Comments on: Apparently Luther would pick Paul over Jesus

By: timoteostewart

timoteostewart — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:57:52 +0000

@ChrisMorton82 @ollwenjones Question. When you guys use the word “discipleship,” are you referring to: (1) being a sincere disciple of Christ, which would be demonstrated most visibly by caring for the poor and marginalized, etc.; or (2) going out and making new disciples of Christ via evangelism and then carefully teaching these new believers about the tenets of the Christian faith ?

By: sbonesho

sbonesho — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:52:32 +0000

This Lutheran believes that Luther would pick Jesus over anything else. The point he is making is that ‘faith in Christ’ and what has been accomplished through him is the game changer for all of history. Modeling life after Christ is a good thing (in fact Luther spoke of our life as Xians as one that is exemplified as we live as ‘little Christs’ in relation to each other) but to do so without understanding the freedom of justification by grace through faith is nothing more than a new law packaged with Jesus’ name on the front.

Luther would also offer a radically Christocentric hermeneutic. For Luther (interestingly an OT scholar) you read the Bible to find Christ. And within the Bible there is a canon (Jesus) within the larger canon. Hence his suggestion to read Romans and Galatians over and against other texts because they bring the good news of what Christ has done for you. His example of this is his likening of the nativity manger to the Bible- “If you take Christ out of the Bible you are left with nothing but wood and straw.”

In the practical side, the ethical guideline for Luther is love and care for the neighbor in light of the loving work of God revealed in Christ.

By: timoteostewart

timoteostewart — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:27:16 +0000

@ChrisMorton82 @ollwenjones Here’s the fuller context of the quote Chris posted:

For there is only one gospel, which is the message of Christ. [As Luther says:] “Those who proclaim at the greatest length and in the loftiest terms how only faith in Christ makes us righteous are the best evangelists. Consequently, the Epistles of St. Paul are more of a gospel than Matthew, Mark and Luke. For the latter do not describe much more than the history and miracles of Christ. But no one gives a finer account of the grace which we have through Christ than St. Paul, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Now because much more depends upon the word than upon the works and deeds of Christ, and because if we had to do without one or the other, it would be better to lack the works and the history than the word and the doctrine, it is fair to give the highest praise to those books which deal more with the doctrine and the words of the Lord Christ. For even if the miracles of Christ did not exist and we knew nothing of them, we would nevertheless have enough with the word, without which we could not have life” [Works of Luther, volume XII, (1523)].

—Gerhard Ebeling, LUTHER: AN INTRODUCTION TO HIS THOUGHT (1970), page 131, partly quoted in Murray, THE NAKED ANABAPTIST (2010).

By: ChrisMorton82

ChrisMorton82 — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:17:24 +0000

@ollwenjones @timoteostewart You got me here. Neither Murray nor myself are “ethnic” Anabaptists. However, I do think that serious reflection, and maybe even repentance may be in order when it comes to the direct, ethical teachings of Jesus. I know of a lot of Sunday school classes that are dedicated to helping people learn systematic theology. I know of fewer that help teach how to love one’s enemies, give away possessions, etc. Another quasi-Anabaptist I know likes to say “Make Jesus Lord and you get Savior thrown in.” I think that is a step toward the healthy both/and we’re looking for.

By: ChrisMorton82

ChrisMorton82 — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:12:22 +0000

@timoteostewart Tim, I think you and I are in agreement. I guess what is simple and shocking about this is the idea that works and history would be considered as something other than doctrine? I was taught a simple hermeneutic as a kid which I think it pretty useful. We follow scripture’s direct commands, approved example and necessary inference (although the third one gets you into trouble).That being said, I think there is something to this critique. Much of history has relegated the sermon on the mount to “super Christians.” I wonder how much ideas such as the one represented here are the cause?