Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

Beggars All Reformation and Aplogetics ^ | May 04, 2013 | James Swan

[boatbums]

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view of purgatory: "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."

Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

[Cronos]

My point being that Luther was pretty much “my way or the highway” - and most of those who call themselves “Protestants” don’t follow his way in most ways :)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“My point being that Luther was pretty much “my way or the highway” - and most of those who call themselves “Protestants” don’t follow his way in most ways :)”

He was, without question, a wild donkey of a man.

God used him greatly, as He did with Baalam’s ass.

And frankly when you grow up steeped in Roman thought, like anti Semitic beliefs, you can only go so far.

BTW, I’ve never met Christian in a Protestant church who follows Luther.

They follow Christ.

Luther was used to open the door.

[Cronos]

The thing is - how do you know that Luther’s point was correct? ultimately the re-re-re-formation led to the Universal Unitarians, the Oneness Pentecostals and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. What makes your interpretation of the scriptures (and analogously your collection of books in scripture) more right than the Oneness Pentecostals?

[Cronos]

I’ve never met Christian in a Protestant church who follows Luther.

Let me introduce you to Xone, a Lutheran.

[Cronos]

Luther was used to open the door.

Actually no, it was more of a pandora's box

Luther first argued against the use of indulgences, then about celibacy among priests and nuns

But then Calvin disagreed about the True Presence in the Eucharist and Zwingli openly said there wasn't

Then came the Anabaptists who went one step further and said that the Baptism wasn't valid

then you had the Unitarians who went and said that the Trinity was invalid

At which stage did it stop being "opening the door" and become "opening Pandora's box"?

Seriously

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“At which stage did it stop being “opening the door” and become “opening Pandora’s box”?

“Seriously”

Of course, with your background and beliefs, you see it as a pandora’s Box.

And you lay it at Luther’s feet.

Not surprisingly, I see it differently, since every movement in history has a context and an antecedent that energizes the movement.

In this case, you can lay the energy that launched this at two sources:

1. The long-term corruption of Rome, a whitewashed tomb on the outside, but filled with corruption and bones on the inside.

Luther tried to bring Rome back to God’s Word and did not start out wanting to separate. Rome doubled down on its heresy and did not even want to discuss the Scriptures at the hearing. All they wanted was blind obedience.

Rome had multiple occasions to repent and move back to scripture. They did not. It would have stopped there.

The same can be said for Rome’s prideful breakaway from the original orthodox churches. Rome could have prevented a split, but they insisted on their own supremacy.

As Rome trod down the road of seeing themselves as a superior kingdom that must be obeyed, *they wound the energy that eventually led to the split during the Reformation.*

2. There was also the large context of the Renaissance, that set free mankind to re-examine everything. And so they did.

Through it all, God has preserved for himself a small group who haven’t bowed their knee to Baal. It has always been this way.

The wheat grows with the tares until the harvest.

And we have had the same heresy to deal with in the beginning as we do today.

The only real difference is that Rome used to just slaughter any believer who disagreed - man woman or child.

Thankfully, they have been confined to a historical kingdom of a few acres in Rome.

In the meantime, The Roman Rooster continues to crow, pridefully believing his actions make the sun rise- just as corrupt, and now we see the depth of Rome’s corruption with children.

The orthodox churches avoided many of Rome’s errors, but preserved many.

And God’s plan marches on outside the old wine skins.

Best to you FRiend

[Cronos]

No, it is not "my background and beliefs" -- you can't seriously believe that the Jehovah's witnesses beliefs are good, can you?

[Cronos]

No, it is not "my background and beliefs" -- you can't seriously believe that the Oneness Pentecostal beliefs are good? And they are the ultimate form of reformation (to date - there will be more in the future

[Cronos]

And yes, I lay the opening of the door to Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses at his door because when it comes to "anyone can interpret any which way" it ends up as "a little knowledge of something is a dangerous thing" - instead of opening themselves up fully it becomes "my interpretation is the greatest"

You do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a rehashing of what Arius taught right? This was one man who impetuously became a priest and then didn't read through the earlier heresies who opened up the pandora's box

[Cronos]

There was also the large context of the Renaissance,

What Renaissance? The Carolingian renaissance? What do you see as the "setting free mankind to think" as opposed to what came before?

Don't fall for the idea that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages (a term first used by Gibbon).

During the Middle Ages people like Dante Alighieri and Bede lived. The great art of the Gothic period was present and scientific discoveries. What makes you think that mankind suddenly started discovering thinks anew?

Firstly you are wrong to say "mankind" as the Renaissance never affected the Greek world which had the same as before. It never went to the Islamic lands or India or China

What new thinking do you see in the 1400s that people didn't think in the 1300s?

[Cronos]

Through it all, God has preserved for himself a small group who haven’t bowed their knee to Baal. It has always been this way.

Yes, that was Christians as a whole. This logic that "oh, there was corruption and some fell away" is exactly what Muslims use to justify -- they say "the Injil was corrupted, but some people remained true Muslims" -- and so too do Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons use that logic.

it's flawed logic. God said that His word would not die away, He gave His promise to protect His people, His Church and He hasn't failed

The proof is in the way how the various entities that broke away from orthodoxy died out and never survived.

If God was not with orthodoxy, it would not have survived.

Btw orthodoxy = Catholic+Orthodox+Oriental+Assyrian Churches.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

What Renaissance?

'The Renaissance was a cultural movement. It was the revival of learning based on classical sources, the rise of courtly and papal patronage, the development of painting perspective, and advancement in science. It spanned from the 14th to 17th century and started in Italy..

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_date_of_the_renaissance

[aMorePerfectUnion]

it's flawed logic. God said that His word would not die away, He gave His promise to protect His people, His Church and He hasn't failed

I can understand why you would believe this.

I disagree with your understanding.

God's Word hasn't died away. Rome ignored it and subverted it to tradition. It lives on.

He is protecting His church. Not worldly Rome. The actual church, comprised of those who entrust themselves to Him alone.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

If God was not with orthodoxy, it would not have survived.

Nah.

God has His plans, but your argument is falsifiable by applying it to many world religions that have been here longer.

[Cronos]

I noticed you wrote about the Orthodox -- you do realize that the EASTERN Orthodox (note that there are the separate "monophysite" Oriental "orthodox" and the Assyrian Church of the east as well):

1. HAVE the concept of purgatory as an intermediate state after death. It believes in the determination of Heaven and Hell as stated in the Bible and that prayer for the dead is necessary.

Eastern Orthodox teaching is that, while all undergo a Particular Judgment immediately after death, neither the just nor the wicked attain the final state of bliss or punishment before the Last Day, with some exceptions for righteous souls like the Theotokos (Blessed Virgin Mary), "who was borne by the angels directly to heaven."

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that it is necessary to believe in this intermediate after-death state in which souls are perfected and brought to full divinization, a process of growth rather than of punishment, which some Orthodox have called purgatory

2. They believe in the Holy Eucharist

3. They believe in the confession of sins

and so on and so forth. Oriental Churchs as well

[aMorePerfectUnion]

And yes, I lay the opening of the door to Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah's Witnesses at his door because when it comes to "anyone can interpret any which way"

You've built a straw man here and now tear it down. Not a valid argument.

Daniel112, you should see this.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

As I said, many errors in Orthodox churches as well as Rome.

I have a close friend who was saved while Orthodox. He and his wife stayed to be a witness of Christ, but learned people were blinded by religious ritual. They eventually left to find a church that taught the Scriptures.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

No, it is not "my background and beliefs"

Here, you will believe as you will.

But you cannot see or evaluate a system while you are inside the system.

[Cronos]

God has His plans, but your argument is falsifiable by applying it to many world religions that have been here longer.

There are none except Jainism and Judaism that have been longer

Hinduism has utterly changed from the Vedic religion when it was focused on teh Indo-European Devas such as Indra, Varuna and Agni, through to the post -Buddhist period in the 4th century with the rise of cultic heroes such as in the Mahabharata and Ramayana and through to the post interaction with Islam and Christianity where you have the Hindu "trinity" of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva (Vishnu is mentioned thrice in the Vedas and Shiva none)

you want to talk of Buddhism? Buddhism has also changed from the Hinayana/Theravada buddhism which has it's last vestiges in Sri Lanka, through to Mahayana Buddhism that pervades the rest of the world. The Mahayana has the concept of Deities whereas true buddhism was athiestic (like Jainism). Even Theravada buddhism is no longer a-theistic.

[Cronos]

God's Word and God's Church/people haven't died away - it continues in orthodoxy (the Catholic-Orthodox-Oriental-Assyrian churchs)

btw "the Word of God" is Jesus Christ. Don't conflate it to deify the bible, like the Muslims do with their quran (which violates the monad concept, but hey)

God is protecting His Church, the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church (Catholic-Orthodox-Oriental-Assyrian) -- this is very apparent when you look at the beliefs of your Oneness Pentecostals (just another in the line of reformers)