From Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, New Rochelle, NY:
Yes, but one cannot understand what he was saying at all without the rest of the sentence "...but believe more bolder still." To see what he was speaking about we need to look at the letter from which these bold words are lifted. He wrote in the translation we have here, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." He wrote this to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521.
Read the whole context in:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg
(Segment)
Translated by
Erika Bullmann Flores
from: _Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften_
Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.),
Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.
Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been
confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you
neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too
high, dear gentlemen."
You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by
priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the
order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that
of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have
almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that
state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that
stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however,
with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long
time and have grown old in it.
2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1.Tim:
4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul's
voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt
that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they
agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now--having
realized with whom they made their contract--they can cheerfully
break this contract.
3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God's
Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of
Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is
an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the
devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against
God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly
(1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the
originators of the interdictions.
4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates
of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of
Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws
that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and
accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their
customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the
Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning
they murmured, later on they approved.
5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a
human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can
do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had
not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because
there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am
therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement
concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice
another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order
to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during
the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is
no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing
with things which are permitted.
6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let
go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this
could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the
Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12)
they are condemned because they have broken their first troth.
Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a
dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are
searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be
married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the
sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while
committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common-
sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God's will. Who
knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so
tomorrow?
7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason
of "burning" had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and
hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged
that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God.
However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For
I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very
much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who
suffer defilement and burning.
8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an
example, but give testimony with Christ's words. Carlstadt does not
show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or
not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of
the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the
world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution
separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do
they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts
agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However,
those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not
Christians but Papists who are sinning.
9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I
therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are
sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant
is not willing? Therefore it is only common-sense which observes
here that Christ's institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no
definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ's
institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a
whole or in part.
10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could
not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What
if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other
similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin
here, I therefore say there is no sin involved.
11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ's
method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you
first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this
tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only
one of the elements.
12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we
should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting
that the Lord will soon ravish Germany--which she deserves because of
her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall
be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics
who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the
people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make
excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard-
hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it
happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen!
13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521
7 comments:
Tony,
(Would it be a good idea if we moved our conversation to this fresh page, which hasn't yet been cluttered up with our discussion?)
Thank you for posting this, it was very interesting to read.
Firstly, the reading in the last paragraph where he says 'sin boldly' is exactly what I understood it to be. He is suggesting that we ought not be concerned if we kill thousands of people on a daily basis, so long as we still believe in Jesus Christ and hold firm to this faith; the catholic church by contrast would teach that you were going to hell and that believing alone is insufficent, but that you also need to stop murdering thousands of people. I have many doubts that there are that many protestants out there that would really defend this today, and I would wonder how Holy Trinity church has chosen to interpret this letter (perhaps they think it says something different?)
I'm wondering if you thought I quoted that as an attempt to discredit Luther? I meant rather illustrate how it is that the catholic church's understanding of justification has not changed, but it is protestants who have not been following what Luther was originally teaching.
If you were interested in examples of Luther's writing that discredited him, there are multitudes of things I could choose from beyond this letter. A primary example could be: (http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm)
(you probably don't want to read the whole document, and if so, just do a search in the text for the phrase 'we are at fault' and read the paragraph that contains that phrase, and continue reading until you hit the sentence 'No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.' in the next chapter
I'm almost certain that there are no protestants who will defend that document today. I'm even under the loose impression that the archbishop of Canterbury during the war made some remarks about how the responsibility for what was happening in Germany partly fell with Luther.
I find it interesting also in the document you quote how Luther recommends that people break their vows, and he even quotes the passage from Timothy in which St Paul calls it a sin for a person to marry after they have been pledged to the church, and he appears to claim that the verse is not dependable therefore...
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after us and bring us together in your love. Correct our errors and bring us to more fully know your truth. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
David, I don't think that you have caught Luther's meaning at all. But since you would like to talk about this post, can you explain communion in one kind, private masses, non-married priests and the other elements of RC practice that Luther rejects or condemns? These are certainly not practices of the universal church since they are peculiar to the RCC. They aren't prescribed in the NT, so what is the basis of these practices?
Tony,
If you think I've missed his meaning, could you describe what you think Luther meant?
Communion in one kind is the practice of giving the bread but not the wine. The preferred way of taking communion is with both bread and wine, but many parishes both then and today will only give the bread, and Luther is condemning this practice as against scripture. This was also one of the key things that Jan Hus condemned the church for and Luther is perhaps taking up this cause for himself here. The RCC teaches that it is preferred to do it in both kinds, but the bread/body only is an acceptable form (and that's the form that almost all parishes use); there's nothing in the NT that says it is not allowed to do it in only one kind and Luther is choosing to interpret the Lord's words to draw forth a meaning that isn't specified.
I don't know what you mean by 'private masses'... Luther simply writes that he will no longer conduct this but rather pray for more of the Lord's Holy Spirit... and I'm not sure if he's condemning the practice of holding mass privately in this letter, and it may be that he is simply writing to Melanchthon that he is doing something different with his time for prayer.
For the celibacy issue, Luther is correct that the prescription for celibacy does not come from scripture, however, he fails to mention that St Paul did say that celibacy is preferred:
1 Corinthians 7:7-8 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
The church introduced a canonical rule a long time ago that changed it from being preferred celibacy for the clergy into mandatory celibacy for the clergy. The historical development can be found on this webpage if you were interested (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm).
This isn't considered to be infallible revelation, but simply a discipline that the church employs and the pope could change it if he choose to. You may be surprised to learn that there actually are a few married priests in the RCC; these are priests who belong to uniate churches (eastern churches in communion with Rome) and, believe it not, former Anglican clergymen who decided to convert to the RCC and who wanted to become priests, and they were given special dispensation to keep their wives.
Furthermore, as I stated above, Luther says that clergy and religious can break their vows, and he even quotes a portion of the letter to Timothy that calls it sin to do this.
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after us and bring us together in your love. Correct our errors, teach us your wisdom and help us overcome these difficulties we disccuss. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
David, I take Luther to be saying live boldly. To read it any other way is to read it out of the context of what Luther has said about sin in numerous places. One such place would be the "Of Sins" section of Table Talk.
Celebacy: a long time ago equals what, the eleventh century? Not exactly apostolic in practice or timing.
Private masses are those celebrated by a priest with no one else (that is humanly speaking) present. This is not at all in accord with the NT understanding of Communion or communion.
I know of married priests in the RCC, I know a few of them have converted from Anglicanism.
Tony,
Could you direct me to a link of the resource that you are referring to?
What would have Luther meant by 'living boldly'?
I don't think I took him out of context, because if I did, then his version his justification was never different from what the RCC taught, and that wouldn't make any sense. Luther's position on justificaiton was wrong because it denied the need for good works in order to be justified. Hence he says you can kill thousands of people a day and as long as you believe in Jesus, you need not be worried. There are many protestants who believe that you need not do anything but just believe in Jesus in order to be saved, and I think they have correctly interpreted Luther's sola fide.
The rule on mandatory celibacy is not apostolic tradition... I stated that... it's a discipline that the church adopted which it may one day change and that it already allows some exception for.
When do/did priests celebrate mass just for themselves? I would have thought 'private masses' as mentioned in the letter were just those done among a few people (like as could have occurred in the Wartburg castle, which Luther may be referring to). I don't understand how the NT would condemn that... the last supper was done among a small closed group.
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after us and bring us to more fully know your truth. Help us discern these things more properly, correct our errors and bring us together in your love. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
Could you direct me to a link of the resource that you are referring to?
David, you'll have to find your own link to Table Talk. I doubt that it's online since I believe it's still in print.
What would have Luther meant by 'living boldly'?
I think plain common sense can interpret what Luther would have meant by live boldly. That would be without fear in the sure and certain knowledge of salvation based on the free gift of grace by God.
I do think that you took Luther out of context in the sense that I said above. Interpreting his statement in light of his many other statements on sin doesn't yield the interpretation that you offered.
As for justification, are you aware of the centuries old controversy on whether justification is imparted or infused? As I understand it that is the crux of the disagreement between Luther and the RCC.
I don't think that Luther properly understood James' explanation of faith and works. Our works show that we have faith, according to James. No works/no faith.
Priests celebrate masses by themselves to this day. Have you never been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC or some other place and seen the private masses in the side chapels? Are you unfamiliar with mass cards?
Tony,
I've found table talk online and read the parts where he talks about sin, and you are correct he does appear to state the opposite of how I understand he speaks in this letter, however, I am still not convinced that my interpretation is therefore in error. I have read Luther's lectures on romans that he did in 1515 and I can point out places where he plainly contradicts some of the things he would say just short years later once the reformation started. Similarly, originally Luther was supportive of jewish tolerance, but at the end of his life he wrote one of the harshest anti-semitic works of all time. I don't believe it is correct to state that because Luther spoke differently in other places, that he therefore did not mean what I interpret.
If that is what you interpret by 'living boldly', then I state a person cannot be assured that they are going to saved, unless God has revealed such to her, becuse no person knows their future actions. Loving Christ and obeying His commandments will certainly lead to salvation, but nobody can be assured that this is what they will do. If God gives you His grace and you are 'saved', but then you turn away from that grace and live a life wherein you murder people, have homosexual relationships, engage in alcoholism and worship satan until the day of your death... you are not going to be saved... and the fact that you once were given God's grace is not going to change the fact that you are not going to be saved. Therefore we should not 'live boldly', but as Paul states:
Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
The crux of the disagreement between Luther and the RCC as I understand is that Luther said that one is justified by faith alone, whereas the RCC says that faith and works are both necessary for justification. A person who believes but does not do good works, will not be justified in God's sight. It is not true that good works will always accompany belief in the gospef, for someone can believe in Christ, worship Him, and not do good works that are needed. Jesus explicitly states this:
Matthew 7:21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Luther, by the way, was not excommunicated for sola fide (and I'm not sure if he had even really developed this theology initially), but for a number of other doctrines that he was teaching that the pope told him to renounce (including the idea that sin remained after baptism, that even in good works the just man still sins, etc.)
A person cannot have grace and lack works, but a person can certainly have faith and lack works, and a person who has faith but does not have works, does not have grace.
I had never heard of 'private mass' until you brought it up, and I have now checked it out and found that you were right about it's existence. I don't know what the connection is with 'mass cards' though. Now, could you prove that the gospel condemns such a thing?
(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)
Lord, look after us and bring us together in your love. Correct our errors, and bring us to more fully know the truth of these things we discuss. We ask for this, if it is you will in Jesus' name, Amen
God Bless,
Post a Comment