Pseudepigraphus

Jerome, against the Pelagians, says: 'Then, therefore, we are righteous when we confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness consists not in our own merit, but in God’s mercy.' Therefore, in this inchoate fulfillment of the Law, faith ought to be present, which is certain that for Christ’s sake we have a reconciled God.

Let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.

Cicero wrote and taught excellently about virtues, prudence, temperance, and the rest; likewise also Aristotle excellently and very learnedly about ethics. Indeed, the books of both are very useful and of the greatest necessity for the regulation of this life.

The history of human error shows that the assertion, 'I am absolutely certain,' or, 'I cannot help believing,' in regard to any proposition is no adequate evidence as to its truth.

I do not attempt, O Lord, to penetrate Thy profundity, for I deem my intellect in no way sufficient thereunto, but I desire to understand in some degree Thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand, in order that I may believe; but I believe, that I may understand. For I believe this too, that unless I believed, I should not understand.

[M]uch twentieth century Protestant theology has been antinomian all along; the practical antinomianism now regnant in many churches is simply a long-standing theoretical antinomianism achieving the courage of its convictions. If the law/gospel distinction is a final antithesis, then any commandment, any call for one ordering of life rather than another, will by definition be the law from which the gospel frees us.

When Paul in Romans 5 says we are justified and saved by grace, he is referring not to our new life (which is a gift of grace), but to the mercy of God who justifies us only for Christ’s sake.

There is need of the power of Christ against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that for Christ's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for the governance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither be deceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary to God's will. Otherwise we should, every hour, fall into error and abominable vices. Just as Psalm 68:18 teaches: 'Thou hast led captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for man.' For Christ has overcome the devil, and has given to us the promise and the Holy Ghost, in order that, by divine aid, we ourselves also may overcome. And 1 John 3:8: 'For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.' Again, we teach not only how the Law can be observed, but also how God is pleased if anything be done, namely, not because we render satisfaction to the Law, but because we are in Christ...

The descent-into-hell doctrine preserves a double-sided view of Christ's glorification as not only involving our world but, equally important, the one beyond our ken and sight: the supernatural one, inhabited by angels and the souls of the dead. In that world sin had its origin, and there Christ's conquest first was proclaimed. 1 Peter 3:19 speaks of Christ's simply going into the prison and not of descending. Whether or not the creed's descent language is dependent on Rom 10:7, the descending language of going into hell is contrasted with the ascending language of going to the Father's right hand in the ascension. By Christ's descending into hell and ascending into heaven an immediately recognizable contrast is given. A modern worldview supposedly cannot tolerate a three-story universe of a heaven that is up, a hell that is down, and an earth in between. Lutheran theology has traditionally not been burdened with the understanding of God's right hand as a place, so it does not have to involve itself with the direction in which Jesus went in the descent and ascension. It is more a moral or ethical than a spatial contrast. The descent into hell, like other articles of the creeds, intends to bring together in one phrase larger theological realities. As the confession that Jesus is God's only Son refers to his préexistence and deity, a point made more explicit at Nicea, the descent doctrine brings together the entire confrontation between God and Satan, culminating in the Christ victorious appearing before Satan in hell. Christus crucifixus is Christus victor. While Luther did not hold to any idea of the limbus patrum from which Christ released the OT saints by his going into Hades, he did retain the idea of Christ's conquest in his interpretation of the descent clause. The crucifixion had rendered the netherworld impotent. Satan, death and hell were conquered not by an act of divine omnipotence but by Christ's atonement. The descent, the resurrection appearances, and the session at the right hand belong together as a unified proclamation of Christ's victory in the three different but related realms of hell, earth, and heaven. If we remove 'he descended into hell,' the first and perhaps even foundational level would be removed from the creed.

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.

In actual modern English usage the verb 'believe,' except for two special usages, generally expresses a very weak degree of opinion. 'Where is Tom?' 'Gone to London, I believe.' The speaker would be only mildly surprised if Tom had not gone to London after all. 'What was the date?' '430 B.C., I believe.' The speaker means that he is far from sure. It is not the same with the negative if it is put in the form 'I believe not.' ('Is Jones coming up this term?' 'I believe not.') But if the negative is put in a different form it then becomes one of the special usages I mentioned a moment ago. This is of course the form 'I don’t believe you.' 'I don’t believe it' is far stronger on the negative side than 'I believe' is on the positive. 'Where is Mrs. Jones?' 'Eloped with the butler, I believe.' 'I don’t believe it.' This, especially if said with anger, may imply a conviction which in subjective certitude might be hard to distinguish from knowledge by experience. The other special usage is 'I believe' as uttered by a Christian. There is no great difficulty in making the hardened materialist understand, however little he approves, the sort of mental attitude which this 'I believe' expresses. The materialist need only picture himself replying, to some report of a miracle, 'I don’t believe it,' and then imagine this same degree of conviction on the opposite side. He knows that he cannot, there and then, produce a refutation of the miracle which would have the certainty of mathematical demonstration; but the formal possibility that the miracle might after all have occurred does not really trouble him any more than a fear that water might not be H and O. Similarly, the Christian does not necessarily claim to have demonstrative proof; but the formal possibility that God might not exist is not necessarily present in the form of the least actual doubt. Of course there are Christians who hold that such demonstrative proof exists, just as there may be materialists who hold that there is demonstrative disproof. But then, whichever of them is right (if either is) while he retained the proof or disproof would not be believing or disbelieving but knowing. We are speaking of belief and disbelief in the strongest degree, but not knowledge. Belief, in this sense, seems to me to be assent to a proposition which we think so overwhelmingly probable that there is a psychological exclusion of doubt, though not a logical exclusion of dispute.

You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor, and you shall have war.

If a layman performs all the works of a priest, celebrates, confirms, absolves, administers the Sacraments, dedicates altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., these works are certainly in every respect similar to those of an actual priest, nay, probably they are more fitting and perfect than the genuine works. But because the layman has not been consecrated and ordained and set aside (sanctificatus), he is actually doing nothing at all; he is merely playing and deceiving himself and his people…. The layman referred to does not become a priest by such works; but by ordination he can become one, nay, he will become one entirely without these works.

Whoever wants to remain the way he is cannot pray for grace and forgiveness; rather, whoever prays that way wishes and desires to be just and completely freed from sins. You also must know this so that you do not deceive yourself. There are many who only see that the tax collector receives grace and forgiveness as a sinner, but do not consider that God wants to have them forget sin, and that the grace given must be powerful in them. They try to misunderstand this, as if God wanted to justify and save sinners so that they could remain in sin and unrighteousness.

Now, when this comfort of the Gospel is present and the heart has been snatched out of death and the anguish of hell, then the Spirit’s power and work also follow, so that God’s Law also begins to live in the human heart. He now obtains a desire and love for the Law and begins to fulfill it, and thus eternal life begins here, until it is completed in the life to come and remains eternally.