1844-1888

[Hanseng]

Noting that the SDA church hasn't been around for centuries but more than a century; nevertheless，Luther's Galatians emphasis is still relevant (rather than emphases is relevant, correction).

 

[Hanseng]

Just to clarify what Luther meant by abrogation of the law in his Galatians commentary: 

"For the Christian, therefore, the entire Law has been completely abrogated—whether it be the Ceremonial Law or the Decalogue—because he has died to it. This does not mean that the Law is destroyed; for it remains, lives, and rules in the wicked. But the godly man is dead to the Law as he is dead to sin, the devil, death, and hell, all of which still remain, and all of which the world and the wicked will inherit. Therefore when the sophist takes Paul to mean that only the Ceremonial Law is abrogated, you understand that for Paul and for every Christian the entire Law is abrogated, and yet that the Law still remains." LW vol. 26, pp. 156. 157

“I am not saying this with the intention that the Law should be held in contempt. Paul does not intend this either, but that it should be held in esteem. But because Paul is dealing here with the issue of justification—a discussion of justification is something vastly different from a discussion of the Law—necessity demanded that he speak of the Law as something very contemptible. When we are dealing with this argument, we cannot speak of it in sufficiently vile and odious terms either. For here the conscience should consider and know nothing except Christ alone. Therefore we should make every effort that in the question of justification we reject the Law from view as far as possible and embrace nothing except the promise of Christ.” LW vol.26, p.364

[Hanseng]

On 2/25/2026 at 2:13 PM, Gustave said:

I refer you to Luther's 6 series thesis against the Antinomians (1537-1540) in particular thesis 41 which says;

What is this a reference to? Can you provide a citation from Luther's Works? It can't be to the tract Against the Antinomians. It contains no theses. When Luther says over 40 times in his Galatians commentary that the law has been abrogated for the Christian, it requires something substantial to refute it. Against the Antinomians has no bearing on what he wrote in his Galatians commentary. Luther's point regarding the law, any law for the Christian. was that it has  no power to condemn. He did consider it useful bringing people to Christ for forgiveness. Luther believed that, ideally, Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit rather than laws.

Your reference to Table Talk is irrelevant. Off the cuff remarks in an informal setting hardly refute his systematic exposition of Galatians. 

[Hanseng]

Luther's point is just what Scripture says :

8  Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.
9  This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,
10  fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching
11  that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Unfortunately, while  the gospel of Jesus set people free from the Papal yoke, they didn't all want to take upon themselves the yoke of Christ. Perhaps most didn't. Same thing happened with Calvin. People free of the Papacy did not want to submit themselves to another "pope" such as Luther or Calvin. Martin Brecht says that the real transformative nature of the message in Germany was more or less limited. Luther, upon observing the condition of the people said "The German people are filthy swine." Calvin's reformation gave birth to the Libertines who birthed the salon movement in France and ultimately the French Revolution. 

Galatians 5:13 warns us to not use the liberty we have in Christ as a basis for indulging the flesh. 

[Gustave]

Are you saying Luther was an Antinomian? 

[Gustave]

I'm not quite sure what it is about Seventh-day Adventism that has some of it's members misrepresenting Martin Luther to the degree that they do. If it's not about "the Sabbath" it's about "soul sleep" and now it's about "Antinomianism". I'm hardly a fan of Luther but I don't mis-represent him this badly. Luther (according to Luther),was as Antinomian as he could be in the context of justification but in the context of the life of the Christian Luther was as legalistic as he could possibly be. I'm sorry but your view of what Luther taught is fantasy. I would strongly urge you to reach out to some Lutheran seminaries and simply burp up what you are affirming here and see what they say. After you've done that I'd suggest you reach out to this guy: 

 

 

Luther's most systematic work was in the small and large Catechism. Luther spends more time on the "ten commandments" then about anything else. Obviously, Luther isn't harping on keeping the "ceremonial law". Please, reach out to some Lutherans that are credentialed so that they can help you with this. 

[Hanseng]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Are you saying Luther was an Antinomian? 

As I said, in his systematic exposition of Galatians, more than 40 times, Luther said the law, any and all laws, were abrogated for the Christian. The word abrogate means to annul or do away with. Antinomian is a loaded word, probably not advisable to use nowadays, but for the Christian. According to Merriam Webster, an antinomian is "one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation."

According to that definition, Luther was not exactly antinomian. He did not hold that the law is of no use. On the contrary, he held that the law is useful for showing sinners their need of Christ. It works wrath, kills people, thereby demonstrating their need for salvation by faith alone. He did hold, in a sense that Christians are not obligated to obey the law, the key word  being obligated. For the spirit filled Christian, it is the natural consequence of justification 

I can understand that, as a Roman Catholic, you might have a different view of Luther, as well as a tendency to cling to any legalism you might find in his writings. In that sense, you have a lot in common with many SDA, who are very  inclined to legalism.  I heard one of its preeminent evangelists say that God called him to teach people the binding nature of the Decalogue. I doubt that. Satan may have deceived him into thinking that. The gospel, however is about freeing people from legal obligations, just as Luther correctly observed in his Galatians commentary when he sues the word "abrogate."

Since you have read his Galatians commentary, how do you explain his use of the word abrogated, vis-a- vis the law?

[Gustave]

Quote

HansenG said: Since you have read his Galatians commentary, how do you explain his use of the word abrogated, vis-a- vis the law?

In the context of one's conscience standing before God. Luther believed that the ceremonial law had been abrogated and also believed that the law was siloed along the same lines Aquinas did. Luther taught that Antinomianism was a "heresy", Lutheran's today believe that Antinomianism is still a heretical view. 

If you look up the Catechism in the council of Trent it does a good job of explaining the difference between moral and ceremonial law. This is a very simply concept to grasp, it's not legalistic at all - it's as simple as it is logical. 

Luther essentially believed the law was a mirror that showed someone how unworthy they were to receive the merits of Christ - Luther's point was that the law WASN'T a ladder to heaven. I don't really believe any differently myself. The only works that count are "works done out of love". 

The law is a "unit" and some parts of it today are not applicable to Christians. 

 

 

[Hanseng]

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

In the context of one's conscience standing before God. Luther believed that the ceremonial law had been abrogated and also believed that the law was siloed along the same lines Aquinas did. Luther taught that Antinomianism was a "heresy", Lutheran's today believe that Antinomianism is still a heretical view. 

Luther, in his Galatians commentary, specifically took issue with Aquinas' view of the law:

"When Thomas and other scholastics speak about the abrogation of the Law, they say that after Christ the civil and ceremonial laws are fatal, and that therefore they have now been abrogated, but not   V 26, p 447  the moral laws.61 These men do not know what they are saying. When you want to speak about the abrogation of the Law, discuss chiefly the Law in the proper sense of the word—the Law in the spiritual sense. Include the entire Law, without distinguishing between the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. For when Paul says that through Christ we have been set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), he is certainly speaking about the entire Law, and especially about the Moral Law. It alone actually accuses, curses, and condemns consciences; but the other two kinds do not. Therefore we say that the Law of the Decalog has no right to accuse and terrify the conscience in which Christ reigns through grace, for Christ has made this right obsolete."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 446–447). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

But here Paul is speaking principally about the abrogation of the Moral Law, and this should be considered carefully. He is arguing against the righteousness of the Law in order to establish the righteousness of faith, and he concludes: “If grace alone or faith in Christ justifies, then the entire Law has been completely abrogated.” He supports this by the testimony of Isaiah, which invites the barren and desolate church to rejoice.

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 26, pp. 448–449). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

I thought that we agreed that Luther emphasized different teachings to different people at different times. In his intro to the Large Catechism, he described the Lutheran pastors as individuals better suited to be swineherds or dogkeepers. He likened the people to pigs and dogs as far as their Scriptural knowledge, chiding them for using liberty [from the Papacy] to indulge their carnal selves. He was, in this work, functioning as a pastor rather than a theologian.  Luther's teachings set people free from Papal institutions . They were now free to  serve God or the Devil. Many, perhaps most chose darkness. Sophisticated theology, as in the Galatians commentary was not what they needed. The catechisms were for children in the faith or even without faith.

He said:

"This much is certain: anyone who knows the Ten Commandments perfectly knows the entire Scriptures."

Tappert, T. G. (Ed.). (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 361). Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press.

If meditating on the Decalogue, works for you, by all means, indulge yourself. For me, microbiology was a greater deterrent to fornication than "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Decades of "Sr. White said" didn't work for me. Luther on Galatians does. Vedanta, Daoism and Buddhism failed me as well. Jesus never fails.

[Gustave]

If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that Luther was advocating Christians ignore the law and you're getting this from your reading of Luther's commentary on Galatians. This isn't what Martin Luther is saying at all, Luther is claiming that law can no longer damn those in Christ, it's abrogated in that sense. The law is what defines sin and the Gospel would be of none-effect without the law. 

Let's look at one of your quotes here: 

Quote

HansenG quotes Martin Luther: Therefore we say that the Law of the Decalog has no right to accuse and terrify the conscience in which Christ reigns through grace, for Christ has made this right obsolete

Christ has indeed made the prior "right of the law obsolete". Luther isn't here saying the ten commandments are gone or are not obligatory at all. In Luther's mind the law was like a debt collector and if the debt the collector was collecting on has been paid in full, the collector is, by default, abrogated. It hardly means that debt or money ceases to exist. 

Look at the long preface to Luther's large Catechism, it says that the word / law must stay in the ears and on the tongue. In this preface Luther is scolding sophisticated people AND PASTORS who were blathering on about they don't need the Catechism or "the law". If Luther believed as you are positing THESE kinds of statements wouldn't be in there.  

As for Aquinas Luther was a WHALE of a lot closer to him than what you are maintaining. 

Luther and Aquinas both agreed that the "moral" law of God was unchanging. 

Luther and Aquinas both agreed that ceremonial laws were done away with. 

Luther and Aquinas both agreed that the Judicial and civil laws applied to Israel - that there may be some good points in there but broadly there were NOT binding whatsoever on states subsequent to Christ. 

"The law" is ONE UNIT and within it are these moral, ceremonial and civil commandments. Because God is Moral His Moral laws do not change. Ceremonial laws on the other hand do. 

[Gustave]

Quote

HansenG said: I thought that we agreed that Luther emphasized different teachings to different people at different times. In his intro to the Large Catechism, he described the Lutheran pastors as individuals better suited to be swineherds or dogkeepers.

Yes, he did. And he did it because those same pastors and sophisticated people were adopting antinomianism. THAT's why he was publicly rebuking them.  

[Gustave]

Do you know any Lutherans who are theology nerds or just basic Lutheran church goers? I'm telling you they would listen to what you are saying and immediately disagree with it. Yes, Luther is sometimes hard to pin down but this isn't one of those things. 

[Hanseng]

 

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that Luther was advocating Christians ignore the law and you're getting this from your reading of Luther's commentary on Galatians.

 

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

Do you know any Lutherans who are theology nerds or just basic Lutheran church goers? I'm telling you they would listen to what you are saying and immediately disagree with it.

[Hanseng]

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

Because God is Moral His Moral laws do not change. 

Really? Do the redeemed and the angels need to be reminded to not make graven images or take God's name in vain

[Hanseng]

 

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

If I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that Luther was advocating Christians ignore the law and you're getting this from your reading of Luther's commentary on Galatians.

 

Gustave, You are not understanding me at all. I'm saying what Luther said in his Galatians commentary more than 40 times. All laws are abrogated for the Christian. The law has  power  to condemn. Since there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, Laws, for the Christian, have been annulled.

You have made a number of false or misleading statements regarding "Against the Antinomians," the "Large Catechism, "Table Talk" Thomas Aquinas, et al. Most Roman Catholics are, ~by definition, hostile to and prejudiced against Luther. Discussing Luther with you is like discussing Jesus with a recalcitrant  Jew.

A  Lutheran seminary graduate appeared on another website, didn't seem to know what the Loci Communes was. You expect me to learn from him, when I have studied three different editions of it? I visited an ELCA Lutheran seminary. The homosexual milieu which I noted  discouraged me from further interest. Of course I would likely profit from consecrated, educated Lutheran scholars from the LCMS. Since I can read and understand, for the most part, what I do read, I can also profit from the study of Luther's Works, preserved in more than 50 volumes. I have also found Lenker's several volumes set of Luther's sermons useful. Perhaps if you spent more time reading the introductory material in LW, you wouldn't make some of the  erroneous assertions that you have.

Using the word "antinomian" as I did likely triggered you; however, anyone familiar with Luther's Galatians commentary, would have understood my meaning

[Gustave]

Quote

HansenG said: You have made a number of false or misleading statements regarding "Against the Antinomians," the "Large Catechism, "Table Talk" Thomas Aquinas, et al. Most Roman Catholics are, ~by definition, hostile to and prejudiced against Luther. Discussing Luther with you is like discussing Jesus with a recalcitrant  Jew.

LOL. Well, you're not wrong that I'm not a fan of Martin Luther but I'm not seeing how I've misrepresented him. I'm telling you what a Lutheran Pastor would tell you in the context of Luther NOT being an Antinomian. What it seems like is that you have purchased a lot of Luther's works and read them through the Lense of some SDA rubric to the degree that your "work product" has you disagreeing with Lutheran Scholars. When I was younger, I remember hearing all the time where people would say Luther said to "SIN BOLDLY" and that was the PROOF that Lucifer was blowing teachings into his ears. I learned later on in life this was a strawman attack. I hope you reach out to some Lutheran Pastors

I simply can't imagine myself ever being a Protestant or a Restorationist (SDA) but is some bizarre universe I suppose I would be a Lutheran (as difficult as it is to imagine). 

Quote

HansenG said: Gustave, You are not understanding me at all. I'm saying what Luther said in his Galatians commentary more than 40 times. All laws are abrogated for the Christian. The law has  power  to condemn. Since there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, Laws, for the Christian, have been annulled.

You're not understanding me at all. Luther was found of using the husband / wife analogy. When the husband (LAW) died the woman (Christian) was abrogated or set free from the legal bond she formally had to her marriage. This reality (that I agree with) doesn't mean that the woman (Christian) is no longer obligated to be a good person (which you appear to be claiming Luther taught). 

Law / Gospel 

mirror / hammer

I don't think you understand these concepts Luther believed. 

Quote

HansenG said: A  Lutheran seminary graduate appeared on another website, didn't seem to know what the Loci Communes was. You expect me to learn from him, when I have studied three different editions of it? I visited an ELCA Lutheran seminary. The homosexual milieu which I noted  discouraged me from further interest.

Ya see, we totally agree on something. Any Christian worth their weight in day old fish wrap that's been sitting out in the hot sun has less than zero business going to an ELCA seminary. I'd convert to SDAism before I joined a slop hole like that. You need to reach out to a traditional Lutheran and that means WELS,  LCMS, ELS, CLC or LCR. There are PLENTY of those around and that's where you are going to get Lutheranism. 

Quote

HansenG said: Perhaps if you spent more time reading the introductory material in LW, you wouldn't make some of the  erroneous assertions that you have.

I would bet money a Jehovah's Witness who's "studied" Luther would come to similar conclusions to what you have. You need some guidance, badly. It's like your attempting to protect something precious to SDA theology so you're reading Luther in a way Lutherans wouldn't even agree with. I can tell you that a Lutheran seminarian would absolutely disagree with you and this next week I'll reach out to a few and relay what they said about your understandings. 

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Well, you're not wrong that I'm not a fan of Martin Luther but I'm not seeing how I've misrepresented him.

Simply put, you have stated that the Large Catechism, Against the Antinomians, and some off the cuff remarks he made at dinner negate what he said more than 40 times in his Galatians commentary, as far as the Christian is concerned, the law, including the Decalogue, has been abrogated. You make it sound like Luther and Thomas were drinking buddies, might share a beer over a game of chess. Luther said Thomas didn't know what the was talking about with reference to the issue I have raised. 

You don't need Luther to tell you that. Paul said the same thing in Timothy " the law is not for the righteous"; in Romans "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all that believe; "There is therefore no condemnation in Christ." Romans 7:4 and Galatians 2:19 both say we are dead to the law. The law has gotten its pound of flesh from us because Christ's death is also imputed to us. In Jesus, we have paid the price for our sin. We died with Christ and rose to a new life in him, free from the condemnation of the law, i.e., the law has been abrogated as far as we are concerned

Your quarrel is not with Luther or me it is with the word of God, with the theology of salvation in Christ, with Jesus Himself.

You can shop all around for some Lutheran scholars who agree with you. If they say that Luther did not say more than 40 times in his Galatians commentary that the Decalogue has been abrogated for the Christian, then, Luther said of Thomas, they don't know what they are talking about.

I can't say about Lutheran scholars in general, however, I doubt that most are not different from SDA scholars, i.e., mere hirelings, more interested in maintaining their salary and benefits package than they are in proclaiming the truth. If they had any scruples or brains, they would know that Luther was wrong about baptism and the Lord's Supper. Some probably do but they dare not say it, unless they are willing to lose their positions, which few are. Interesting to note how many SDA pastors, once retired, suddenly see the light and renounce their former errors. One editor of an SDA media mag essentially admitted in an editorial that he was a hypocrite for taking money from a denomination whose doctrines he didn't believe. I doubt the denomination or the tithe payers, whose sweat he lived off of, will be getting a refund.

[Hanseng]

Gustave, Did you get your objections in some CliffsNotes prepared by reactionary pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics? Your objections evince a poor understanding of what Luther said and meant. Luther's Large Catechism was prepared for "children," the "weak", the "simple-minded." It also includes a commentary on the Apostles Creed and the Our Father. The Large Catechism was intended as a type of primer to introduce Christianity to those previously mentioned. The exposition of the Decalogue intended to set forth the requirements of God, i.e., what we owe him. The exposition of the Creed explains that we can never give to God what we owe him. The Creed is about what God gives and does for us.

This approach is typical of Luther who believed the purpose of the law is to reveal  to man his sinful, even accursed, standing before God. As Galatians says, "The law is a custodian to bring us to Christ." Once we arrive, the work of the custodian is complete, hence the use of the term abrogated to describe its function in the Christian's life. Unlike Melanchthon and Calvin, who held to the third use of the law, Luther, in his Galatians commentary did not consider an ongoing roll for the Decalogue in the Christian's life. He saw a twofold use, not a threefold use.

If you do question some LCMS scholars, find out who first proposed a threefold use of the law, Calvin or Melanchthon. Also if they can provide more than an implication that Luther endorsed a threefold use of the law, contra the twofold use set forth in his Galatians commentary.

On 3/19/2026 at 8:28 AM, Gustave said:

Look at the long preface to Luther's large Catechism, it says that the word / law must stay in the ears and on the tongue. In this preface Luther is scolding sophisticated people AND PASTORS who were blathering on about they don't need the Catechism or "the law". If Luther believed as you are positing THESE kinds of statements wouldn't be in there.  

I didn't see any evidence that Luther was scolding sophisticated people and antinomian pastors in his Preface to the Large Catechism. Perhaps you should attend a Lutheran seminary, give up the CliffsNotes approach to critiquing Lutheran theology The Small Catechism also published in 1529 said this: 

"The deplorable conditions which I recently encountered when I was a visitor constrained me to prepare this brief and simple catechism or statement of Christian teaching.
2 Good God, what wretchedness I beheld! The common people, especially those who live in the country, have no knowledge whatever of Christian teaching, and unfortunately many pastors are quite incompetent and unfitted for teaching." Martin Luther

Tappert, T. G. (Ed.). (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 338). Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press.

 

 

[Hanseng]

On 3/17/2026 at 11:22 PM, Gustave said:

The only works that count are "works done out of love". 

Not clear what you mean here. ALL our righteousness is as filthy rags. No works count in reference to justification. 

[Gregory Matthews]

i suppose it is easy to think that since we may consider Luther to be the Father of the Reformation that he rejected all of his Catholic background.  I think that such would be false.  I would suspect that he maintained some of his Catholic background.  In my experience, I find that converts to Adventism from a Catholic background maintain some of their Catholic faith and practices.  

In short, I suspect that Luther probably maintained his Catholic understanding of the Ten Commandments.  I suspect that this is what scholars from the Lutheran church would say. 

NOTE": Catholics and Adventists do not disagree on every aspect of the Christian faith.

[Hanseng]

On 3/25/2026 at 9:12 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

I would suspect that he maintained some of his Catholic background. 

Luther's view of graven images evinces the truth of what you have said. His position was that when the people themselves realize the futility of images, they will naturally discard their use. The Reformed, on the other hand, went about destroying images and art they considered idolatrous, angering the populace who appreciated them. Consequently, more than 50,000 people were killed in the Netherlands, at least in part, over this issue. Those who fell on St. Bartholomew's day in France were also Reformed. An iconoclastic group arose in Germany. It brought Luther out of hiding to put a stop to it; consequently, there were few killings in Germany over this issue. Infant baptism is another relic from his Papal days. Canon 854 allows for baptism to be by sprinkling of immersion. Can't say whether this was true in Reformation times.

[Hanseng]

On 3/25/2026 at 9:12 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

In short, I suspect that Luther probably maintained his Catholic understanding of the Ten Commandments.  I suspect that this is what scholars from the Lutheran church would say. 

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.

[Hanseng]

"It is customary in theology to distinguish a three-fold use of the law.

1. The three defined. We distinguish:

a. A usus politicus or civilis. The law serves the purpose of restraining sin and promoting righteousness. Considered from this point of view, the law presupposes sin and is necessary on account of sin. It serves the purpose of God’s common grace in the world at large. This means that from this point of view it cannot be regarded a means of grace in the technical sense of the word.

b. A usus elenchticus or pedagogicus. In this capacity the law serves the purpose of bringing man under conviction of sin, and of making him conscious of his inability to meet the demands of the law. In that way the law becomes his tutor to lead him unto Christ, and thus becomes subservient to God’s gracious purpose of redemption.

c. A usus didacticus or normativus. This is the so-called tertius usus legis, the third use of the law. The law is a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. This third use of the law is denied by the Antinomians."

 Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic Theology (pp. 614–615). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Galatians commentary, preserved in LW vol. 26, pp. 307, 308, Luther mentions only a. and b.,thereby fulfilling Berkhof's definition of an antinomian.

[Gustave]

On 3/24/2026 at 5:06 PM, Hanseng said:

Not clear what you mean here. ALL our righteousness is as filthy rags. No works count in reference to justification. 

Here, this will explain what I mean. 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

HansenG said: Gustave, Did you get your objections in some CliffsNotes prepared by reactionary pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics? Your objections evince a poor understanding of what Luther said and meant.

In my absence I've had two different Lutheran Professors with Doctorates weigh your understandings and out of charity I'll just say they did not agree with your findings as it pertains to Martin Luther's understanding of the law. 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. In fact, "absurd" was one of the words used by one of the professors who looked at your understanding.