Archive through January 7, 2001 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » Dietrich Bonhoeffer on "Cheap Grace vs. Costly Grace" » Archive through January 7, 2001 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Billtwisse
Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 7:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 8:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 8:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 2:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 2:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 2:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 6:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 12:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cindy,

Amen! And enjoy your steaming health-to-
your-bones Starbucks!

MC
Billtwisse
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2001 - 3:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Indeed and amen! -MC
Max
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 1:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

[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
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"THE COMMANDMENT OF JESUS
MUST BE ACCORDED PERFECT
OBEDIENCE in one's daily vocation of life. "

Luther said this?
Max
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 7:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^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
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 7:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 8:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I tried the cut and paste deal and look what happens! WHOOPS> :)

God Bless all,
Denise
Patti
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 9:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration