[Apologetics] Re: Three Anti-Social Doctrines of Luther

[Art Kelly]

Stuart,

Thank you for taking the time to try to clarify what
Martin Luther REALLY meant. However, despite your
superb efforts, I find attempts to explain away his
views to be, at best, extremely strained.

Tell me again what Luther meant when he said that, if
he had "faith" (no matter how defined), he could
commit fornication and murder 1,000 times a day and
not lose his salvation.

(By the way, he certainly did not need viagra.)

What religious denominations generally hold that view?
Do ELCA or LCMS Lutherans? Other mainstream
Protestants? Southern Baptists? Other fundamentalists?

I'd defintely like to know, because I find that view
contrary to almost every word in the Bible.

My own view is that Martin Luther probably suffered
from biopolar disorder. On his good days, he was
profound and articulate (even when I did not
completely agree with what he wrote). On his bad days,
even Jack Chick would have been embarrased by his
extreme, irrational anti-Catholicism.

Trying to reconcile different things which Luther
wrote is pretty hard. Some of it may be that he
changed his views over time. But more likely, he was
not well.

I think Catholics and Protestants can together
celebrate the good things that Luther did. Yes, from a
Catholic perspective, circa 2004, there were some.
While not "sweeping under the rug" the bad, we can
emphasize the positive.

The article about Luther's anti-social doctrines
probably does not advance Christian unity. I see no
particular need to re-hash the strange things Luther
wrote 500 years ago.

Art  

--- "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at bmsi.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Dianne Dawson wrote:
> 
> >
>
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6096
> 
> This article is not very helpful - it reads like a
> Michael Moore book.
> 
> > ...the first formal rejection on the part of
> Luther of the traditions and
> > teachings of sixteen centuries of Christianity.
> 
> Luther was objecting to specific problems - not 16
> centuries of Christianity.
> Although his later invectives calling the Catholic
> Church the "spawn of Satan"
> might understandably give this impression, "Church"
> meant "all those
> mean officials teaching what sounds to me like false
> doctrine".
> 
> > "All our works," he said in his characteristic
> way, "are nothing more than
> > worthless lice in an old unclean fur, since
> nothing clean can ever be made of
> > it; in brief, since neither skin nor hair are any
> longer of value" (Erlangen
> > Ed., XX. p. 159). Aside from its error and
> pessimism this doctrine contained
> > cold encouragement for the Christian man and woman
> bent on the performance of
> > social deeds which in the end would amount to
> nothing. Although prompted by
> > the highest supernatural motives and the most
> burning love for God, they
> > could not in the least, he held, be meritorious
> for heaven. 
> 
> All *our* works.  Luther's statement is almost
> straight from the Bible:
> "All our righteousness is as filty rags."  Works
> "prompted by ... love for God"
> are an entirely different thing.  Here, the
> confusion is over the
> word "works".  The Bible distinguishes between
> "works" of the flesh and
> "works" of the spirit - "wood, hay, stubble" vs.
> "gold, silver, and
> precious stones".  The Catholic writer assumes that
> "works" by itself refers to
> the latter, whereas Luther and Protestants assume
> that "works" refers to the
> former - unless explicitly clarified.
> 
> > "Those pious souls," he said, "who do good *to
> gain the Kingdom of Heaven*,
> > not only will never succeed, but they must even be
> reckoned among the
> > impious.
> 
> First, the Kingdom of Heaven must invade your soul. 
> Only then can
> works be "prompted by the highest supernatural
> motives and the most burning
> love for God", and hence merit favor with God. 
> Attempting to gain God's
> favor by doing good works in the flesh, without
> first submitting to His
> salvation, is ignorance or open rebellion.
> 
> > In opposition to the Catholic salvation by good
> works, the Revolution has
> > emphasized justification by faith alone. Some of
> the extreme Lutherans even
> > asserted that good works were prejudicial to
> salvation. In doing this they
> > emptied faith of its essence, and left it little
> else than a mere acceptance
> > of the dogmas of their Church.
> 
> Here, confusion reigns over the word "faith". 
> Catholics read into 
> "by faith alone" the meaning of "by intellectual
> assent alone".
> Hence, they "emptied faith of its essence, and left
> it little else than a mere
> acceptance of the dogmas of their Church."  Luther
> himself defined
> saving faith as faith which is not alone - i.e.,
> what Catholics call
> faith plus works - or what Protestants would prefer
> to call "faith
> proved by works".  And again - substitute "works of
> the flesh" for 
> "good works" to understand what is being said.
> 
> > If, therefore, on the one hand, Luther doubtless
> often inveighs against sin
> > in thundering terms, yet on the other he removes
> from it all real terror. The
> > following passage surely is plain enough:
> 
> >> You see how rich the Christian is [i. e., the
> follower of Luther's
> >> new-fangled Evangel] since even if he wished it
> he could not lose his
> >> salvation, no matter how many sins he might
> commit, provided he will
> >> believe.  No sin can bring about his damnation
> except unbelief alone. All
> >> else is swept away by his faith the moment it
> returns and clings to the
> >> Divine promises made to the baptized. 
> 
> Here, as above, the Catholic writer hears a
> completely different meaning for
> the words "faith" and "unbelief".  No wonder that
> "Luther himself naturally
> contradicts and refutes his new and monstrous dogma
> in many ways."  Because,
> the new and monstrous dogma is in the mind of the
> hearer.  
> 
> > Luther wrote:
> 
> >> God does not save those who are imaginary
> sinners. Be a sinner and sin
> >> boldly, but believe more boldly . . . It is
> sufficient that through the
> >> riches of the glory of God we have known the Lamb
> which taketh away the sins
> >> of the world. Sin would not tear us away from Him
> even though in a single
> >> day we commit fornication and murder a thousand
> and a thousand times . . .
> >> Pray boldly, for you are a very bold sinner.
> ("Briefwechsel," Vol. III, p.
> >> 208.)
> 
> "Belief" for Protestants is trusting in God to the
> point of action.  If you
> have sinned boldly, how much more is your need to
> get serious about
> believing God - to show that faith to be living and
> not dead through
> deeds of obedience, and through fervent prayer.
> 
> > Here is the blasphemous picture as Luther himself
> paints it:
> 
> >> When the stronger comes upon us and makes us his
> prey, in wresting us from
> >> our former ruler, we become his servants and
> prisoners in such a way that we
> >> wish and gladly do whatever he wills.
> 
> >> Thus the human will stands like a steed between
> the two. If God mounts into
> >> the saddle, man wills and goes according to God's
> will, as the Psalmist has
> >> it: "I am become as a beast before thee: and am
> always with thee." If
> >> however the devil leaps into the saddle, man
> wills and goes as the devil
> >> wills. It is not in his power to run to one of
> the two riders and offer his
> >> services to him; but the riders themselves
> struggle with one another for
> >> possession of the animal ("De Servo Arbitrio,"
> Weimar Ed., Vol. XVIII, p.
> >> 633).
> 
> Or as the "blasphemous" Apostle Paul paints it:
> 
> "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in
> trespasses and sins."
> 
> No doubt, however, the Catholic writer was thinking
> of:
> 
> "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves
> servants to obey, his 
> servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto
> death, or of obedience
> unto righteousness."
> 
> But that is because the writer is thinking of a
> believer's sanctification,
> and not of the state of man prior to conversion. 
> Catholic doctrine agrees
> that man is not capable of choosing good to the
> degree God requires until
> his mind and heart are unshackled by the love of
> Christ.
> 
> I think Catholic readers need to do some mental
> substitutions when reading
> Prostestants:
> 
>   "faith" = "Faith demonstrated by works of the
> Spirit prompted by love"
>   "works" = "works of the flesh - wood hay and
> stubble"
> 
> But there is a real conflict implied in that last
> Luther quote, though the 
> writer does not mention it.  The assumption of the
> writer is that Luther is
> writing to the "converted", and that the hearers
> have been set free, and need
> to "use their liberty to serve one another by love,
> rather than as an occasion
> to the flesh."  But Luther has in mind hearers who
> are still in bondage to sin,
> having never been set free despite having been
> baptized as an infant, and
> growing up in the Church.
> 
> Just as the "once saved, always saved" controversy
> addresses the question:
> How do you explain those who are apparently
> genuinely converted, but then turn
> their back on God and are never seen to repent?
> 
> Here we must ask the related question: How do you
> explain those who are
> properly baptized in the Church, but are apparently
> still living as slaves to
> sin and not servants of Christ?  This is the
> "baptismal regeneration"
> controversy.
> 
> Luther seems to be giving the "once saved always
> saved" explanation: those who
> turn away were not truly saved.  This explanation
> logically requires those who
> hold it to in turn reject baptismal regeneration -
> for there are those who are
> baptized and turn away.
> 
> The Catholic explanation, on the other hand, is that
> the will set free
> by God is so free as to be capable of "drawing back
> unto perdition".
> 
> The Catholic therefore sees those who are baptized
> as being already set
> free from the bondage of sin.  Their focus is on
> using that freedom to
> submit to God.  "Those who are baptized" would
> include just about everyone
> in the time of Luther.  The only people "dead in
> sin" are those who have
> "lost their salvation" by deliberately rejecting
> God.  Luther sees properly
> baptized persons as possibly in need of
> regeneration.  That is as bad as those
> rebaptizers!
> 
> Notice that many Protestants are in the "Lordship
> Salvation" camp along with
> Catholics.  I believe, however, that "Once saved,
> always saved" is
> incompatible with baptismal regeneration - unless
> someone can point
> out a way to reconcile them.
> 
> -- 
> 	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
>     Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703
> 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
> "Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" -
> background song for
> a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from
> here?" commercial.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Apologetics mailing list
> Apologetics at gathman.org
> http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
> 
> <!DSPAM:FE5100B5A4231211374169307>
> 
> 


=====
ART KELLY, ATM-S 
13524 Brightfield Lane 
Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360 
(703) 904-3763 home
arthurkelly at yahoo.com
ArtK135 at Netscape.net