Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”?

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”[23]

It’s important to work slowly through this striking exhortation to Melanchthon, remembering that Wittenberg was not a calm spiritual community. It was a place under turmoil. Melanchthon was to face trials both from within his own small group of leaders and outside from the political juggernauts of the papacy and the empire. The situations involving marriage, celibacy, and the Lord’s Supper discussed above may seem like debatable academic subjects to the modern reader, but during these early years of the Reformation they were important societal topics that provoked deep emotion. Changes in these practices were changes in the very fabric of society. Luther encourages his co-worker to stand strong in the faith. The very community that Luther was responsible for was in the hands of Melanchthon.[24] Luther’s final exhortation in this letter is for Melanchthon to hold fast to the firm gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever trouble may come, Melanchthon was to be true to the Gospel.

What follows is a line-by-line analysis of the paragraph containing the exhortation to “sin boldly.”

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace…”

Luther exhorts Melanchthon to stand firm and preach the pure gospel. The pure gospel proclaims God’s true grace. It is a grace that actually forgives all a man’s sins, without any works of penance geared toward eventual justification. The papal system Luther was part of taught that God’s grace could be attained by faith combined good works, and that the sacrament of penance must be carried out to completely forgive a man for sin. This would be a fictitious grace. As Ewald Plass points out, “The concept of grace was, of course, not unknown to Luther the Catholic. But this term, as so many others, had become a ‘weasel word’ in the Church of Rome, a word emptied of its Scriptural meaning. Thus grace was turned ‘from the divine source of pardon and forgiveness into an infused ability (gratia infusa) of man to perform good works for his own salvation.’ ”[25]

“…if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners.”

What does Luther mean “fictitious sin”? Perhaps he has in mind what he had just discussed: people thinking they were sinning by only receiving the bread and not the wine in the Lord’s Supper. This would indeed be a fictitious sin. Elsewhere though, Luther describes the “fictitious sins” concocted by the papacy:

“There are commandments and teachings of the pope which say nothing at all about faith in Christ, as the Gospel does, but merely about obedience to him in bodily, trivial, trifling matters, such as the eating of meat, observing festivals, fasting, dressing, etc. Yet the pope has emphasized and extolled these far more than God's Word, and they are feared and followed far more, have more thoroughly terrified and captivated consciences, and have made hell far hotter than did both God's Law and His Gospel. For they have given little regard to unbelief, blasphemy, adultery, murder, theft, and whatever else is opposed to Christ and His command; for these sins penance was quickly done and forgiveness given. But when someone touched one of the pope's commandments, the bulls had to come with lightning and thunder. This was called damned disobedience and brought a man under the ban of the pope. Now heaven and earth had to tremble in terror. But when sins against God were concerned, sins in which they themselves are drowned, not a leaf stirred. On the contrary, they mocked and laughed at the matter in great security, as they do to this day. Besides this, they persecute and murder in a cruel manner all who esteem God’s commandment above the commandment of their abomination. The pope wants God and His Word under him; he wants himself enthroned above them. This is his regime and nature. Without these he could not be the Antichrist.”[26]

Luther says that God does not save people who are only “fictitious sinners.” No, God saves actual sinners. “Luther often called actual sin, as does Scripture…spiritual adultery.”[27] Luther says all men have a “lust for divinity”: “No sin troubles us as severely as the lust after divinity. Of course, the lust of the flesh is also a furiously strong urge, yet it is only a form (of sin) and nothing in comparison with spiritual lust or fornication.”[28] All actual sins are attempts to deify ourselves. As Ewald Plass points out, “At the heart of every sin which our corrupt nature moves us to commit is the burning desire to recognize no one as superior to ourselves…Luther points to this as the common denominator of all actual sins.”[29] In our zeal to be our own gods, we psychological say, “I do not believe God’s ways are the right way for me.” Thus, at our spiritual roots, our actions are the result of unbelief in the heart- a blatant disbelief that God’s way is the best way. We are all indeed, actual sinners.

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.”

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and this statement is a perfect example. Luther doesn't write analytical theology. He writes profound verbose sentiment driving one to think deeply.

The first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther's point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith. But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.”[30]

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

It also should be pointed out, Luther was not simply telling Melanchthon to try really hard to be “bold”. Elsewhere Luther points out that the Holy Spirit is that which makes one bold. Preaching on John 15: ‘And ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning,’ Luther tells his hearers that Christ is saying:

“Yes; then, first, when you become certain of your faith through the Holy Spirit, who is your witness, you must also bear witness of me, for to that end I chose you to be apostles. You have heard my words and teachings and have seen my works and life and all things that you are to preach. But the Holy Spirit must first be present; otherwise you can do nothing, for the conscience is too weak. Yes, there is no sin so small that the conscience could vanquish it, even if it were so trifling a one as laughing in church, Again, in the presence of death the conscience is far too weak to offer resistance. Therefore another must come and give to the timid, despairing conscience, courage to go through everything, although all sins be upon it. And it must, at the same time, be an almighty courage, like he alone can give who ministers strength in such a way that the courage, which before a rustling leaf could cause to fear, is now not afraid of all the devils, and the conscience that before could not restrain laughing, now restrains all sins.”[31]

“As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.”

This is simply the same message Paul proclaims in Romans 7. Even though a man has been justified by Christ and had His righteousness imputed to him, the remnants of sin still remain. Paul says,

“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”

For Luther, the remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”[32]

“No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Luther’s critics often quote this statement. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.”[33] The above statement is a perfect example. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Secondly, one must recall the recipient of this letter: Phillip Melanchthon. No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once. The Lutheran writer W.H.T. Dau presents the absurdity of the arguments put forth by Roman Catholic authors along these lines:

“ ‘Be a sinner, and sin bravely, but believe more bravely still’- this is the chef d’oeuvre of the muck-rackers in Luther’s life…What caused Luther to write these words? Did Melanchthon contemplate some crime which he was too timid to perpetrate? According to the horrified expressions of Catholics that must have been the situation. Luther, in their view, says to Melanchthon: Philip, you are a simpleton. Why scruple about a sin? You are confined in the trammels of very narrow-minded moral views. You must get rid of them. Have the courage to be wicked. Make a hero of yourself by executing some bold piece of iniquity. Be an ‘Uebermensch.’ Sin with brazen unconcern; be a fornicator, a murderer, a liar, a thief, defy every moral statute,- only do not forget to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. His grace is intended, not for hesitating, craven sinners, but for audacious, spirited, high minded criminals…Can the reader induce himself to believe that Luther advised Melanchthon to do what he himself knew was a moral impossibility to himself because of his relation to God?…What brave sin did Melanchthon actually commit upon being thus advised by Luther?”[34]

On the other hand, Luther ends by saying, “you too are a mighty sinner” so “pray boldly.” Here, Luther points out the seriousness of sin. While Christ’s sacrifice and work are infinite enough to cover the most heinous of sins, any sin in a person’s life makes them a “mighty sinner” in need of a savior. A little sinner winds up in Hell just as the mighty sinners do, thus we are all really mighty enough sinners to deserve damnation.

That Luther’s words should not be taken literally is clear from statements he made elsewhere about heinous sin:

“Works only reveal faith, just as fruits only show the tree, whether it is a good tree. I say, therefore, that works justify, that is, they show that we have been justified, just as his fruits show that a man is a Christian and believes in Christ, since he does not have a feigned faith and life before men. For the works indicate whether I have faith. I conclude, therefore, that he is righteous, when I see that he does good works. In God’s eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not. As Paul says, we ought not to trust a faith which is false, as when someone believes he is a part of the church although he meanwhile still whores [I Cor. 5:11]. In this I see that he is not a good tree and when he glories saying, “I am a part,” I can argue against him, “You are not part of the church, because your works are evil.” Therefore, those works are also evidence to himself and to others about him whether he has the true faith. For those who glory that they are Christians and do not show this faith by such works, as this sinful woman does, but persist up to the present and live in open sins, in whoring and adultery, are not Christians at all. For the Christian shows his life and that he has been made a Christian by love and good works and flees all vices. We should not be a part of the church in number only, as the hypocrites, but also by our works, so that our heavenly Father may be glorified. Love merits forgiveness of sins, that is, love reveals that his sins have been forgiven.”[35]

For Luther, outward sins like murder and adultery were obviously bad. But these were only a symptom of unbelief, which is the root of all outward sin. In a sermon on Luke 18, Luther discusses the faith of the Publican as compared to the works of the Pharisee:

“Now let us better see and hear what the Lord says to this. There stands the publican and humbles himself, says nothing of fasting, nothing of his good works, nor of anything. Yet the Lord says that his sins are not so great as the sins of the hypocrite; even in spite of anyone now exalting himself above the lowest sinner. If I exalt myself a finger's breadth above my neighbor, or the vilest sinner, then am I cast down. For the publican during his whole life did not do as many and as great sins as this Pharisee does here when he says: I thank thee God that, I am not as other men are; and lies enough to burst all heaven. From him you hear no word like: "God, be thou merciful to me a sinner!" God's mercy, sympathy, patience and love are all forgotten by him, while God is nothing but pure mercy, and he who does not know this, thinks there is no God, as in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath Said in his heart, There is no God." So it is with an unbeliever who does not know himself. Therefore I say one thing more, if he had committed the vilest sin and deflowered virgins, it would not have been as bad as when he says: "I thank thee God, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Yes, yes, do I hear you have no need of God and despise his goodness, mercy, love and everything that God is? Behold, these are thy sins. Hence the public gross sins that break out are insignificant; but unbelief which is in the heart and we cannot see, this is the real sin in which monks and priests strut forth; these lost and corrupt ones are sunk head and ears in this sin, and pretend to be entirely free from it.”[36]

In the above statement, one can see Luther’s brilliance with language and theological insight. How many of us think of unbelief as an extreme heinous sin? Compared to blatant fornication or murder, unbelief seems to us as not so bad. Luther though realizes that unbelief is a sin against a holy God, and thus more heinous than any amount of murder or adultery. A sin against a perfect infinite being deserves a perfect infinite punishment. All of us are indeed, mighty sinners.

Are you kidding? Luther created new level of debauchery when he apostatized.

You definitely need some educating.

History relevant to the context of the Reformation:

• Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

• The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

(http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

• Joseph Lortz, German Roman Catholic theologian:

“The significance of the break-up of medieval unity in the thirteenth century, but even more during the Avignon period, is evident in the most distinctive historical consequence of the Avignon Papacy: the Great Western Schism. The real meaning of this event may not be immediately apparent. It can be somewhat superficially described as a period when there were two popes, each with his own Curia, one residing in Rome, the other in Avignon.” “When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined.” ("The Reformation: A Problem for Today” (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), “The Causes of the Reformation," pp. 35-37; . (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-catholic-scholar-look-at-causes.html )

• Catholic Encyclopedia>Council of Constance:

“The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm)

• Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion:

“What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” (“The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare)

• Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy during this period leading up to the Refomation:

“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

• Maurice W. Sheehan:

It is possible to go back deep into the Middle Ages when enumerating or toting up the causes of the Reformation. I would like to start simply with the fourteenth century.... The first thing to note is that in the fourteenth century there was a period of approximately seventy years, from 1309 to 1377, when the pope was not living or residing in Rome...In the midst of the pope living outside of the Italian peninsula, outside of Rome, there occurred one of those events in European history that mark an age forever, and that was the infamous Black Death...Not too long after the Black Death there occurred something that was far worse than the popes living in Avignon... they proceeded to elect a counter-pope in 1378 to the pope who was then living in Rome. This counter-pope was French. He went back to Avignon. The man already resident now in Rome stayed in Rome, and Christendom now had the spectacle of not one pope living where he shouldn't have been, but of two popes each claiming to be the rightful pope, one living in Avignon, the other in Rome.

To...Boniface IX, goes the unenviable distinction of probably having begun the papal sale of offices... 1447 is usually taken as the year that began or marked the appearance of what we call the Renaissance Papacy, or the Renaissance Popes. The Italian Renaissance was in full swing at this time, and when we speak of the Renaissance Popes what we mean more than anything else is that these popes were more men of culture or rulers than popes...Sixtus IV was completely a worldling. He is best known perhaps for the chapel that he built which was later decorated by Michelangelo, the Sistine Chapel. His successor Innocent VIII had an illegitimate family. Alexander VI, who was Spanish, was perhaps the worst of them all. He had many illegitimate children, but he was a good political candidate. But his reign as pope did more to weaken the moral prestige of the papacy than almost anything imaginable...

And if we go to the clergy, to what we can call the lower clergy or the ordinary priests, we can say that one vice that many of them had was immorality. Many of them had women that they kept in their rectories by whom they had children, so they had families to support. — Maurice W. Sheehan, O.F.M. Cap., Lecture 2: Prelude-Causes, Attempts at Reform to 1537; International Catholic University (http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01802.htm)

• Dickens: In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III appointed Cardinals Contarini and Cafara and a commission to study church Reform. The report of this commission, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, was completed in March 1537. The final paragraphs deal with the corruptions of Renaissance Rome itself:

“The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.” (G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pp. 100,102)

• In the same frank spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681]

Bossuet* in the opening statements of his “Histoire des Variations,” admits the frightful corruptions of the Church for centuries before the Reformation; and he has been followed in our own times by Frederic von Schlegel [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.] While all of them are most anxious to prove that the Lutheran movement was revolutionary and subversive of the ancient faith, they are constrained to admit the universality of the abuses, which, in the language of Schlegel, “lay deep, and were ulcerated in their very roots.” — Charles Hardwick A History of the Articles of Religion; http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Oldies/Thirty-Nine/hardwick39.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.