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.

[Tell It Right]

When we die do we go to Sheol? If not, why ignore the numerous references to Sheol in the OT written by much more respected Jewish teachers than Judah Maccabee? It just seems hard to make a Biblical case for believing in a purgatory without having to also believe in a Sheol.

[mrobisr]

“but at least they will not be able to stand before God, and say they never heard the truth. We are preaching it all the time.”

AMEN brother

[Mark17]

Yes, it’s not easy. Family and friends might be outraged. My family was. I had an advantage. I was saved, when I was already in the Air Force, far from home. After I left that false religion, and I will not mention what false religion it was, but I think you know, I had enough time to get good follow up, and get well grounded in the Bible. By then I really came to the realization of how spiritually blind I had been. I realized I had been saved from a devil’s Hell, and by then, I didn’t care what my family thought of it. By then, I had assurance of salvation, something false religionists do not have. 👎 Everyone should have assurance of salvation. It’s a beautiful thing. They should try it. They will like it. 😁

[Elsie]

When we die do we go to Sheol?

I think the Bible mentions SLEEP.

---

 

Psalm 13:3
Look on me and answer, Lord my God. Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death,

 

Psalm 90:5
Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning:

 

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
 
 
John 11:12-13
His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

 

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Listen, I tell you a mystery:

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

 

Ephesians 5:14
This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

 

1 Thessalonians 4:13
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.
 

[Elsie]

 

1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 King James Version (KJV) 

 

¹³ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

¹⁴ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

¹⁵ For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

[Elsie]

Has any of your family detoured from that broad path to the narrow as well?

[Mark17]

Has any of your family detoured from that broad path to the narrow as well?

Yes. One sister, went ballistic, when I left the Catholic Church. A few years later, she saw I was different, and wanted a piece of the action. Now, she is a very Godly woman.
Two other sisters left the Catholic Church too, but I am not real sure if they are on the broad path that leads to destruction, or the narrow path. I hope the latter.
Two other siblings are still very hard core Catholics. I don’t even discuss spiritual issues with them anymore. It’s been several decades, so they know where I stand. I think they voted for the Hildebeast too. Yuk. 👎

[Elsie]

There’s still time!

GOD is patient with us; not wanting any to perish.

[Mark17]

We always hope for the best.

[Cronos]

Directly written by an Apostle or the assistant of an Apostle, conforming to the truth taught by the Apostles and prophets.

And yet there was significant dispute that the book of the Apocalypse was neither written by an Apostle (whether John of Patmos was actually Apostle John was/is open for debate) - Eusebius

Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].

the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture.

Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship.

Martin Luther downgraded the significance of Revelation. It portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity -- a concept that is today sometimes called "Ambush Theology." Luther concluded that he could not readily harmonize the God described in Revelation with the God to whom Jesus prayed to as Abba. When Luther translated the Bible into the German language, he downgraded Revelation by relegating it to an appendix.

For example, the Alogi sect (who rejected the doctrine of the logos in AD 200) denied the authenticity of the book of the Apocalypse

They stated that this was written by a Gnostic heretic called Cerinthus (1st century, contemporary of the Apostle John)

Ultimately it was the Holy Apostolic Church which defined which books were canon or not based on tradition. Now you can't both reject Holy Tradition and accept the same canon using their arguments.

[Cronos]

Luther had the same conundrum - so he took upon himself to choose which books, which is why Martin Luther downgraded the significance of Revelation.

It portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity -- a concept that is today sometimes called "Ambush Theology." Luther concluded that he could not readily harmonize the God described in Revelation with the God to whom Jesus prayed to as Abba.

When Luther translated the Bible into the German language, he downgraded Revelation by relegating it to an appendix. -- he gave his reasons for this based on his opinion, but you are right now repeating what Holy Tradition says (That the book of the Apocalypse was written by an Apostle), not based on anything else. So you need to either accept Holy Tradition to accept that canon or to reject both and come up with your own canon

[Cronos]

If I mentioned Luther to most Christians I know, I'd just get a blank stare.

Well then the entire article posted by boatbums is pointless, right?

[Cronos]

Actually, quite a difference -- because The Church allowed and allows for certain differences of opinion as long as it doesn't touch core dogma. That's because the Church was always a community of different people with different opinions

Luther's problem is that he was not curtailed. He was smart, but one man in the 1500s couldn't read through all the wisdom of the accumulated 1500 years

THAT, compounded with his tendency to fly into rage and curse all at the first sign he was being disagreed with (see his diatribes against Catholics, Zwingli, Jews etc.) is linked to what I wrote to AmPU that the premise of the original article is flawed considering that various denominations agree on practically nothing (especially if you include Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity)

[Cronos]

What exactly? The Holy Spirit.

Nothing else explains how the Church survived the Vandals, Visigoths, Saracens etc.

Absolutely nothing else but the Holy Spirit.

The orthodox (small 'o') POV is correct as this was the view of the Apostles, namely that we have a Trinitarian Godhead (Father-Son-holy Spirit) unlike what the pentecostals say. The Church POV that Jesus is not the archangel Michael (unlike what the Jehovah's Witnesses say) is true to the Apostolic belief.

Now if Luther's POV was correct, then on what basis did he accept ANYTHING? He could claim to be scripture alone, but then on what basis would he determine what was scripture and what wasn't?

on what basis do you claim what is scripture and what isn't?

You and he base it on tradition - tradition that these were canon. In fact the Ethiopian Church has more books in their Bible than even the Orthodox-Catholics. On what basis do you reject their canon and hold to something closer to the Orthodox-CAtholic canon? Purely based on tradition. So you too hold to the Church PoV.

To reject one point is like pulling out one brick in a very finely balanced structure. You can't - without rejecting everything, as the Oneness Pentecostals and the Unitarians do.

[Cronos]

We're talking at cross-purposes. Purgatory IS the last stage of the purification through the blood of Christ. The last stage to strip you 9of the sin of earthly realm before you enter heaven

It is not some additional punishment.

it is not done or reduced by any deeds or prayers or words you or others do. If at all it is "reduced" it is done by God through the blood of the Christ

Nothing besides the blood of Jesus is needed to finish the work of purification -- purgatory is a stage of purification through the blood of the Christ.

[Cronos]

No, I can give the statement that disputing one piece leads to disputing everything.

On what basis do you disagree with the Oneness Pentecostals who say

The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes."

https://www.upci.org/about/about-oneness-pentecostalism the Pentecostals say

Pentecostal distinctives include the following:

A Foundation on the Bible
Pentecostals believe it is important to be led of the Spirit. However, this desire to be led of the Spirit does not conflict with a high view of the Bible as a primary source for truth. From our belief in an intelligent, loving Creator, we should expect God to reveal His message in writing, the historic medium best suited for precision, preservation, and propagation. When we read, study, and listen to the Bible, we hear the voice of the living Lord speaking to us today. We receive the message that can transform our lives and lead us to eternal life.

They are the logical end of "a little knowledge of something is a dangerous thing" -- just as the rest of your post shows

Your own biblical opinions are your own, daniel, it's not shared by anyone else. And Oneness Pentecostals or Unitarians have their own.

[Cronos]

No, you are extrapolating, which is why I say making judgements based on just one's person's interpretation of what is or isn't scripture, as you or the Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals do, is wrong

You are wrong to disagree with "You can't save yourself"

You are wrong tos ay that Christians are excluded from entering Heaven.

The Believers are "already washed, sanctified and justified" - and that is the process of purification, which includes the stage of purgatory.

[Cronos]

Nonsense? On what basis do you hold that the Tirthankaras are less old? The traces date to the 6th century BC

[Cronos]

btw, thanks for sharing the source of your comments. It is funny in its inaccuracy.

Id's suggest you read the Didache, a 1st century book that will show you Catholic-Orthodox practices

[Cronos]

What attack on Jewish culture in the 16th century are you talking about? Jewish culture at that time was not unusual compared to other cultures in multi-cultural Europe. Only in the later periods was Chassidism developed which showed a large difference