1844-1888

[Hanseng]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

it's frankly absurd

Gustave, Had the Pope himself reviewed what I said and pronounced anathema against it/me, my position would still be: Luther stated clearly, more than 40 times, in his Galatians commentary, that as far as the Christian is concerned, the law, ceremonial and moral, has been abrogated. I don't know how you framed the questions you asked your academic friends. Did they deny that Luther said more than 40 times that the Law had been abrogated. Did you ask them about that?

I thought it was clear that I was referring to what he said in his Galatians commentary. I also pointed out that your objections such as Against the Antinomians and the catechisms were essentially irrelevant to his exposition of Galatians. Lutherans may be guided by the Book of Concord which was written after Luther's death, holding to the third use of the law, as did Melanchthon and Calvin. Luther held to two uses, omitting the third. According to Berkoff, that made him an antinomian.

Invite your pals to pay us a visit here. Let me ask the questions.

I might also mention that the New Advent RC encyclopedia says that the catechism of Trent is essentially a compendium of the teachings of Aquinas. You recall that Luther said, regarding Aquinas on the law, Aquinas didn't know what he was talking about. If New Advent is correct, Luther negated RC teachings on the law pre and post Trent. That would be expected, since his understanding of the law in the Christian's life was consequent to his justification by faith alone doctrine.

If the Lord hunted for our sins, no one would stand, but He forgives.

[Sorry, no YouTube here.]

[Hanseng]

5 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Lutherans may be guided by the Book of Concord which was written after Luther's death, holding to the third use of the law, as did Melanchthon and Calvin.

Should be the "Formula of Concord,"  which is included in the Book of Concord.

[Hanseng]

On 3/27/2026 at 5:38 PM, Hanseng said:

I'm not quite sure of what you are saying here. Luther did omit the commandment regarding graven images, per Roman Catholicism. That's probably not what you meant. Some of Luther's views differed from The Book of Concord, which was written after Luther died. The author was a disciple of Melanchthon who differed from Luther. Contemporary Lutheranism does not accurately reflect some of the positions Luther during the Reform era.

The above  statement is wrong. The Book of Concord is a compendium containing various documents from the Reformation. It includes the Formula of Concord. This book was assembled after Luther's death. Some of  the documents were prepared while he lived. For more  information:

BookOfConcord.org · The Original Home of the Book of Concord

 

[Gustave]

HansenG, I'm not questioning that you've purchased and read a lot of Luther, there is no doubts I have about that. What I'm saying is that you are lacking in reading comprehension as to what Luther was intending to teach. The two Professors basically said you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger. I was provided with a name and phone number of a recent graduate from the Seminary that excelled in Apologetics and Pastors a Lutheran Church a couple hours away from me. I'm debating calling him and seeing if he would be interested in coming here and having a scholarly discussion as to your Martin Luther understandings. Obviously Lutherans are no fans of the camp I'm in but at the minimum it's reasonable an educated Pastor of a Lutheran Church who holds the express recommendation of the Seminary he came from could discuss these things with you. I'm simply saying Martin Luther was not an Antinomian in any way shape or form. 

[Hanseng]

 *

[Hanseng]

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

HansenG, I'm not questioning that you've purchased and read a lot of Luther, there is no doubts I have about that.

 Gustave, We can go back and forth on this. A lot has to do with how you define antinomian. According to Berkhoff, antinomians deny the third use of the law. Luther set forth only two uses in his Galatians commentary; consequently, he could be considered an antinomian. If your friends can show where Luther held to the third use like Melanchthon and Calvin and the Formula of Concord, I'd like to see that. Continually insulting me without providing any evidence attests to nothing more than RC bigotry. Obviously, as evinced by the references you have made to the catechisms, Against the Antinomians, and Table Talk, it is not me who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

I could list the 40 plus times Luther said the law has been abrogated for the Christian but you will have to pay me to do that. As I read/review more of the Galatians work, I'm finding even more statements that support my view.

Lutheranism became a mess  once the lion departed. As McGrath said, Lutheranism does not truly represent the teachings of Luther. Melanchthon's disciple, Chemnitz was instrumental in defining Lutheranism. Luther is often misrepresented, not necessarily by Chemnitz. In the popular SDA account of the Reformation, Great Controversy says Luther expected Christ to return in about 350 years. Luther made it very plain in a "Sermon on the Last Days" found in Lenker's translated Sermons of Martin Luther, that was not the case at all.

Your acquaintances can say Luther said this and thus but I won't take them at their word. When I say Luther said more than 40 times the law has been abrogated for the Christian, that can be easily proven by doing a search of volume 26 of Luther's Works, translated by Jaroslav Pelikan. Other editions may not use the word abrogate/ed. 

When I check your references, your position is not sustained.

[Gustave]

Quote

HansenG said: Gustave, We can go back and forth on this. A lot has to do with how you define antinomian. According to Berkhoff, antinomians deny the third use of the law. Luther set forth only two uses in his Galatians commentary; consequently, he could be considered an antinomian. If your friends can show where Luther held to the third use like Melanchthon and Calvin and the Formula of Concord, I'd like to see that. Continually insulting me without providing any evidence attests to nothing more than RC bigotry. Obviously, as evinced by the references you have made to the catechisms, Against the Antinomians, and Table Talk, it is not me who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

These guys are definitely not my friends. I'm pretty sure they would align more with you than with me with the exception of Luther being an Antinomian, Tritheism and the Ellen White being a prophet.

According to what I've read online Martin Luther coined the term "Antinomian" to use against people who were of the mind that the law had lost it's place in the life of the Christian. Again, your argument isn't with me - it's with Lutherans. Given your stunning methodology you shouldn't have any issues when someone of another Faith Tradition classifies Ellen White as a Militant anti-Trinitarian, right? 

[Hanseng]

56 minutes ago, Gustave said:

According to what I've read online Martin Luther coined the term "Antinomian" to use against people who were of the mind that the law had lost it's place in the life of the Christian.

Not sure what you are reading online but that is just not correct. Antinomianism was epitomized in the work of John Agricola, a one time friend and associate of Luther. Luther specifically and plainly said that laws, moral and ceremonial had lost their place in the life of the Christian. A favorite verse of the antinomians was "The goodness of God leads us to repentance." Some said the law belongs in the courthouse, not in the church. Luther disagreed with with these approaches to justification. The law is essential to show people their sin and reveal their condemned state. That's the purpose of his exposition of the Decalogue in the catechisms, to show people what God expects from them. In the explanation of the Creed, he explains how Jesus provides to God in our behalf what we can not provide. It is a truncated  order of salvation. The law condemns us, the gospel saves us.  Luther himself explains all this.

Luther said how difficult it was for him and the German people to shake off the Romanism they had been taught their whole lives, describing the tendency to fall back under the Papal yoke. It is likely true of any religion which people have been taught their entire lives. Try to convince a legalistic Adventist that the NT does not require tithe. It's a difficult concept when one has been taught heir whole Christian life that God will curse them if they don't pay up.  The prodigal son wanted to work his way back into his father's favor. Grace and forgiveness he hadn't even considered, until he experienced it.

I did some chaplaincy type work in a prison. I was talking to a group of inmates about justification by faith as exemplified in the life of Abraham. One guy started arguing with me, "Oh, we gotta have works, we gotta have works." Works are important but don't fit the article of justification. The guy was in prison but couldn't understand that his theology had put him there. Generally, people living a Spirit filled life don't land in prison.  God says "I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go, I will guide you with my eye." He is not talking about laws we must obey but cannot. He is talking about a Sprit filled life under grace. Luther understood that. The inmate did not.

[Hanseng]

On 3/29/2026 at 1:14 AM, Gustave said:

I'll grant you that you've read way more of Martin Luther than I have but reading Martin Luther and claiming you know his teachings on the law would be like me reading 50 medical journals and boasting I'm a medical expert, it's frankly absurd.

Your analogy falls flat. If you read 50 articles on a particular topic in medicine, e.g., "Management of Kreutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome in Immunocompromised Individuals" or "Onset of KS Lesions and  Life Expectancy" or even "Effectiveness of Activated Charcoal Enemas for Fecal Impaction," you could/should be an expert on that particular topic. Reading/ studying  Luther's Galatians Commentary long enough, one can be just as knowledgeable as anyone else who has read it. If you study it long enough, you will know more about it, much more, than others, unless the reader is devil possessed or a bigot.  Of course, educational institutions don't want you to know that. They make their money selling academic credits which are often earned by reading secondary sources.  So you know what someone said about Luther's Galatians commentary. That's very different from knowing what Luther actually said. 

[Gustave]

I'm sorry, the analogy doesn't fall flat.

If Lutheranism was "medical school" you would have flunked out hanseng. Can you be a doctor if you fail out of medical school? I don't think so. I've called Lutheran Seminaries (Conservative ones) and talked to the people that certify what constitutes (and what does not) a Lutheran Pastor and was told you were wrong. I urged you to call these places so you could learn for yourself. 

It's not just reading books, it's also comprehending what those books say. Think about it, the SDA Pioneers read the Bible and concluded that God the Father had all the members, parts and organs of a perfect man. This is an example of why the SDA Pioneers should have went through a Lutheran or Methodist Seminary - it would have saved the SDA Church much embarrassment. 

[Hanseng]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

what constitutes (and what does not) a Lutheran Pastor

When you find one who has studied Luther on Galatians and disputes that Luther said the law was abrogated for the Christian more than 40 times, let me know. Send me an email address and I will personally contact "your guy" or guys and ask  the following questions:

1. Do you deny that, in his Galatians commentary, Luther used the term "abrogated" with regard to the law in the Christian's life, more than 40 times?

2. Is there a  place in Luther's writings where he explicitly refers to the third use of law in a manner similar to Melanchthon and Calvin?

"What constitutes a Lutheran pastor" Are you serious? That's like saying an  SDA pastor's definition of Adventism accurately portrays  what EGW wrote. That only shows how superficial your knowledge is. You understand neither  Luther on Galatians or EGW and Adventism. I surveyed a small group of theology students at an SDA college. All but one had been in SDA schools their entire life. Aside from a few chapters in Desire of Ages, most of them had not read a single book of hers. One who had worked in healthcare had read Ministry of Healing or parts of it. The one fellow who had done any real reading of her work was a recent convert, an older student who never attended Adventist K-12.

If you want to discuss Luther on Galatians, read it, study it, so you know what you are talking about. You obviously do not. If your "hired guns" agree with you, they don't either.

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

If Lutheranism was "medical school" you would have flunked out hanseng.

Remarks like this do not merit a response.

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Do you deny that, in his Galatians commentary,

I'm referring  specifically, to the translation by Jaroslav Pelikan  in LW vol. 26. A person who doesn't own Luther's Works should not be discussing him with those who do. 

[Hanseng]

*