re-examination of Luther’s View on theState of the Dead." That article seeks to argue that Luther was inconsistent, but the scale tips in favor of his main view being soul sleep. I would follow that view put forth by Secker. I think the Adventist view put forth by The Journal of the Adventist Theological Society is simply a broader attempt at was was done sparsely in 1957: to find historical support for one of their main doctrines. The fact of the matter is that Luther wasn't overly concerned about the state of the dead like they are because it wasn't one of his main doctrines. That's why his views were inconsistent and so varied as Secker demonstrates. I still stand by my 2006 conclusion when I first encountered the Adventists using Luther on this subject:

What can be concluded of Luther’s view? I would assert the following: Luther’s position on this subject is undogmatic. He considers the subject speculative theology. Hence, his opinion doesn’t always add up. What can be said of Seventh Day Adventist usage of Luther on this point? I suggest they incorrectly present a dogmatic Luther who uses “soul sleep” to refute purgatory and saint worship, which I maintain is not the case. To use Luther correctly, they should at least note Luther’s opinion was speculative and undogmatic. He didn’t approach the text of Scripture with the same certainty on “soul sleep” they do. Luther doesn’t even have the same theological motivations for the doctrine of “soul sleep” that the Adventists do. What motivates the Adventists on this doctrine? What motivated Luther? These seem to be crucial questions for anyone wishing to use Luther as an authority.