Replies

I understand the Reformation and Luther quite well Vladimir. Luther was born to peasant stock in Germany. His father wanted him to be a lawyer, but after a scary thunderstorm in which he prayed to St. Anne, he carried through with his promise to her to be a monk. Luther took his monkhood very seriously. More seriously than most. Yet the more he studied, rather than being drawn towards God he was driven from Him - for He was ever trying to please an unpleasable god and never managing to get there. In 1509, he had a big opportunity as a monk. He went on pilgramage to Rome. He thought it would be a blessing. It was, but not in the way he thought. On the way to Rome, he fell ill. While ill, he expressed some of his struggles to a monk. The monk suggested he read Habakkuk and one verse there captured his attention. The Just Shall Live By Faith. He did not immediately realize the full theological import though. He recovered and continued his pilgramage to Rome. His eyes were opened to the corruption of Rome. Yet in the midst of this, he still held hope in the Papacy. He didn't believe that the Pope was aware of some of the sites he saw. Luther was a theologian. His journey STARTED before 1517's these, true. By 1512 he was a Theological Doctor and began teaching at Wittenberg. When studying Paul's letters, between 1512 and 1520, he became keenly aware through Scripture of what the doctrine of Justification was. Somewhere before 1517's thesis, Johann Tetzel arrived under the papal flag preaching about the sale of indulgences. He would say "Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [ Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]" And famously "Each time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Luther was livid. He wrote to protest this sale to the Archibishop (indicating that he believed at that point in church authority), and when nothing would be done posted the 95 theses on the door to the Wittenburg chapel. In these theses, he denied certain abilities of the Pope to remit sin but did NOT deny church authority: "5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons. 6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven. 25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish. 26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession. 75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness. 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned. 77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope. 78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii. 79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy. 80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render. 82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial." 86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?" 91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist. 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross! 94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell; 95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace. As you can see, Luther's mind was being transformed. But it was REFORM he wanted, not a revolution. He was still very Catholic in much of his theology. Rather than take a look at his church, Pope Leo dismissed him as a drunken German who will think better when he had sobered up. When he finally did get a full audience with the church it was for a heresy trial. He had been promised safe conduct, but the Elector had to hide him. By this point, he was standing on Scripture alone. In first years of the 1520s, Luther, hidden away did translate the Bible into German. The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: "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 Pet 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."[46] It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent. Something about being locked up with nothing but a Greek Bible that changes a person. SOLA FIDE. SOLA GRATIA. SOLA SCRIPTURA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. Became more real than ever. He would not go back to Rome.

The Church never ONCE said that. Not once. Johann Tetzel may very well have said that. He had no authority to do so.
Check your history. Tetzel sold indulgences under the authority of the Pope, Leo X.

From the Catholic encyclopedia: In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope's income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

Concerning your "Hubric" Luther quote, do you even care to see the context. Of course, Luther was being Luther when he wrote it - and I have to laugh because his language is so typically Luther. But, you cherry pick a quote as evidence that Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura and fail to take the whole context which Luther Himself explained later on. Read and enjoy.

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I have been educated in and have practiced their science since my childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago! To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing: "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron."

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word "sola" - even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but "solum" or "tantum". That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used "sola fides" in other places, and I want to use both "solum" and "sola". I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then. I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now that it has been translated into German and completed, all can read and criticize it. One can now read three or four pages without stumbling one time - without realizing just what rocks and hindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a smoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we removed those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely. The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no such thing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot earn thanks, not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of his Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as it will not be anything else.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

As to Baptism (boy you did have a loaded post there),I do not believe it is an essential. The thief on the cross was not baptized. Paul was thankful that he had only baptized a few folks. If it were part of one's actual salvation, then it would be an essential. You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved. Calvin believed Baptism was much like the covenant God had with Israel through circumcision. In an infant, it was a way to dedicate that infant through grace to God's care in the belief that the infant would one day grow to be a Christian. He believed it should be practiced indiscriminately though. The elect would be properly baptized. The non-elect would get wet and would be no worse off. Luther believed in infant baptism, but justified it with passages of Scripture that seem to teach infant faith and analagous to circumcision. The United Methodist statement of faith says:Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church. So I believe they view it as a sign or symbol but not salvific(My UMC brethren can correct me on that if they wish). Baptists believe it is a picture of what has transpired in the life of the believer. When one is immersed, it isn't unusual to hear "Buried in the LIKENESS of his death and raised to walk in a new kind of life." It is a picture of regeneration but is not salvific. It should be done in obedience. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Vladimir, you do seem to be heavily tainted by Catholic bias against the reformers. Nobody here follows the reformers. We enjoy reading them, yes. But as human beings they were very imperfect. Then again, all of us are. We follow Christ and listen to man insofar as he is in harmony with Scripture. It can be no other way.

You posted the following:

"I understand the Reformation and Luther quite well Vladimir."

No, actually you don't. Let me demonstrate:

You wrote: "When studying Paul's letters, between 1512 and 1520, he became keenly aware through Scripture of what the doctrine of Justification was."

Incorrect. In 1511 or 1512 he had his famous "Tower Experience". Luther suffered from serious stomach and bowel problems. He often spent hours on the toilet. He would take his personal vulgate with him to read. (This was clearly before he invented the myth of never having yet seen a complete Bible). He read Romans and Galatians and saw it in a new way. He came to believe justification was by grace alone (as Catholic too believed) but only through faith alone (which Catholic never had believed). This suited Luther's dark mind which was never at ease and endlessly worried about salvation.

"Somewhere before 1517's thesis, Johann Tetzel arrived under the papal flag preaching about the sale of indulgences."

Incorrect. Tetzel never preached the sale of indulgences since there was no such thing. It was simply called the "preaching of indulgences." Indulgences were NEVER to be sold and were worthless if sold.

"He would say "Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [ Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]"

Interesting. Now tell me, did you do the translation there? It is not typical for German books printed in the late 1960's to be published in Germany in English. That's why I ask. Unless you did the translation you got this from a webpage. You should always cite those.

"And famously "Each time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Luther was livid. He wrote to protest this sale to the Archibishop (indicating that he believed at that point in church authority), and when nothing would be done posted the 95 theses on the door to the Wittenburg chapel. In these theses, he denied certain abilities of the Pope to remit sin but did NOT deny church authority: .....As you can see, Luther's mind was being transformed. But it was REFORM he wanted, not a revolution."

Irrelevant. He got Revolution. He even encoraged it soon enough.

"He was still very Catholic in much of his theology. Rather than take a look at his church, Pope Leo dismissed him as a drunken German who will think better when he had sobered up."

He admitted being a rather drunken man - on more than one occasion too. He seems to have been a tortured soul.

"When he finally did get a full audience with the church it was for a heresy trial."

No. He never had an audience with the Church nor was he deserving of one. He appeared before the Diet of Worms - which was NOT an ecclesiastical body.

"He had been promised safe conduct, but the Elector had to hide him. By this point, he was standing on Scripture alone."

He was standing on only his interpretations. He never stood on scripture.

"In first years of the 1520s, Luther, hidden away did translate the Bible into German."

Incorrect. He translated, if it can be said he really did that either, the NT in the early 1520's. The OT was only done years later.

"The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: ...It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent."

You're nuts if you think the whole Church BROKE FROM ONE MAN. He broke off from the Church when he lied about his obedience, obstinantly held to his heresy and spread it.

"Something about being locked up with nothing but a Greek Bible that changes a person. SOLA FIDE. SOLA GRATIA. SOLA SCRIPTURA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. Became more real than ever. He would not go back to Rome."

He would not go back? So you mean it wasn't the Church that broke from him now? Freudian slip there Blogger? You tell tall tales, but you could at least stick to one tall tale!

"Check your history. Tetzel sold indulgences under the authority of the Pope, Leo X."

Incorrect. If Tetzel sold indulgences it was under his own authority for it was illegal to do so. What you listed from the Catholic Encyclopedia in no way contradicts that either. While Leo was pope, his desire for money meant that he turned his head away from many serious abuses of Church offices. It does not mean in the slightest that he EVER authorized indulgences to be sold. Also, if you knew what you were talking about, and you don't, you would know that Albrecht of Mainz, the Archbishop who allowed Tetzel to preach in his diocese made it clear exactly what his instructions were. Albrecht told Tetzel what amounts should be donated for the indulgence depending on the person’s social standing. In the Middle Ages, it was expected that people would donate according to their status. Those who were wealthy would donate more than those who were merely lower class. Albrecht made it explicitly clear that those who had no money to donate should still be given the indulgence anyway. That means there were to be NO SALES OF INDULGENCES. A sale would mean money MUST be exchanged. That was not to be the case with Tetzel. If he sold indulgences he was violating the explicit instructions of the presiding authority in the diocese in which he was operating and, therefore, would be violating canon law.

“Concerning your "Hubric" Luther quote, do you even care to see the context. Of course, Luther was being Luther when he wrote it - and I have to laugh because his language is so typically Luther. But, you cherry pick a quote as evidence that Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura and fail to take the whole context which Luther Himself explained later on. Read and enjoy.”

No, I quoted Luther in no cherry pick way. It shows EXACTLY who Luther was. Luther was not just his own master, but he believed he was, in a sense, master interpreter of the scriptures. He condemned those who disagreed with him, including eventually old friends.

Your further quoting of Luther only proves just how full of himself he was. He believed he could change scriptures to fit his ramblings.

“As to Baptism (boy you did have a loaded post there),I do not believe it is an essential.”

And you will is reason enough, right? And now you will twist scriptures to suit your purpose? Right.

“The thief on the cross was not baptized.”
1) How do you know he was not? You are assuming he was not.
2) Would baptism be expected of a man who could not be baptized?

“Paul was thankful that he had only baptized a few folks. If it were part of one's actual salvation, then it would be an essential.”

Christ makes it plain it was essential.

“You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved.”

I didn’t say they did. But if it is essential, then there is a quandary for Protestants.

“Calvin believed Baptism was much like the covenant God had with Israel through circumcision. In an infant, it was a way to dedicate that infant through grace to God's care in the belief that the infant would one day grow to be a Christian. He believed it should be practiced indiscriminately though. The elect would be properly baptized. The non-elect would get wet and would be no worse off. Luther believed in infant baptism, but justified it with passages of Scripture that seem to teach infant faith and analagous to circumcision.”

Again, I think you need to read more and talk less. Luther and Calvin both could give mixed messages on baptism: “In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.” (The Larger Catechism by Martin Luther, p. 113).

“God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, p. 1462).

“Vladimir, you do seem to be heavily tainted by Catholic bias against the reformers.”

They weren’t reformers. They were Revolutionaries. And Catholic bias? Yeah, and Protestants have no Protestant bias? I have a Christian bias. My Church was established by Christ. Yes, it’s the Catholic Church.

“Nobody here follows the reformers.”

Wow, you really need to read more (here if no where else).

“We enjoy reading them, yes. But as human beings they were very imperfect. Then again, all of us are. We follow Christ and listen to man insofar as he is in harmony with Scripture. It can be no other way.”

It is another way for you. You listen to men, Protestant men, tell you what the Bible says. When you study it, you study it according to the principles of Protestants. You interpret according to Protestant principles. It isn’t the scriptures you live in harmony with. You force Christianity, what parts of it you can tolerate, to bend to your wills.