The History of the Reformation…The Cowl (Part 6)

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | December 5,2004 | Tom Browning

[HarleyD]

Martin Luther entered the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits in Erfurt on July 17, 1505.1 He thought he was about to lose…he expected to lose…all contact with the outside world. He believed he was going inside never to come out again. His father believed his son had thrown his life away. But neither of those things was true. It was not, as Churchill would later say, the beginning of the end. It was rather only, “the end of the beginning.”

Luther was about to be forged in God’s furnace. He was about to be hammered out on God’s anvil. He was about to be fashioned into an instrument suitable for use in the hands of the Savior. He was about to be transformed from a timid little mouse into a roaring lion…or as Leo X would later say, a wild boar.

Now that kind of transformation is not the sort that ever takes place quickly. Men’s hearts can be changed in a moment but erasing habits and natural inclinations like the innate fear of other men takes longer….sometimes, much longer. That sort of transformation…that sort of work takes time. But that is never a concern to our God and it ought never to be a real concern or point of worry for any Christian. You see, Our God is a careful workman, a skilled craftsman. He is never in a hurry. He is never anxious about time. He invented time. Sometimes He brings men to maturity and events to fruition quickly but most of the time He is slow and methodical and when He is…we know that He knows what He is doing.

He will not…He cannot…be rushed.

I bring that up because when Luther entered the monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505, he was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg. He was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from shaking the world from a long, dark, dreamless sleep. Of course, in another sense Luther was a whole lifetime away from the door at Wittenberg and before Luther could be made up to the task…before Luther could become the kind of man God could use to start the Reformation…he had to be fashioned…fashioned into something much different than what he was.

Now I think there ought to be a word of encouragement in that for all of us.

Normally, when we believe the great events of life are acted out on a great stage. We tend to think the preparation for those involved was also acted out on a great stage. When we think of a men or women being fashioned to do great works we tend to think of great settings…we tend to think of something like a prince being prepared to lead his nation by being exposed to the wisdom and practices of a wise and kingly father…or we might think of a general being trained to lead an army by being exposed to the discipline and tradition of a West Point…but that is not always the tact our God uses. Sometimes, he uses humble settings and humble beginnings to make great men.

God allowed Moses to be trained to read and write in the courts of Pharaoh2 but Moses’ education took place on the backside of Horeb in the Sinai wilderness. It took place in a hostile environment and a time of isolation.

The Apostle Paul was raised in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel3 but his real education took place in the loneliness of the Arabian Desert.4

You see, God sometimes uses isolation and loneliness and sorrow to make a man or a woman fit for an important task.

That was the case with Moses, with David, with Paul and that was the case with Luther. Luther was about to be tossed into the forge of isolation and hammered out on the anvil of despair. And some of you have experienced the same kind of thing. Some of you are lonely. Some of you are poor or very nearly poor. Some of you are tired and yet God has given you the grace to endure and the reason for that is that He has something for you to do and for you to do what He wants to transform you into something different than what you are. And so…you are learning the lesson of the forge and the anvil.

That certainly was what was about to happen to Luther but he was unable to see it coming. He thought…he thought he was escaping from the cares of this life. Later, much later, Luther would write:

We must overcome the world in the world for we are not made for fleeing human company but for living in society and sharing good and evil. As human beings, we must help one another to bear all kinds of human misfortune and the curse that has come upon us. We must be ready to live among wicked people, and there everyone must be ready to prove his holiness instead of becoming impatient and running away. On earth we have to live amid thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:18), in a situation full of temptation, hostility, and misfortune. Hence it does not help you at all to run away from other people; for within you are still carrying the same old scoundrel, the lust and evil appetite that cling to your flesh and blood. Even if you are all alone, with the door locked, you still cannot deny your father and mother; nor can you discard your flesh and blood and leave them on the ground. You have no call to pick up your feet and run away, but to stay put, to stand and battle against every kind of temptation like a knight, and with patience to see it through and to triumph. Therefore we need not forsake the ordinary walks of life in order to keep Christ. 5

But that was years later. On July 17, 1505, Luther thought he was escaping the world. He thought going to enjoy peace and tranquility and a life of scholarship and contemplation. But God had something altogether different in mind. Go wanted to turn Luther into a man of steel. He wanted to make him impervious to criticism. He wanted to make him resistant to slander. He wanted to dull his sensitivity to the tirades of vicious and unprincipled men and the way He intended to do that was by making him a monk.

So on July 17th 1505, Luther started his journey toward becoming a monk.

Now I am making that point because simply applying and being accepted to a monastery does not make a man a monk. Not every one that sought admission was accepted. If a man was admitted, he was admitted on a trial basis as a “novice.” “Novices” were on trial or probation for a minimum of one year.

During that time, a novice’s commitment and suitability were evaluated carefully. Many men were turned out after their evaluation. Luther was not turned out. But he was not granted any sort of exception to the regular process on the basis of being a scholar either. He was first a novice…then a monk…and then a priest.

It is important to make that distinction because not every monk in the monastery was a priest.

Do you see what I mean?

Not every man in the monastery was a monk. Not every monk was a priest. There was a hierarchy. A man might remain a monk his whole life and never become a priest. Now, that would have been a little unusual but it happened. A man was first admitted a novice and then if approved allowed to take the vow of a monk. If he were approved to go on, he was allowed to become a priest.

Anyway, on July 17th, 1505, Luther was admitted as a “novice.” That meant that he had to start at the bottom and work his way up. That means he had to do all the regular grunt work regular “novices” undertook. He would have gardened. He would have worked in the kitchens. He would have cleaned latrines. But he would have also been instructed in how to pray, how to genuflect, how and when to prostrate himself, how even to walk…both novices and monks were required to walk about with their heads slightly bowed and their eyes pointed toward the ground.6

Novices wore clothing similar to that of the regular monks but it was distinguishable. They were not permitted to have visitors, to write or receive letters without permission, to care for the sick or to attend the regular gatherings of the monks without invitation. The first month in the monastery they were not permitted to speak at all. Their worlds were filled with isolation, study, confession and prayer.

Now what is so remarkable about the novice Martin Luther is that on July 17, 1505 he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He had no sense whatsoever of the glories of the doctrine of justification. He was a typical medieval Catholic and by that I mean he believed in a form of “works righteousness.” He subscribed to the popular theological maxim of the day which went like this, “Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam.” Translated it meant something like; “God will not deny his grace to the man who does his best.”7

It was the medieval equivalent of our own popular American phrase, “God helps those who help themselves.” And Luther subscribed to the whole idea…hook, line and sinker. That is, he subscribed to a view that God extends His grace to a sinner only after that sinner has done his best and the best a man could do in medieval Catholicism was to be a monk. In Luther’s view only the monks were wholly given over to God and because of their commitment to God they were much more likely to be delivered from God’s wrath.

Later, Luther would write:

This is the chief abomination of monasticism, we denied the grace of God and put our trust and hope on our holy monkery and not on the pure mercy and grace of Christ, as we had promised and had begun to do in Christian Baptism. For relying on works in order thereby to be justified and sanctified we actually denied God’s grace, as St. Paul clearly says: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace.“8

Still for all the wrong-headed ideas Luther had about God and about righteousness God required to stand in His presence, God used the experience to make Luther the kind of man he wanted him to be. He did that not by adding embellishments but by stripping away everything that was not essential. I love the way D’Aubigne puts it:

God tried him in small things, that he might learn to remain unshaken in great ones. Besides, to be able to deliver his age from the miserable superstitions under which it groaned, it was necessary for him first to feel their weight. To drain the cup, he must drink it to the very dregs.9

Anyway, Luther endured his year’s probation. We don’t know the exact date of his being received as a monk but it was customary for the event to occur a year and day after becoming a novice. It is both funny and sad to read how the other monks resented him both as a novice and even later as a monk. They resented him because he was in every way their superior in terms of education. The Master’s Degree Luther had attained in philosophy was every bit the equivalent of a modern PhD. The other monks resented him and especially resented his love for study and for books and especially liked to drag him away from his books and to make him join them in begging for food. D’Aubigne writes this:

The monks had initially received him with joy. It gratified their vanity to see one of the most esteemed doctors of the age abandon the University for their…Order. Nevertheless they treated him harshly, and gave him the worst possible jobs. They wanted to humble the doctor of philosophy, and to teach him that his learning did not elevate him above his brethren. They saw no immediate advantage to the order for him to devote himself so much to his studies…They had him perform the offices of porter, to open and shut the gates, to wind up the clock, to sweep the church, and to clean out the cells…and whenever they…found him hiding out with his books they forced him to beg for food with them telling him, “Come, come! It is not by studying, but by begging bread, corn, eggs, fish, meat, and money that a monk renders himself useful to the cloister.”10

But as I said, he endured. Some say he was rescued by the prior of the monastery Johann Von Staupitz. At any rate, a year later, perhaps a year and a day…Luther would have been received as a full-fledged monk. The ceremony would have involved Luther being stripped of novice’s garments and being clothed in the habit designated by the order. He then would have then sworn an oath promising to live in poverty and chastity according to the rule of the Holy Father, Augustine and to render obedience to Almighty God, the Virgin Mary and the prior of the monastery.11 He would have then prostrated himself face down on the floor of the church in the form of a cross.12 He would have been sprinkled with water and would have been received as an innocent child fresh from baptism. The prior would have prayed:

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst deign to cloth thyself in our mortality, we beseech thee out of thine immeasurable goodness to bless the habit which the holy fathers have chosen as a sign of innocence and renunciation. May this thy servant, Martin Luther, who takes the habit, be clothed also in thine immortality, O thou who lives and reigns with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, God from eternity to eternity. Amen.13

Immediately afterward, Luther would have been raised up and would have joined his place in the choir. He would have been from that point on a fullfledged monk. He would have not been able to vote in the affairs of the monastery for another five years and he would have still had to report regularly an older monk. But he was a now a genuine monk and no longer a novice.

Luther returned his clothes to his family and sent his Master’s Degree ring back to the university. He had given up all contact with the outside world.

Luther was given his own room, which was called a cell. His cell was 10’2” x 7’10”, a luxurious 79 square feet.14 He had a bed, a small table, a chair, 2 woolen sheets, a pillow, a blanket and a Latin Bible. He slept in his habit.

I think it is difficult sometimes for us as Protestants this side of the Reformation to appreciate the nature of life in the monastery. It was endless and brutal time of mind-numbing routine interspersed with times of study, devotion and loneliness. Here’s what I mean. Beside all of the chores monks had to do and they had to do quite a few, they were required to pray the canonical hours. The canonical hours were prayers prayed during specific times of the day.

The day started somewhere around 4 AM with a prayer service called Matins. Matins included a series of prayers to Mary and the usual twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Maria’s.” At six a.m. there was the prayers was called “prime” because it was said during the first hour of daylight. There was another at nine a.m. That prayer was called “terce” because it occurred at the third hour and the prayer at noon was called “sext” being the sixth hour of the day. At three in the afternoon the prayer was called “nones” and at six p.m. it was called “vespers.” There was a time of prayer at bedtime, eight or nine p.m., called “compline.”15

The Canonical Hours

Matins… 4 am prayers…
Prime… 6 am prayers…
Terce… 9 am prayers…
Sext… 12 pm prayers…
nones… 3 pm prayers…
Vespers… 6 pm prayers…
Compline… 8 pm prayers…bedtime

All monks were required to pray the canonical hours. Only the theologians were allowed to pray their prayers privately. Everyone else prayed their prayers together and the prayers always included twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Marias.”16 By my count that means at least 175 “Our Fathers” and fifteen “Hail Mary’s” a day.

The Canonical Hours

…Included saying 25 “Our fathers”…
…Three “Ave Marias” or “Hail Mary’S”
…concluded with a :salve regina”
…and could include praying the psalms or the rosary<

In addition to the canonical hours, they were required to attend Masses and say their Rosaries.

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.17

At the conclusion of the canonical hours they knelt and prayed the Salve Regina and the Ave Maria.18

“Save, O Queen, Thou Mother of mercy, our life, our delight, and our hope. To Thee we exiled sons of Eve lift up our cry. To Thee we sigh as we languish in this vale of tears. Be Thou our advocate. Sweet Virgin Mary, pray for us, Thou holy Mother of God.”19

Monks were also encouraged to pray the Psalter. Sometimes they were made to pray the Psalter as punishment for infractions within the order. Luther, of course, had the Psalter…that s, all of the Psalms memorized…but he later said that he had never prayed either the Psalter or the Lord’s Prayer properly in his life, which is remarkable considering how many times he prayed both.

If a monk was priest, he was, in addition, required to take his turn in saying Masses at the behest of paying sponsors and then, as I said, all of them were permitted to study, assigned manual chores and compelled to beg for their bread.

Luther said later that the rigorous asceticism very nearly killed him. He complained about stomach problems endlessly in his later life and he always believed his digestive track was ruined both by the many fasts practiced and the improper nutrition he received as a monk.20

Still, Luther was a very good monk. He tried to sleep without cover even on the coldest nights refusing to use the blanket given to him by the order because he believed his suffering was pleasing to God, perhaps even meritorious. He was faithful in his observance of the canonical hours but the reason for his faithfulness stemmed more out of fear that of gratitude. He lived in constant fear of God’s judgment. Once in September 1515, he had failed to say the canonical hours for the day because of conflicting responsibilities he had had with the graduation of several doctoral students at Wittenberg. During the night, he was awakened by the sound of an approaching thunder storm and fearing he was about to be punished, remember he had had a bad experience with a previous thunder storm, he got up in the middle of the night and caught up on his prayers.

Later in 1520, his teaching duties forced him to miss the recitation of the hours and he fell behind by a full a full quarter of a year. Luther decided to make the time to catch up by staying awake until he had caught up his prayers. D’Aubigne almost certainly referring to this particular event says that Luther stayed awake once for nearly for seven weeks non-stop trying to catch up on the canonical hours…and that the effort very nearly killed him. Now remember that was in 1520. He had nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg three years earlier in 1517. You can see that Luther’s own personal reformation did not occur all at once.

Later, Luther would write:

I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work.21

But it is at just that point that we must spend time if we want to understand Luther. You see, he was a good monk, a very good monk and yet he was constantly agitated and distressed over whether his righteousness or efforts at righteousness were enough. He longed for peace and assurance and yet the more he did the less certainty he felt. Each action that he took to gain peace or assurance only convinced him or at least caused him to question whether he was adequately fulfilling the obligations he had put upon himself in his vows.

He tormented his confessors, not out of any desire to make their lives miserable but rather out of a desire to adequately confess his sins. He was plagued with doubt and he felt the need to confess his sins fully. He often would leave the confessional and remember something and have to turn around and go back to a bewildered and beleaguered confessor. Once, Luther confessed his sins for six hours. He often confessed his sins every day of the week though it was required only on Fridays.

On confessor grew so tired of Luther’s preoccupation with confession that he yelled at him, saying:

Man, God is not angry with you. You are angry with God. Don’t you know that God commands you to hope?

Even the prior of the monastery, Von Staupitz had to tell him”

Look here, if you expect Christ to forgive you, come in with something to forgive—parricide, blasphemy, adultery—instead of all these peccadilloes.

Bu the problem was that Luther had a realistic view of sin and of righteousness. If small sins are as damning as big ones. If a man’s righteous standing was based on his ability to do works of penance and if those works of penance were based on an accurate assessment of one’s sin…then a person needed to get their confession right. But, of course, it was an endless, absolutely endless, exercise in futility. No man could ever remember or even be aware of every single sin he commits and if a sin could not be recalled, it could not be confessed. Later, Luther wrote:

In the papacy, I so tortured and spoiled myself by confessing and making satisfaction that I looked for foreign sin, which I had not committed; because of my remorse I never had any rest nor a clean and peaceful heart. I still cannot get rid of this doctrine. It will harm me as long as I live. I shall not be able entirely to purge my heart of it or to put my heart at rest.22

But you can see his obsessive awareness of his own shortcomings, of his own sinfulness, in other places as well. I think the very best place to see it is in his emotional response to saying the Mass. Now you remember last week that I told you that his father came to hear him say his first Mass. Part of the reason he did that was because two of Luther’s brothers died of the plague and because he had received a report that Luther himself had died from the plague and when he found out his son had not died, he felt ashamed of the way he had acted and came to grudgingly give Martin his approval.

Anyway, when Luther said his first Mass, he very nearly had a total meltdown. You see the church taught that when a priest consecrated the bread and wine it actually, metaphysically, became the body and blood of Jesus. When Luther consecrated the bread and wine and he believed he was holding the body of the Lord Jesus in his hands. But that was no comfort to him for he believed that the Lord Jesus was the righteous judge and only the righteous judge. When he confronted Christ in the Mass, his sin overwhelmed him. He was terrified by the holiness of Christ. Roland Bainton writes this:

The day began with the chiming of the cloister bells and the chanting of the psalm, “O sing unto the Lord a new song.” Luther took his place before the altar and began to recite the introductory portion of the mass until he came to the words, “We offer unto thee, the living, the true, the eternal God.” He related afterward:

At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that’? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal and the true God.”

The terror of the Holy, the horror of Infinitude, smote him like a new lightning bolt, and only through a fearful restraint could he hold himself at the altar to the end.23

Luther faltered in his speech. He stood and trembled. Afterwards, he was deeply discouraged and sought the comfort he need from his father only to have his father tell him, “Have you never read where it is written, ‘A man should honor his mother and his father.’”

Luther began to have doubts not only about his sin but about whether or not he ought even to be in the ministry. He turned to the prior of the monastery Von Staupitz. He sought his comfort. He sought his counsel. Von Staupitz wisely turned him to the mercy of Jesus and to the Bible.

Once sitting at lunch Von Staupitz asked him:

“Why are you so sad, brother Martin?” —

Luther replied:

“Ah!, I do not know what will become of me!” —

Von Stupitz replied:

“O my friend! Why do you torment yourself with all these speculations and these high thoughts?......Look at the wounds of Jesus Christ, to the blood that he has shed for you: it is there that the grace of God will appear to you. Instead of torturing yourself on account of your sins, throw yourself into the Redeemer’s arms. Trust in him — in the righteousness of his life — in the atonement of his death. Do not shrink back; God is not angry with you, it is you who are angry with God. Listen to the Son of God.

But Luther could not be swayed. He sank deeper and deeper into melancholy. He once failed to come out of his cell for three days and when they broke down the door Luther was incoherent and delusional. He had repented himself almost into madness.

Von Staupitz decided there were only two things that might help Luther. He believed Luther needed to visit Rome and he needed to teach the Bible. He believed that if Luther could take a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Rome and see all of the relics there it might heal his soul. He was wrong about that.

But he also believed that if Luther might begin to teach the Bible, he might gain strength and encouragement from that. He was right…absolutely right about that. We will talk more about both those things next week but let me just relate the conversation between Luther and Von Staupitz when Von Staupitz told him he was going to have to teach the Bible.

“Martin, My friend, you must now become Doctor of the Holy Scriptures.”

Luther shrunk at the very thought:

“Seek a more worthy person. As for me, I cannot consent to it.”

Von Staupitz replied:

“Our Lord God has much to do in the Church: he has need at this time of young and vigorous doctors.”

Luther protested:

“But I am weak and sickly. I have not long to live. Look out for some strong man. And there is the issue of my poverty, I have no means of defraying the expenses incidental to such a promotion.” —

Von Staupitz replied:

“Do not be uneasy about that, the prince has done you the favor to take all the charges upon himself.”

Luther sighed:

“It will kill me.”

“That’s alright. The Lord can use a clever young man like you in heaven as well.”

Now I think we will stop right there, right there with Luther in the throes of despondency and depression. Next week we’ll pick up with him going to Rome and teaching Romans. But let me add one final thing before we stop. Later after Luther’s trial at Worms…Prince Frederick the Wise had Luther kidnapped and locked away in seclusion at the Wartburg Castle. He did that in order to save his life. There were a great many people who wanted to kill him. Luther was locked away in almost complete and total isolation for nearly two years. During that time Luther completed his translation of the German Bible. Now let me ask you what was it that prepared Luther for two years of perpetual isolation and loneliness in which he was able to give the German people their most prized possession? What was it? It was the years of preparation in the monastery at Erfurt.

What does that tell you?

I think it tells you that when life is hard…that when you suffer… our Lord Jesus is preparing us to be the kind of people that can accomplish what He wants us to do. That certainly was true for Luther and brothers and sisters I have to tell you…I think it is true for us.

Let’s pray.

1 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521, translated by James L. Schaaf, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 58.

2 NIV Acts 7:22…Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

3 NIV Acts 22:3…I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

4 NIV Galatians 1:15-18…But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

5 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 966. See note number 3039.

6 Brecht, 60.

7 Alister E. McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; reprinted 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995), 83. “The essential principle encapsulated in the axiom is that man and God have their respective roles to play in justification; when man has fulfilled his art God will subsequently fulfill his part...The medieval period saw this axiom become a dogma, part of the received tradition concerning justification. The final verbal form of the axiom can be shown to have been fixed in the twelfth century, an excellent example being provided by the Homilies of Radulphus Ardens: Est ergo, acsi dicat Dominus: Facite, quod pertinet ad vos, quia facio, quod pertinet ad inc. Ego facio, quod amicus, animam meam pro vobis ponendo; lacite et vos, quod amid, me diligendo e mandaja inca faciendo. It may, of course, be pointed out that the logic underlying Radulphus’ version of the axiom is that man should do quod in se est because Christ has already done quod in se est. In other words, Christ has placed man under an obligation to respond to him. The logic was however, generally inverted, to yield the suggestion that Godʹs action was posterior. rather than prior, to manʹs. The idea that man could, by doing what lies within him (quod in se est) place God under an obligation to reward him with grace is particularly well illustrated from the works of Stephen Langton and others influenced by him. The use of debere by an anonymous twelfth century writer in this connection is of significance: si homo facit, quod suum est, Deus debet facere, quod suum est.”

8 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 963. See note number 3036. Paraphrased slightly by me.

9 J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 16th Century, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

10 D’Aubigne, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

11 Brecht, 62.

12 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

13 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), 78.

14 Brecht, 55.

15 Brecht, 64.

16 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

17 James Tolhurst, A Concise Catechism for Catholics, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993) 63.

18 Brecht, 64.

19 Bainton, 38.

20 Bainton, 45.

21 Bainton, 45.

22 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 1. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 327. See note number 965.

23 Bainton, 42.

[HarleyD]

Once you are "justified", can you lapse back, fall off the ladder so to speak?

This was always an odd view in my mind. Looking at the order of salvation, if you are foreknown, predestined, and then justified; how can you lapse back? It says that God really didn't foreknown or predestined you to begin with.

[Kolokotronis]

"This was always an odd view in my mind. Looking at the order of salvation, if you are foreknown, predestined, and then justified; how can you lapse back? It says that God really didn't foreknown or predestined you to begin with."

So it would seem in the "order of salvation" as you have laid it out. Now I am assuming that there is such an order for some reason as opposed to someone simply being predestined, period. What is that reason? And why was there an Incarnation. It seems unnecessary in such a system. By the way, doesn't this system demand that God have foreknowledge of all things and therefore God's foreknowledge can have nothing to do with whether or not one lapses?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"This was always an odd view in my mind. Looking at the order of salvation, if you are foreknown, predestined, and then justified; how can you lapse back? It says that God really didn't foreknown or predestined you to begin with."

No, it means you may have been predestined to Grace without necessarily being predestined to Glory. It could mean, on the one hand that you were like the Galatian Christians who had fallen from Grace, or on the other hand, it could be the case of having received Christ with great joy, but later fallen away during a time of trial. Perhaps it means you made a shipwreck of your faith, resisted the Holy Spirit, or deliberately sinned after coming to the knowledge of the truth, and thus fell away after having received the Holy Spirit. In such a case, you can be cut off because of a lack of faith, and we know that a fearful prospect of God's wrath awaits those who are disobedient to Him.

Either way, if the (justified) righteous man turns from God, he will be condemned, regardless of his previous rightousness, just as the evil men will be saved when he turns to God.

The bottom line is that it is God who decides whether or not you are of the elect, not you. Unless you've been given a special revelation from the Almighty, you don't know if you are of the elect. All you can say is that you, just like everyone else, have been predestined to the Grace of God, who makes the rain to fall upon the good and the bad alike, and who desires all men to be saved.

[HarleyD]

Now I am assuming that there is such an order for some reason as opposed to someone simply being predestined, period. What is that reason?

This order is called out in scripture throughout many passages.

And why was there an Incarnation. It seems unnecessary in such a system.

A sacrifice has to be provided. Why doesn't God save everyone? Why did God create some knowing they would go to hell? God's ways are not our ways. All we can say is this is the perfect way.

By the way, doesn't this system demand that God have foreknowledge of all things and therefore God's foreknowledge can have nothing to do with whether or not one lapses?

If someone is predestined why would they lapse? If someone is foreknown why would they lapse? With either view the term "lapsing" indicates a person is neither predestined or foreknown until they die because God doesn't know who will laps. This mocks the terms often used within scripture.

Why would God give people salvation if He knows they will lose it? To believe one can lose their salvation is simply to deny God's omniscience and to believe that we are the keeper of our salvation is to rely upon our works for our salvation.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

This guy flunks basic early modern history. He doesn't know the difference between monks and friars. He doesn't know that friars were not into contemplation but into the active life of preaching and teaching and pastoring people. The author of this piece doesn't have a clue about what life in an Augustinian Eremite friary was like.

He's clueless. Why should I take anything he says seriously? If graduate student turned in a paper with this sort of fundamental historical errors in it, I'd flunk him and tell him to become a journalist or something else where facts don't matter.

[phatus maximus]

You'll get the answer no by some, but the answer is yes...we can always choose to reject Christ and lose our salvation...

I'm WELS (Wisconsin Lutheran) and not sure why some protestants think once saved always saved...there is far too much scripture that warns us about this fact to be ignorant that we can slip...God knows our final destination and ultimately we can only condemn ourselves and we can only know God and his promise thru the Spirit...

Bottom line, Christ's death justified us before God...his death allows us to be found not guilty and we need to believe the promise that God will no longer see our iniquities if the Holy Spirit brings us to have faith in His Son's perfect sacrifice...if we choose to reject the Holy Spirit and in effect reject the justification of Christ's redeeming act we bring the guilty verdict back on ourselves...

[Johannes Althusius]

"As sons of Adam, we have died with Christ on the Cross and have been reborn into the family of God by His mercy alone."

Amen!

[Johannes Althusius]

"As regards Thomas, you must be joking [that Thomas was a Predestinarian}..."

Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (22, 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.(emphasis mine.)
Summa Theologica Ia. Q.23 A.5 ad.3

Opps.

[Campion]

Now what is so remarkable about the novice Martin Luther is that on July 17, 1505 he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He had no sense whatsoever of the glories of the doctrine of justification.

Now, Dr. E, the other day, you claimed that Trent condemned you and your entire family to hell. I flatly rejected the charge, and gave my reasons for doing so.

Now, today, I will claim that this preacher attempts to do to me and my family what Trent did not do to you and yours: he damns me, my family, and every other orthodox Catholic in the world. You see, if we are not Christians, and the usual Protestant claim is that only professing Christians are saved, then we are damned. His transparent attempt to limit his remarks to "medieval Catholics" notwithstanding, because modern Catholics aren't Calvinists anymore than medieval ones were.

Do you deny that that is PRECISELY the import of his comments?

The torment Luther felt when he struggled to name every sin lest he forget a single one and not be rectified with God is heartrending. As a Protestant, I read this essay and understand Luther's guilt and pain and fear.

As a Catholic, I think that Luther was a nut for not understanding that repentance is a gift from God and he should trust God to bring the sins he needed to confess to mind. And he remembered something serious after he had confessed, he should have known that he was not somehow damned for being forgetful as long as he had an good-faith intention to confess when he had the opportunity to do so.

Honestly, sometimes you folks act like you think that the Catholic God is a machine considerably more stupid and less compassionate than the computer on my desk. But I guess it's easier to caricature your enemies than it is to actually listen to them.

[Campion]

This guy flunks basic early modern history. He doesn't know the difference between monks and friars. He doesn't know that friars were not into contemplation but into the active life of preaching and teaching and pastoring people. The author of this piece doesn't have a clue about what life in an Augustinian Eremite friary was like.

He's clueless. Why should I take anything he says seriously? If graduate student turned in a paper with this sort of fundamental historical errors in it, I'd flunk him and tell him to become a journalist or something else where facts don't matter.

Exactly what I have noticed about every post. He makes basic, obvious errors of fact again and again and again. He really has no "feel" for Catholicism or for medieval European culture.

It's not history. It's polemic.

[gbcdoj]

I'm impressed at how you managed to equate the concepts of "imputed righteousness" and "predestinarianism." An absolutely brilliant way of demonstrating that you have no ability at all in the science of sacred theology.

Thomas wasn't a predestinarian either, by the way, although he believed in predestination.

[RnMomof7]

As a Catholic, I think that Luther was a nut for not understanding that repentance is a gift from God and he should trust God to bring the sins he needed to confess to mind. And he remembered something serious after he had confessed, he should have known that he was not somehow damned for being forgetful as long as he had an good-faith intention to confess when he had the opportunity to do so.

Then he understood, man is not damned because he is a sinner, he is damed because he does not have a Savior to redeem him

The difference between heaven and hell will be in heaven will be full of sinners saved by Grace and mercy, hell will be full of men that thought they were 'good enough' and could pass the self righteousness test.

[Campion]

This is the kind of hooting laugher D. and I am describing:

All monks were required to pray the canonical hours. ... Everyone else prayed their prayers together and the prayers always included twenty-five "Our Fathers" ... By my count that means at least 175 "Our Fathers" ... a day. ... Monks were also encouraged to pray the Psalter. Sometimes they were made to pray the Psalter as punishment for infractions within the order.

Any knowledgeable Catholic and practically any Orthodox Christian will look at this, furrow his or her brow, then burst out laughing.

The canonical hours ARE the Psalter. All of the hours include Psalms and prose Scripture readings, they were not and never have been the recitation of 175 Our Fathers in a day. This was as true in Luther's time as it is today, an d it's as true in the East as in the West.

He managed to get a few things right. Compline traditionally ends with the singing of the Salve Regina.

This is what I mean about this gentleman having no feel or understanding of his subject matter.

[Campion]

Then he understood, man is not damned because he is a sinner, he is damed because he does not have a Savior to redeem him

That's not how I would express it, but that's fine.

My point is that there is a constant refrain in these sorts of Luther hagiographies ... "Luther was an awesome Catholic and a super-monk -- it got him nowhere in his life of faith".

The truth is that he was a very confused Catholic and a very neurotic monk. It wasn't all his fault, of course.

hell will be full of men that thought they were 'good enough' and could pass the self righteousness test.

I have bad news for you. There are plenty of men and women around today who are bad, who know it, and who glory in it, to fill hell all by themselves, not leaving much room for the merely self-righteous. But that's a topic for another day.

[Johannes Althusius]

Friend,
I don't accept Romanists polemics as the final definition of terms. The Papists claims as to what constitutes a Predestinarian is tinged with the weight of Trent hanging on its back so that it is a caricature of the Biblical doctrine.

Besides that, I was responding to your denial of Aquinas' mongerism in which you conflated it with Calvinism.

"As for the claim that he is "a true monergist," I assume by this term you mean "Calvinist." Nothing could be further from the truth, although you try to evade this by laughably suggesting that Calvinism is compatible with belief in free-will."

If a Calvinist compatibility with free will is laughable I'm afraid a Thomists compatibility is equally as laughable despite any assertions to the contrary.

Sorry.

[HarleyD]

The canonical hours ARE the Psalter. All of the hours include Psalms and prose Scripture readings, they were not and never have been the recitation of 175 Our Fathers in a day. This was as true in Luther's time as it is today, an d it's as true in the East as in the West.

Newadvent states that the canonical hours have changed over the centuries. NOW they include just the Psalms and prose Scripture reading. At other times throughout history they contained much more.

It is unclear what Luther was force to recite. It appears from newadvent that although there are guidelines on the canonical hours, interpretations can be made. I would suspect this order that Luther was involved in required much more than others.

This is all speculation on yours and my part. They were consider obligatory and failure to do them could result in excommunication. We can only take Luther at his word that he had a lot of reciting and memorizing to do.

[gbcdoj]

Ah, so you replied to the wrong post.

If a Calvinist compatibility with free will is laughable I'm afraid a Thomists compatibility is equally as laughable despite any assertions to the contrary.

Providence tends to multiply good things in the subjects of its government. But if free will were taken away, many good things would be withdrawn. The praise of human virtue would be taken away, which is nullified where good is not done freely: the justice of rewards and punishments would be taken away, if man did not do good and evil freely: wariness and circumspection in counsel would be taken away, as there would be no need of taking counsel about things done under necessity. It would be therefore contrary to the plan of providence to withdraw the liberty of the will. (St. Thomas, SCG 3.73)

God can cause the movement of the will in us without prejudice to the freedom of the will (St. Thomas, SCG 3.89)

Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. ... it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes. (St. Thomas, I q. 22 a. 4)

Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature. (St. Thomas, I q. 83 a. 1 ad 3)

Just as evil is more comprehensive than sin, so is sin more comprehensive than blame. For an action is said to deserve praise or blame, from its being imputed to the agent: since to praise or to blame means nothing else than to impute to someone the malice or goodness of his action. Now an action is imputed to an agent, when it is in his power, so that he has dominion over it: because it is through his will that man has dominion over his actions, as was made clear above. Hence it follows that good or evil, in voluntary actions alone, renders them worthy of praise or blame: and in such like actions, evil, sin and guilt are one and the same thing. (St. Thomas, I-II q. 21 a. 2 co.)

Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the same time, he moves himself by his free-will, as was explained above. Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or demerit in God's sight. (St. Thomas, I-II q. 21 a. 4 ad 2)

Hence man's merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures. (St. Thomas, I-II q. 114 a. 1 co.)

Compare to Calvin:

If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If any one will dispute with God, and endeavour to evade his judgement, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man's revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says, (Serm. 81, in Cantica,) that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Institutes II. 5.1)

And seeing that good works give little ground for exultation, and are not even properly called merits, if they are regarded as the fruits of divine grace, they derive them from the power of free-will; in other words extract oil out of stone. They deny not that the principal cause is in grace; but they contend that there is no exclusion of free-will through which all merit comes. This is the doctrine, not only of the later Sophists, but of Lombard their Pythagoras (Sent. Lib. 2, Dist. 28), who, in comparison of them, may be called sound and sober. It was surely strange blindness, while he had Augustine so often in his mouth, not to see how cautiously he guarded against ascribing a single particle of praise to man because of good works. Above, when treating of free-will, we quoted some passages from him to this effect, and similar passages frequently occur in his writings (see in Psal. 104; Ep. 105), as when he forbids us ever to boast of our merits, because they themselves also are the gifts of God, and when he says that all our merits are only of grace, are not provided by our sufficiency, but are entirely the production of grace, &c. It is less strange that Lombard was blind to the light of Scripture, in which it is obvious that he had not been a very successful student. (Institutes III. 15.7)

[kindred]

[You can't seriously be suggesting that Thomas, Anselm, or Augustine would have any truck with the idea of the imputed righteousness of Christ.]

The Catholic mind is difficult to understand; but I believe that they misunderstand the simplicity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith alone in the crucifixion of Christ for our sins and the resurrection of Christ for our justification. If a man believes in his heart and confesses how that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again the third day,he shall be saved. Period.
Man is not able to save himself by works as he is a sinner from birth and nothing can make a man holy but the imputed rightiousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.Our sin is imputed to Jesus the Christ when we belive the salvation gospel, his rightiousness is imputed to us the moment we belive Him and God justifies us therein. It started with Abraham, who was saved by grace through faith because HE BELIVED GOD, AND GOD COUNTED IT TO HIM FOR RIGHTIOUSNESS.
Study the scriptures, please study the scriptures before you use a million words to deny the truth of God much as liberals do in defending their socialist policies that are doomed.
You are not good enough to be saved because you and we were born in sin, we sin because we are sinners and no amout of good works makes up that sin. It agravates Catholics to belive that God saves men by grace through faith alone and has resulted in the death of many Christians through out the centuries.

[kindred]

[And this happens, I take it, all at once?]

In the twinkling of an eye.

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

[kindred]

[All the people you quote from are 20th century authors.]

I believe the author of the bible, God the Holy Spirit.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not IMPUTE SIN.
All religions are work oriented and all fail to justify ;it is the sin of Cain (justification by works). Abel believed God and made the required blood sacrifice (perfect lamb) and God justified Him through imputed righteousness, he believed God , and he does so even in this age of Grace, the age that both Jew and Gentile are saved by grace only through faith only in the work of Christ at the cross, much as Jesus healed the lepers that believed Him. God continues to save until this day because of the work of the Cross of Christ and His resurrection power unto new life in Christ only. God will call up the saved sinners(saints known as Christians) to meet the Christ in the air at the end of this age preceding the 1000 year kingdom age, and so will we always be with Him. The suffering and dying of the cross is where God the Father imputed all the Sin of man to the sinless God-man Christ Jesus, but death could not hold the Christ(the one and only sinless man and God in the flesh) thereby defeating death, hell and the grave when he arose so that we by him only through grace by faith may be saved.