Replies

{Sigh} Same ol' same ol'.

Luther did NOT teach people to sin--but he did reject the late Medieval teachings of Gregory Biel--predominate in Roman Catholicism at the time(and amoung many, up to today)--that was basically, "Do you best, and God's grace will do the rest." Luther's writings proported to teach people to sin, "sin boldly..." (in a private letter to the fearful but eminent theologian and friend, Philip Melanchton) are all part of his argument against Biel's works + grace theology.

Some less informed Protestants say that Luther opposed Catholic "works righteousness" and so he did--but, neither Luther, or any other well informed Protestant has ever said that Rome was fully Pelagian--that is--denied that grace was absolutely necessary. Notice the expression above (very similar to "God helps those who help themselves") acknowledges grace is necessary but it also says we do our best--first--then God gives the grace we need to make it. THIS is what Luther, and subsequent classical Protestants have opposed: It is properly called semi-Pelagianism.

Pelagius was a Welsh monk, popular in the Christian Roman world, and a contemporary of St. Augustine (ca. AD 400). He taught that God would never command us to follow his laws, if we didn't have the full capacity, within ourselves unaided, to obey them fully. So grace for Pelagius was nice, but not necessary... Pelagius was condemned as a heretic--and Rome has never been fully Pelagian.

The Biel theology, in contrast, of "do your best and God's grace will do the rest" basically says our good works prepare us to receive that absolutely necessary grace we must have to make it.... But since our works are a necessary prerequisite for God's grace--this is why this is called semi-Pelagian. Biel didn't deny grace was necessary--only that our works were needed for it to be given.

Luther's hangup--and mine too--as well as that of all other classical Protestants--was/is that, my BEST good deeds are impure--and since they are done first merely to avoid Hell--out of abject fear of God...are really not good at all, since they are done for selfish motives. Hence, there is no preparation at all for grace, only sin--and following the Biel logic--only damnation awaits.

That was Luther's great fear--as he was honest with his good works and sins--and knew he couldn't hold up his side of the "do your best...." formula. Hence when the breakthrough came--while reading Romans (or maybe another book by St. Paul) that "by grace we are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8)

The formula was NOT:

good works + grace = salvation

RATHER:

grace + salvation = good works.

In theological language, "justification" (becoming right with God) was separated from, and comes before, "sanctification" (maturing in holy living)--but both are essentials in the Christian's life. What Luther was reacting against, was the confusion of the two...or...putting sanctification BEFORE justification.... which logically infers we earn a PART of our salvation--and insults God's grace.

Luther taught the 10 Commandments, and you will find no licentiousness among the early (or late) Lutherans.... The whole of Lutheran (and later, even more so) Reformed theology affirmed Christian ethics and good works.... The whole idea that Luther promoted sinning is preposterous--and shows a complete misunderstanding of basic Protestant doctrine.

The "mistress" of Philip of Hesse is a red herring. He had that mistress before following Luther (as a Roman Catholic in good standing...)--and he only asked Luther if he should marry her. After years of badgering, Luther said yes he should--marry her, as a 2nd wife. THAT is what was scandalous, that is the bigammy, not the fact that she was his mistress.

I don't know of a single Roman Catholic royal at the time in Europe who did not have at least one mistress--in addition to their official wife. Mistresses were SOP for renaissance-era monarchs (just as its carried over in southern Europe VIP's today).

Luther made a mistake, based on the fact that bigamy (and polygamy) is never overtly condemned in the bible...and he was going strictly by the bible. Polygammy/bigamy was banned by the early Church--but is only mentioned by St. Paul in the bible as a disqualifier for the ministry...not condemned for everyone. Naturally, the Church reflecting on that--and how there was only one Eve for Adam--ended up banning polygamy completely for Christians. But Luther didn't take for granted anything the Church had done--so many corruptions had he also seen her done...

Below find a painting done by one of Luther's best friends, and devout Lutheran, Lucas Cranach the elder. It is huge (6' by 10'(?)) was hung in the City Council meeting hall of Wittenberg for many years--throughout Luther's career at least.

Serious evidence that Luther and Lutheranism were anti-law, right?

If Biel taught that we can earn salvation, than he was wrong. He certainly was never canonized, unlike those who taught the opposite, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Vianney, etc. I’d certainly say that Biel seems to cite an ethos very popular in modern pop culture, but I’d hardly blame Catholics for American pop culture. Which is not to say that the Catholic church did not need reform; the great saints are mostly reformers and denouncers of heresies: St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis of Assissi, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Therese of Avila, St. Dominic, and again, St. Augustine, St. John Vianney, and, St. John Crysostom, who was named “the golden-mouthed” for saying that the floor of Hell was paved with the skulls of bishops.

But Luther brought not reform and grace, but slander and incitement to violence. His most famous writing depicts a trip to Rome which was a complete fiction. He advocate the wholesale slaughter of the peasantry. He turned princes against the emperor in a time of pagan invasion.

As for Prince Phillip, Luther’s point was precisely that mistresses were common. But rather than convict Phillip to strive for righteousness, he counselled Phillip that he could never overcome his desires, and so he might as well resign himself to a life of adultery. Phillip himself was horrified, and sought a more normalized relation, perhaps through divorce which would have been scandalous. Luther told him instead to take a second wife illicitly. You call it bigamy, but it was adultery, plain and simple.

And that’s my point: not to indict Luther of being an evil-doer. Many popes were evil-doers, and we Catholics must nonetheless defend their infallibility despite their occasionally horrifying lack of impeccability. Luther is not impeccable, or infallible, so I do not delude myself into thinking that demonstrating Luther was a heretic will make anyone abandon Protestantism. But what I do intend to show is that the Catholic Church had grave theological issues that weren’t merely political or plutocratic that compelled it to denounce Luther

The Council of Trent certainly did not assert, “Do your best and God’s grace will do the rest.” What it asserted was that Luther’s promiscuity was a bad fruit; that when people’s faith is proper, they necessarily perform good works. And that to increase in grace, it is effective to seek out the sort of mortification which Christ modeled, Paul preached and Luther condemned. Is that what you mean by “Do your best and God’s grace will do the rest?” If so, you do violence to the intention. I would instead refer to Paul, who relied entirely on God’s grace, but nonetheless worked out his salvation in fear and trembling (which Luther despised), striving for righteousness as a runner strives to finish the race.

It’s ironic that you sigh, “Same ol’, same ol’.” It’s you who made your arguments by citing convention.

As for the art, I am at a loss to interpret it. I see many images which could be interpreted as demonization of the law, but I couldn’t possibly assert that with any certainty. In 9 of the 10 panels, there seems to be some demonic or darkened figure influencing someone in authority, whether directing an execution (Panel 5), or watching as a woman turns away from her husband in their marital bed to listen to a lawyer or cleric or nobleman (Panel 9). In Panel 1, is he equating Moses receiving the law with idolatry, or posing him in opposition to idolators? I can’t tell.

You wrote: "The "mistress" of Philip of Hesse is a red herring. He had that mistress before following Luther (as a Roman Catholic in good standing...)--and he only asked Luther if he should marry her. After years of badgering, Luther said yes he should--marry her, as a 2nd wife. THAT is what was scandalous, that is the bigammy, not the fact that she was his mistress."

Not quite. What made it scandalous was that Luther not only approved of the bigamy but asked the duke to keep it quiet because he knew it would be bad if the public found out that he had approved it.

Even Preserved Smith, on page Roman numeral IX of his collection of Luther’s letters says that Luther made two great blunders and that support of bigamy was one of them. On page 91 of the same book, Preserved Smith mentions that Luther believed a woman married to an impotent man could have an adulterous affair with another man – Smith uses the euphemistic phrase “cohabit with another.”

In the same book, Smith publishes Luther’s letter:

TO PHILIP, LANDGRAVE OF HESSE

(EISENACH,) July 24, 1540. Grace and peace in Christ. Serene, highborn Prince, gracious Lord! I have received your Grace's letter, which seems to me to have been written in a rather angry mood, although I am not aware that I have deserved your Grace's ire. For it seems to me that your Grace thinks we act in this matter to please ourselves and not, as is really the case, to serve your Grace and prevent future trouble for you. Wherefore I give your Grace to understand my real reason for advising and warning against the publication of this confessional counsel. Let your Grace not doubt that if all the devils wanted to publish this counsel, I could, by God's grace, give them such an answer that they would not get any satisfaction out of me by doing so.

For in case you publish it, I have this advantage over your Grace and all devils, too, that you must bear me witness, first, that it wag a secret confessional counsel, and second, that I have always truly begged that it be not published, and thirdly, that it will never be published by me. As long as I have these three advantages I defy the devil himself to move my pen. By God's grace I know well how to distinguish between things that should be allowed to consciences privately by way of dispensation and those which should be publicly preached. I would be sorry to see your Grace get into a war of words over this matter, for you have enough else to do. . . .

If your Grace should publish this marriage, you could not get the world to recognize its legality if a hundred Luthers and Melanchthons defended it. ...

And as to what you say about not wishing your second wife to pass for a whore, I do not see why your Grace should mind that, for she has had to pass for one hitherto, at least before the world, though we three persons and God know that she is a wedded concubine. . . .

I write these things to your Grace to show you that it is not for my own sake that I wish this matter concealed ; for if it came to a war of pens, I well know how to draw myself out of it and leave your Grace sticking in it; which, however, I would not do if I could avoid it. Nor do I think to abandon your Grace during the present crisis as long as my life lasts. . . .

Your Grace should think what an offence it would be were it published, and . - also whether you could answer for it to the Emperor, for the Bible says : " All men are liars," and, " Put not your trust in princes." . . .

Wherefore I advise you to give an ambiguous answer by which yon could remain. I commend you to God and assure you that I advise you to do exactly what I should advise my own soul.

Your Grace's obedient, DR. MARTIN LUTHKR.

>> In theological language, “justification” (becoming right with God) was separated from, and comes before, “sanctification” (maturing in holy living)—but both are essentials in the Christian’s life. What Luther was reacting against, was the confusion of the two...or...putting sanctification BEFORE justification.... which logically infers we earn a PART of our salvation—and insults God’s grace <<

Sorry, but I decided this required a response. The Catholic Church doesn’t use the language of justification and sanctification along these lines, but you’ve mischaracterized the Catholic position. When you are baptized, you enter a “state of grace.” This is akin to “justification.” Anyone who dies in a state of grace goes to Heaven. However, while in a state of grace someone may still have “concupiscence,” which is the tendency to commit sin. These sins, provided they aren’t mortal, do not remove one from a state of grace, but they can result in the need for purification in purgatory. The process of sanctification, then is purification of the soul of both such sins, and the concupiscence towards them. It is only in the state of grace that the human soul can desire and work towards such purification, and one does this through mortification (abstinence, fasting, etc.), reception of the sacraments, and prayer.