Lutheran Satire Gave the Word to Luther

Mohammed and Joseph Smith Revisited · Lutheran Satire Gave the Word to Luther · ... on Luther and Swedish Reformation · Where "Lutheran Satire" Misses a Nuance on Where Rome Is (eternal vs present)

Marty and Frank Part II: Romans 3
LutheranSatire | 4.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0BGf0Aj-lg

I

1:02 "Therefore there are only two possible relationships" ... between three items?

We have faith, we have works in general, we have specifically works of the law ... note, this last does not exhaust works in general, if by "the law" is meant the Mosaic law.

We are justified apart from circumcision, apart from refraining from eel, apart from having four tassels on each at least major clothing (one in each corner, which gives a clue the earth is round, but this still doesn't mean we have to wear that to be just). Marty said as much in his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, it was as bad an argument back then, and that Sendbrief is one reason I converted, and that "Frank" being ecumenical with "Marty" is one reason Frank is more of a Frankenpope than of a Pope, Catholic sense.

1:09 "either faith justifies with our good works or faith justifies apart from them"

Romans 3:28 (Douay Rheims, not a Luther Bible):

[28] For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Next two verses make it at least probable St Paul is here speaking of Mosaic law.

And earlier on it is, if possible, even clearer:

[20] Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. [21] But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

If we speak of "justice" as being "manifest" we are certainly speaking of good works, and this "without the law" - which must mean, without the Mosaic law.

So, Luther is saying that between three items, faith, good works and works of Moses' law, there are logically only two possibilities, either faith justifies with the Mosaic law or faith justifies without good works in general ... not sure his logic teacher would agree, but perhaps his rhetoric teacher would have applauded the performance.

II

2:20 "Paul doesn't do a distinction between works that don't justify and works that do"

Too tired to seek out the obvious counterexample in St Paul, just content to note St Paul was here very obviously talking about the Mosaic law, as seen from context, and St James is saying a thing about works that do justify - along with and under faith.

Otherwise one could also say that Tyndale's Inquisitor James Latomus had a point in conceding the point to Luther (or in that context to Tyndale) and instead say that first justification is by faith without any works, while staying justified is about faith and good works.

Also, the distinction is drawn elsewhere.

Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)

In the following verses Christ makes clear he means the Decalogue, not the 613 laws.

So is getting justified and entering life different to you?

III

2:21 and following "rather he repeatedly says that nothing we do is responsible for our justification"

More like nothing we do while in the state of sinners is adequate to gaining justification.

Having a point and overdoing it is not as good as having a point and staying with it. That is the difference between "Marty" and "Austin" (of some place in Tunisia).

IV

3:39 "in other words they are arguing that justification and salvation are two different things"

If a man who is saved can lose his salvation, the initial justification and the completed salvation of dying in Christ and having avoided Hell at the judgement are indeed two different things, as different as seed and fruit.

So, is "Marty" arguing that OSAS? As I recall, this is not the case, a saved person would need to renew his salvation by renewing confidence in his salvation (this being the object in the versions of Lutheranism that have 3 acknowledged sacraments, including invalid confessions).

While I was Lutheran, I did not think OSAS was strictly true, and I thought the Evangelicals with OSAS were wrong in saying salvation is a foolproof insurance for eternity, you can't lose it by murder or adultery even.

As you correctly said sth about children being regenerated by baptism (in their case without any positive even good works, obviously) and as I don't think you consider a baptised man who dies as murderer and apostate is saved because he was baptised NOR that you think regeneration is anything other than justification, this only leaves open the possibility, after getting saved, you need to stay justified.

V

4:07 Ephesians quote says sth about "you have been saved by faith" ... and therefore talks about initial justification.

And yes, it is certainly Catholic dogma that while getting saved can be merited in some sense (ex congruo, God going "it would be too bad if someone like that got no further"), it cannot be merited in the strict sense (ex condigno, it was over Calvary and over the Second Adam only that God said ... as was heard over Jordan before ... This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.).

VI

4:22 And Frankenpope obviously did not defend "his forefathers" ... showing he was not the heir of Leo X or St Pius V.

Actually, his previous comments showing some Catholic sense means you are actually flattering him, painting him as if he were a Roman Catholic.

VII

[linked here]

One could also mention, that Luther and Charles Taze Russell are in as great a conflict with Matthew 28 ("all days" clause) as Mohammed and Joseph Smith, even if the means was in their case different, false learning instead of false revelation.