| Author | Message | ||
| Billtwisse |
Christian pacifism vs. just warfare Before commenting on the above topic, I have one thought on the grace question. Is there a connection between 'cheap grace' as defined in these Bonhoeffer quotations and the doctrine known as 'common grace'? The connection may not be obvious but subtle. NT grace has no adjectives, of course. I have my own ideas--but wondered what others were thinking. A few days ago, we started to discuss the issue of whether it is ever right for a Christian to kill another human being. The question came up while discussing the accusation that Bonhoeffer was involved in a plot to kill Hitler. Max presented the evidence against that notion. However, the issue of whether it is ever right for a Christian to kill still needs to be considered. Is it possible that the pacifists and the 'just war' advocates have both missed the mark on this one? I believe so. A lot of Christian books have been written on both sides ('The Wars of America', 'A Christian View of War', 'When is it Right to Fight?' are some of the titles that I have). Christian pacifism would propose that all killing belongs to the realm of evil. A dogmatic stance on this becomes very problematic--when facing the question of whether it is right to defend one's family against an axe murderer, or whether a police officer may justly shoot an armed robber in self-defense. It is amazing what lengths some will go to in defending pacifism (i.e., God will never let violence happen to a believer; police work is necessary in this world but should only be performed by unbelievers). Those who advocate 'just war' are as extreme in the opposite direction. We need to realize that there is an everlasting distinction between the kingdom of God and the best of worldly governments. The pursuance of some wars might be completely sensible and just-- when logically analyzing the ultimate outcome. The American revolution is a good example. Yet in many of these instances a Christian should abstain. Our hope is not in even the best of earthly kingdoms and governments. If we can't bear testimony to the fact that our true citizenship is in heaven, we are in the same lot with unbelievers. Romans 13 is clear that the purpose of just government in the present age is to restrain evil. Not to eliminate evil; certainly not to promote righteousness. The only righteousness that God commends is preached in the gospel exalting Christ's person and work. How can human government be responsible for promoting that? No, it can't. If a government has reasonably pursued a genuine restraint of evil, it has served the purpose of God and is approved of God. The pacifists claim that all governments restrain evil, therefore, war against any government is sin. I don't think the claim that all governments reasonably restrict evil can be substantiated. Therefore, I propose--like Roger Williams once did, that a nation has the God-given right to defend itself against pure barbarism. It has this in the same sense that it has a right to police itself. Reasonable government is a gift of God and is absolutely necessary as long as the present age continues. However, much of what has been called 'just war' goes beyond this principle. The American Revolution and the Civil War both did. We cannot deny that good results came out of both of these wars. However, those things resulted from God's providence and sovereignty over history. A Christian has no business participating in a war, unless it is defending against a barbaric nation that will not restrain evil and seeks to conquer other just nations. A Christian may certainly engage in police work and know that the labor is unto the Lord. However, when considering the issue of joining the military as a career, is this wise for a Christian to do? I don't think so. If a truly just war (and those are few) demands that a Christian be involved, fine. But entering the miltary without knowing the commitment is another matter. A misguided commander-in-chief might easily send his armies into a situation that could hardly be termed a righteous war. It might be for pure political gain. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Agreed, Bill. At the time I for one believed that the war in Vietnam was carried out by misguided commanders-in-chief: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. As for the word "grace" not carrying an adjective in the New Testament, I agree as well, gramatically at least. However, there is always Jude 4 (NIV): "They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality...." Cannot one conclude that people who "change" grace into a "license for immarality" is logically equivalent to their creating a form of "changed grace"? And if so, then wouldn't "changed" be an adjective modifying "grace"? And if that is also the case, then is there a truly significant difference between "changed grace" and "false grace"? Or Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace"? Bonhoeffer seems to be one of those rare theologians who is accepted by both Liberal and Evangelical theologians. And this may offer some hope toward healing some of the most terrible fractures in Christianity at the present time. | ||
| Max |
THREE TIMES COSTLY GRACE CHASES PETER DOWN AND ARRESTS HIM ^^On two separate occasions Peter received the call "Follow me." It was the first and last word Jesus spoke to his disciple (Mark 1:17; John 21:22). A whole life lies between these two calls. The FIRST occasion was by the lake of Gennesaeth, when Peter left his nets and his craft and followed Jesus at his word. The SECOND occasion is when the Risen Lord finds him back again at his old trade. Once again it is by the lake of Gennesareth, and once again the call is: "Follow me." Between the two calls lay a whole life of discipleship in the following of Christ. Half-way between them comes Peter's confession when he acknowledge Jesus as the Christ of God. Three times Peter hears the same proclamation that Christ is his Lord and God -- at the beginning, at the end, and at Caesarea Philippi. Each time it is the same grace of Christ which calls to him "Follow me" and which reveals itself to him in his confessions of the Son of God. Three times on Peter's way did grace arrest him, the one grace proclaimed in three different ways.^^ --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, p.45-46. | ||
| Max |
Bill, we have to deal with Bonhoeffer's decision to help physically eliminate Hitler, even though he never got the chance to carry out his purpose. Bonhoeffer could not be a pacifist Christian and do this. However, his stance toward Hitler may not translate into his being a "just war" Christian as you have described it. Reason: The whole dilemma was carried out within a single state, Germany. It was an intra-country thing having more to do with the degradation of Germany than with what Hitler's armies were doing to the rest of the world. Therefore one could argue that if one could represent one's country from within one's country by serving, for example, as a police officer (who MUST be sworn to be prepared to kill for the common good), then one could be prepared to kill the top criminal -- Adolph Hitler. For at least two reasons: 1. Though Hitler was elected chancellor, he exceeded both his mandate from the voters AND the just powers granted to him by the law of the land. He was ABOVE German law. 2. He was a mass murderer of GERMAN citizens -- German Jews, Germans who disagreed with him for reasons of conscience (such as Bonhoeffer), Germans who harbored or protected German Jews or helped them escape across the borders to freedom, German homosexuals, Germans who were mentally ill, German artists and writers whose work contravened, not German law, but Hitler's PERSONAL prejudices. Therefore, could not a person who killed Hitler for these reasons -- and NOT for the reasons of the July 1944 military plotters -- be more just than the military plotters? After all, their reason was that Hitler was clearly bungling the war effort that they so heartily espoused. And if Bohnoeffer's reasons were more just than theirs, were they not also more just than those Germans who also knowingly supported Hitler and did nothing? And if more just than even theirs, then why not also more just than Germans who never support Hitler at all and yet never did anything to oppose him either? I personally am going to go out on a limb here and say that I agree with Bonhoeffer and that I would have tried to kill Hitler. Even as I would have enlisted in World War II and would have tried to kill as many of the enemy as I could. Okay, there you have it -- am I wrong? (Now I do have German blood in me, though I consider that fact irrelevant to the discussion.) Max of the Cross | ||
| Billtwisse |
Max, I can't say for sure under God whether you are right or wrong; I admire conviction. I would have to say that Christians of varying persuasions on something like this are approved of God--if their beliefs are founded on genuine principles of scripture and not just pure emotion. In the movie 'The Mission' one priest elected to fight and one chose peaceful protest. Both were killed defending what they believed to be right. The amazing thing: neither was supported by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. For political reasons, the 'holy church' abandoned both. I don't see any difference in principle between an internal and external 'just war.' Whether the persons opposing a godless dictator or government are within the country or external to it, the same war is being fought. Only from different perspectives. Someone within Germany plotting against Hitler was on the same moral ground as a soldier from outside waging war against him. The issue of whether Vietnam was a just war is very complex--and I have doubts as to whether we want to step onto that dangerous ground in this forum. The arguments on both sides seem to be endless. God commends those who think through these things to his glory and honor, even if different conclusions are reached. However, those who say 'none of it matters at all' need to be rebuked. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
LUTHER, THE REFORMATION, AND COSTLY GRACE ACCORDING TO BONHOEFFER ^^When the Reformation came, the providence of God raised Martin Luther to RESTORE the gospel of pure, costly grace. Luther passed through the cloister; he was a monk, and all this was part of the divine plan. Luther had left all to follow Christ on the path of absolute obedience. He had renounced the world in order to live the Christian life. He had learnt obedience to Christ and to his Church, because only he who is obedient can believe. the call to the cloister demanded of Luther the complete surrender of his life. But God shattered all his hopes. He showed him through the Scriptures that the following of Christ is not the achievement or merit of a select few, but the divine command to all Christians without distinction. Monasticism had transformed the humble work of discipleship into the meritorious activity of the saints, and the self-renunciation of discipleship into the flagrant spiritual self-assertion of the ìreligious.î the world had crept into the very heart of the monastic life, and was once more making havoc. The monkís attempt to flee from the world turned out to be a subtle form of love for the world. The bottom having thus been knocked out of the religious life, Luther had laid hold upon grace. Just as the whole world of monasticism was crashing about him in ruins, he saw God in Christ stretching forth his hand to save. He grasped that hand in faith, believing that ìafter all, nothing we can do is of any avail, however good a life we live.î The grace which GAVE ITSELF to him was a COSTLY GRACE, and it shattered his whole existence. Once more he must leave his nets and follow. The first time was when he entered the monastery, when he had left everything behind except his pious self. This time even that was taken from him. He obeyed the call, not through any merit of his own, but simply through the grace of God. Luther did NOT hear the word: ìOF COURSE YOU HAVE SINNED, BUT NOW EVERYTHING IS FORGIVEN, SO YOU CAN STAY AS YOU ARE AND ENJOY THE CONSOLATIONS OF FORGIVENESS.î No, Luther had to leave the cloister and go back to the world, not because the world in itself was good and holy, but because even the cloister was only a part of the world. --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, COST OF DISCIPLESHIP (1959), p.47-48. | ||
| Max |
Bill, ^^Someone within Germany plotting against Hitler was on the same moral ground as a soldier from outside waging war against him.^^ Agreed, and very well said. | ||
| Cindy |
Max, Bill, etc.... Hi. :-)) I'm not sure I know what the doctrine of "common grace" is that Bill mentioned earlier? I do like a sentence from the middle of the last quote of Bonhoeffer's: "because only he who is obedient can believe." I realize this sounds legalistic to those of us who have been under the thumb of Adventists' regulations....yet the link between obedience and belief is inseparable. Hebrews 3 has a warning against unbelief: a sinful, unbelieving heart is linked to disobedience. Disbelief is disobedience. Belief is obedience. "And to whom did God swear that they would never enter HIS REST if not to those who DISOBEYED? So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their UNBELIEF." What is this obedience? Is it just a list of do's and don't's? An outward comformity to "morality"? To me this obedience IS belief; a TRUST in the PROMISES of God! That HE will be our refuge, our surety, our COMPLETE Helper and Guide. The Israelites failed to believe this and so disobeyed, seeking their rest and fulfillment in other "gods"... Believing the Gospel message of Christ crucified for me IS being obedient to what GOD HAS PROVIDED for me. CONTINUING in that TRUST is the only way I can even remain obedient. He want us to ENTER and STAY in HIS REST alone. It follows, too, that by being obedient to any further impressions of the Holy Spirit I believe even more... Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Cindy, Amen! And enjoy your steaming health-to- your-bones Starbucks! MC | ||
| Billtwisse |
There is no question that obedience to God is essential to salvation. The issue in the covenant of grace is whether it is the obedience of faith or the obedience of law. --Twisse | ||
| Max |
Indeed and amen! -MC | ||
| Max |
[LUTHER] had learnt obedience to Christ and to His church, because ONLY HE WHO IS OBEDIENT CAN BELIEVE. Luther's return from the cloister to the world was the worst blow the world had suffered since the days of early Christianity. The RENUNCIATION he made when he became a monk was CHILD'S PLAY COMPARED with that which he had to make when he returned TO THE WORLD. Now came the frontal assault. The ONLY WAY TO FOLLOW JESUS was by LIVING IN THE WORLD. Hitherto the Christian life had been the achievement of a few chice spirits under the exceptionally favourable conditions of monasticism; now it is a duty laid on every Christian living in the world. THE COMMANDMENT OF JESUS MUST BE ACCORDED PERFECT OBEDIENCE in one's daily vocation of life. The conflict between the life of the Christian and the life of the world was thus thrown into the sharpest possible relief. It was hand-to-hand conflict between the Christian and the world. --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, p.47-48. | ||
| Patti |
"THE COMMANDMENT OF JESUS MUST BE ACCORDED PERFECT OBEDIENCE in one's daily vocation of life. " Luther said this? | ||
| Max |
What it means is, "If we have been united with him like this [baptism] in his [Christ's] death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with that we should no longer be slaves to sin --- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." NIV Romans 6:5-7. NIV text note: "The self in its pre-Christian state [body of sin]. This is a figurative expression in which the old self is personified. It is a 'body' that can be put to death. For the believer, this old self has been 'rendered powerless' so that it can no longer enslave us to sin -- whatever lingering vitality it may yet exert in its death throes." What is the goal, then, that the believer who is forever perfectly sinless in Christ seeks to attain? Christ answers: "If you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others. Do not even pagans do that? Be ye perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." NIV Matthew 5:47-48. NIV text note: "Christ sets up the high IDEAL of perfect love ['thou shalt love'] (see Matthew 5:32-47) -- not that we can fully attain it in this life. That, however, is God's high STANDARD for us." Or would you argue that the saved believer, depending Christ alone for righteousness and sinlessness, has NO GOAL, NO IDEAL, NO STANDARD while walking the pilgrim road of discipleship? -MC | ||
| Max |
^^The commandment of Jesus ["thou shalt love"] must be accorded perfect obedience in one's daily vocation of life.^^ --Bonhoeffer, not Luther. The "one" being spoken of here is not the pharisee. Nor is it the publican BEFORE salvation. It is the publican AFTER salvation. -MC | ||
| Max |
Nor would Luther have disagreed, for he said: "When I exalt faith and reject such works done without faith, [false leaders] accuse me of forbidding good works, when IN TRUTH I AM TRYING HARD TO TEACH REAL GOOD WORKS OF FAITH." --Martin Luther, _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. | ||
| Max |
More Bonhoeffer on Luther: ì....NOT THE JUSTIFICATION OF SIN, BUT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER....î It is a fatal misunderstanding of Lutherís action to suppose that his rediscovery of the gospel of PURE GRACE offered a general dispensation from obedience to the command of Jesus, or that it was the great discovery of the Reformation that Godís forgiving grace automatically conferred upon the world both righteousness and holiness. On the contrary, for Luther the calling registers the final, radical protest against the world. Only in so far as the Christianís secular calling is exercised in the following of Jesus does it receive from the gospel new sanction and justification. IT WAS NOT THE JUSTIFICATION OF SIN, BUT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER THAT DROVE LUTHER FROM THE CLOISTER BACK INTO THE WORLD. The grace he had received was costly grace. It was grace, for it was like water on parched ground, comfort in tribulation, freedom from the bondage of a self-chosen way, and forgiveness of all his sins. And IT WAS COSTLY, for, so far from dispensing him from good works, it meant that he must take the call to discipleship more seriously than ever before. IT WAS GRACE BECAUSE IT COST SO MUCH, and IT COST SO MUCH BECAUSE IT WAS GRACE. That was the secret of the gospel of the Reformation -- the justification of the sinner. --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship, p.48-49. | ||
| Denisegilmore |
MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.MAN'S JUSTIFICATION. 2. We must know it is one thing to handle the subject of good works and another that of justification; just as the nature or personality of an individual is one thing and his Page 225 --------------------------- actions or works another. Justification has reference to the person and not to the works. It is the former, not the latter, which is justified and saved, or is sentenced and punished. 3. Therefore, it is settled that no one is justified by works; he must first be justified by other means. Moses says (Gen 4, 4-5), "Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering." First, he had respect to Abel the person, and then to his offering. Abel being godly, just and acceptable in person, his offering was acceptable. The sacrifice was accepted because of the person, and not the person because of the sacrifice. "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." In the first place, God had not respect unto Cain the person; hence later he respected not his offering. From this quotation we may conclude it is impossible for any work to be good in God's sight unless the worker first be good and acceptable. Conversely, it is impossible for any work to be evil before God unless the worker first be evil and not acceptable. 4. Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. 5. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, "All men are liars." And in Genesis 6, 5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually." Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's. Part of Martin Luther's Sunday Sermon after Christmas, Galatians 4:1-7 | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Well, I tried the cut and paste deal and look what happens! WHOOPS> :) God Bless all, Denise | ||
| Patti |
Denise, What you posted is one of Luther's early sermons (1522). One has to consider where Luther came from (the superstitious medieval church that ruled a continent by keeping them in terror of their eternal souls) and how far and how fast he grew. His work is astounding. However, he did not "arrive" at the fullness of the Gospel in a single step. And, even though he made huge strides, he still clung to idea that one could not be saved without certain rites of the church, such as baptism; he still believed in transsubstantiation and even in the immaculate conception of Mary. Therefore, when reading his works one must consider a what point in his life they were written. In his earlier writings, he did indeed teach that the works that a person performs after justification are "truly good." Ironically, the very stance he presents in this sermon is precisely the one that the Catholic Council of Trent formulates in the Counter-Reformation. However, in his later writings, such as his Commentary on Galatians (which, btw is considered by most reformed scholars as the single most important work--compilation, actually--of the Reformation) he is quite clear that the believer is righteous only by believing in the imputed alien righteousness of Jesus Christ. I strongly recommend his commentary on Galatians. You can find it at this URL: Luther's Commentary on Galatians. |
