Luther: The Commandments Only Show Man What He Can't do

The following is from the webpage Luther, Exposing the Myth:

Christ taught: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” [Matt 19:17, Cf. Matt 5:17, 1 John 5:2]. Luther in speaking of the commandments teaches: "Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself" [Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364.]

This quote was a later addition to Luther Exposing the Myth (earlier versions do not include it).  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 their only purpose is demonstrate they cannot be kept.

Documentation
The Reference is given as "Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364." Apparently, the author of Luther Exposing the Myth reads French and has access to the rare French multi-volume set of Denifle's work, or, he took this quote from a secondary source that was quoting Denifle. I strongly suspect the later rather than the former.  Here is page 364 of Denifle, Luther et Lutheranisme III.  The text being cited is the second paragraph from a long footnote:

Denifle gives the reference: "Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen (De la liberté chrétienne), Weimar, VII, 23-24." Here is WA 7:23-24. Denifle is citing the German version of this treatise. The more precise version is the Latin version (WA 7:49-73). The Latin text has been translated into English: The Freedom of a Christian (1520) [LW 31:327-376; PE 2: 312-348], otherwise known as Concerning Christian Liberty [part one, part two].  There in an English translation of the German text: Bertram Lee Woolf, Reformation Writings of Martin Luther, I, 356–379.

Context

English Translation of the German text 

But how does it come about that faith alone can make one religious, and give such exceeding wealth apart from any works, seeing that so many laws, commandments, works, and other means are prescribed in the Scriptures? In this connection we must be sure to note and carefully remember that, as we shall see later, faith alone, apart from any act of ours, makes us religious, sets us free, and saves us. We should understand that the entire Holy Scriptures can be divided under two heads: Commandment or God's Law, and Promise or Covenant. The commandments teach and prescribe .many good works, but this does not mean that they are fulfilled by us. They give good instructions, but no assistance. They teach what man should do, but give no power to do it. Hence they are only fitted to show a man his own incapacity for goodness, and to make him learn to doubt himself. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and all belong to the Old Testament. The commandment: "Thou shalt not have sinful appetites", shows that all of us are sinners, and there can be no man without sinful appetites, let him do what he may. Thereby a man learns not to depend on himself, but to seek help elsewhere in order that he may be without sinful appetites. Thus he may fulfill the commandment through another, although he could not do so himself. In the same way, all other commandments are impossible to us (Reformation Writings of Martin Luther, I, 360-361).

English Translation of the Latin Text

Should you ask how it happens that faith alone justifies and offers us such a treasure of great benefits without works in view of the fact that so many works, ceremonies, and laws are prescribed in the Scriptures, I answer: First of all, remember what has been said, namely, that faith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves; we shall make this clearer later on. Here we must point out that the entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts: commandments and promises. Although the commandments teach things that are good, the things taught are not done as soon as they are taught, for the commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it. They are intended to teach man to know himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do good and may despair of his own ability. That is why they are called the Old Testament and constitute the Old Testament. For example, the commandment, “You shall not covet” [Exod. 20:17], is a command which proves us all to be sinners, for no one can avoid coveting no matter how much he may struggle against it. Therefore, in order not to covet and to fulfill the commandment, a man is compelled to despair of himself, to seek the help which he does not find in himself elsewhere and from someone else, as stated in Hosea [13:9]: “Destruction is your own, O Israel: your help is only in me.” As we fare with respect to one commandment, so we fare with all, for it is equally impossible for us to keep any one of them.

Now when a man has learned through the commandments to recognize his helplessness and is distressed about how he might satisfy the law—since the law must be fulfilled so that not a jot or tittle shall be lost, otherwise man will be condemned without hope—then, being truly humbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself nothing whereby he may be justified and saved. Here the second part of Scripture comes to our aid, namely, the promises of God which declare the glory of God, saying, “If you wish to fulfill the law and not covet, as the law demands, come, believe in Christ in whom grace, righteousness, peace, liberty, and all things are promised you. If you believe, you shall have all things; if you do not believe, you shall lack all things.” That which is impossible for you to accomplish by trying to fulfill all the works of the law—many and useless as they all are—you will accomplish quickly and easily through faith. God our Father has made all things depend on faith so that whoever has faith will have everything, and whoever does not have faith will have nothing. “For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all,” as it is stated in Rom. 11[:32]. Thus the promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfill what the law prescribes so that all things may be God’s alone, both the commandments and the fulfilling of the commandments. He alone commands, he alone fulfills. Therefore the promises of God belong to the New Testament. Indeed, they are the New Testament.

Since these promises of God are holy, true, righteous, free, and peaceful words, full of goodness, the soul which clings to them with a firm faith will be so closely united with them and altogether absorbed by them that it not only will share in all their power but will be saturated and intoxicated by them. If a touch of Christ healed, how much more will this most tender spiritual touch, this absorbing of the Word, communicate to the soul all things that belong to the Word. This, then, is how through faith alone without works the soul is justified by the Word of God, sanctified, made true, peaceful, and free, filled with every blessing and truly made a child of God, as John 1[:12] says: “But to all who … believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” [LW 31:348-349]

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

If you desire to believe rightly and to possess Christ truly, then you must reject all works that you intend to place before and in the way of God. They are only stumbling blocks, leading you away from Christ and from God. Before God no works are acceptable but Christ's own works. Let these plead for you before God, and do no other work before him than to believe that Christ is doing his works for you and is placing them before God in your behalf [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 1:110].

Good works though do have a place. Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by allegedly devout Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered “good works” one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation.

Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ” [What Luther Says 3:1499]. Only what God commands is a good work: “Everybody should consider precious and glorious whatever God commands, even though it were no more than picking a wisp of straw from the ground” [What Luther Says 3:1500]. Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation. Luther says, “…[W]e are not to do them merely because we fear death or hell, or because we love heaven, but because our spirit goes out freely in love of, and delight in, righteousness” [What Luther Says 3:1499]. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 1:34

Addendum #1: Luther on Matthew 19:17
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites Mathew 19:17 out of context: Christ appears to be teaching that eternal life is gained by works in Matthew 19:17. This sparse citation is more Pelagian than it is Roman Catholic. Official Roman Catholic dogma states the need for grace and faith as well.

Matthew 19:17 in context is actually a striking declaration of the impossibility of being saved by keeping the law. Salvation by the works of law is indeed a way to salvation, but since mankind is dead in sin and hates the law no one can be saved by keeping the law. By striving to keep the law, one learns the need for Christ the savior who did keep the law perfectly. The rich young ruler who spent his life attempting to keep the law is shown by Jesus that he hasn’t even begun to keep even the first of the commandments. Upon seeing this, the disciples ask in astonishment, “who then can be saved?” The Lord responds, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Rather than Christ teaching that salvation is accomplished by works, the passage demonstrates the futility of achieving salvation by works, and Christ declares that salvation is completely the work of God.

Luther commenting on Matthew 19:17 said,

...[T]he papists make a big noise about the verse: “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). To be sure, they hear and understand the words as to their form. But when we go on to ask about the content: “What does it mean to keep the commandments? Or how does one keep them?” then one goes this way, another that way. At best, they do not get beyond the Second Table of the Ten Commandments. A Mohammedan says: “It means to be circumcised, to abstain from wine, etc.” A papist: “One must fast, pray, and vow chastity and obedience.” Only a few, the best and the most sensible among them, apply this to the works of the Ten Commandments. But even they are totally ignorant of the Gospel’s doctrine of Christ, which insists above all that the Law must be fulfilled.[LW 24:188]

Indeed, the law must be fulfilled in both heart and action. Only Christ has kept the law perfectly. If one seeks for the "good news" of the Gospel in Matthew 19, one will not find it in Matthew 19:17, but in Matthew 19:25-26, "Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said to them, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Addendum #2 (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.

"This Bridge Should Be Illuminated"

Here's what Vatican I infallibly pronounced about the papacy:

On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Note that there is not any sense of doubt in the language used here. This is the reason for Fortescue's sense of assurance. Christ himself instituted this office, and it was, in every age, clearly evident, that there was a primacy over the whole church.

It will be no wonder, then, to see the screechiness with which our partisan Roman Catholic friends will respond.

What follows is the conclusion of Peter Lampe's extensive work, "From Paul to Valentinus," chapter 41, pages 397 ff:

Thesis: The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship.

It would be presumptuous here to wish to write again a history of the ecclesiastical offices that are mentioned especially in 1 Clement and Hermas. My concern is to describe the correlation between fractionation and one factor of ecclesiastical order, the monarchical episcopate. This bridge should be illuminated. What happens across the bridge in the field of history of ecclesiastical offices can only be here briefly sketched – and perhaps motivate one to further investigation.

1. Fractionation into house congregations does not exclude that the Christian islands scattered around the capital city were aware of being in spiritual fellowship with each other, of perceiving themselves as cells of one church, and of being united by common bonds.

Paul writes to several house communities in Rome (Rom 16; see above, chap. 36) and presupposes that these send his letter, with the greetings, from one to another (cf. similarly Col 4:16). The continually repeated (Greek: aspasasthe “greetings”) receives meaning if there were messengers between the various, topgraphically separate groups. In other words, not only were Eucharistic gifts sent to and fro (see above, chap 40), but also letters and greetings from outside the city were exchanged.

That means that people writing from outside of Rome could address the Roman Christians as a unity. Not only Paul but also Ignatius and Dionysius of Corinth did this. Conversely, the Roman Christians as an entirety could send letters to those outside: 1 Clement and a further letter to Corinth around 170 C.E. (Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4.3.11). The totality of Roman Christianity undertook shipments of aid to those outside (see above on Dionysius, in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4.23.10). People from the outside consequently spoke of the Roman church (e.g., Ignatius, Rom. Praescr.).

It was useful to assign to someone in Rome the work connected with external communication. Hermas knows such a person by the name of Clement. In Vis. 2.4.3, Hermas prepares two copies of his small book and sends (pempo, “send, dispatch” within the city) one of them to Clement, who forwards it “to the cities outside, for he is entrusted with that task”.

It is important to note that Hermas’s “minister of external affairs” is not a monarchical bishop. In the next sentence, Hermas describes how he circulates his little book within the city. He makes it known “to this city together with the presbyters who preside over the church” (emphasis added). A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of a spiritual fellowship within the city, is summed up under the concept of “ecclesia,” but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it. In Vis. 3. 9.7, Hermas also calls them (Greek proegoumenoi or protokathedipitai – leaders or chief seats).

Hermas knows to report the human side of the presiders: they quarrel about status and honor (Vis. 3.9.7-10; Sim. 8.7.4-6). What are proteia? Are the presbyters wrangling” for first place within their own ranks, for the place of primus inter pares? Whatever the answer may be, Hermas – in the first half of the second century – never mentions the success of such efforts, the actual existence of a single leader. Instead he speaks of (Greek, leaders or chiefs), all in the plural (Vis. 2.4.2f.; 2.2.6; 3.1.8).

Correspondingly, we find in Paul’s and Ignatius’s letters to the Romans nothing of a Roman monarchical leader, even though Ignatius knew of a monarchical bishop’s office from his experience in the east. (Note: whether the monarchical episcopacy was established everywhere in the east is, however, questionable. Ignatius, Phil. 7- (cf. Magn. 6-8) presupposes Christians who do not wish to be under a bishop. In Ancyra around 190 C.E. there was still no bishop presiding but only a group of presbyters; anonymous, in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 5.16.5). In the year 144 Marcion, at the Roman synod meeting that he initiated (see above, chap. 40), also saw himself facing “presbyters and teachers” and not a monarchical bishop.

First Clement presupposes the same presbyterial governance: hagoumenoi (1:3), proeoumenoi (21.6) presbuteroi (44.5, 47.6, 54.2, 57.1) episkopoi, (42:4f=Isa 60:17; LXX). As in Hermas (Vis. 3.5.1; Sim. 9.27.1; cf. 9.31.5f.), the word “bishop” is in the plural. And First Clement 44:5 clarifies who exercises episkope: the presbuteroi! A number of them, who simultaneously had episkope in Corinth, were dismissed by the Corinthians. In 47:6, 57:1 the dismissed men are called presbuteroi. In short, by presbuteroi and episkopoi 1 Clem designates the same persons. The two terms are interchangeable, as in Hermas (Vis. 3.5.1).

“Bishops” are presbyters with a special function. With what function are they entrusted? Hermas in Mand. 8.20., Vis. 3.9.2, Sim. 1.8 uses the verb episkeptesthai not in relation to an office but referring to all Christians in the sense of “to care for the needy, to visit them. (Hermas) Sim.9.27.2.f. portrays the official “bishops” correspondingly as those who care for (diakonia) the needy and the widows. In this work they are supported by the deacons (Sim. 9.26.2). Our comparison of episkeptesthai and episkopoi shows that Hermas with the functional term “episkopos” still clearly associates episkeptesthai and its social-diaconal content. The wordkplay episkopoi--eskepasan in Sim.9.27.2 demonstrates the same.

This type of analysis goes on for a number of pages, and if there are questions, then I can provide that analysis on particular points.

To the scoffers, keep in mind that this is a 500 page book, and the analysis provided here has much, much foundational work (literary and archaeological and more) supporting it. It is no wonder that Eamon Duffy says that any future work that deals with this period must begin with this work.

I've published selections such as this one in various places, and I've had some Catholics tell me that this is an obscure work, that it will soon be forgotten. But this body of factual information isn't going anywhere.

Rome has re-calibrated its discussion of the papacy since the heady days of Vatican I and Adrian Fortescue, to lead off with the fact that they are aware of "development." It is clear from the language of Vatican I that they had no concept of development in mind. It is clear from Fortescue, some 50 years after Vatican I, that "Clement commanded" with the assurance of any modern pope. But the situation was far, far more questionable than that. Roman boastfulness has been caught in a snare, and it is evident that it does not know how to squirm out of this.

"When Satan cannot suppress the preaching of the Gospel by force...

...he tries to accomplish his purpose by striking the ministers of the Gospel with poverty."

This is from Luther's commentary on Galatians 6:6. Although it was written with particular application to the material excesses of medieval Roman Catholicism, the general application--of financially supporting those who preach and teach in our local congregations--is still as relevant as when Paul penned his letter to the Christians at Galatia:

Verse 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Now the Apostle also addresses the hearers of the Word requesting them to bestow "all good things" upon those who have taught them the Gospel. I have often wondered why all the apostles reiterated this request with such embarrassing frequency. In the papacy I saw the people give generously for the erection and maintenance of luxurious church buildings and for the sustenance of men appointed to the idolatrous service of Rome. I saw bishops and priests grow rich until they possessed the choicest real estate. I thought then that Paul's admonitions were overdone. I thought he should have requested the people to curtail their contributions. I saw how the generosity of the people of the Church was encouraging covetousness on the part of the clergy. I know better now.

As often as I read the admonitions of the Apostle to the effect that the churches should support their pastors and raise funds for the relief of impoverished Christians I am half ashamed to think that the great Apostle Paul had to touch upon this subject so frequently. In writing to the Corinthians he needed two chapters to impress this matter upon them. I would not want to discredit Wittenberg as Paul discredited the Corinthians by urging them at such length to contribute to the relief of the poor. It seems to be a by-product of the Gospel that nobody wants to contribute to the maintenance of the Gospel ministry. When the doctrine of the devil is preached people are prodigal in their willing support of those who deceive them.

We have come to understand why it is so necessary to repeat the admonition of this verse. When Satan cannot suppress the preaching of the Gospel by force he tries to accomplish his purpose by striking the ministers of the Gospel with poverty. He curtails their income to such an extent that they are forced out of the ministry because they cannot live by the Gospel. Without ministers to proclaim the Word of God the people go wild like savage beasts.

Paul's admonition that the hearers of the Gospel share all good things with their pastors and teachers is certainly in order. To the Corinthians he wrote: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" (I Cor. 9:11.) In the old days when the Pope reigned supreme everybody paid plenty for masses. The begging friars brought in their share. Commercial priests counted the daily offerings. From these extortions our countrymen are now delivered by the Gospel. You would think they would be grateful for their emancipation and give generously for the support of the ministry of the Gospel and the relief of impoverished Christians. Instead, they rob Christ. When the members of a Christian congregation permit their pastor to struggle along in penury, they are worse than heathen.

Before very long they are going to suffer for their ingratitude. They will lose their temporal and spiritual possessions. This sin merits the severest punishment. The reason why the churches of Galatia, Corinth, and other places were troubled by false apostles was this, that they had so little regard for their faithful ministers. You cannot refuse to give God a penny who gives you all good things, even life eternal, and turn around and give the devil, the giver of all evil and death eternal, pieces of gold, and not be punished for it.

The words "in all good things" are not to be understood to mean that people are to give all they have to their ministers, but that they should support them liberally and give them enough to live well.

(Source, with bibliographic information at the bottom of the page.)

Another portrait of early Christians in Rome

This is Lampe's map of the ancient city of Rome, from page 477 of his work. He notes the various regions of the earliest church, indicated by Roman Numerals. The locations of the later tituli churches mentioned in the previous posting are indicated and the various "ecclesiastical regions" that he has traced throughout the book. The dark heavy line is the Tiber river. (If I had to provide a scale for this map, I would suggest that the Trastevere area, region VII, is approximately 1 square km.)

Following up on my previous post about the early Christians in Rome, I wanted to provide some further detail that both demonstrates the level of detail that Peter Lampe was working with, and provides a touching portrait of what life must have been like for Christians in earliest Rome.

The following selection describes the Trastevere section of the city; Robert Jewett, in his work on Paul, describes the district briefly: "'Trastevere was the harbor and worker quarter; it contained harbor workers …, laborers in the many warehouses, seamen and brick and tile workers….potters…millers working with imported grain…tanners and leatherworkers.' Roman statistics indicate that Trastevere was the most densely populated section of the city with the highest proportion of high-rise slum dwellings in the city…Trastevere was full of immigrants out of the East and was the site of mystery religion shrines and temples. This section, which lay across the Tiber from the rest of Rome, was left untouched by the Roman fire, which may account in part for the later scapegoating of Christians by Nero."

Here is Lampe's account:

Pre-Pauline Christians are attested for Rome (Romans; Acts 28:15) and Puteoli (Acts 28:13). …The Christian presence in Puteoli and Rome correlates with a twofold background. …Christianity spread along the trade routes that Judaism had already followed: the synagogues were the setting for the first Christian mission…The Jewish as well as the Christian “axis” Puteoli-Rome has a particular economic-historical background. The stretch Puteoli-Rome was the main trade route between the East and the city of Rome in the first half of the first century. The road of Judaism and Christianity from the east to Rome followed in the footsteps of trade. Were there tradespersons among the first Christians in Italy? Was the tentmaker Aquila (Acts 18, 1 Cor, Romans 16) from Pontus (see below) representative of the first urban Roman Christians?

…

A fragment of the Severian marble city plan shows a piece of the Via Campana-Portuensis; it is bordered by large warehouses. Trastevere was a harbor quarter, a workers quarter. It accommodated harbor workers, who unloaded the ships’ cargoes, porters of the many warehouses, sailors, and also workers from the brickyards on the Vatican slopes. Many brick-stamps that lie before our feet in the catacombs were pressed in the Vatican brickworks.

Shopkeepers and small craftsmen were drawn by the harbor and its imported goods – ivory carvers, cabinet makers, and potters. Millers from Trastevere ground the imported grains unloaded in the harbor. The mills were along the Tiber and on the east slope of the Gianicolo above the trans-Tiber plain, where they were driven by the water of the Aqua Traiana.

Knacker and tanner operations spread a penetrating odor: The “dog’s skin that hangs in Trastevere” stank pervasively (Martial 6.93). The Corariara Septiminiana, a leather factory of the XIVth Region, is thought to have been uncovered beneath S. Caecelia. In the floor of a large room were found seven cylindrically formed, brick-walled basins that seem to have been used for tanning leather. Where the corarii (tanners) practiced their industry was the worst living quarter one can imagine. The tanners worked with urine from the public conveniences; the stench hung over the quarter. Martial was disgusted by the Roman tanner who kissed him all over to welcome him back from a trip (12.59)

Trade, industry, transport – the common people of Trastevere lived from them, whether free or slave. … Trastevere was extremely densely populated. In an official inscription of Hadrian from the year 136, there are twenty-two vici listed for Trastavere (Region XIV), while, for other regions (I, X, XII, XIIII), only 9, 6, 12, or 17 vici, respectively, are noted.

["Vici" here are "small city districts." Each was "an administrative unit directed by four vici magistri and four servo public. From Lampe pgs 7, 9-10, 50-51].

I am wondering, for those Roman Catholics who simply assume that there was some kind of "successor of Peter" in Rome, in the form of a monarchical bishop over all the city, much less, over all the world, how many of them were aware of the political structures of the Roman "vici"? Or the network of synagogues, near which the house-church "parishes" emerged? Or that these groups were very far away from each other, because it was a very large city? And the people of these communities weren't mobile, because they were poor?

A Clear Picture of Christian House Church Worship in the First Two Centuries

In response to the charge that there was no single, monarchical bishop in Rome for the first hundred or more years of the church in that city, one commenter asked, "Can you then name the organizers, leaders, or members of the house churches and what decades they existed? Can you give an account of when exactly these house churches started and who were the principal organizers? Can you also let us know what happened to these house Churches?"

Consider Romans 16. The letters of Paul not only provide his theology, his “Gospel,” in the clearest possible terms. But his letters are thick with the details of his life, details that enable us to paint an extremely accurate portrait of his life and travels.

In Romans 16, Paul sends greetings to 26 named individuals, and two other individuals. Peter Lampe, a Lutheran New Testament scholar whose name I've mentioned, has done a complete analysis of Romans 16, in his 1987 (trans 2003) work “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” MINNEAPOLIS: Fortress Press -- including a text critical and source critical study. Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans, relies on Lampe's work, as does Thomas Schreiner.

By sending greetings to all of these individuals (where the letter will be read in all of the churches in Rome), Paul seeks to remind those Christians in Rome who don’t know him, that he already knows a number of people from that city. These greetings "would encourage them to think favorably of him and remind the church as a whole of the number of 'supporters' that he already has" (Moo 918).

Moo also suggests that this list "makes clear is the pattern of church organization in Rome, for Paul identifies at least three, and perhaps five, separate house churches. Early Christians did not have large public facilities for meeting, so they used their own houses. And since even the largest house of the wealthiest Christian would hold no more than seventy or eighty for worship, growth beyond that point required that the Christians split up into house churches."

I've noted, too, that it was most likely that, in Rome, the Christians likely met near synagogues. Lampe has traced the locations of those synagogues (through archaeological and other means) and has even provided maps in his work.)

Lampe mentions the households of Aquila and Pricilla, and identifies four other “households” from the names in Romans 16. Then he continues:

Thus, in the capital city of Rome, we count five different Christian islands. If we assume that the other fourteen people of Romans 16 do not belong to any of these five crystallization points and that they hardly could all have belonged to only one other additional circle, then this results in at least seven separate islands of Christianity.

At least an eighth may be added to this when Paul sojourned in Rome and gathered Christians in his rented accommodation (Acts 28:30 ff). There is nowhere any indication of a central location for the different groups scattered over the city. Each circle of Christians may have conducted worship services by itself in a house or apartment, so that it can be referred to as a house community (see pgs 359-360).

Fast forward a couple of hundred years. What was the structure of the Christian community like in say the fifth century?

We encounter the same phenomenon of local fragmentation [scattered congregations] if we proceed chronologically from the opposite direction and ask concerning the origins of the Roman titular churches (tituli).

The Roman tituli of late antiquity are relatively independent parishes within the city (“quasi diocesis”), with their own place of assembly, their own clergy, cult, baptistery, and burial place. We know the number and the names of the tituli from the signature lists of the Roman synods. Some 25 titular parishes can be gleaned from the lists (pg 360, emphasis added).

So here are words that modern day Roman Catholics will recognize: parishes, dioceses, baptistery, etc. Lampe actually lists these 23 titular churches, and then he continues his analysis to trace the “house churches” into the future, and the titular churches just listed, back into the past.

The 15 to 20 pre-Constantinian titular house churches (most likely from the third century; cf. Cornelius in the middle of the third century [see Eusebius ”History” 6.43.11]) are indebted to private individuals who put space at the disposal of house communities…

The Christian fractionation stands against the background of a Jewish community in the city of Rome that was broken up into a number of independent synagogue communities [see detail provided here] [emphasis in original]. The parallelism is amazing, whether one wishes to consider the Jewish structure as a direct model for Christians or not.

Justin’s [community] met in a rented lodging “above the bath of Myrtinus”. In the same work, Justin attests that there are other house churches in Rome besides his. To the question, “Where do you assemble?” he answers, “There, where each one will and can.” “Or do you mean that we all are accustomed to assemble in the same place?" "It is by no means so.” Justin claims that he does not even know the other assembly places (Lampe pgs 364-65, citing Justin from “The Acts of Justin” see pg 276-277 in Lampe).

Lampe even goes into some detail about the structure of homes that Christians met in:

In view of the concurrence of archaeological and literary evidence, we may conclude that, in the first two centuries, there were no “house churches” in the sense of specific rooms permanently set aside for worship in secular houses. Positively speaking, the Christians of the first and second centuries celebrated their liturgy in rooms that were used in everyday life. This means that the rooms used for Sunday worship had no special immoveable cultic equipment. [This means, by the way, no altars, no tabernacles, no genuflecting, no “sacrifice of the mass.”] This explains the absence of any archaeological evidence of Christian assembly rooms in the city of Rome for the first two centuries. Christian circles met someplace in the basilica private of a wealthy Christian or on the third floor of an insula (cf. Acts 20:7ff.), in a rented lodging (over the bath of Myrtinus,” Justin, Acta 3), or in a suburban villa on the Via Latina (chap. 27). Justin witnesses that the gatherings of Christians in Rome took place where one preferred it or where it was possible. One was not limited to special cultic rooms.

Still at the beginning of the third century, Minucius Felix lets the pagan Caecilius Natalis complain on the beach at Ostia at Christians: “Why do they take pains to hide the object of their worship….Why have they no altars, no known sanctuaries? Why do they never speak publicly, never meet openly? Lampe, 368-369).

As he notes, the Christians have “no delubra et aras”; they are “a social gathering shunning the light, silent in public, loquacious in a corner.”

I believe that every Christian who cares about the historical nature of his faith ought to be extremely grateful for the detailed picture of early Christian worship in the city of Rome, through a network of house churches, [secretive to evade persecution], without the leadership of single leader or publicly known bishop, naming only Christ as their Shepherd.

Ignatius severely contradicts current Roman Catholic teachings

For the next few posts, I'd like to work through Adrian Fortescue's small book, The Early Papacy (to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451). In a previous post, I listed the four "theses to be proved," -- beliefs which the early church held, "as part of her faith," which are essentially supposed to be the same four things that Rome believes about the papacy today.

To do this, he provided a series of "proof texts," texts from early writers suggest that "the plain meaning seems to be that their writer believed what we believe [about the papacy] at some point" (53).

He goes on formally to discuss the methodology, or how these discussions typically have played out over history:

We quote words of which the plain meaning seems to be that their writer believed what we believe, in some point. The opponent then tries to strip his words of this meaning; Catholic writers then have to refute his attempt. (53-54).

Catholics, especially, should have some qualms about what the "plain meaning" of a text is. The Bible can't have "plain meaning"; that would be the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity. We need an "infallible magisterium" to provide the "proper" interpretation." But the church fathers, they can write perspicuously. In Catholic-speak, whenever Rome is mentioned by a church father, that can only be a full proof of a full-fledged papacy.

We won't point out that double standard here; it's been discussed many times.

* * *

Here's the first of Fortescue's four "theses to be proved": The Pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.

From Fortescue's perspective, all of the quotes that he gives to support this thesis "can be understood naturally, supposing that their writers believed in the primacy of the Pope. If you do not admit that, you have to find a different, often a most tortuous, interpretation for each." Invoking a rule of logic, he says that "The rule of good reasoning is that one simple cause that accounts equally for all the phenomena is supposed to be the real one, unless proved false. Now, there is nothing that can be even reasonably suggested to show that the early Fathers did not believe in the [papal] primacy."

He's hedging again. If this is a "thesis to be proved," then beginning with the assumption that what he needs to prove really is just "a vicious circularity." And it's typical of "The Catholic Hermeneutic" that we've written about in the past.

One more qualifier. He says: "There is another general issue here. These early Fathers are witnesses of the belief of their time. Now, the value of evidence increases as it is multiplied. We must take the value, not of one text, but of all put together. Here we have a great number of texts that all make the same point. The fact that all do make for the same point suggests the reasonable interpretation of each. All can be understood naturally, supposing that their writers believed in the primacy of the Pope."

So the value of all these texts together -- whether they are related or not -- increases as more and more of them (supposedly) say the same thing.

At any rate, here is his first proof text for an early papacy:

We have in the first century two expressions of St. Ignatius, the Martyr-bishop of Antioch (d.c. 107). He speaks of "the presiding Church in the place of the land of the Romans," and he calls this Church "the President of the bond of love", meaning the whole body of Christians, if we accept Funk and Harnack's translation. (Fortescue 55).

Keep in mind that Fortescue suggests that "the plain meaning" of these really bare-bones texts that he provides is that "the Pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth." Or at least, in the backward Catholic way of reasoning, this statement doesn't explicitly contradict that Ignatius believed in an early papal primacy, so it must not only be true, but it is a firm conviction in support of the papacy.

But that really is beside the point. It is possible to learn a great deal about what Ignatius believed from his letters.

Here is the translation given by Michael W. Holmes, "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and Translations, Third Edition" Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, © 2007, pg 225, of that same prooftext that Fortescue provided:

Ignatius the Image-bearer to the church that has found mercy in the majesty of the Father Most High and Jesus Christ his only son, the church beloved and enlightened through the will of the one who willed all things that exist, in accordance with faith in and love for Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the district of Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding over love, observing the law of Christ, bearing the name of the Father, which I also greet in the name of Jesus Christ, son of the Father; to those who are united in flesh and spirit to every commandment of his, who have been filled with the grace of God without wavering and filtered clear of every alien color: heartiest greetings blamelessly in Jesus Christ our God.

It's clear that Ignatius thinks highly of the church that "presides in the place of the district of the Romans." But why? Is it to be assumed (or can it be inferred from the text) that "The Pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth"? Or are there other reasons why he may be speaking highly of Rome? I will suggest the latter -- and none of these is "tortuous," and none of these also has anything to do with "papal primacy." These are just good, natural "interpretations" for what these various authors say, that will have nothing to do with "papal primacy."

I should add, this letter was one of seven letters written while Ignatius was under arrest, and being transported by 10 Roman soldiers, for the purpose of standing trial. It was his over-riding goal at this time to become a martyr. And his great fear was, with respect to the church at Rome, that they would somehow exercise their political connections and prevent his martyrdom.

The fact is, for the remainder of this letter of Ignatius to the Romans, for all of the advise that Ignatius is willing to give to other churches about the office of "Bishop," a "bishop" of Rome is not mentioned. But it is possible for a church to be without a bishop: "Remember in your prayers the church in Syria [Ignatius's home church], which has God for its shepherd in my place. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop--as will your love." (9.1)

But while Rome's "bishop" is not in view at all, the political connections of the church at Rome are repeatedly in view.

1.1 For I am afraid of your love, in that it may do me wrong; for it is easy for you to do what you want, but it is difficult for me to reach God, unless you spare me. [There's that "love" that is, through its political connections, going to either save his life, or, if it holds its tongue, and fails to pull its political strings, along with Christ, going to be "bishop" of Antioch in his absence. So the place of love," which Fortescue considers to be "the whole body of Christians," really has a reference to Rome's political connections.]

2.1 For I will never again have an opportunity such as this to reach God, nor can you, if you remain silent, be credited with a greater accomplishment. For if you remain silent and leave me alone, I will be a word of God, but if you love my flesh [and spare my life], then I will again be a mere voice. [There's that "love" again.]

2.2 Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as an offering to God while there is still an altar ready, so that in love you may form a chorus and sing to the Father in Jesus Christ, because God has judged the bishop from Syria worthy to be found in the west, having summoned from the east.

3.1-2 You have never envied anyone; you taught others. [Many believe this is a reference to 1 Clement.] And my wish is that those instructions that you issue when teaching disciples will remain in force. Just pray that I will have strength both outwardly and inwardly so that I may not just talk about it but want to do it, so that I may not merely be called a Christian but actually prove to be one. [That is, "teach self-sacrifice," and in doing so, "my death will confirm your "teaching" "in force"?]

3.3 Nothing that is visible is good. [Did Ignatius believe in a "visible church"?] For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father. The work is not a matter of persuasive rhetoric [1 Clement?]; rather, Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world.

4.1 I am writing to all the churches and insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will--unless you hinder me [through your political connections]. I implore you; do not be unseasonably kind to me. Let me be food for the wild beasts; through whom I can reach God.

4.3 I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave. [It is important to note that here, as in other places, Ignatius does not see any kind of "succession" of apostolic authority. He acknowledges himself -- he has repeatedly said he is a bishop -- to be far, far less, in every way, than Peter and Paul.]

6.1 It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. [Of course, the Roman government currently rules over the ends of the earth.]

6.2 Bear with me brothers and sisters: do not keep me from living; do not desire my death. Do not give to the world one who wants to belong to God or tempt him with material things.

7.1 The ruler of this age wants to take me captive and corrupt my godly intentions. Therefore none of you who are present must help him. [That is, you at Rome are eminently capable of doing the wrong thing.]

In this letter alone, Ignatius contradicts a vast range of current Roman Catholic teachings.

In this letter to the church at Rome, does Ignatius see even a bishop, much less someone who might be "the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth? When a bishop is mentioned here, that bishop is Christ [And the "love" of the Romans that could either spare him the martyrdom he so desires, or confirm it, and so make Jesus Christ alone the bishop of Antioch.]

When a "visible church" is in view, "nothing that is visible is good." When "teaching" is in view, he fears the Romans will teach wrongly. When "apostles" are in view, there is no succession, but a great gulf between apostle and bishop.

This is the first, and the earliest "proof" that Fortescue gives of an early papacy. Have I tried to "strip Ignatius's words of their plain meaning"? Or have I rather let him speak about an early Roman primacy?

It is not a "Petrine primacy" that is in view in Rome. It is a political primacy. And this political primacy comes into view over and over again in the early church.

Mean Calvinism: The Children! Don't Forget the Children!

I take special notice of Tiber swimmers who claim to be former Calvinists. Here's a tidbit from a Roman Catholic convert, commenting on her previous theological position:

I was probably one of the most radical Calvinists of all. I would and did stand flat footed and state unwaveringly that all five points of the TULIP were infallible and that those who were not elect were going to glorify God simply by their depraved lives and their eternal damnation. I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God's capricious picking and choosing. I had been taught that since it was Tradition that taught us that children were not guilty of actual sin until after an age of accountability that we should reject that idea along with the whole of Catholic Tradition. So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become "regenerate" and be saved. If your head is spinning right now, don't feel alone. I can't believe I once believed this rubbish either. [source]

The sentiment put forth is that those awful Calvinists are really heartless when it comes to unborn children. If you ever want to tug at heart strings, make sure to put children in your argument. I'm not sure which Calvinism this woman ascribed to, but as far as I know, there isn't one Calvinist view on the issue. Some Calvinists hold children who die unborn whose parents are believers will be saved. Others hold different views: God saves all the unborn, none of the unborn, etc. My personal view is I don't know what God does with the unborn, or infants that die. I do know this: whatever He does, it's Holy. That's good enough for me.

But here's the ironic kicker. If one traces the issue through history, some of the finest minds that Rome claims as her own held some rather straightforward views on helpless unborn children. Consider the description B.B. Warfield gives here of Augustine:

The fairest exponent of the thought of the age on this subject is Augustine, who was called upon to defend [baptism is necessary to salvation] against the Pelagian error that infants dying unbaptized, while failing of entrance into the kingdom, yet obtain eternal life. His constancy in this controversy has won for him the unenviable title of durus infantum pater — a designation doubly unjust, in that not only did he neither originate the obnoxious dogma nor teach it in its harshest form, but he was even preparing its destruction by the doctrines of grace, of which he was more truly the father. Augustine expressed the Church-doctrine moderately, teaching, of course, that infants dying unbaptized would be found on Christ’s left hand and be condemned to eternal punishment, but also not forgetting to add that their punishment would be the mildest of all, and indeed that they were to be beaten with so few stripes that he could not say it would have been better for them not to be born.

And consider this comment from Warfield as well:

If the general consent of a whole age as expressed by its chief writers, including the leading bishops of Rome, and byits synod ical decrees, is able to determine a doctrine, certainly the Patristic Church transmitted to the Middle Ages as de fide that infants dying unbaptized (with the exception only of those who suffer martyrdom) are not only excluded from heaven, but doomed to hell. Accordingly the mediaeval synods so define ; the second Council of Lyons and the Coun- cil of Florence declare that "the souls of those who pass away in mortal sin or in orig inal sin alone descend immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with unequal penalties." On the maxim that gradus non mutant speciem we must adjudge Petavius's argument unanswerable, that this deliverance determines the punisnment ot un bap tized infants to be the same in kind (in the same hell) with that of adults in mortal sin: "So infants are tormented with unequal tortures of fire, but are tormented neverthe less."

And also this:

Nevertheless scholastic thought on the subject was characterized by a success ful effort to mollify the harshness of the Church doctrine, under the impulse of the prevalent semi-Pelagian conception of orig inal sin. The whole troup of schoolmen unite in distinguishing between poena damni and poena sensus, and in assigning to infants dying unbaptized only the former — i.e., the loss of heaven and the beatific vision, and not the latter — i.e., positive torment. They differ among themselves only as to whether this poena damni, which alone is the lot of infants, is accompanied by a painful sense of the loss (as Lombard held), or is so neg ative as to involve no pain at all, either external or internal (as Aquinas argued).

Even though this is a bit nicer, it still seems like it would be kind of rough for our Roman Catholic convert swallow, I mean they're children! Where's the free pass straight to heaven? Warfield explains how Rome started to work it all out:

In the upheaval of the sixteenth century the Church of Rome found her task in harmonizing under the influence of the scholastic teaching, the inheritance which the somewhat inconsistent past had bequeathed her. Four varieties of opinion sought a place in her teaching. At the one extreme the earlier doctrine of Augustine and Gregory, that infants dying unbaptized suffer eternally the pains of sense, found again advocates, and that especially among the greatest of her scholars, such as Noris, Petau, Driedo, Conry, Berti. At the other extreme, a Pelagianizing doctrine that excluded unbaptized infants from the kingdom of heaven and the life promised to the blessed, and yet accorded to them eternal life and natural happiness in a place between heaven and hell, was advocated by such great leaders as Ambrosius Catharinus, Albertus Pighius, Molina, Sfondrati. The mass, however, followed the schoolmen in the middle path of parna damni, and, like the schoolmen, only differed as to whether the punishment of loss involved sorrow (as Bellarmine held) or was purely negative.

Warfield explains Trent's sorting this out:

The Council of Trent (1545) anathematized those who affirm that the "sacraments of the new law are not necessary to salvation, and that without them or an intention of them men obtain . . . the grace of justification;" or, again, that " baptism is free — that is, is not necessary to salvation." This is explained by the Tridentine Catechism to mean that "unless men be regenerated to God through the grace of baptism, they are born to everlasting misery and destruction, whether their parents be believers or unbelievers ;" while, on the other hand, we are credibly informed that the council was near anathematizing as a Lutheran heresy the proposition that the penalty for original sin is the fire of hell. The Council of Trent at least made renewedly de fide that infants dying unbaptized incurred damnation, though it left the way open for discussion as to the kind and amount of their punishment.

I could continue quoting Warfield, but go read the article for yourself. Suffice it to say, this Tiber swimmer hasn't gone that deep into history before making her comments. Note to Romanist converts: before chastising a theological view, make sure it wasn't an acceptable view in your church at one time.

Misunderstanding Luther on Faith and Works

I stopped over at Catholic Answers and found the following comment left about my paper, Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology:

I think James Swan errs in thinking Luther's thought processes were always consistent and therefore if he said works are necessary in one place, we must assume he always has this in mind in another. In this article, he essentially says when Luther said "sin boldly" it was "hyperbole" correct? However, I am off-hand familiar with at least one other exhortation of Luther's that supports the interpretation that Luther really had no problem with someone "sinning boldly." That quotation is:

"And here Paul speaketh not of the ceremonial law; for he sacrificed in the Temple, circumcised Timothy, shaved his head at Cenchrea. These things had he not done, if he had been dead to the ceremonial law, but he speaketh of the whole law. Therefore the whole law, whether it be ceremonial or moral, to a Christian is utterly abrogate, for he is dead unto it. Not that the law is utterly taken away nay, it remaineth, liveth, and reigneth still in the wicked." (Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 1535) [source]

I'm not infallible, so it is possible I made an error. I don't think I have though in my article. I went through Luther's letter to Melanchthon and advice to "sin boldly" thoroughly. While it's true Luther wasn't always consistent (he himself admits this), you'll find he's very consistent on what he means by faith and works throughout his Reformation career.

As to hyperbole, Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and his statement to Melanchthon is a perfect example. Luther doesn't write analytical theology. He writes profound verbose sentiment driving one to think deeply.The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” isn't so difficult to grasp. 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’s point is to simply compare 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.

Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.” The "sin boldly" statement is a perfect example. 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.

The response:

Please understand, James. I did read over your article. I was not convinced of your conclusions that he was consistent on this matter, however. True you can find citations of Luther praising works. But there is the existence of a number of other citations in context (like the one I mentioned from Galatians earlier... in which he belittles works. Or how he believed conscience was the devil trying to drive the soul to despair... I don't think Luther was always consistent (including on this matter) and I don't see reason to dismiss occasions in which he spoke rather clearly in my opinion to the detriment of works done in grace. [source]

The quote in question from Luther's Commentary on Galatians (cited above) in the same context states:

By this we may plainly see, that there is nothing here for us to do only it belongeth unto us, to hear that these things have been wrought and done in this sort, and by sure and confident faith to apprehend the same. And this is the true formed [and furnished] faith indeed. Now, when I have thus apprehended Christ by faith, and through him am dead to the law, justified from sin, delivered from death, the devil and hell, then I do good works, I love God, I give thanks to him, I exercise charity towards my neighbor.But this charity or works following, do neither form nor adorn my faith, but my faith formeth and adorneth charity. This is our divinity; which seemeth strange and marvellous, or rather foolish, to carnal reason: to wit, that I am not only blind and deaf to the law, yea delivered and freed from the law, but also wholly dead unto the same.

This statement is in perfect harmony with the outline of Luther's theology in my paper. It appears to me Luther isn't being understood when he speaks of works, law, and faith. If he was being understood, Luther's Galatians Commentary would not have been cited incorrectly. Sometimes one needs to read beyond that which one intends to quote, or actually understand what an author is saying before quoting. When it comes to a person standing righteous before God, for Luther, the Law is powerless to achieve this. Only Christ was able to do this, and by faith, his work of keeping the law becomes mine. If I think my keeping the law can justify me, I'm doomed to failure. As Paul says, "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16).

The response:

I'm not the only student of religious studies who reads his Galatians commentary that way, so there is no need to personally attack my capacity to read. Yeah, Luther thought works are a nice bonus to thank God for being so nice. We understand that.But the question begged is: how does the statement about the moral law being "utterly abrogate" to the Christian fit in with the outline of your paper? [source]

I wasn't trying to insult you, but I don't think you understand what Luther is saying. It's one thing to disagree with what he is saying, it's quite another to say he wasn't consistent in his Galatians commentary on faith, works, and law. You said my paper on Luther is in error because of your quote from the Galatians Commentary. I've demonstrated it isn't.

The question isn't begged. If for Luther, Christ fulfills the law perfectly, and his righteousness is taken hold of by faith, then the law, as a means to eventually justification, is done away with. It's a useless endeavor as a means to be justified. It's a complete waste of time in regard to the "chief doctrine" of justification.

"When we have taught faith in Christ this way, then we also teach about good works. Because you have taken hold of Christ by faith, through whom you are righteous, you should now go and love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks to Him, preach Him, praise Him, confess Him. Do good to your neighbor, and serve him; do your duty. These are truly good works, which flow from this faith and joy conceived in the heart because we have the forgiveness of sins freely through Christ." [LW 26:132 (Commentary on Galatians)]

"We concede that good works and love must also be taught; but this must be in its proper time and place, that is, when the question has to do with works, apart from this chief doctrine. But here the point at issue is how we are justified and attain eternal life. To this we answer with Paul: We are pronounced righteous solely by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law or by love. This is not because we reject works or love, as our adversaries accuse us of doing, but because we refuse to let ourselves be distracted from the principal point at issue here, as Satan is trying to do. So since we are now dealing with the topic of justification, we reject and condemn works; for this topic will not allow of any discussion of good works. On this issue, therefore, we simply cut off all laws and all works of the Law." [LW 26:136 (Commentary on Galatians)]

"Thus we must learn to distinguish all laws, even those of God, and all works from faith and from Christ, if we are to define Christ accurately. Christ is not the Law, and therefore He is not a taskmaster for the Law and for works; but He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This is grasped by faith alone, not by love, which nevertheless must follow faith as a kind of gratitude. Therefore victory over sin and death, salvation, and eternal life do not come by the Law or by the deeds of the Law or by our will but by Jesus Christ alone. Hence faith alone justifies when it takes hold of this, as becomes evident from a sufficient division and induction: Victory over sin and death does not come by the works of the Law or by our will; therefore it comes by Jesus Christ alone. Here we are perfectly willing to have ourselves called “solafideists” by our opponents, who do not understand anything of Paul’s argument." [LW 26:137 (Commentary on Galatians)]

Disagree with Luther all you want, but at least treat him fairly. Read him carefully, like you would one of your own favorite theologians. Disagree with an actual point of theology at least properly interpreted.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy

I've been tied up with some other things over the last few days, and my intention is to respond to Nick's charge of "Deism" very carefully (because, among other things, he links to the Called to Communion article on "Ecclesial Deism," which I think is very weak because the charge is based on assumptions and not very good assumptions at that, and because Newman's theory of development is involved.)

But in the meantime, I've been reading Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's (2010) "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" (Wheaton IL: Crossway). While this work discusses the early church in the context of what they call the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis, it also has (I think) extraordinary implications for people like Nick and Bryan Cross, who want to sweep away any notion that Protestants can lay claim to the early church and early Christianity as their own.

Briefly, the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis holds that "orthodox Christianity" "developed" (probably in the second century), and defeated "heresies" (which Ehrman might call "competing Christianities," i.e., doceticism, gnosticism, etc.)

Kostenberger and Kruger do several things: they note that Evangelical (and other) scholars have replied vigorously, to the point that Bauer was discredited before Ehrman (popularly) resurrected him.

Second, they also note that both Bauer and Ehrman seem to ignore the actual New Testament texts -- the fact that these are much, much earlier, and they do demonstrate "core component of Christian orthodoxy--the belief in the divinity of Jesus and worship of him as Lord and God--was not forged in the second century on the anvil of various Christians sects. Instead, such a belief dates back to the very origins of Christianity during and immediately subsequent to Jesus' earthly ministry" (65).

This is hardly "deism" or "ecclesial deism" of any kind. The authors root this high Christology, as well as "Paul's Gospel," "Liturgical Materials That Precede the New Testament" (1 Cor 15, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15-20) and even "Apostolic Authority" squarely in the context of the Old Testament covenants and "Redemptive history."

"Authority was not vested in an ecclesiastical body (as Roman Catholics hold) but in the quality of Christological confession made possible by divine revelation (see Matt. 16:13-19) (101, emphasis in original).

Throughout, both the early Christian community and the canon of the New Testament are rooted, early and often, within the structure of God's covenants with Israel. "Canon, therefore, is the inevitable result of covenant." (112)

"written texts [the NT documents] were the central manner in which God testified to the terms of his covenant relationships within ancient Israel, and thus would be the expected means of communication in the context of the new covenant. As soon as early Christians recognized that God's redemptive acts in Jesus Christ were the beginnings of the new covenant--and they recognized this very early--then they naturally would have anticipated written documents to follow that testified to the terms of the covenant. (see Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, 14, Heb 7:22, 8:6) (113, emphasis in original).

I'm not finished with this work yet, but my sense is that this study is a kind of manifesto along the lines of Machen's "Liberalism and Christianity." It is short, thorough, well-argued, and thick with the kind of historical and exegetical detail that is lacking in the sweeping generalities of people like Nick, Bryan Cross, and John Henry Newman. And it provides the foundational kind of (covenantal) structure, across the New Testament and the period of the Apostolic Fathers that will give Protestants an effective and biblical way to understand the "developments" of this whole period of time.

That New Testament scholars of the caliber of Kostenberger are turning their sights on these aspects of the history of the earliest church -- including this period of the Apostolic Fathers -- is just thrilling to me. This work is only the beginning; I trust that we will see more. I don't think I can recommend this work highly enough.

A Muslim admits that one who dies for his enemies has greater love

The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, quoted John 15:13 and tried to denigrate it; and accused the NT of making Jesus a liar.  (no longer available - his web-site got hacked.)

"Greater love has no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

“Actually there is a greater love than this. A greater love than this is that a man lay down his life for his enemies. It is not something difficult to ask one to lay down their life for their friends and beloved ones; however it takes more self sacrifice and love to lay down one's life for their enemy.” The Grandverbalizer19

What he didn’t realize is that other passages in the Bible say just that: Romans 5:6-11

Romans 5:6-11 (New American Standard Bible)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

The Bible teaches this “greater love” that the Muslim longs for in his heart, – Romans 5:6-11 – Jesus died for His enemies – rebel sinners. Dying for sinners, enemies, rebels, helpless, ungodly and then changes them into His friends. Since both is true, Jesus died for sinners that are enemies and changes them from enemies to friends, then both are true and you are wrong on this. The Bible is vindicated from your attacks.

This Muslim directly admitted that dying for enemies is greater love. Since Christ also died for His enemies (Romans 5:6-10); then by principle, he has admitted that Christ dying for His enemies is greater love.

The Qur'an only says "Allah loves those who love him; Allah does not love his enemies or unbelievers." (see below)

Later on, when I pointed out what Romans 5:6-10 teaches, this Muslim admitted, “It was clever I'll have to admit.”

The GV19 was just clearly wrong in his judgment on John 15:13. God changes us from enemies into new creatures ( 2 Cor. 5:17) from death to life (Ephesians 2:1-9) from children of wrath to children of God, from enemies to friends. It still stands. John 15:14-17 - Again, read the verses around it. Jesus no longer calls us "slaves", but "friends"; because He changes our sinful rebellious hearts by grace. He pours out His grace first on us. He loved us when we were enemies and changes us and makes us His friends. We have a loving friendship with Christ. We are no longer slaves - we are not just slaves in a cold, unfriendly, unloving way, "Do what I say!"; "submit!", like a Darth Varder or the way Allah acts in Islam; rather we are voluntarily servants of God ( we want to serve and obey God) because we have been changed from rebels to friends and sons/daughters. (Many seeds, much fruit)

John 15:14-17

14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

It is very interesting that this Muslim admits that Christ dying for His enemies is greater love. We have this in the Bible - Romans 5:6-10 - Christ died for us, sinners, ungodly, enemies, helpless. By fighting against John 15:13, the GV19 has caused a problem for himself in his own Islamic Scriptures, since in the Qur'an it only says "Allah loves those who love him; Allah does not love his enemies or unbelievers." (see Qur’an Surah 3:31-32 and other references at the end of this article.)

"God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

Romans 5:10 God calls us enemies; Christ died for us, His enemies, and changed us into His friends. (John 15:13)

But the Qur'an never says that; it only says, "Allah does not love sinners; Allah only loves those who love Him". (see Qur’anic references at the end.) The Bible says the opposite, "we love, because God first loved us." I John 4:10, 19

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” I John 4:10

GV19 reveals something of the image of God within him, a heart longing for that connection and relationship with a pure loving God, who loves sinners, enemies (which he has admitted is a greater love). Romans 5:6-10 clearly teaches this. Jesus illustrated it on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." Luke 23:34

GV19 has indirectly admitted that Christianity is true because it has greater love; and Islam is false, because it does not have that at all; because in the Qur'an and Hadith, Allah does not love His enemies, (see Qur’an references at the end of this article). He makes war against them and will do qatal (fight to the death) and jihad (strive against the unbelievers) and make harb (war) against them all. (as in Surah 9:5; 9:29; 8:39)

But we must go deeper into John 15:13-17. Obedience is the result of being changed and being a true friend of Christ. Jesus does not mean that one must obey first in order to become a friend of His, (as if one could by the strength of the flesh), but rather that obedience proves and demonstrates that one is a true friend, it shows that one has been changed by the grace of God first; it shows that true faith is there first. This the same argument of James 2:14-26; professed faith without good works and change and fruit is dead and not real faith. Good works and obedience prove that that faith has justified that person.

We are slaves of Christ, servants of God, because our hearts have been changed first, by His grace. It is voluntary now because our wills have been changed. This is before our wills were freed - John 8:34 - "Every one who commits sin is the slave of sin." Genesis 6:5 ". . . every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually."

See Ezekiel 36:26-27
"I will take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh and cause you to walk in My statutes."

Romans 6:22
But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

See also
John 8:31-36
Galatians 4:6-7

Is John 15:13 a condition before one is regenerated / changed/converted/born again, or is he describing the results of true conversion, the results of true faith?. A consistent hermeneutic with Galatians and Romans and the rest of the NT requires that Jesus means that obedience proves you are His friend, not conditions in order to be His friend, as if someone was working for his acceptance by obedience.

All are slaves of sin (John 8:34) and dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-3) and no one truly seeks after God. (Romans 3:9-23)

Only when our wills are changed do we then truly want God to be ruler and king over our hearts and lives. Then, Christians are voluntary servants of Christ and God the Father - Romans 6:22. See all of chapter 6 for larger context.

Contrast this with Islam, who says not to take enemies for friends and do not love them. Where is the “greater love” in Islam that the Grandverbalizer19 longs for?
Do not love the enemies, in fact Allah says "My enemies" - The Qur’an, Surah al-Mumtahanah 60:1


“The concept of loving one's enemy is quite hard for a Muslim to understand. In Muslim teaching, loving an infidel (kafir) is seen as going against God since God does not love the infidel. “

See www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html (look under L and Love)

Most of the remainder of the information in this article is take from this article on love in the index to Islam, under L; at www.answering-islam.org

But Jesus said:
"But I tell you : Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.'' (Matthew 5:44-48)

• Allah loves those who are pure and clean al-Baqarah 2:222 (specifically taking about women being clean from their menstruation period).
• Allah loves those who do good al-Baqarah 2:195; Âl 'Imran 3:134
• Allah loves those who keep faith and act rightly Âl 'Imran 3:76
“In all the examples above, the love of God is conditional upon the believer being good or clean. If the believer should turn back from God, Allah does not love him any more (Âl 'Imran 3:32).”

If you love Allah, then Allah will love you. Qur’an Al Imran 3:31
Allah does not forgive those that ascribe partners to Allah; Allah only forgives who he wants to forgive. Surah 4:48
Allah does not love those who reject Faith, Âl 'Imran 3:32
Allah does not love the arrogant, the vainglorious, an-Nisa' “Women” 4:36
Allah does not love the ungrateful or wicked, al-Baqarah 2:276
Allah does not love transgressors, al-Baqarah 2:190
Allah does not love wrongdoers, Âl 'Imran 3:57,140