Please note that the entire series entitled "Were the Reformers Heretics"? can now be viewed by clicking here as one complete essay.
The post below originally went from the sentence "Luther also confused the cross-work of Christ by going beyond the truth that the Savior bore the sins of mankind, and thus suffered the judgment that the world of sinners deserved, adopting instead the dangerous idea that Christ Himself became the sin of men." to the section: "The Reformers erred on much more than
infant baptism alone."
3 comments:
Hi Thomas,
I think you're stretching quite a bit to make your first point. See Gill and Matthew Henry, respectively, on II Cor. 5:21, the text of which I'm sure you're familiar with. I do not see that these say anything substantially different than Luther. Although Henry says "not a sinner," I take that to be actual rather than imputed as Luther seems to be saying, albeit with quite forceful language.
"But...he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner: but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin;"
"Christ knew no sin. He was made Sin; not a sinner, but Sin, a Sin-offering, a Sacrifice for sin. The end and design of all this was, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him"
Thanks,
d4
Dear D4,
While I think, and I believe that a lot of scholarship that would agree with me, that Luther actually took the view that I ascribed to him, I don't have the time to get into it further at this time.
Thanks for the comment.
D4,
Thomas Ross provides a semi-truck load of heavily documented information and you cherry pick this one point that, as Thomas says, has agreement from others besides himself, that it is a unique, false view, not to be paralleled with an interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21. Does Thomas Ross misrepresent Luther overall? Are you with Luther on what Ross has exposed and documented? Ross isn't cherry picking Luther. He's representing what Luther wrote. You grew up in Wisconsin. Did you find Lutherans to be a group of saved people there? Do they believe in salvation by grace through faith? I find them to be like talking to a Church of Christ person or even a Mormon, in their addition of works to grace. You may think that modern Lutherans are a perversion of Luther. Do you think that?
Others say that Luther was in some kind of trek, where he pulled away from Catholics, but had not yet arrived where he needed to be, but we can appreciate him for what he was. I say that we can look at God's sovereignty at that point in history, but Luther himself, he was wrong. Less wrong, but still wrong, and still condemnatory, can be more dangerous actually.
Post a Comment