The History of the Reformation…We Are all Beggars…(Part 12)

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | January 16, 2005 | Tom Browning

[HarleyD]

We come this morning to the end of our present study on the History of the Reformation. Now it is not really the end. It is simply the end of our time for the time being. There are other topics and other studies and other teachers that deserve a chance at your attention. Still, there is so much we could have looked at and ought to have looked at together and we will. We will come back later on and in a separate class examine Calvin and Swiss Reformers. After that, in still a different class we’ll look at the English Reformation and the rise of the Puritanism. Then finally in still a separate class we’ll look at the history of the how the Reformation worked its way into the life of America through men like Whitefield and Edwards.

All of that is on the docket and will occur, Lord willing, in the future.

For the present, however…it is time for me to draw our study to an end and yet I want you to know that I feel a measure of regret in doing so. There is so much I could have said and should have said and yet I have been constrained both by time and by my own inability to make some of these important issues come alive the way I really wanted. I know perfectly well for example that I have only scratched the surface of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and of Luther’s life and work. I know I have glossed over many of the important people and events of Luther’s life. Nevertheless, I am trusting that in God’s kindness what we have studied together has given you a better understanding of things not just I perceived them but as they actually were.

I do want to thank you for your many words of encouragement.

You have consoled me with your kind comments and notes. I have been deeply encouraged by the fact that many of you have been encouraged to begin to study again the Reformation and the doctrine of justification and the life of Luther for yourself. I have been even more encouraged by those of you who are studying these things for yourself for the first time.

You could hardly do better and you could certainly do a lot worse.

And the reason for that, of course, is that in the Reformation as almost no where else in history the really important issues were actually the really important issues. The issues were the authority of the Bible, the content of the gospel and the mission and identity of the church. All of those issues are issues of life and death issues. All of those issues are issues of heaven or of hell.

All of those issues were just as important for farmers and tradesmen as they were for theologians. That is why I like the studying the Reformation. That is why I like studying Luther. That is why I like talking about the doctrine of justification.

They are all so imminently practical. For surely, no doctrine is more pertinent that the doctrine that will sustain us in that day in which we find ourselves standing before God Almighty in judgment. In that day, whether your car started every time or your children called as often as they ought to have done or your prescriptions got filled on time or your checkbook balanced or your husband showed you the attention you were due will not matter to you one single whit.

All of those things will melt into the recesses of your mind and care. All the things…all those things that you thought were so practical and relevant will be taken over by one, single, overarching concern and that is what God will do with you and why. That is what will ultimately matter. It is ultimately the most practical thing a person will ever know.

I think Luther understood that. I think he understood that at the very core of his being. Or to say it another way…I think Luther believed that the gospel could even save a Christian. I think he believed that the gospel could even save him.

Now that sounds like a strange thing to say. I mean Christians are already saved aren’t they? But what I mean by the gospel being able to save Christians is that the comfort of the gospel is able to provide encouragement to strengthen a Christian to continue to work and serve and live even in the midst of otherwise debilitating grief, suffering and sorrow. The gospel can actually redeem a person’s life from the pit, even if they are already a Christian.

I think there is no better evidence to prove that than the way Luther died.

Now the remarkable thing about Luther’s death is that very few of his biographers really touch upon it. Roland Bainton, for example, the author of Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther writes:

The last sixteen years of Luther’s life, from the Augsburg Confession in 1530 to his death in 1546, are commonly treated more sparsely by biographers than the earlier period of his life, if indeed they are not omitted altogether. There is a measure of justification for this comparative neglect because the last quarter of Luther’s life was neither determinative for his ideas nor crucial for his achievements. His own verdict in 1531 was more than a grim jest, namely, ‘Should the papists by their devouring, biting, tearing help me to put off this sinful carcass and should the Lord not wish this time to deliver me as he has so often done before, then may he be praised and thanked. I have lived long enough. No one will feel Luther’s full weight until he is gone.” He was right; his ideas were matured; his church was established; his associates could carry on, as indeed in the public sphere they were compelled to do because for the remainder of his life he was under the ban of Church and state.1

Now what is funny about Bainton saying that is that he does in his book exactly what he says all the other biographers do. He simply leaves out the details of Luther’s death altogether. Like so many of Luther’s biographers Bainton more or less has Luther ride off into the sunset. But Luther did not ride off into the sunset. He died and his death, to my way of thinking, was a wonderfully Christian death.

Now how a man or woman died was considered to be much more important in Luther’s day than it is in ours. You see in his day, the manner is which a man or woman died bore important testimony to their faith. In our day, death is often masked over by drugs and pain medication. We seem to have the idea that death is something that ought to be slipped into like an old easy chair or an old pair of house shoes. But in Luther’s day, they did not have any of the modern capabilities we do and men and women often died speaking and encouraging those around them. A person’s last words were believed to characterize the heart and belief of the person who died. You can see how Luther’s death might have been of intense interest to his enemies. Had he died poorly, his death might have been held up and a visual parable of the fact that his life and faith were less than heroic.

Now I think that is what most of his enemies expected. I think they expected him to die a violent and shameful death. I think they expected him to recant his views and to lapse back into his pre-Reformation views and beliefs. I think even some of his friends expected him to die poorly. I think they expected that Luther’s impetuous nature and fiery temper would come back to haunt him but they were wrong about that. Luther died trying to make peace…trying to reconcile two brothers back in his home town of Mansfield.

Now I think that is remarkable. I think everyone that reads about the death of Luther is sort of taken back by that fact. That is…I think they are taken back by the fact that Luther ever devoted any of his time to trying to reconcile anyone.

You see most people only think of Luther the fighter and there is a reason for that. You see sometimes Luther could be quite contentious. I know that is a shock to all of you to be told that only as we come to the end of our study. But he could be. When he was arguing for what he believed to be truth, he could be quite litigious. He was not above name calling and he was not above course language and by that I mean just plain old cursing.

Those that hated knew that very well but those that loved him knew it too.

Calvin once wrote about Luther, “Even if he calls me a dog, I will continue to call him father.”

Now why would Calvin have ever written that? I think he wrote it because he feared it as a very real possibility. You see Luther went after anyone whom he thought erred. Late in his life, he especially went after the Swiss and the Swiss reformers and that is surprising especially since they held so much truth in common. You would have thought Luther would have been a bit more pragmatic about whom he attacked but he was not. He only cared about the truth.

You can see that especially, I think, in Luther’s explosive reaction to Ulrich Zwingli.

Zwingli was the head of the Reformation in Zurich. He was an ardent fan of Erasmus and he was a military figure, as were almost all of the Swiss, and he was a wonderful classical scholar. Zwingli appreciated and admired Luther and Luther’s contribution to the Reformation. But he came to many of his own decisions about the Reformation independently of Luther and he disagreed with Luther over the issue of images and over the Lord’s Supper.2

Philip of Hesse, one of the most important nobles in Germany, thought it was important that their two groups unite against the catholic princes, tried to get the two men together to make peace. So they did meet and they tried to settle their differences at the Marburg Conference in October 1529 but were unable to get past the issue of the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli held that the Lord’s Table was simply a memorial in which Christians recalled the death of Christ in their partaking of the sacrament. In his view, he was very close to where most Baptists are today. Luther, on the other hand, held that Christ’s body was actually present in the elements…that is, in, with and through the elements and he deeply resented Zwingli minimizing Christ’s presence. They were unable, of course, to come to any sort of middle position. Luther probably did not help matters much.

You see when Luther first sat down at the table across from Zwingli he took a piece of chalk out of his pocket and drew a big circle on the black table cloth covering the table between them and wrote the words “This is my body” inside the circle. He said later that he hadn’t done it to try to intimidate Zwingli or anyone else but had simply done it to keep the main point of his argument fresh in his mind.

But you can see how it might not have helped and it is so Luther-like.

Anyway they were unable to come to any sort of middle position and Luther later wrote:

“One or other of us,” said he to the Strasburg mediator, “must be ministers of Satan — the Swiss or ourselves.”3

That is the way Luther was. He was fairly inflexible. He was dogmatic. He was intransigent. He could not and would not nuance anything. In the years between 1529 and 1545, Luther wrote against the Swiss and the Anabaptists and many others with almost reckless abandon. In fact, in 1545 Calvin wrote this protest to Melanchthon, Luther’s assistant.

I wish that our fellow-feeling might enable me to console you, and to sympathize in your heaviness, and that it might also impart the power in some degree, at least, to lighten your sorrow. If the matter stands as those in Zurich say it does, then they are just in what they have written. Your Pericles (he is talking about Luther) allows himself to be carried beyond the bounds of propriety with his love of thunder, especially seeing that his own case is by no means the better of the two. We all acknowledge how much we are indebted to him. And I am willingly submit and am quite content, that he may always bear the chief sway, provided he can manage to conduct himself with a bit of moderation. Nevertheless, the Church we must always be on guard, lest we pay too great a deference to men. For it is all over with her, when a single individual, be he whosoever you please, has more authority than all the rest, especially where this person does not scruple to push the limit of just how far he may go.4

But Calvin’s words didn’t really change Luther very much. I doubt if Melanchthon ever even raised Calvin’s concerns with Luther. He was to the end quite obstinate in his opposition to what he perceived to be error. But I for one am glad about that. I am glad that he was the kind of man that he was. A lesser man could not have endured the times. Still, I wince at some of the things Luther said. In fact, when Zwingli was later killed in a battle against Catholic forces Luther said, “It was a judgment for his views.”5

However, if you read the account of Zwingli’s death written by Martin Bucer you’ll find that Zwingli’s death was pretty noble. He was mortally wounded first by hurled rock and then by a lance and when some of the soldiers of the Catholic opposition stopped to ask him if he needed a priest he just lay there under a pear tree looking up to heaven with his hands folded on his chest and shook his head no. When they asked him if he wanted an image of the Virgin Mary he again shook his head no. Then they asked him if he was a heathen and he shook his head no and then, of course, they figured out who he really was…and ran him through and then quartered his body and burned the pieces in a fire mixing his ashes with the intestines of a hog they had killed earlier but that is beside the point.

He died as well as anyone has ever died on a battlefield.

But I digress. The point I was making is that Luther’s death was important to Luther’s friends and foes alike. Everyone wanted to know how Luther died and when I say that I don’t mean that they were interested in a forensic analysis of what killed him but rather the manner in which he faced death. The question everyone wanted to know was, “Did Luther’s faith sustain him in his hour of death?” Now what I want to do in the few minutes we have left this morning is just relate the events of his death to you and let you decide for yourself.

In December of 1545, Luther was called to act as a peacemaker between two brothers who happened also to be nobles…they were counts…and they ruled in the province in which he was born, the province of Mansfield. The two brothers were named Albrecht and Gerhard. Now this particular Albrecht is not the same Albrecht who had started the indulgence controversy. He was a different man altogether who just happened to have the same name as Luther’s old nemesis, the Archbishop of Mainz. Now this man named Count Albrecht had already caused Luther and Luther’s family a measure of discouragement and grief. As Count of Mansfield he had attempted to bring all of the copper smelting in the region under his control. Now you will remember that Luther’s father had owned and run several copper smelters. Well, Luther’s brother and brother in law also ran copper smelters and it turned out that Albrecht wanted to bring all of the copper smelters in Mansfield under his control…up until that time the copper smelters had owned their leases by hereditary right. Now the reason Albrecht wanted to do that was so he could sell off of the leases and increase his tax revenue. For Albrecht it was a good business decision. For Luther and his family, it appeared as if Albrecht was trying to ruin them. Luther protested to Albrecht on behalf of his brother and his brother in law and wrote Albrecht a very nasty letter explaining to him that the reason Albrecht struggled so hard to understand the doctrine of predestination was because he was abusing his poor subjects with excessive taxation. In other words, Luther told him that his sin had darkened his ability to understand God’s truth. One historian says that when Albrecht received Luther’s letter he grew so angry he threw it down on the floor and jumped up and down on it stomping it in a fit of anger.6 Luther had the ability to bring that out in people even as an old man.

Anyway, Albrecht’s brother Gerhard owed Albrecht a sum of money and Albrecht forced him to transfer both his debts and income to him until Gerhard made good his debt. Once he gained control over Gerhard’s income he raised taxes on all of Gerhard’s subjects basically trying to squeeze every last drop of money he could out of his brother and his brother’s subjects. Luther and everyone else understood and despised Albrecht’s greed. Luther appealed to the Elector John Frederick and eventually Albrecht was arrested and put in jail which further increased the instability of the region.

Luther thought a little jail time would do Albrecht some good.

But he also saw that prolonged disharmony and instability in an evangelical province was bad for Reformation. So, he set about to negotiate a settlement between the two brothers and to restore order and peace to the province.

Now I want you to think about that. Luther was at that time the most famous man in the world and he was involved in negotiating a financial settlement between two brothers who were out to wreck each other and he did that for he perceived to be the benefit of the Kingdom of God. It is a very strange thing historically.

It would have been a little like have Billy Graham negotiating a settlement between two Tarrant county commissioners. He was a very big gun mediating a very small dispute. But the reason he did that, of course, is that he understood the tenuous nature of the Reformation. He wanted to maintain peace among the evangelicals so they would be united when the catholic princes finally assembled to try to undo the Reformation.

Luther would not live to see the war but he anticipated it perfectly.

So Luther took Melanchthon and went down to Eisleben to negotiate a settlement between the two men. While they were there Melanchthon got sick and Luther felt compelled to take him back home. That meant, of course, that later in the month Luther would have to return by himself.

Near the end of January 1546, Luther and three of his sons set off again for Eisleben. It was very cold. Luther’s wife Katy and Melanchthon both were very worried about him. He seemed very feeble.

Still he went. When they came to a river swollen with winter rain and huge ice flows, they were unable to pass. (In a letter to his wife he wrote that the river was a huge female Anabaptist that wanted to baptize him all over again.7) Luther stayed in the town next to the river and preached on the Apostle Paul’s conversion. He encouraged the saints there to venerate the Apostle Paul by holding to his doctrine and not by venerating his relics.

The people of Mansfield sent sixty armed riders to help him cross the river. Luther began to feel dizzy and fainted. Everyone assumed it was because he was so cold from crossing the river.

When he got to Eisleben he stayed with the city clerk. The people of the city furnished him all of the beer and wine he could drink.

He preached in Eisleben four times. He preached on January 31st, February 2nd, February 7th and February 14th. On the 14th, he oversaw the ordination of two new ministers.

The various groups involved in the negotiations met every two or three days simply because Luther was unable to meet more often. He sat through and involved himself in the negotiations although he found them extremely tedious. He was so weak that he was only able to participate for an hour to an hour and half at a time.

He wrote in a Bible in his room, “If the Son is for us, who can be against us?” Katy became desperately worried about Luther.

Luther chided her lack of faith, as if God could not create “ten Doctor Martins” if one of them died: “Free me from your worries. I have a caretaker who is better than you and all the angels; he lies in the cradle and rests on a virgin’s bosom, and yet, nevertheless, he sits at the right hand of God, the almighty Father. Therefore be at peace. Amen.”8

On February 16th, Luther’s secretary John Aurifaber found a piece of paper in Luther’s room on which Luther wrote in German, “We are all beggars this is true.”

Shortly after supper on the seventeenth, Luther went, as was his custom, to his room to pray at the window. He began to feel a terrible tightness in his chest almost certainly an attack of angina pectoris. About ten o’clock Luther lay down in his bed. He began to quietly say to himself Psalm 31:5.

Count Albrecht and his wife arrived and Count Albrecht’s wife gave him a medication made of grated unicorn and no I have no idea what that might have actually been. Luther slept for an hour or so.

At about one o’clock Luther awakened with another attack of pain. He expected matter-of-factly that he would die in the city where he had been born and baptized. He moved again from the bedchamber to the day bed in the room and once more commended his soul to God. They sought to warm him with hot towels. His hosts, the city clerk Johann Albrecht and his wife, were summoned, along with the two physicians of the city and finally Count Albrecht himself and his wife, Anna, who was familiar with drugs. The pain and fear continued. When he began to sweat, Luther saw it as a symptom of death. In a prayer he gave thanks to the God of all comfort, the Father of Jesus Christ, that he had revealed to him his Son, “whom I have believed, whom I have loved, whom I have preached, confessed, and praised, whom the pope and all the godless revile and blaspheme.” Here once again he named the content of this life in a positive and definitive way Luther commended his “little soul” to the Lord Christ. He was sure that death would not be able to snatch him from God’s hand. He based this on John 3:16: Anyone who believes in the Son, whom God gave in love, will not perish, but have eternal life. He stood firm in the words of Ps. 68:20: “Our God is a God of salvation; and to God, fix belongs escape from death.” Echoing the words of the aged Simeon (Luke 2:29) he said with confidence: “Lord, let now thou thy servant depart in peace. Amen.” Finally, he repeated Psalm 31:5 three more times, and became silent.

VUL Psalm 30:6…in manus tuas commendabo spiritum meum redemisti me Domine Deus veritatis

NIV Psalm 31:5…Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD, the God of truth.

Countess Anna especially tried to revive Luther by rubbing him with vinegar and aqua vitae. Jonas and Coelius shouted loudly, “Reverend father are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess doctrine which you have taught in his name?” A distinct “Yes” was his reply. With his final word Luther had made a confession of his cause. This was significant. After this he fell asleep and responded no more. His face became pale; his feet and nose grew cold. At about a quarter to three he took a breath and gave up his spirit. The reporters emphasized that Luther died peacefully.

The accounts of Luther’s death show again how deeply piety had been altered by him. All sacramental elements were missing. Of course, the no extreme unction, but neither did Luther make any last confession, although he treasured the practice of confession itself. Understandably, no last communion was offered, for Luther had otherwise had great reluctance about this practice. He had received the Lord’s Supper the Sunday before. Thus there were no priestly ministrations at all at his death. It was almost exclusively Luther himself who spoke, not the others present. This may have been a mark of respect in the face of his authority His last statements consisted primarily of brief, confident prayers to God and Christ, including the traditional deathbed prayer from Ps. 31:5. The recitation of Bible passages served to reassure him. His confidence corresponded to the confession of God and Christ that was his life’s work. Jonas and Coelius asked him expressly to confirm this at the end. Unlike the earlier situations when his life was threatened nothing is known about any word to his sons who were present or a final greeting to Katy. For the dying man, that was obviously not as important as his relationship to God and his vocation.9

The people of Eisleben prepared Luther’s body for burial. They appealed to the Elector John Frederick to allow them to bury Luther in the town where he had both born and had died. John Frederick said that, if necessary, he would send troops to collect Luther’s body and return it to Wittenberg. They complied. Luther’s pewter coffin started home in a wagon.

Along the way, massive crowds turned out to see him pass by. Thousands…tens of thousands paid their respects.

On February 22, 1546 Martin Luther was buried in the Castle Church at Wittenberg, the same Castle Church to which he had nailed his 95 Theses. He was buried in the floor of the church…directly at the foot of the pulpit. Melanchthon delivered his eulogy and when he did he tried to explain Luther’s impact on the world. He was quick to add that Luther had faults, many faults. But he was even quicker to add that God had used Luther to restore the gospel and that Luther had stood in the line of great prophets like Elijah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist. I think he was right but I think Luther had he heard it would have laughed out loud.

Let’s pray.

1 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), 373.

2 Robert C. Walton, “The Spread of the Zwingli Reformation” from Christian History Magazine Volume 3, No. 1, 1984, 33. “You would have cleansed the Augean stable, if you had had the images removed, if you had not taught that the body of Christ was supposed to be eaten in the bread.”

3 J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 16th Century, Book 11, Chapter 11, 1039- 40.

4 John Calvin, Selected Works of Calvin Volume 4, 1545, Letter 136. Parts of the letter are paraphrased or modernized by me for the sake of clarity.

5 Roland Bainton, 322. In Table Talk #291 Luther is recorded as saying, “The end of all heresy is the sword. We see this in the case of the pope, Münzer, Zwingli, the Arians, etc. They all started out [with a certain show of piety], but in the end they were driven to the sword. They were at first not wanting in the will [to carry out their intentions] but they didn’t have the opportunity. Satan, as Paul said, can’t deny himself. He must show himself to be a liar and murderer. Moreover, I think that Cain’s death also caused a great outcry. They said, ‘Behold, Lamech has killed our father,’ etc.”

6 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532-1546 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 369.

7 Brecht, 371.

8 Brecht, 373.

9 Brecht, 376-7.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Since I can't improve upon RnMom's excellent response, I'll instead return your "Merry Christmas" and add we're happy you made it safely through the deluge.

"Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast." -- Psalm 57:1

[annalex]

Thank you, and blessings of Advent season to you. It is amazing how the theology of faith alone does not cancel out the genuine desire to work on our faith even in those who hold that theology dogmatically.

[annalex]

I am saying that the written word of God needs to be interpreted in the light of the sacred tradition transmitted by the apostolic Church; if it is read independently or, worse, in opposition to the Church then such reading will lead to harmful results. One example is Luther. Of course he has "read" the gospels. But his "reading" was not profitable and his theories betray no familiarity with the passages I enumerated in #20. So, in short and for greater dramatic effect, I say

Luther did not read the gospels.

[annalex]

The response in #34 was unscriptural causistry.

even Mary could do nothing pleasing to God

The scripture clearly shows that Mary hesitates when she hears the announcement and argues back to the angel. Then she says, let it be onto me. Moreover, she continues to ponder the meaning of the annunciation even after Christ is born. Luke clearly shows that it is Mary's will that struggles to understand and wilfully complies, even before understanding, with the will of God. Mary did something pleasing to God by her own will.

Now it is true that God gave is that will. He gave a will to Cain and to Abel. The will of Abel pleased God. The will of Cain did not. Did God, in Cain, decide to displease Himself? No, Cain had free will. But if so, Abel has free will also.

Calvinism is a harmful card trick that, with its insistance on erasing the free will, harms the understanding of the scripture.

[RnMomof7]

I am saying that the written word of God needs to be interpreted in the light of the sacred tradition transmitted by the apostolic Church; if it is read independently or, worse, in opposition to the Church then such reading will lead to harmful results.

And you know that HOW?

Mom raises her hand and waves for attention, I know , I know ...

BY FAITH ALONE

You only "believe " that ON FAITH cause that is what your church tells you to believe.

That is NO WHERE taught by Christ or the apostles. The jews had their "tradition " and their "priests" and were as blind spiritually as bats.

What did Jesus say of those "leaders"

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'

17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that *sanctifies the gold?

18 And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'

19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?

20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.

21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who *dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and *self-indulgence.

26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'

31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt.

33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,

35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

One example is Luther. Of course he has "read" the gospels. But his "reading" was not profitable and his theories betray no familiarity with the passages I enumerated in #20. So, in short and for greater dramatic effect, I say

I have presented you with much scripture that you seem bind to

Mar 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.

One more time

Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Now from your POPE

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

..You cling to your tradition and your works and on that day you will stand before the judge of men who will judge ever single act and work you have ever done.

You need to quake with fear if you cling to your own righteousness to be saved.

Rom 3:10 — As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, Mom. It's so much simpler than some would have it.

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:4-7

We have been saved by grace through faith, our redemption accomplished once by His sacrifice on the cross alone, the only offering worth the error.

Or else it is not mercy, but payment for wages earned.

[annalex]

Your understanding of the gospel, for example, have definitely been harmed by "faith alone" superstition. Look at you: you just posted a hundred lines of scripture that bear no relation to the issue, but you cannot demonstrate that you understand Luke 17 or Luke 18 or Matthew 25. Nor can Luther.

[RnMomof7]

Your understanding of the gospel, for example, have definitely been harmed by "faith alone" superstition. Look at you: you just posted a hundred lines of scripture that bear no relation to the issue, but you cannot demonstrate that you understand Luke 17 or Luke 18 or Matthew 25. Nor can Luther.

A casual reader will see that you have taken ONE scripture and used that as a proof text for salvation by works, when the scripture shows that it is God that gives faith, it is God that causes it to increase and it is the faith , not the self efforts of men that save

Have you figured out the gospel yet?

Would you define thew words grace and mercy for me if "Gospel" is too hard?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Note that the faith is likened to a tiny, yet miraculously powerful seed (is it why faith is "planted?). What do we do with seeds? -- We grow them.

The point of the analogy is not that we plant and grow the seed, but that God plants and grows the seed.

We grow them. That demands work, and in fact, unceasing work.

All good works are of and by the Holy Ghost, working Christ's righteousness in us. We are only able to perform anything God-pleasing after He has regenerated us through the work of the Holy Ghost.

"For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates." -- 2 Corinthians 13:4-6

[annalex]

Several parables and the Sermon on the Mount are hardly "one" scripture. If you take instruction on Christian zoeology out of the Gospel of Matthew in particular you will have very little left. Besides, since the scripture is inerrant, we should not disregard any scripture, even if not repeated elsewhere.

But, you are right in the sense that I proof doctrine by scripture, rather than by Luther, Spurgeon, or what have you. This is how my Church teaches us to handle doctrine.

You are a delight to talk to, I'll be sure to discuss gospel, grace and mercy some time with you as well.

[annalex]

God plants the seed, and we grow it, with His help, of course. Read the gospels. Specifically, there are some I mentioned in my #20. Luke 17:6-10 addresses the issue of who is working and who is resting.

We are only able to perform anything God-pleasing after He has regenerated us through the work of the Holy Ghost.

I thought Annunciation preceded the Conception; what does your gospel say?

[HarleyD]

"The point of the analogy is not that we plant and grow the seed, but that God plants and grows the seed."

And He was saying, "The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows-how, he himself does not know. The soil produces crops by itself first the blade, then the head,..." Mark 4:26-28

As you point out, the seed takes affect only on the "good soil". One plants. Another waters. But God gives the growth.

[annalex]

But this one says that man plants it. Also, is soil God? The natural reading of the sower metaphor is that tradition is soil.

[RnMomof7]

You are a delight to talk to, I'll be sure to discuss gospel, grace and mercy some time with you as well.

This concerns me as you can not discuss the gospel with me because not only do you not know what it is, and worse you have shown no interest in finding out what it is. Now you are unable to look at grace or mercy.

[annalex]

I will, I promise. At this point the topic is, did Luther understand the passages I pointed out in the written Gospels? I showed you that he most likely ignored them, and fifty posts down no one can explain how he could possibly interpret them and still stick to his theories about works. Sure, you and others explained what Protestants think about the relationship between faith, grace, and work, and you posted plenty of scripture that I have no quarrel with, but there was not a single comment addressing specifically the gospel passages I listed in #20 from the Protestant perspective. This is why at this point I would perfer not to change the topic to other subjects that you brought up.

[RnMomof7]

God plants the seed, and we grow it, with His help, of course. Read the gospels. Specifically, there are some I mentioned in my #20. Luke 17:6-10 addresses the issue of who is working and who is resting.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Who is doing the work ?

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

What is grace? What is mercy? What is works? How does one grow his own faith ? Like Dorothy does one click the magic red shoes together and say "I want to go home" "I want to go home"

Faith is grown in men by seeing God work

Faith is therefore that confidence or trust in God and Christ, regarding things promised or things not seen (read Hebrews 11)

So God MUST act if men are to have faith increase.

As you click your heels together saying "I want to go to heaven . I want to go to heaven" Remember if you trust in Christ alone in faith, you will not need to be clicking your heels together, you will have confidence in His promises.

Do you have confidence that when you stand before Christ He will welcome you into His kingdom? Or do you only have a hope ? How great is your faith?

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

I have faith I am a child of God and co heir with Christ. Do you?

[suzyjaruki]

Do you suppose Luther read it? Let's ask Luther, here ya go

[annalex]

The gospels passages I showed you in #20 explain that faith is grown by obedience and work.

The quotes you give me form St. Paul say that works must be preceded by faith, that they are enabled by grace, and that one should not boast about works.

Are you contradicting me or are you agreeing with me?

Where is Luther treating Luke 17, 18, or Matthew 25 intelligibly?

[annalex]

Where is Luther treating Luke 17, 18, or Matthew 25 intelligibly?

I am familiar with Luther's overall theories, but I am interested in the exegesis on these passages specifically, because I am getting more and more convinced that he did not read them.

[RnMomof7]

But this one says that man plants it. Also, is soil God? The natural reading of the sower metaphor is that tradition is soil.

Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

That seed is planted by the preaching of the gospel

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

God ordained that men should deliver the means of salvation the word of God that brings faith. What an honor to be a co worker with God. That was recognized by Paul

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

Paul knew to whom the glory goes.

The seed did not plant itself or water itself or grow due to its own efforts, but all of those things occurred because God ordained them . They are all a work of God and his grace .