| Author | Message | ||
| Cindy |
Morning Max! As I've wrote before, you are better than my morning coffee to wake me up! :-)) Yesterday morning I read your posted dream and have been thinking about it for the last day... I have thought this: sometimes our posts can seem to come across as presenting ourselves as "the thought police" or "guards" of all truth on this forum. Could this relate to the above dream? Your apology, even though not directed at me, is a real work of the Spirit, I think. I see us all needing each other a lot; to strengthen and encourage each other. I guess itís the spirit in which we defend truth! Speaking the truth in love!!! Actually, your dream is very interesting and has many layers that could be discussed... The freedom of our new situation, liberation in Christís Rest etc. etc... How do you analyze it? I must say, I donít dream that often; and especially donít remember in such detail. I may try to write mine down from now on. You say that God gave you that dream... You know, you are so intelligent and talented with words, it amazes me. God has blessed your ministry here and HIS Spirit will continue to guide and be with all of us on our journey IN Grace.... The defence of the Gospel is something we must always be bold in proclaiming, and always tempered with that humilty of spirit that says "we have been with Jesus"... Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Lori |
I agree that my salvation (through Christ's righteousness) is secure!! --And here it is, BUT...there is a vast difference between "my eternal relationship, my eternal security, my union with Christ" and "my walk in the light, my filling of the Spirit, my spirituality". My eternal relationship, security, union with Christ is based upon who and what he is---and he is righteous and he is sinless and that is given to me as a gift. ---when you are given a gift, do you BECOME the gift? --no-- My walk in the light, the filling of the Spirit, my spirituality are still controlled by my volition. And in this respect I am sometimes spiritual and sometimes carnal. I am either, light or darkness, there is no mixture. When I am spiritual, I am 100% spiritual, when I am carnal, I am 100% carnal. You stated yourself, that you were made aware of your "not Christ-like" post....You were carnal, you weren't spiritual. You were in darkness, you weren't in the light...."for God is light and in him there is no darkness at all" We are righteous, in Christ, yes! And gratefully that is what determines our salvation. BUT in our spiritual walk here on this earth, we are not always righteous. Our "walk in the light" is a temporary fellowship, every time we sin, whether known or unknown we voluntarily step into darkness, but when we name a known sin to God, all of our sins, whether we knew about them or not, are forgiven and we are immediately back in the light. 1 John 1:9 Let's relate this to a football field--God's plan is ON the field. When by faith we believe, we are no longer sitting in the stadium seats, we step out on the field. To do things in God's plan, we have to stay on the field, "inside the lines" of his plan. When we stepped out onto the field, we received the gift of his righteousness, "our ticket to heaven". But what happens when we accidentally or on purpose step out of bounds? Can we take the gift with us over the line? Absolutely yes, we are still holding "the gift".....but because we "stepped out of the bounds" (we sinned). We are no longer in the "light" of the playing field, we are in the "darkness", we are just like the people that have never entered the field, except for the fact that we are still holding "the gift". (I cor. 1:1-3) In a way, we are saying the same thing Max...it's just that you are ignoring/not stating the fact that you still have the sin nature and implying that your "off the field manuevers" don't count as a sin because you have "the gift". They still count as a sin....a paid for sin is still a sin. These sins separate us from the ministry of the Holy Spirit--If as you are saying we are always completely righteous then why would God tell us don't quench the Spirit, why would he remind us to be filled with the Spirit? obviously these things are not included in the "his righteousness" category, obviously these are a separate issue still controlled by us. Christ's volition on this earth ALWAYS kept him controlled by the Spirit. Under the control of the Holy Spirit THERE IS NO SIN. Our volition on this earth SOMETIMES keeps us controlled by the Holy Spirit. When we are controlled by the Spirit everything that we do is sinless, BUT when we decide to "do it our way", we are no longer controlled by the Holy Spirit and we are sinful. Like it or not, these are separate issues......and I'm going to have to quit stopping by for a while.....it just takes too much time. | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Cindy, He he he he he! You said: "Morning Max! As I've wrote before, you are better than my morning coffee to wake me up! :-))" I just fell off my seat laughing when it occured to me that you get up and get a "cup" full of "Folgers" coffee and then crank up the 'puter and get a "mug" full of "MAXwell" coffee!!!!!;-)))))) He he he he he..........Maryann | ||
| Max |
Greetings Lori, You may not read this reply for awhile if you have quit stopping by for awhile. But.... If it is true that I am ^^ignoring/not stating the fact that you still have the sin nature and implying that your "off the field manuevers" don't count as a sin because you have "the gift"^^ then how do you account for the fact that I have quoted a number of times -- and at least twice quite recently -- on this web site the passage in Romans 7 where Paul says, "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it" (NIV Romans 7:14-20). That sounds to me -- since it ought to be obvious that I agree and identify with Paul in this -- that I have admitted many times that I DO retain "the sin nature." What I am trying to do is to show that I am both perfect (sinless by virtue of Christ's robe alone) and imperfect (sinful due to the retention of my sinful nature) at the same time -- whether I am walking in the light or not. I loved the illustration you used -- from John about walking in the light and walking in darkness. There are indeed times when I walk in the light on the football field and other times when I walk in darkness off the field. That illustration of yours was one of the best I've ever heard or read, and you can be certain that I will use it in future. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that when I walk in the darkness I need to pray for forgiveness and get back onto the floodlit football field again. I also loved what you said about our Christian pilgrimage on earth being volitional. You are sooo right. We are not God's robots. We are his children. What I am trying to say here is that Paul never says he deliberately "keeps on sinning." Furthermore, when he admits to sinning he always denies that it is he who is doing it and asserts that "it is sin living in me that does it." And that is what I say too about my own struggle with sin -- because it is scriptural and because it is descriptive of my own experience. I am also trying to say that here on earth I am always 100% sinful in and of myself and 100% sinless by virture of Christ's sinless robe. There is NEVER any ascending-decending or increasing-decreasing ratio of "imputed" to "imparted" righteousness. Those aren't even scriptural terms! And that is exactly what I meant when I originally asserted that if I can say "I am saved," then I can also say, "I am sinless." In fact, on this web site some nice person even wished me, "Have a sinless day!" And I thanked that person, for my day WAS sinless 100% in and of Christ and 0% in and of myself. For there is NEVER any 1%-99%, 5%-95%, 10%-90%, 20%-80%, 25%-75%, 50%-50%, 60%-40%, 75%-25%, 80%-20%, 90%-10%, 95%-5%, 96%-4%, 97%-3%, 98%-2%, 99%-1%, 100%-0% progression from "my righteousness" to "Christ's righteousness" or from "my sinlessness" to "Christ's sinlessness." NEVER! Any such idea is totally unscriptural. Growing in grace and bearing the fruits of the Spirit IS NOT about that. It is ALWAYS 0% my righteousness / sinlessness and 100% Christ's righteousness / sinlessness for every believer from the publican in the temple and the thief on the cross at one end of the spectrum to Paul in prison in Rome, John in exile on the rock Patmos and Peter being crucified upside down at the other end of the spectrum. We ALL ALWAYS have the same status ratio before God -- 0%-100% -- even when God is using us to score a touchdown for him on the floodlit football field as Peter did on the Day of Pentecost or as Stephen did when Saul/Paul held the coats of those who stoned him to death. See "The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Matthew 20:1-16) for the scriptural evidence. Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Morning Cindy, You know, you make me crave coffee. Which is good, since recent health-medical research indicates that there are no harmful effects from moderate drinking of caffeinated coffee (de-caffeinated, by contrast, does have some harmful effects). And it has been shown that there are beneficial effects and that coffee is a herbal health drink! (I have done literature research on this topic and have published articles about it.) About the dream: I think now, after reflection, that the main "lesson from the Lord" was to not to try to be God's "thought police" but to let God be God and that spiritual "little children" pass freely into the kingdom of heaven here on earth. In the dream I was both the armed guard and the uniformed "intruder," and so the conflict was within myself. Gotta go -- God's love to you, | ||
| Lori |
Max, I just went back and read all of this thread, your responses on this discussion have come across speckled with arrogance, whether they were written in that manner or not. You have created an argumentative air on a subject that in reality you seem to agree with, but you are determined to make sure everyone words it to your suiting. Do you thrive on conflict or what??? And it is almost impossible to answer all of your posts. For one post that you don't "like" or agree with, you sometimes post 10 or 11 times. ---What do you do for a living?----I don't have a "job" outside the home but I don't have time to answer 10 different post. It almost seems that your desire is to "win" by intimidation, if nothing else. Have you noticed on just this discussion, how others have stated their beliefs...you have shot them done vehemently and one by one, they just quit commenting, you pursue them like an enemy....then hammer away with your multiple posts. I know your personality, even though I have never met you........you are just like my brother (God help anyone who doesn't agree with you).......you could argue about the chemical make up of a stop sign, couldn't you??? And you probably know exactly where to find out where that information is? There seems to be no way, for anyone, to answer your questions, whether they agree or disagree with you.....for everything that is posted you seem to have endless amounts of time to analyze every single word and phrase, instead of taking in to consideration the general content of the post and then allowing for the fact that other people don't word things like you would. And then......you make a disagreement out of it, when in reality the general message of everything written is very much the same. I give...........the end....... | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Max, I have a question for you. (This question will be a little flat in contrast to the above post!) It never occured to me, (mostly because I never thought of it), that we are covered by Christ righteousness AFTER the 2nd coming of Jesus when we are in heaven. In number 6 and 7 in your above answer to Lori, I noticed that you said something to the effect that we are covered by Christ righteousness for eternity even after the second coming? Could you explain that a little more?;-) Maryann | ||
| Max |
Hi Maryann, In the first place, if we follow Scripture alone, then true believers have to admit that we ARE already in heaven right now (Matthew 13:1-52, Luke 17:20-21, Hebrews 12:22 ). Gary and Elizabeth Inrig call this "the now and future" kingdom of heaven. I would say that if Adam and Eve were righteous / sinless in Eden before their fall, then that spiritual reality was true only because of Christ's righteousness / sinlessness. By sinning they broke their "righteousness / sinlessness" connection. And all of their decendents came into being without it. The cross restored their and our "righteousness / sinlessness" connection. So we are righteous / sinless only by virture of this connection, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. To say that in heaven after the Second Coming that we will be righteous / sinless without this connection is blasphemy. For the restored Holy Spirit will never cease to be within us as our righteousness / sinlessness connection. I do have scriptural support for this, though I haven't brought it forward in this post. Blessings, | ||
| Max |
To all: A quote from Martin Luther The Law constrains us teaches us that we must be changed before we can accomplish its works; it makes us conscious of our inability as we are. On the other hand, love and works do not change us, do not justify us. We must be changed in person and justified before we can love and do good works. Our love and our works are evidence of justification and of a change, since they are impossible until the individual is free from sin and made righteous. Fourth Sunday After Epiphany: Christian Love and the Command to Love Sermons of Martin Luther-Baker-OUT OF Quoted by Bill Fields, Original PeaceMakers International: Since 1983 http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/ml74.htm | ||
| Max |
Luther: WHEN INDOLENT IN GOOD WORKS, PRIZE NOT ATTAINED "Now, running is hindered in two ways; for one, by indolence. When faith is not strenuously exercised: when we are indolent in good works, our progress is hindered, so that the prize is not attained." Source: Martin Luther, "Third Sunday Before Lint: The Christian Race for the Prize, "Sermons of Martin Luther-Baker-OUT OF PRINT, paragraph 2, http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/ml76.htm | ||
| Max |
LUTHER WAS "TRYING HARD TO TEACH REAL GOOD WORKS OF FAITH" "When I exalt faith and reject such works done without faith, they [men who do 'nothing else but teach good works'] accuse me of forbidding good works, when in truth I am trying hard to teach real good works of faith." "A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication" by Dr. Martin Luther, 1520, published in: "Works of Martin Luther," Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 173-285. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/witten berg/luther/work-02a.txt | ||
| Max |
Dear Lori, Iím sorry you feel the way you do. I know Iím an imperfect and sinful vessel. But I am driven. NIV 1 Corinthians 9:16 Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it. 19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. In Christís love for you, Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Introduction by M.Reu, Wartburg Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa, to Dr. Martin Lutherís 1520 AD ìA TREATISE ON GOOD WORKSî . 1. The Occasion of the Work. Luther did not impose himself as reformer upon the Church. In the course of a conscientious performance of the duties of his office, to which he had been regularly and divinely called, and without any urging on his part, he attained to this position by inward necessity. In 1515 he received his appointment as the standing substitute for the sickly city pastor, Simon Heinse, from the city council of Wittenberg. Before this time he was obliged to preach only occasionally in the convent, apart from his activity as teacher in the University and convent. Through this appointment he was in duty bound, by divine and human right, to lead and direct the congregation at Wittenberg on the true way to life, and it would have been a denial of the knowledge of salvation which God had led him to acquire, by way of ardent inner struggles, if he had led the congregation on any other way than the one God had revealed to him in His Word. He could not deny before the congregation which had been intrusted to his care, what up to this time he had taught with ever increasing clearness in his lectures at the University -- for in the lectures on the Psalms, which he began to deliver in 1513, he declares his conviction that faith alone justifies, as can be seen from the complete manuscript, published since 1885, and with still greater clearness from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1515-1516), which is accessible since 1908; nor what he had urged as spiritual adviser of his convent brethren when in deep distress -- compare the charming letter to Georg Spenlein, dated April 8, 1516. Luther's first literary works to appear in print were also occasioned by the work of his calling and of his office in the Wittenberg congregation. He had no other object in view than to edify his congregation and to lead it to Christ when, in 1517, he published his first independent work, the Explanation of the Seven Penitential Psalms. On Oct. 31 of the same year he published his 95 Theses against Indulgences. These were indeed intended as controversial theses for theologians, but at the same time it is well known that Luther was moved by his duty toward his congregation to declare his position in this matter and to put in issue the whole question as to the right and wrong of indulgences by means of his theses. His sermon Of Indulgences and Grace, occasioned by Tetzel's attack and delivered in the latter part of March, 1518, as well as his sermon Of Penitence, delivered about the same time, were also intended for his congregation. Before his congregation (Sept., 1516-Feb., 1517) he delivered the Sermons on the Ten Commandments, which were published in 1518 and the Sermons on the Lord's Prayer, which were also published in 1518 by Agricola. Though Luther in the same year published a series of controversial writings, which were occasioned by attacks from outside sources, viz., the Resolutiones disputationis de Virtute indulgentiarum, the Asterisci adversus obeliscos Joh. Eccii, and the Ad dialogum Silv. Prieriatis responsio, still he never was diverted by this necessary rebuttal from his paramount duty, the edification of the congregation. The autumn of the year 1518, when he was confronted with Cajetan, as well as the whole year of 1519, when he held his disputations with Eck, etc., were replete with disquietude and pressing labors; still Luther served his congregation with a whole series of writings during this time, and only regretted that he was not entirely at its disposal. Of such writings we mention: Explanation of the Lord's Prayer for the simple Laity (an elaboration of the sermons of 1517); Brief Explanation of the Ten Commandments; Instruction concerning certain Articles, which might be ascribed and imputed to him by his adversaries; Brief Instruction how to Confess; Of Meditation on the Sacred Passion of Christ; Of Twofold Righteousness; Of the Matrimonial Estate; Brief Form to understand and to pray the Lord's Prayer; Explanation of the Lord's Prayer "vor sich und hinter sich"; Of Prayer and Processions in Rogation Week; Of Usury; Of the Sacrament of Penitence; Of Preparation for Death; Of the Sacrament of Baptism; Of the Sacrament of the Sacred Body; Of Excommunication. With but few exceptions these writings all appeared in print in the year 1519, and again it was the congregation which Luther sought primarily to serve. If the bounds of his congregation spread ever wider beyond Wittenberg, so that his writings found a surprisingly ready sale, even afar, that was not Luther's fault. Even the Tessaradecas consolatoria, written in 1519 and printed in 1520, a book of consolation, which was originally intended for the sick Elector of Saxony, was written by him only upon solicitation from outside sources. To this circle of writings the treatise Of Good Works also belongs. Though the incentive for its composition came from George Spalatin, court-preacher to the Elector, who reminded Luther of a promise he had given, still Luther was willing to undertake it only when he recalled that in a previous sermon to his congregation he occasionally had made a similar promise to deliver a sermon on good works; and when Luther actually commenced the composition he had nothing else in view but the preparation of a sermon for his congregation on this important topic. But while the work was in progress the material so accumulated that it far outgrew the bounds of a sermon for his congregation. On March 25 he wrote to Spalatin that it would become a whole booklet instead of a sermon; on May 5 he again emphasizes the growth of the material; on May 13 he speaks of its completion at an early date, and on June 8 he could send Melanchthon a printed copy. It was entitled: Von den guten werckenn: D. M. L. Vuittenberg. On the last page it bore the printer's mark: Getruck zu Wittenberg bey dem iungen Melchior Lotther. Im Tausent funfhundert vnnd zweyntzigsten Jar. It filled not less than 58 leaves, quarto. In spite of its volume, however, the intention of the book for the congregation remained, now however, not only for the narrow circle of the Wittenberg congregation, but for the Christian layman in general. In the dedicatory preface Luther lays the greatest stress upon this, for he writes: "Though I know of a great many, and must hear it daily, who think lightly of my poverty and say that I write only small Sexternlein (tracts of small volume) and German sermons for the untaught laity, I will not permit that to move me. Would to God that during my life I had served but one layman for his betterment with all my powers; it would be sufficient for me, I would thank God and suffer all my books to perish thereafter.... Most willingly I will leave the honor of greater things to others, and not at all will I be ashamed of preaching and writing German to the untaught laity." Since Luther had dedicated the afore-mentioned Tessaradecas consolatoria to the reigning Prince, he now, probably on Spalatin's recommendation, dedicated the Treatise on Good Works to his brother John, who afterward, in 1525, succeeded Frederick in the Electorate. There was probably good reason for dedicating the book to a member of the reigning house. Princes have reason to take a special interest in the fact that preaching on good works should occur within their realm, for the safety and sane development of their kingdom depend largely upon the cultivation of morality on the part of their subjects. Time and again the papal church had commended herself to princes and statesmen by her emphatic teaching of good works. Luther, on the other hand, had been accused -- like the Apostle Paul before him (Rom. 3 31) -- that the zealous performance of good works had abated, that the bonds of discipline had slackened and that, as a necessary consequence, lawlessness and shameless immorality were being promoted by his doctrine of justification by faith alone. Before 1517 the rumor had already spread that Luther intended to do away with good works. Duke George of Saxony had received no good impression from a sermon Luther had delivered at Dresden, because he feared the consequences which Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone might have upon the morals of the masses. Under these circumstances it would not have been surprising if a member of the Electoral house should harbor like scruples, especially since the full comprehension of Luther's preaching on good works depended on an evangelical understanding of faith, as deep as was Luther's own. The Middle Ages had differentiated between fides informis, a formless faith, and fides formata or informata, a formed or ornate faith. The former was held to be a knowledge without any life or effect, the latter to be identical with love for, as they said, love which proves itself and is effective in good works must be added to the formless faith, as its complement and its content, well pleasing to God. In Luther's time every one who was seriously interested in religious questions was reared under the influence of these ideas. Now, since Luther had opposed the doctrine of justification by love and its good works, he was in danger of being misunderstood by strangers, as though he held the bare knowledge and assent to be sufficient for justification, and such preaching would indeed have led to frivolity and disorderly conduct. But even apart from the question whether or not the brother of the Elector was disturbed by such scruples, Luther must have welcomed the opportunity, when the summons came to him, to dedicate his book Of Good Works to a member of the Electoral house. At any rate the book could serve to acquaint him with the thoughts of his much-abused pastor and professor at Wittenberg, for never before had Luther expressed himself on the important question of good works in such a fundamental, thorough and profound way. 2. The Contents of the Work. A perusal of the contents shows that the book, in the course of its production, attained a greater length than was originally intended. To this fact it must be attributed that a new numeration of sections begins with the argument on the Third Commandment, and is repeated at every Commandment thereafter, while before this the sections were consecutively numbered. But in spite of this, the plan of the whole is clear and lucid. Evidently the whole treatise is divided into two parts: the first comprising sections 1-17, while the second comprises all the following sections. The first, being fundamental, is the more important part. Luther well knew of the charges made against him that "faith is so highly elevated" and "works are rejected" by him; but he knew, too, that "neither silver, gold and precious stone, nor any other precious thing had experienced so much augmentation and diminution" as had good works "which should all have but one simple goodness, or they are nothing but color, glitter and deception." But especially was he aware of the fact that the Church was urging nothing but the so-called self-elected works, such as "running to the convent, singing, reading, playing the organ, saying the mass, praying matins, vespers, and other hours, founding and ornamenting churches, altars, convents, gathering chimes, jewels, vestments, gems and treasures, going to Rome and to the saints, curtsying and bowing the knees, praying the rosary and the psalter," etc., and that she designated these alone as truly good works, while she represented the faithful performance of the duties of one's calling as a morality of a lower order. For these reasons it is Luther's highest object in this treatise to make it perfectly clear what is the essence of good works. Whenever the essence of good works has been understood, then the accusations against him will quickly collapse. In the fundamental part he therefore argues: Truly good works are not self-elected works of monastic or any other holiness, but such only as God has commanded, and as are comprehended within the bounds of one's particular calling, and all works, let their name be what it may, become good only when they flow from faith, the first, greatest, and noblest of good works." (John 6:29.) In this connection the essence of faith, that only source of all truly good works, must of course be rightly understood. It is the sure confidence in God, that all my doing is well pleasing to Him; it is trust in His mercy, even though He appears angry and puts sufferings and adversities upon us; it is the assurance of the divine good will even though "God should reprove the conscience with sin, death and hell, and deny it all grace and mercy, as though He would condemn and show His wrath eternally." Where such faith lives in the heart, there the works are good "even though they were as insignificant as the picking up of a straw"; but where it is wanting, there are only such works as "heathen, Jew and Turk" may have and do. Where such faith possesses the man, he needs no teacher in good works, as little as does the husband or the wife, who only look for love and favor from one another, nor need any instruction therein "how they are to stand toward each other, what they are to do, to leave undone, to say, to leave unsaid, to think." This faith, Luther continues, is "the true fulfillment of the First Commandment, apart from which there is no work that could do justice to this Commandment." With this sentence he combines, on the one hand, the whole argument on faith, as the best and noblest of good works, with his opening proposition(there are no good works besides those commanded of God), and, on the other hand, he prepares the way for the following argument, wherein he proposes to exhibit the good works according to the Ten Commandments. For the First Commandment does not forbid this and that, nor does it require this and that; it forbids but one thing, unbelief; it requires but one thing, faith, "that confidence in God's good will at all times." Without this faith the best works are as nothing, and if man should think that by them he could be well pleasing to God, he would be lowering God to the level of a "broker or a laborer who will not dispense his grace and kindness gratis." This understanding of faith and good works, so Luther now addresses his opponents, should in fairness be kept in view by those who accuse him of declaiming against good works, and they should learn from it, that though he has preached against "good works," it was against such as are falsely so called and as contribute toward the confusion of consciences, because they are self-elected, do not flow from faith, and are done with the pretension of doing works well pleasing to God. This brings us to the end of the fundamental part of the treatise. It was not Luther's intention, however, to speak only on the essence of good works and their fundamental relation to faith; he would show, too, how the "best work," faith, must prove itself in every way a living faith, according to the other commandments. Luther does not proceed to this part, however, until in the fundamental part he has said with emphasis, that the believer, the spiritual man, needs no such instruction (1. Timothy 1:9), but that he of his own accord and at all times does good works "as his faith, his confidence, teaches him." Only "because we do not all have such faith, or are unmindful of it," does such instruction become necessary. Nor does he proceed until he has applied his oft repeated words concerning the relation of faith to good works to the relation of the First to the other Commandments. From the fact, that according to the First Commandment, we acquire a pure heart and confidence toward God, he derives the good work of the Second Commandment, namely, "to praise God, to acknowledge His grace, to render all honor to Him alone." From the same source he derives the good work of the Third Commandment, namely, "to observe divine services with prayer and the hearing of preaching, to incline the imagination of our hearts toward God's benefits, and, to that end, to mortify and overcome the flesh." From the same source he derives the works of the Second Table. The argument on the Third and Fourth Commandments claims nearly one-half of the entire treatise. Among the good works which, according to the Third Commandment, should be an exercise and proof of faith, Luther especially mentions the proper hearing of mass and of preaching, common prayer, bodily discipline and the mortification of the flesh, and he joins the former and the latter by an important fundamental discussion of the New Testament conception of Sabbath rest. Luther discusses the Fourth Commandment as fully as the Third. The exercise of faith, according to this Commandment, consists in the faithful performance of the duties of children toward their parents, of parents toward their children, and of subordinates toward their superiors in the ecclesiastical as well as in the common civil sphere. The various duties issue from the various callings, for faithful performance of the duties of one's calling, with the help of God and for God's sake, is the true "good work." As he now proceeds to speak of the spiritual powers, the government of the Church, he frankly reveals their faults and demands a reform of the present rulers. Honor and obedience in all things should be rendered unto the Church, the spiritual mother, as it is due to natural parents, unless it be contrary to the first Three Commandments. But as matters stand now the spiritual magistrates neglect their peculiar work, namely, the fostering of godliness and discipline, like a mother who runs away from her children and follows a lover, and instead they undertake strange and evil works, like parents whose commands are contrary to God. In this case members of the Church must do as godly children do whose parents have become mad and insane. Kings, princes, the nobility, municipalities and communities must begin of their own accord and put a check to these conditions, so that the bishops and the clergy, who are now too timid, may be induced to follow. But even the civil magistrates must also suffer reforms to be enacted in their particular spheres; especially are they called on to do away with the rude "gluttony and drunkenness," luxury in clothing, the usurious sale of rents and the common brothels. This, by divine and human right, is a part of their enjoined works according to the Fourth Commandment. Luther, at last, briefly treats of the Second Table of the Commandments, but in speaking of the works of these Commandments he never forgets to point out their relation to faith, thus holding fast this fundamental thought of the book to the end. Faith which does not doubt that God is gracious, he says, will find it an easy matter to be graciously and favorably minded toward one's neighbor and to overcome all angry and wrathful desires. In this faith in God the Spirit will teach us to avoid unchaste thoughts and thus to keep the Sixth Commandment. When the heart trusts in the divine favor, it cannot seek after the temporal goods of others, nor cleave to money, but according to the Seventh Commandment, will use it with cheerful liberality for the benefit of the neighbor. Where such confidence is present there is also a courageous, strong and intrepid heart, which will at all times defend the truth, as the Eighth Commandment demands, whether neck or coat be at stake, whether it be against pope or kings. Where such faith is present there is also strife against the evil lust, as forbidden in the Ninth and Tenth Commandments, and that even unto death. 3. The Importance of the Work. Inquiring now into the importance of the book, we note that Luther's impression evidently was perfectly correct, when he wrote to Spalatin, long before its completion -- as early as March 25 -- that he believed it to be better than anything he had heretofore written. The book, indeed, surpasses all his previous German writings in volume, as well as all his Latin and German ones in clearness, richness and the fundamental importance of its content. In comparison with the prevalent urging of self-elected works of monkish holiness, which had arisen from a complete misunderstanding of the so-called evangelical counsels (comp. esp. Matthew 19:16-22) and which were at that time accepted as self-evident and zealously urged by the whole church, Luther's argument must have appeared to all thoughtful and earnest souls as a revelation, when he so clearly amplified the proposition that only those works are to be regarded as good works which God has commanded, and that therefore, not the abandoning of one's earthly calling, but the faithful keeping of the Ten Commandments in the course of one's calling, is the work which God requires of us. Over against the wide-spread opinion, as though the will of God as declared in the Ten Commandments referred only to the outward work always especially mentioned, Luther's argument must have called to mind the explanation of the Law, which the Lord had given in the Sermon on the Mount, when he taught men to recognize only the extreme point and manifestation of a whole trend of thought in the work prohibited by the text, and when he directed Christians not to rest in the keeping of the literal requirement of each Commandment, but from this point of vantage to inquire into the whole depth and breadth of God's will -- positively and negatively -- and to do His will in its full extent as the heart has perceived it. Though this thought may have been occasionally expressed in the expositions of the Ten Commandments which appeared at the dawn of the Reformation, still it had never before been so clearly recognized as the only correct principle, much less had it been so energetically carried out from beginning to end, as is done in this treatise. Over against the deep-rooted view that the works of love must bestow upon faith its form, its content and its worth before God, it must have appeared as the dawn of a new era (Galatians 3:22-25) when Luther in this treatise declared, and with victorious certainty carried out the thought, that it is true faith which invests the works, even the best and greatest of works, with their content and worth before God. This proposition, which Luther here amplifies more clearly than ever before, demanded nothing less than a breach with the whole of prevalent religious views, and at that time must have been perceived as the discovery of a new world, though it was no more than a return to the clear teaching of the New Testament Scriptures concerning the way of salvation. This, too, accounts for the fact that in this writing the accusation is more impressively repelled than before, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone resulted in moral laxity, and that, on the other hand, the fundamental and radical importance of righteousness by faith for the whole moral life is revealed in such a heart-refreshing manner. Luther's appeal in this treatise to kings, princes, the nobility, municipalities and communities, to declare against the misuse of spiritual powers and to abolish various abuses in civil life, marks this treatise as a forerunner of the great Reformation writings, which appeared in the same year (1520), while, on the other hand, his espousal of the rights of the "poor man" -- to be met with here for the first time -- shows that the Monk of Wittenberg, coming from the narrow limits of the convent, had an intimate and sympathetic knowledge of the social needs of his time. Thus he proved by his own example that to take a stand in the center of the Gospel does not narrow the vision nor harden the heart, but rather produces courage in the truth and sympathy for all manner of misery. Luther's contemporaries at once recognized the great importance of the Treatise, for within the period of seven months it passed through eight editions; these were followed by six more editions between the years of 1521 and 1525; in 1521 it was translated into Latin, and in this form passed through three editions up to the year 1525; and all this in spite of the fact that in those years the so-called three great Reformation writings of 1520 were casting all else into the shadow. Melanchthon, in a contemporaneous letter to John Hess, called it Luther's best book. John Mathesius, the well-known pastor at Joachimsthal and Luther's biographer, acknowledged that he had learned the "rudiments of Christianity" from it. Even to-day this book has its peculiar mission to the Church. The seeking after self-elected works, the indolence regarding the works commanded of God, the foolish opinion, that the path of works leads to God's grace and good-will, are even to-day widely prevalent within the kingdom of God. To all this Luther's treatise answers: Be diligent in the works of your earthly calling as commanded of God, but only after having first strengthened, by the consideration of God's mercy, the faith within you, which is the only source of all truly good works and well pleasing to God. --M. REU. WARTBURG SEMINARY, DUBUQUE, IOWA. ìA treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedicationî by Dr. Martin Luther, 1520. Published in: ìWorks of Martin Luther,î Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 173-285. ____________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by Allen Mulvey and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU. Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA. Phone: (219) 481-2123. Fax: (219) 481-2126. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/witten berg/luther/work-01.txt ********************* ********************* ********************* Here ends this present-day introduction to Lutherís first public expression ìon the important question of good works.î ìMelanchthon, in a contemporaneous letter to John Hess, called it Luther's best book.î And the fact that Luther expressed himself ìin such a fundamental, thorough and profound way,î tells all of Godís elect people -- the honest in heart -- that far from dismissing good works, the humble-yet-renowned ìmonk of Wittenbergî only puts them in their right relation to faith. In brief: (1) Good works proceed from God rather than from ìthe church.î (2) Good works follow faith rather than precede it. Blessings to all, Max of the Cross | ||
| Cindy |
Dear Lori, Hi! I hope you have a good day! May we all REST here on this forum because of our EQUALITY at the CROSS; even in the midst of our "discussions"... :-)) I have enjoyed many of your posts! Have you ever hear this song from PFR? I love these words: "Though this world gives me my share of pain, leaves me broken and bruised... I know--there's a FATHER and HIS SON WHO KNOW MY NAME!... and THEY will see me through...I know. I believe He paid the price, a sacrifice so we could be TOGETHER, FOREVER! And I know... When I see JESUS' face, all my tears will be erased FOREVER!" Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Cindy |
Maryann, That was funny about the Folgers,and so true! I've always liked Folgers better than Maxwell House; so now while drinking my Folgers, I can get a little Max(well) thrown in too! :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
I'm hurt, Cindy, and suddenly jealous of Folgers. | ||
| Cindy |
Max (well!), Good Morning... The passage from I Corinthians 9 you posted above is so much a part of me; something I have tried to live by. Especially in my life situation... although sometimes I feel like a hypocrite in not revealing exactly my beliefs, always! Of course, stressing the Gospel is always vital, and yet, I can go along with some "traditions" that do not compromise my belief in Jesus, even though I don't feel they are necessary to my salvation! I try to rest in GOD'S timing and His Holy Spirit to guide me as to when to speak up and when to remain silent... About being "driven"...how about the passage in Jeremiah 20? I love it... "But if I say, 'I will not mention Him or speak any more in His name,' His word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones, I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot." Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Patti |
Lori, Please write me. drpatti@msn.com God bless you. Patti | ||
| Max |
ìLET YOUR SINS BE STRONGî (1521): A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too high, dear gentlemen. You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however, with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long time and have grown old in it. 2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1 Tim: 4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul's voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now -- having realized with whom they made their contract -- they can cheerfully break this contract. 3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God's Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly (1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the originators of the interdictions. 4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning they murmured, later on they approved. 5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing with things which are permitted. 6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12) they are condemned because they have broken their first troth. Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God's will. Who knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so tomorrow? 7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason of "burning" had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God. However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who suffer defilement and burning. 8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an example, but give testimony with Christ's words. Carlstadt does not show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However, those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not Christians but Papists who are sinning. 9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant is not willing? Therefore it is only common sense which observes here that Christ's institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ's institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a whole or in part. 10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin here, I therefore say there is no sin involved. 11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ's method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only one of the elements. 12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting that the Lord will soon ravish Germany -- which she deserves because of her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard-hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen! 13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. BE A SINNER, and LET YOUR SINS BE STRONG, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. WE WILL COMMIT SINS WHILE WE ARE HERE, FOR THIS LIFE IS NOT A PLACE WHERE JUSTICE RESIDES. WE, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13), ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH WHERE JUSTICE WILL REIGN. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. NO SIN CAN SEPARATE US FROM HIM, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? PRAY HARD FOR YOU ARE QUITE A SINNER. On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521 Martin Luther 1 August 1521 Wartburg, Germany ____________________________________ Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, from the Wartburg (Segment). Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: ìDr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften,î Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590. This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Erika Flores and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: cosmithb@ash.palni.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA. Phone: (219) 452-2123. Fax: (219) 452-2126 Web site: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/witten berg/luther/letsinsbe.txt ____________________________________ **************************** Begin Max's commentary **************************** And so we see from the context of this quote -- ìlet your sins be strongî -- that Luther is not commanding or urging Melanchthon to sin. Rather, by pointing out the fact that ìWE WILL COMMIT SINS while we are hereî Luther is only emphasizing the inevitability of sins in our lives. Furthermore, by asserting that ìthis life is NOT a place where justice residesî Luther is only pointing out that the fact that our ìboldî sinning is UNJUST! He is not pointing out that such "bold" sinning is just or desirable to be deliberate and intentional by true believers. In other words, sinning isnít something that the true believer WANTS to do. Rather, the true believerís unwanted sinning Luther characterizes as an INJUSTICE forced upon him by the circumstances of ìthis life.î To the contrary and by contrast, true believers ìare LOOKING FORWARD to a new heaven and a new earth where JUSTICE will reign.î And this future will be a reality in which the injustice of involuntary sinning will no longer be an injustice forced upon true believers. If Luther had intended to urge Melanchthon on into deliberate sinning he would NOT have ended his letter with these words: PRAY HARD for you are quite a sinner. Christís love be with you all, Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Ps: Some commentators have interpreted Luther's famous "sin boldly" letter as meaning, "Sin hard, but pray harder." As though salvation was a matter of pitting prayer against sin. That interpretation, however, goes right back to the old legalism against which Luther was so adamant. And again, the context makes clear that: 1. Melanchthon should not worry over the reality that there were sins in his life or try to hide them or fail to admit them to himself. 2. The primary message was not, "Hey, don't be concerned about your sins!" but rather, "Accept them!" for "You are quite a sinner!" 3. The "action step," of the letter is not, "Sin boldly!" but, "Pray hard!" |
