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.

[Elsie]

...various non-Church views you have written about...

Oh?

Your vain imaginings have GOT to be shown for what they are.

[Elsie]

 

I can see WHY a CATHOLIC would NOT want the CATHOLIC bible shown!!

 

 

Matthew 23:9-10 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

 

 

 [9] And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

[Elsie]

The Mormons?

REALLY??

The guys that learn from you CATHOLICS???

---

 

Mormonism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr. has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days) believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

Catholicism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with sacred tradition) accepts multiple apparitional visions as being from God's Mother undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Mary has strange doctrines regarding marriage (celibacy still practiced among its clergy) believes in the mother of God (who is the sinless Queen of Heaven) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a physically dead Catholic who was afterwards "canonized," instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) - good works, the sacraments, Mary and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending hundreds of millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture teaches and practices bowing before and kissing statues WORSHIPS the consecrated communion wafer as God claims Mary is their life, sweetness, hope and most gracious advocate (as revealed in the Rosary) claims Mary was raised bodily into Heaven claims they get to Jesus by first going to Mary

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholicmormon.htm

[Elsie]

 

ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.

http://mormon2catholic.wordpress.com/2006/01/28/catholics-make-good-mormons-but-do-mormons-make-good-catholics/

ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.

http://mormon2catholic.wordpress.com/2006/01/28/catholics-make-good-mormons-but-do-mormons-make-good-catholics/

[Elsie]

What else ya got??

[Elsie]

Dude!

You've let your hair grow out!!

[Cronos]

Actually you are wrong — I would suggest some reading the Council of hippo as well as the council of Trent — the Council of Trent just made dogmatic articulations about why the Church had the same canon for 1200 years prior to Luther’s questioning.

[Cronos]

the Book that Rome has produced - So you say that the canon of the Bible was decided by Rome, not by you? So why do you then not have Sirach?

[Cronos]

Acts [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely. From here to the end of Acts, Paul and the Gentile mission become the focus of Luke’s writing.

Paradosis or tradition falls into two categories. The difference can be seen in Acts 15. Besides the issue of following the Mosaic Law for gentile converts, which meant primarily circumcision, the Council of Jerusalem also decreed that converts had "to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" (Acts 15:20).

There are clearly distinguished paradosis or traditions which are considered irrevocable, unchangeable, even to our day, e.g. circumcision is not a requirement for new Christians. On the other hand, today we would not be concerned with "pollution from idols," how an animal is killed for meat, or whether blood is in our food. These appear to be different traditions from the former--changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

The Roman Catholic Church also follows this biblical model in her approach to paradosis/traditions.

Hence, there are paradosis/traditions which are unchangeable, capital letter "T", "Traditions." These are the defined faith or moral teachings based on the Bible but revealed by the Holy Spirit as an authority in the Church (Acts 15:28).

==============================================

As to the council itself,

However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

So, why does James speak? We think there are three reasons:

1. He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor. What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
2. And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes: “Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.

They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says: “It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”

Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.

And so, at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. He does not participate in the debate. Rather, it says: “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up …” His teaching ENDS the debate. He acts as father (Pope) to all.

It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place — even over the resident reigning bishop (James).

Btw, I didn't know you, Elsie, held to the Council of bishops!

n ecumenical councils, "there is much discussion" among the bishops; the pope, typically, only confirms the decision

with respect to the interplay between James and Peter, it can be pointed out that James is making a decision about how to put Peter's beliefs into practice, while Peter is laying down what 'we believe' (which is exactly what a Pope would do). Note that in verse 14 he says:

"Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written ..."

Acts 15:14

In other words, James is not settling the theological argument, he is turning to how to enforce what Peter has declared.

[Cronos]

Actually it's a gif about How Jesus is the Word of God -- remember John 1 - the Word was with God and the Word WAS God?

Well, we believe that the Word of God is Jesus. The Bible is not existing before creation -- do you believe that?

[Cronos]

Remember that you said that Bible was put together by Rome (you said that) - the canon of the Bible that you hold in your hand. If you agree to that canon instead of individually evaluating every book (like the Mormons or JWs) then you hold to Holy Tradition. Congratulations!

the Church is the wheat as evidenced through history, while the various opinions you have voiced have died the way of Marcionitism - so in conclusion the parable of the wheat and tares that you pointed out validates Church teaching as the wheat and those such as your posts use as tares.

[Cronos]

So you repeat once more that the canon you hold is the Book that Rome assembled. - wow, that's quite an admission.

It is clear as in the wheat and tares example that you brought up that the various ideas that arose outside the Church in the past 500 years were tares, falling away and dying, while the wheat (the Church) was protected by God through the past 2000 years.

[Bellflower]

But she asked you where you find basis for this what you think to be true. Two gates?

[Bellflower]

The Jews certainly yet held/hold onto one all defining lie, which being is that they do not yet believe in Jesus. This lie is of such magnitude, it condemns the bearer to everlasting hell.

[Elsie]

So you say that the canon of the Bible was decided by Rome, not by you? So why do you then not have Sirach? Obey the words of JESUS?

Call no man father.

[Elsie]

 Acts [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely.

From here to the end of Acts, Paul and the Gentile mission become the focus of Luke’s writing.

I'm sorry that you are unable to actually READ Luke's words when he RECORDED exactly what the Church Council put in the letter.

I'm glad; however; that you DO indicate that Luke's WRITINGS were the important result.

---

 

 

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

 ¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 ⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."

 ⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

 ¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 ¹⁶ "'After this I will return
   and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
 ¹⁸ things known from long ago.

 ¹⁹ "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^{[34] 35} But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

 ³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

[Elsie]

These appear to be different traditions from the former--changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

So Rome tossed them out; and installed it's OWN 'traditions'.

I think I got it now.

[Elsie]

The Bible is not existing before creation -- do you believe that?

Leaving one rabbit hole, the traveling party has moved on to another one.

[Elsie]

I’m glad that you have not denied that; the seven churches in Asia that the angel had John to WRITE about; they were Catholic through and through.

[Luircin]

No, I am correct.

I read the language of these councils you speak of. And legally, in canon law?

Those councils gave nothing more than suggestions.

There’s a reason that Luther’s Catholic contemporaries were still debating and taking books out of the Bible and putting them in and all kinds of nonsense.

Luther did nothing that Catholics weren’t already doing, and worse than he ever did.