God is a good and gracious Lord; He will be held for God only and alone, and according to the first commandment: “You shalt have none other Gods but me.” He desires nothing of us: no taxes, subsidies, money, or goods. He requires only that He may be our God and Father; and therefore He bestows richly upon us a cup overflowing with all manner of spiritual and temporal gifts.
—Martin Luther, Table Talk, LXXVIII
#6
The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
The first part of this thesis is pretty clear, but the middle (what almost seems as a partial redaction) is confusing. What does Luther mean here? What are these cases that allow the pope to remit guilt? I’m not quite sure, Luther is clearly not talking about sin, but guilt, literally (contemptis culpa) “the disdain for the crime.”
I partly think that this has to do with the Christian world-view dominant at the time. In the 1500′s there were deeds that were good and deeds that were bad; if people did bad things there was an understanding as to what type of actions they had done. To put it in other words, the codified morals of the Bible allowed the people to have a common moral reference with which to both be judged and to judge themselves. If they realized their transgression they were also taught the proper response was to react to it with contempt. The false placation of this disdain prevents true repentance, a dangerous tool of deception.
#5
The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
Simply put, Luther is cutting to bone many practices of the catholic church. This is not simply the practice of selling indulgences but the whole usurpation of Christ’s role as mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and judge (2 Tim 4:1) and it’s replacement with the Pope.
Luther grants the pope his purview, but that purview does not include things explicitly granted in the Bible to Christ. While this is the beginning of his objections to many of the Pope’s practices, Luther is still loyal to the structure. Luther later on would drift further from this initial support of the Catholic church, but this is a gradual development from this initial thesis.
Peace.
More reading:
Johann Tetzel
Indulgences
Pope Leo X
#4
As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
Manet itaque pena, donec manet odium sui (id est penitentia vera intus), scilicet usque ad introitum regni caelorum.
Latin? What’s he doing quoting this in latin? Well, the reason why I’m quoting Luther’s latin text is because this thesis is a little rough to take—I’ve dreaded posting about this since I read through all of them with an eye towards writing these posts.
Well, because I’m a punk (with a measly semester of college latin), I decided to look into this and attempt my own translation:
And so remain penalized, all the while hating one’s self (truly penitent on the inside), so that we may know continuously until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
Penalized, pena, it is a medieval noun… is talking about the penalty of having an old self (sin is nice and vague—and in a world that no longer understands what a sin is, it lacks power, and the use of it here avoids the power of Luther’s argument structure) and a fallen nature. Why does Luther believe we must fight this? The reason is not to be made righteous, we cannot do that. Luther’s stipulation is that it is in the penitent despising of the old self we KNOW God, and that this preserves us in constant comforting knowledge until we enter his kingdom. Be comforted in your struggle, for the Kingdom awaits (and is known more through struggle in the meanwhile.)
Peace.
#3
Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one’s heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
The mortifications of the flesh… sounds so gruesome doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t nearly as bloody as you might think. He’s using Paul’s language of the self here. The “old man”, the “old self”, the “sinful self” is this “flesh.” Paul writes “for I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out (Romans 7:18.)” True repentance leads to the mortification, literally the “making dead” of our “old self.” “Flesh” isn’t used in just the broad sense of humanity’s selfishness and fallen nature, it is also used for specific sins: “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these (Gal. 5: 19-21a.) It is our “fleshly” thoughts and actions we are to kill! Neither Luther, Paul, nor Jesus asks us to brutalize our emotions or our physical bodies in order to truly repentant! What they do ask is that we truly repent – that is the sign that our old self is being destroyed.
The people of God have wrestled with repentance since the beginning of time. People wanting quick forgiveness with no change to their lifestyles is as old as the line of people waiting to be baptized by John. Too often just being “sorry” passes for repentance, so next time you grieve over your actions try to delve a little deeper and maybe work out what is really going on inside of you, and then work to experience a deeper cry to God… a cry of repentance.
#2
The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
This word, this call to repentance, is not simply the words of forgiveness granted by any earthly authority (Roman Catholic, or any other), but a call to make your confession and repent before God, and that the forgiveness and transformation is a divine office of God.
Why do we still need this kind of admonition? Well, even the Lutheran Church itself struggles with this… the current Lutheran Book of Worship makes the bold statement that a “called and ordained minister” can forgive sins – a claim that seems to fly in the face of this thesis. (The actual wording seems to date back as far as 1919, the oldest service book I can find with this text, however the service book includes a warning of hell and damnation to those who don’t truly repent – however my copy is loaned out and I cannot put the text into this post.) Even outside the Lutheran or Catholic tradition this seems to continue having relevance – forgiveness of sins can be tied to a charismatic experience or just granted after reception of communion. Be careful, false promises from a false teacher are like counterfeit bills – they might look like the real thing, but you’ll find they have no currency with God when you try to spend them.
Treasure the fact that God alone, the Lord of the universe, grants us the gift of being able to come before His honor. Do not settle for the pale substitute of man-produced, man-granted and only man-deceived forgiveness and repentance.
There are no new deceptions, no new sins, no new lies… only names for the same problems that have been plaguing mankind since the garden. With this in mind I thought it would be fruitful to go through Dr. Luther’s original “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” more often known as his 95 Theses, giving thoughts and commentary on it. Please feel free to join in.
#1
When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
The call of repentance (Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:15) is a universal call, not limited in time or place, but to all sinners (Luke 5:22, Romans 3:22-13.) This is a constant process, the lives of all saints and apostles are not one made up of instant change. Peter (in his violence and later denial), Thomas (in his “doubting”) and Paul (he spends a lot of time wandering around trying to sort out his life after his Jesus encounter, check out the opening of Galatians) all show us fantastic examples that faith is on marked by constant repentance and change.
To the believer today that means we have to look at what we are to repent of our sins, but where do we start? Luther gives some fleshing out of this in the Smalcald articles, he tells us that Christ’s call to “repent and believe the Gospel [means we are to] become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise.” That’s nice, but where do we start, we start with knowing what sin is. And Luther defines the sins we can repent of as:
…the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as (distrust) unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption (recklessness), despair, blindness (or complete loss of sight[of God's word]), and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by (to abuse) God’s name (to swear falsely), not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard (to despise or neglect) God’s Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.
Talking about sin reveals an even more basic component of this – and that is belief. In order to repent, you must believe. You can’t repent without belief, just as you can’t make a cake without the ingredients. In this case there is one ingredient, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
This message doesn’t get old… seek out the Word, let the Spirit minister to you, and make yourself accessible to the Spirit’s calling on your heart to repent – and then do it. Do not repent to earn something from God, but repent because God’s awesomeness commands a response. God calls us to repent not to hurt us, but so that he can work in us and grow us so that we are more in his image.
In our society today we lack some of the frameworks of belief for this call to be taken seriously, so this call becomes magnified. We must teach people the framework and language of discourse needed for this kind of change to take place in them with effecting power.