Luther cannot assure us sufficiently often that man is nothing but sin,
and sins in everything. His reason is that concupiscence remains in man
after baptism. This concupiscence he looks upon as real sin, in fact
it is the original sin, enduring original sin, so that original sin is
not removed by baptism, remains obdurate to all subsequent justifying
grace,[221] and, until death, can, at the utmost, only be diminished.
He says expressly, quite against the Church’s teaching, that original
sin is only covered over in baptism, and he tries to support this
by a misunderstood text from Augustine and by misrepresenting
Scholasticism.[222]
Augustine teaches with clearness and precision in many passages that
original sin is blotted out by baptism and entirely remitted;[223]
Luther, however, quotes him to the opposite effect. The passage in
question occurs in _De nuptiis et concupiscentia_ (l., c. xxv.,
n. 28) where Luther makes this Father say: sin (_peccatum_) is
forgiven in baptism, not so that it no longer remains, but that it
is no longer imputed.[224] Whereas what Augustine actually says
is: the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven, etc. (“_dimitti
concupiscentiam carnis non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non
imputetur_”). And yet Luther was acquainted with the true reading of
the passage—which is really opposed to his view—as he had annotated
it in the margin of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, where it is
correctly given.[225] Luther, after having thus twisted the passage
as above, employs it frequently later.[226] In the original lecture
on the Epistle to the Romans he has, it is true, added to the text,
after the word “_peccatum_,” the word “_concupiscentia_,” as the new
editor points out, in excuse of Luther.[227] But on the preceding page
Luther adds in exactly the same way in two passages of his own text
where he speaks of “_peccatum_,” the word “_concupiscentia_,” so that
his addition to Augustine cannot be regarded as a mere correction
of a false citation, all the less since the incorrect form is found
unaltered elsewhere in his writings.[228]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account