“…Denifle denied [Luther] veracity, depicted a lecherous young man ridden by unconquerable concupiscence of the flesh, and later exhibited a bloated besotted beast given to vile ragings and obscene vituperation. Luther had been wicked very wicked indeed—why, his own words about culpa, culpa, mea maxima culpa!" and his inability to find peace even behind monastery walls convict him! Unable to find any goodness even with God's grace Luther in final desperation simply "invented" forgiveness for nothing, i.e., justification through faith—and then advised "pecca fortiter," sin boldly! Thus he unleashed all the wicked passions of the Evangelical Reformation.”[2]

Rev. Peter Guilday from the Catholic University of America stated, “…Every Catholic should acquaint himself with the life story of the man whose followers can never explain away the anarchy of that immoral dogma: ‘Be a sinner, and sin boldly; but believe more boldly still’.”[3] Father O’Hare proclaims, “The defenders of Luther do not deny the recommendation he addressed to Melanchthon. To hide its grossness, however, they, in the blasphemy of despair, have edited and interpreted the recommendation so as to give it a turn and a meaning altogether unwarranted and untenable.”[4] The truth is, Luther quite seriously penned the exhortation to “sin boldly”. Contrary to Reverend Guilday, it doesn’t take that much reading of Luther’s writings to acquaint oneself with Luther’s basic theological understanding of faith and works. Nor is it necessary to “spin” the words “sin boldly” to get Luther off the hook as Father O’Hare suggests.

The purpose of this paper is to answer these charges. As a quick background overview, the first part of this paper will examine Luther’s concept of justification by faith alone and its relation to good works. It will be established that Luther held good works to be the result of living faith. Good works were to be carried out by those grateful to God for His mercy, for the benefit of others rather than personal gain (be it temporal or spiritual). This will serve as the theological context by which the comment “sin boldly” will be analyzed.

The second part of this paper will look specifically at Luther’s comment to “sin boldly.” Rather than proving that Luther lived an immoral life and advocated perpetual sin for Protestants, or that he invented justification by faith alone in order to enjoy sin, the words “sin boldly” in context of both the letter they occur in, and Luther’s basic theology prove the exact opposite.

The third section of this paper takes a look at a few Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther’s “sin boldly” comment. Have they understood what Luther meant? Have they fairly treated Luther’s theology and life?

The last section contains extensive quotes from Luther establishing his basic understanding of the relationship between faith and works. Quotes from Luther on what constitutes “bad works” are provided for contrast. The quotes are provided to show that those who quote Luther’s “sin boldly” statement do so at the expense of his entire written corpus. Luther’s Godly attitude towards faith, works, salvation and his exhortations against sin are blatantly and explicitly throughout his writings, in some case the subject of entire treatises. To ignore the obvious while scrutinizing the obscure proves sadly that truth in research is not the goal of many who approach Luther from a non-Protestant perspective.

II. Luther And Good Works

Does justification by faith alone provide a license for sin? Luther was acutely aware of this allegation. In a sermon, he summarized the charge leveled against him: “Where the Gospel begins to loose the conscience of its own works, it seems to forbid good works and the keeping of the law. It is the common speech of all the teachers of the law, and of the scribes and doctors, to say: If all our works amount to nothing and if the works done under the law are evil, we will never do good. You forbid good works and throw away God's law; you heretic, you…wish to make bad people free.”[5]

Luther understood that even our best efforts were tainted with sin. If God demands perfection in order for one to be justified before Him, no one would ever be justified. For Luther, justification was actually totally of works, but those works were perfect and performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner. Luther says, “[I]f you desire to believe rightly and to possess Christ truly, then you must reject all works that you intend to place before and in the way of God. They are only stumbling blocks, leading you away from Christ and from God. Before God no works are acceptable but Christ's own works. Let these plead for you before God, and do no other work before him than to believe that Christ is doing his works for you and is placing them before God in your behalf.”[6]

For Luther grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory.” But isn’t the Roman Catholic charge against Luther valid? If God judges a man by Christ’s perfect works, why should any Christian ever care about leading a righteous life? If grace, faith, and justification are God’s gifts, what is left for us to do? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Paul answers for Luther in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Faith performs good works, not to keep one justified, but out of heartfelt gratitude to God graciousness. Salvation is unto good works. Note what this means: good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them.

“Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.”[7] Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith."[8] The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not.[9] Luther says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…”[10]

But what are good works then? Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by “devout” Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered “good works” one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation. These works take one down a completely opposite road. Luther said of these alleged works:

“How they mislead people with their good works! They call good works what God has not commanded, as pilgrimages, fasting, building and decorating their churches in honor of the saints, saying mass, paying for vigils, praying with rosaries, much prattling and bawling in churches, turning nun, monk, priest, using special food, raiment or dwelling,-who can enumerate all the horrible abominations and deceptions? This is the pope's government and holiness.”[11]

Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ.”[12] Only what God commands is a good work: “Everybody should consider precious and glorious whatever God commands, even though it were no more than picking a wisp of straw from the ground.”[13] Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation. Luther says, “…[W]e are not to do them merely because we fear death or hell, or because we love heaven, but because our spirit goes out freely in love of, and delight in, righteousness.”[14] Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith.

Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.”[15]

It is with this theological background in mind that we come to Luther’s “sin boldly” statement. Based on this background, the words do indeed appear to be out of place. Why would Luther tell someone to “sin boldly” if he believed in a living faith showing its vitality by its works? How could Luther say something so diametrically opposed to his very theological paradigms?

III. The Context of the “Sin Boldly” Statement

It’s important now to establish the literary context that contains Luther’s statement to “sin boldly.” After the Diet of Worms in April 1521, Luther found himself in great danger. The papacy and the Emperor were united against him. To be deemed a heretic almost certainly meant death. In 1521, Luther had been placed in hiding after the Diet of Worms. He stayed in an empty Castle, the Wartburg, near his boyhood school town Eisenach.

Luther wrote many letters from the Wartburg. On August 1, 1521 Luther wrote to Phillip Melanchthon. The letter is now but a fragment. It has no address, salutation, or signature, but scholars are certain whom it came from and whom it went to. The majority of the letter has nothing to do with “sinning boldly.” Luther discusses a variety of topics: “Commenting on Karlstadt’s theses of June 21 and July 19, Luther develops his ideas on clerical and monastic celibacy, on communion “in both kinds,” on the private mass, and on the dynamics of faith.”[16]

The letter itself begins mid-thought, as if the first page were missing. Luther is in the middle of discussing marriage and celibacy: “Paul speaks very openly concerning the priests. He says demons have forbidden them to marry. Since the voice of Paul is the voice of the Divine Majesty, I do not doubt that it must be trusted in this matter. Therefore even if they have consented to the devil’s prohibition at the time of their initiation, then now, knowing the true state of the case and with whom they made their pact, the contract should be boldly broken.”[17] Luther then moves on to communion “in both kinds.” During the middle ages, people were denied the element of wine during communion. Since the wine was the actual blood of Christ, people could not be trusted with it- what if it was spilled? Luther discusses whether or not those who receive only one of the communion elements partake in sin. If the Lord’s Supper was both bread and wine, is not failing to partake in both elements a sin? Luther says no (Luther came down critically on Karlstadt, who fought to gain leadership in Wittenberg during Luther’s absence. Karlstadt was teaching that receiving only one element was a sin [18]). Luther though does point to a sinful action in the matter. He points out that only those in charge that deprive the church of both elements are guilty: “Who will deny, however, that they who do consent to [giving only one of the elements] and approve of it—I mean the papists—are not Christians and are guilty of sin?”[19] Luther comes down harshly on the papacy as acting sinfully by withholding the wine from the laity.

Luther tells Melanchthon that he is pleased the people of Wittenberg are receiving both the bread and wine during communion, and that some of the tyranny imposed on the Lord’s Supper by the Papacy has been overcome by this. Luther exhorts Melanchthon, “Let us pray to the Lord, I beseech you, that he hasten to give us a larger portion of his Spirit, for I suspect that the Lord will soon visit Germany, as its unbelief, impiety, and hatred of the gospel deserve.”[20] Indeed, the leaders of the Reformation needed to be strengthened by God’s Spirit: Luther knew restoring correct doctrine and practice to the church would be met with great opposition. Whatever anarchy that arose in Wittenberg would be charged to the account of the Reformers. Luther says, “But of course this plague will then be charged to us on the grounds that we heretics have provoked God, and we will be scorned by men and despised by the people.”[21] While the Reformers are charged with anarchy, the “papists” who really are at fault (since they had corrupted the Lord’s Supper) will come up with reasons why they are not to be blamed: “ [The papists], however, will find excuses for their sins, and will justify themselves; [God will thus prove] that the wicked cannot be made good, either by kindness or by wrath, and that many will be tempted to do evil. The Lord’s will be done.”[22]

IV. Sin Boldly: A Detailed Analysis

The Letter to Melanchthon ends with the famous “sin boldly” statement:

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”[23]

It’s important to work slowly through this striking exhortation to Melanchthon, remembering that Wittenberg was not a calm spiritual community. It was a place under turmoil. Melanchthon was to face trials both from within his own small group of leaders and outside from the political juggernauts of the papacy and the empire. The situations involving marriage, celibacy, and the Lord’s Supper discussed above may seem like debatable academic subjects to the modern reader, but during these early years of the Reformation they were important societal topics that provoked deep emotion. Changes in these practices were changes in the very fabric of society. Luther encourages his co-worker to stand strong in the faith. The very community that Luther was responsible for was in the hands of Melanchthon.[24] Luther’s final exhortation in this letter is for Melanchthon to hold fast to the firm gospel of Jesus Christ. Whatever trouble may come, Melanchthon was to be true to the Gospel.

What follows is a line-by-line analysis of the paragraph containing the exhortation to “sin boldly.”

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace…”

Luther exhorts Melanchthon to stand firm and preach the pure gospel. The pure gospel proclaims God’s true grace. It is a grace that actually forgives all a man’s sins, without any works of penance geared toward eventual justification. The papal system Luther was part of taught that God’s grace could be attained by faith combined good works, and that the sacrament of penance must be carried out to completely forgive a man for sin. This would be a fictitious grace. As Ewald Plass points out, “The concept of grace was, of course, not unknown to Luther the Catholic. But this term, as so many others, had become a ‘weasel word’ in the Church of Rome, a word emptied of its Scriptural meaning. Thus grace was turned ‘from the divine source of pardon and forgiveness into an infused ability (gratia infusa) of man to perform good works for his own salvation.’ ”[25]

“…if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners.”

What does Luther mean “fictitious sin”? Perhaps he has in mind what he had just discussed: people thinking they were sinning by only receiving the bread and not the wine in the Lord’s Supper. This would indeed be a fictitious sin. Elsewhere though, Luther describes the “fictitious sins” concocted by the papacy:

“There are commandments and teachings of the pope which say nothing at all about faith in Christ, as the Gospel does, but merely about obedience to him in bodily, trivial, trifling matters, such as the eating of meat, observing festivals, fasting, dressing, etc. Yet the pope has emphasized and extolled these far more than God's Word, and they are feared and followed far more, have more thoroughly terrified and captivated consciences, and have made hell far hotter than did both God's Law and His Gospel. For they have given little regard to unbelief, blasphemy, adultery, murder, theft, and whatever else is opposed to Christ and His command; for these sins penance was quickly done and forgiveness given. But when someone touched one of the pope's commandments, the bulls had to come with lightning and thunder. This was called damned disobedience and brought a man under the ban of the pope. Now heaven and earth had to tremble in terror. But when sins against God were concerned, sins in which they themselves are drowned, not a leaf stirred. On the contrary, they mocked and laughed at the matter in great security, as they do to this day. Besides this, they persecute and murder in a cruel manner all who esteem God’s commandment above the commandment of their abomination. The pope wants God and His Word under him; he wants himself enthroned above them. This is his regime and nature. Without these he could not be the Antichrist.”[26]

Luther says that God does not save people who are only “fictitious sinners.” No, God saves actual sinners. “Luther often called actual sin, as does Scripture…spiritual adultery.”[27] Luther says all men have a “lust for divinity”: “No sin troubles us as severely as the lust after divinity. Of course, the lust of the flesh is also a furiously strong urge, yet it is only a form (of sin) and nothing in comparison with spiritual lust or fornication.”[28] All actual sins are attempts to deify ourselves. As Ewald Plass points out, “At the heart of every sin which our corrupt nature moves us to commit is the burning desire to recognize no one as superior to ourselves…Luther points to this as the common denominator of all actual sins.”[29] In our zeal to be our own gods, we psychological say, “I do not believe God’s ways are the right way for me.” Thus, at our spiritual roots, our actions are the result of unbelief in the heart- a blatant disbelief that God’s way is the best way. We are all indeed, actual sinners.

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.”

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and this statement is a perfect example. Luther doesn't write analytical theology. He writes profound verbose sentiment driving one to think deeply.

The first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther's point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith. But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.”[30]

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

It also should be pointed out, Luther was not simply telling Melanchthon to try really hard to be “bold”. Elsewhere Luther points out that the Holy Spirit is that which makes one bold. Preaching on John 15: ‘And ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning,’ Luther tells his hearers that Christ is saying:

“Yes; then, first, when you become certain of your faith through the Holy Spirit, who is your witness, you must also bear witness of me, for to that end I chose you to be apostles. You have heard my words and teachings and have seen my works and life and all things that you are to preach. But the Holy Spirit must first be present; otherwise you can do nothing, for the conscience is too weak. Yes, there is no sin so small that the conscience could vanquish it, even if it were so trifling a one as laughing in church, Again, in the presence of death the conscience is far too weak to offer resistance. Therefore another must come and give to the timid, despairing conscience, courage to go through everything, although all sins be upon it. And it must, at the same time, be an almighty courage, like he alone can give who ministers strength in such a way that the courage, which before a rustling leaf could cause to fear, is now not afraid of all the devils, and the conscience that before could not restrain laughing, now restrains all sins.”[31]

“As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.”

This is simply the same message Paul proclaims in Romans 7. Even though a man has been justified by Christ and had His righteousness imputed to him, the remnants of sin still remain. Paul says,

“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”

For Luther, the remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”[32]

“No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Luther’s critics often quote this statement. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.”[33] The above statement is a perfect example. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Secondly, one must recall the recipient of this letter: Phillip Melanchthon. No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once. The Lutheran writer W.H.T. Dau presents the absurdity of the arguments put forth by Roman Catholic authors along these lines:

“ ‘Be a sinner, and sin bravely, but believe more bravely still’- this is the chef d’oeuvre of the muck-rackers in Luther’s life…What caused Luther to write these words? Did Melanchthon contemplate some crime which he was too timid to perpetrate? According to the horrified expressions of Catholics that must have been the situation. Luther, in their view, says to Melanchthon: Philip, you are a simpleton. Why scruple about a sin? You are confined in the trammels of very narrow-minded moral views. You must get rid of them. Have the courage to be wicked. Make a hero of yourself by executing some bold piece of iniquity. Be an ‘Uebermensch.’ Sin with brazen unconcern; be a fornicator, a murderer, a liar, a thief, defy every moral statute,- only do not forget to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. His grace is intended, not for hesitating, craven sinners, but for audacious, spirited, high minded criminals…Can the reader induce himself to believe that Luther advised Melanchthon to do what he himself knew was a moral impossibility to himself because of his relation to God?…What brave sin did Melanchthon actually commit upon being thus advised by Luther?”[34]

On the other hand, Luther ends by saying, “you too are a mighty sinner” so “pray boldly.” Here, Luther points out the seriousness of sin. While Christ’s sacrifice and work are infinite enough to cover the most heinous of sins, any sin in a person’s life makes them a “mighty sinner” in need of a savior. A little sinner winds up in Hell just as the mighty sinners do, thus we are all really mighty enough sinners to deserve damnation.

That Luther’s words should not be taken literally is clear from statements he made elsewhere about heinous sin:

“Works only reveal faith, just as fruits only show the tree, whether it is a good tree. I say, therefore, that works justify, that is, they show that we have been justified, just as his fruits show that a man is a Christian and believes in Christ, since he does not have a feigned faith and life before men. For the works indicate whether I have faith. I conclude, therefore, that he is righteous, when I see that he does good works. In God’s eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not. As Paul says, we ought not to trust a faith which is false, as when someone believes he is a part of the church although he meanwhile still whores [I Cor. 5:11]. In this I see that he is not a good tree and when he glories saying, “I am a part,” I can argue against him, “You are not part of the church, because your works are evil.” Therefore, those works are also evidence to himself and to others about him whether he has the true faith. For those who glory that they are Christians and do not show this faith by such works, as this sinful woman does, but persist up to the present and live in open sins, in whoring and adultery, are not Christians at all. For the Christian shows his life and that he has been made a Christian by love and good works and flees all vices. We should not be a part of the church in number only, as the hypocrites, but also by our works, so that our heavenly Father may be glorified. Love merits forgiveness of sins, that is, love reveals that his sins have been forgiven.”[35]

For Luther, outward sins like murder and adultery were obviously bad. But these were only a symptom of unbelief, which is the root of all outward sin. In a sermon on Luke 18, Luther discusses the faith of the Publican as compared to the works of the Pharisee:

“Now let us better see and hear what the Lord says to this. There stands the publican and humbles himself, says nothing of fasting, nothing of his good works, nor of anything. Yet the Lord says that his sins are not so great as the sins of the hypocrite; even in spite of anyone now exalting himself above the lowest sinner. If I exalt myself a finger's breadth above my neighbor, or the vilest sinner, then am I cast down. For the publican during his whole life did not do as many and as great sins as this Pharisee does here when he says: I thank thee God that, I am not as other men are; and lies enough to burst all heaven. From him you hear no word like: "God, be thou merciful to me a sinner!" God's mercy, sympathy, patience and love are all forgotten by him, while God is nothing but pure mercy, and he who does not know this, thinks there is no God, as in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath Said in his heart, There is no God." So it is with an unbeliever who does not know himself. Therefore I say one thing more, if he had committed the vilest sin and deflowered virgins, it would not have been as bad as when he says: "I thank thee God, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Yes, yes, do I hear you have no need of God and despise his goodness, mercy, love and everything that God is? Behold, these are thy sins. Hence the public gross sins that break out are insignificant; but unbelief which is in the heart and we cannot see, this is the real sin in which monks and priests strut forth; these lost and corrupt ones are sunk head and ears in this sin, and pretend to be entirely free from it.”[36]

In the above statement, one can see Luther’s brilliance with language and theological insight. How many of us think of unbelief as an extreme heinous sin? Compared to blatant fornication or murder, unbelief seems to us as not so bad. Luther though realizes that unbelief is a sin against a holy God, and thus more heinous than any amount of murder or adultery. A sin against a perfect infinite being deserves a perfect infinite punishment. All of us are indeed, mighty sinners.

V. The Roman Catholic Interpretation of Luther’s “Sin Boldly”

One of the enjoyable aspects of studying Luther’s theology is the ease it takes to read his writings. His sermons are lucid and simple. Most of his treatises are devoid of difficult theological and philosophical jargon. Humor and wit, as well as profound theological insight can be found frequently. It’s no wonder the great Catholic historian Joseph Lortz commented, “Luther was a genius with language. Spontaneously his thoughts found concrete expression in the most sensitive of linguistic phrasing. It would perhaps be more exact to say that his thoughts take form in words!”[37] “One is tempted simply to quote him--his wonderful outpouring of self, his tireless thrust to discover and express, his massive power, the immeasurable height, breadth, and depth of the message, the astounding vitality and fullness present in this man so captivated by the spirit of Scripture.”[38]

But on the other hand, Luther can be easy to misinterpret. Literary paradigms and context must be carefully evaluated. There are also certain theological paradigms that must be understood in order to come to a full understanding of his writings. Part of the reason “sin boldly” is so frequently misinterpreted is for this very reason. Robert Preus speculates, “Melanchthon, to whom these words [sin boldly] were addressed, probably did not understand them fully, and neither have many other people.”[39] I would not be so ‘bold’ to make such a statement about Melanchthon, but Preus is simply stating the obvious: Luther’s “sin boldly” statement is easily misconstrued.

Even though below I document examples of “sin boldly” being misinterpreted, simply because one is Roman Catholic in one’s theology does not necessarily mean Luther cannot be understood. Not all Catholics misunderstand Luther’s theology or misinterpret Luther’s “sin boldly” statement. For instance, an article at Catholic Answers from This Rock Magazine articulated an accurate interpretation:

“Luther had failed to find peace of soul in ascetic self-discipline and efforts at "good works." He never declared a good life unnecessary. His "pecca fortiter sed crede fortius" (sin boldly but believe still more firmly) was not meant to be an encouragement to yield to sin without scruple. He intended simply that however great a sinner one may be, granted repentance, he can be justified solely by faith. But to be zealous for good works, thinking them to be a means to salvation, was to manifest a lack of faith in God's power to save.”[40]

Despite my strong disagreement with the majority of the article, the article did at least correctly note that Luther was not against living an upright life, nor was he against good works. Luther didn’t encourage sinning. The article correctly points out Luther held sinners can only be justified by faith alone. Works will not contribute anything to salvation.

Unfortunately, many Roman Catholics do misunderstand Luther’s words. The fault in most cases should lie on the difficult nature of Luther’s words, rather than on an intended vilification. Without knowledge of Luther’s underlying theological paradigms, the historical context of Luther’s life, and the immediate context the words occur in, misunderstanding is almost guaranteed. There are though, some professional Roman Catholic writers that should know better due to their knowledge of Luther and familiarity with his writings. To these we now turn.

-Catholic Scholars That Misinterpret Luther’s “Sin Boldly”-

Father Patrick O’Hare: The Facts About Luther

Father Patrick O’Hare published his book, The Facts About Luther on the 400^th anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses in 1917. The book eventually sank below the surface and went out of print. It would have remained obscure, but the Catholic publisher Tan books resurrected it in 1987, and its probably more popular now than it was when first published. The Facts About Luther claims “The Luther of fiction is being more and more obscured by the Luther of fact.” The book promises that “The whole gamut of the apostate’s life is here described in a calm, impartial manner which permits no gainsaying…The reader may take up this work with assurance that here there is no unfair attack upon the founder of Protestantism. It is not with a spirit of bitterness or bigotry that Monsignor O’Hare describes the real Luther.”[41] O’Hare did have access to a large corpus of Luther’s writings, as well as having access to a great number of Protestant historical sources. O’Hare should have been able to understand Luther’s “sin boldly” statement. Unfortunately, he states,

“ ‘Be a sinner,’ [Luther] says, ‘sin boldly and fearlessly.’ The command embodied in the unsuspicious words set at naught all the laws of morality and gives wide scope to human freedom and to disorder. The thought of the degrading recommendation makes the blood run cold in the veins of decent, law-abiding people.”[42]

“Luther's pronouncement, ‘Be a sinner and sin boldly,’ has only one meaning, namely, a command to transgress the Divine Law, insult God and open up the way to the commission of crime and iniquity.”[43]

O’Hare’s misinterpretation of Luther’s “sin boldly” is due to the gross literalism he applies to the text. By setting up a strawman interpretation, he then proceeds to hurl invective at Luther relentlessly for about two pages. Protestants who correctly avoid such gross literalism O’Hare says, “have edited and interpreted the recommendation so as to give it a turn and a meaning altogether unwarranted and untenable.”[44] O’Hare says,

“Luther said: ‘Be a sinner and sin boldly.’ His supporters, to hoodwink and deceive their followers, claim that the imperative mood used by Luther is not here to be read imperatively, and according to them, ‘Be a sinner and sin boldly’ means, ‘even supposing thou art a sinner and dost sin boldly.’ This interpretation is ingenious, but like all their methods of defense to escape from the infamy of Luther's teaching, as Anderdon remarks, "the deploying of imperatives into subjunctives, suppositions, exaggerations, reductions ad absurdum, will never make the imperative mood read otherwise than as a clear, distinct injunction. Until some more formidable line of defense be invented, we must take Luther's words to mean, as they manifestly indicate, a recommendation, an exhortation and an injunction to mutiny, rebellion and disobedience to the Supreme Lawgiver, who directed all to observe and not disrespect His Commandments.”[45]

Contrary to O’Hare’s conclusion, this passage can be read otherwise, that is, in context. Simply because the imperative mood is used does not mean the command is literal in context. One wonders if Father O’Hare would apply the same literalness to the Apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 5:12: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” Did Paul really wish people would emasculate themselves, or was he using sarcasm to establish a point?

Father O’Hare misrepresents Luther repeatedly. He holds Luther was not only mad, but also morally depraved and corrupt. He asserts that Luther in the Wartburg was in close touch with Satan. Luther lived an indecent life, disparaged celibacy and virginity, sanctioned adultery, dishonored marriage, authorized prostitution and polygamy, and was a drunkard found in the tavern. Luther was a blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionary, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace to the religious calling, and the propagator of immorality and open licentiousness. O’Hare’s understanding of “sin boldly” serves as a good example why The Facts About Luther is one of the worst ever written. It shows that simply because someone has the “facts” doesn’t necessarily mean they’re presenting the truth.

Hartmann Grisar

The Jesuit scholar Hartmann Grisar delved deeply into Luther studies. His work on Luther spanned multiple volumes and thousands of pages. His books were considered the standard Catholic understanding of Luther for decades. Grisar admits to the difficulty of the “sin boldly” comment. He calls the statement “the most extravagant paradox.”[46] On the one hand, Grisar admits the words were rhetorical and not to be taken literally, but then on the other hand goes on to interpret Luther literally:

“We might, it is true, admit that, in these words, Luther gave the rein to his well-known inclination to put things in the strongest light, a tendency to be noticed in some of his other statements… On the other hand, however, the close connection between the compromising words and his whole system of sin and grace, can scarcely be denied; we have here something more than a figure of rhetoric.”[47]

“However much stress we may be disposed to lay on Luther's warnings against sin, and whatever allowance we may make for his rhetoric, still the " Pecca fortiter " stands out as the result of his revolt against the traditional view of sin and grace, with which his own doctrine of Justification refused to be reconciled. These inauspicious words are the culmination of Luther's practical ideas on religion, borne witness to by so many of his statements, which, at the cost of morality, give the reins to human freedom and to disorder.”[48]

“Hence the writer of the letter seeks to convince [Melanchthon] that the strength of the fiducial faith preached by himself, Luther, was so great, that no sense of sin need trouble a man.”[49]

Grisar takes Luther literally because he believes Melanchthon was in need of exhortation: “Luther's endeavor was to reassure, once and for all, Melanchthon who was so prone to anxiety. The latter shrank from many of the consequences of Luther's doctrines, and at that time was possibly also a prey to apprehension concerning the forgiveness of his own sins.”[50] Grisar then chastises Luther for his literal advise to “sin boldly” and offers what he should have said to Melanchthon:

“Luther, here and throughout the letter, does not say what he ought necessarily to have said to one weighed down by the consciousness of sin; of remorse and compunction we hear nothing whatever, nor does he give due weight and importance to the consciousness of guilt; he misrepresents grace, making it appear as a mere outward, magical charm, by which—according to an expression which cannot but offend every religious mind— a man is justified even though he be a murderer and a libertine a thousand times over. Luther's own words here are perhaps the best refutation of the Lutheran doctrine of Justification, for he speaks of sin, even of the worst, in a way that well lays bare the weaknesses of the system of fiducial faith.”[51]

Given Grisar’s knowledge of Luther, one would have expected him to be able to interpret Luther in light of Luther’s many statements on the relationship of faith and works and the growing of godliness in the Christian life, as well as Luther’s strong stance on sin and morality. Rather, Grisar takes two pages to discuss one obscure paragraph from a letter fragment. Grisar goes a step further by saying these words are “perhaps the best refutation of the Lutheran doctrine of Justification.” Why? Elsewhere Grisar explains, “In lieu of interior contrition, self humiliation and the penitential spirit, justification is made dependent upon the presumptuous apprehension of the merits of Christ, and sin loses its terrifying character for the believer.”[52] Here Grisar shows he misses Luther’s understanding of sin, salvation, and sanctification completely. For Luther, the preaching of law drove one to humbly to Christ, Christ’s work is received with the most exuberant joy, and one’s life is lived as a servant to God.

Grisar ultimately sees the “sin boldly” statement as “an evident mental derangement.”[53] In the overall scope of Grisar’s work, his use of the “sin boldly” statement is but one example of the generally accepted flawed tenor of his work. He interprets Luther as a monk obsessed with the lust of the flesh, suffering from a pathological manic-depressive personality: Luther’s view of justification by faith alone came from his own decadence. ‘Faith alone’ was but a ploy to justify Luther’s immorality and an excuse to relieve him of the monastic ideals he began with. Grisar argued “Luther leaves no actual Grace which makes for righteousness and which dwells within man himself, for he sees in God a will to grace, not to view us as sinners and to lend us his active support in fighting sins.” [54]

The Catholic Encyclopedia

American Catholics in the first half of the twentieth century were guided in their understanding of Luther by an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia by George Ganss. Ganss presented a Luther who was wild tempered, depressed, mentally ill, and a victim of lust seeking unbridled sexual license through his teaching. Here is his understanding of Luther’s teaching on justification by faith alone:

“[Luther] convinced himself that man, as a consequence of original sin, was totally depraved, destitute of free will, that all works, even though directed towards the good, were nothing more than an outgrowth of his corrupted will, and in the judgments of God in reality mortal sins. Man can be saved by faith alone. Our faith in Christ makes His merits our possession, envelops us in the garb of righteousness, which our guilt and sinfulness hide, and supplies in abundance every defect of human righteousness. ‘Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders’ ”[55]

In Ganns’ description of justification, “sin boldly” serves to substantiate Luther’s view. Ganns leaves out Luther’s understanding of a living faith that shows itself by works. One is left with a gross caricature. As Patrick Carey his so correctly noted of Ganns’ article: “…Ganss failed to examine in any detail the substance of Luther's teachings…”[56] Similarly, in their entry on Justification, the Catholic Encyclopedia likewise uses Luther’s “sin boldly” comment to explain the Protestant view of justification, promoting the same caricature as their Luther entry:

“Since neither charity nor good works contribute anything towards justification -- inasmuch as faith alone justifies -- their absence subsequently cannot deprive the just man of anything whatever. There is only one thing that might possibly divest him of justification, namely, the loss of fiduciary faith or of faith in general. From this point of view we get a psychological explanation of numerous objectionable passages in Luther's writings, against which even Protestant with deep moral sense, such as Hugo Grotius and George Bull, earnestly protested. Thus we find in one of Luther's letters, written to Melancthon in 1521, the following sentence: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin." Could anyone do more to degrade St. Paul's concept of justification than Luther did in the following blasphemy: "If adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin"?[57]

The Justification entry continues by positing Luther’s sola fide is a doctrine (along with sola scriptura) founded on self-deception: “Since, however, neither maxim can be found in the Bible, every Catholic is forced to conclude that Protestantism from its very beginning and foundation is based on self-deception.”[58] While the Catholic Encyclopedia declares justification by faith alone based on a “self-deception”, the actual deception is their caricature of Luther’s teaching. Luther taught good works as the result of justification, and believed that a battle against sin was to be fought throughout life. Protestants distinguish justification from sanctification. They never so viciously separate them as Catholics suggest.

Henry O’Connor: Luther’s Own Statements- His Teaching and Results

Henry O’Connor wrote Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results. The book is an old small anthology of Luther quotes, peppered with vilifying commentary from O’Connor. The author claims to have compiled the quotes from the original sources “Nearly two-thirds of the matter contained in this pamphlet is taken from the original editions of Luther’s own Works, as published in Wittenberg, under the very eye of the Reformer of Germany himself.”[59] He says “I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context.”[60]

O’Connor delves immediately into Luther’s “sin boldly” comment (third edition preface, page ii). He says,

“I am of the opinion that, if we merely consider the words just quoted, it would be an exaggeration to say that Luther ordered his disciple to sin, or that he even positively advised him to do so. To my mind the words mean: ‘As far as the certainty of our own salvation is concerned, it does not matter one bit whether we sin or not, as long as we put our trust in Christ.’ Thus whereas Christ preaches hatred of every sin, Luther proclaims indifference toward every kind of sin, with the only exception of unbelief.”[61]

O’Connor begins well enough: Luther did not order Melanchthon to sin. But beyond that, his interpretation derails immediately. The rest of his statement shows an obvious confusion of Luther’s understanding of faith and works. It indeed does matter “whether we sin or not” because (as Luther repeatedly taught) true faith shows itself by its good works. Both Christ and Luther preached a hatred of sin. Luther never proclaimed an “indifference toward every kind of sin.” O’Connor concludes, “Therefore, Luther, the self-constituted Lawgiver of the sixteenth century, allows and recommends what God the supreme Lawgiver of all ages, past, present, and future, forbids.”[62] O’Connor sees Luther as fundamentally teaching lawlessness.

O’Connor, who claimed to read Luther “in context” ignored Luther’s basic theology, or either grossly misunderstood it. O’Connor says of Luther’s teaching on justification: “Luther received the full and unqualified approval of the Devil for these new doctrines. It was the Devil who spoke in favor of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and against Mass, Mary, and the Saints.”[63] By the end of the book, O’Connor is convinced Luther “pretends to be a Reformer” and was sent by Satan.[64]

-Catholic Websites And Laymen That Misinterpret Luther’s “Sin Boldly”-

There are many Catholic apologetic websites utilizing the “sin boldly” quote. For these, their misunderstandings are most likely the result of not reading any (or very little) of Luther’s writings. They have simply captured a phrase and run with it. In a desire to appeal emotionally via apologetic argument, most of the misinterpretations are simply the result of over-literalizing Luther. Like some of the authors reviewed above, the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification is misunderstood, wrongly said to be “separated” in such way to allow for a life of heinous sin. On an emotional level, Rome is said to be the great defender of morality, while the “founder of Protestantism” was a great antinomian. To convert to Roman Catholicism is to join “Christian morality.” To remain a Protestant is to think, “You can do whatever you want and still be saved.”

The Catholic Culture website takes Luther quite literally. Commenting on the “sin boldly” statement they say: “So if a man after a sex orgy would go out and kill a thousand people with an automatic rifle, and then kill himself, he would go instantly to the eternal embrace of God.”[65]

An article at the Catholic Apologetics Network states that Luther didn’t think a moral life mattered: “Luther is actually saying that our actions -- even the most sinful actions imaginable -- don't matter! He is saying we can commit any sin we want -- willfully, presumptuously, purposefully -- and we will not separate ourselves from God! After all, we require nothing more than "faith" to be saved. What we do is incidental.”[66]

Catholic Answers hosts an article that Takes Luther literally by appealing to a “logical conclusion”: “Logically, if one follows out Luther's fancy, a man who goes out and kills several others and then turns the gun on himself should go at once to be joined to the infinite purity of God! Luther wrote, ‘Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly....No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.’ ”[67]

In another article at Catholic Answers, an author states, “In our own day, the antinomian temptation tugs at us from every side, not only in the sophistical subjectivizing of the faith in many mainline Protestant institutions, but also in the pedestrian libertinism of fraternity boys heading off for weekends of naughtiness with bravado cries, echoing Luther’s behest to ‘sin boldly.’ ”[68] Contrary to this statement, Luther would abhor such behavior done by “boys heading off for weekends of naughtiness.”

EWTN hosts many articles commenting on the “sin boldly” statement:

“Romans 1.5 what we have just said: ‘the obedience that faith is.’ In contrast, Luther said if we have faith, we need not obey… What a monstrous error! Faith includes obedience, as Paul said in Romans 1.5, 1 Cor 6.9-10, and Gal 5.16-25. and as the <Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible>. Yet Luther said if you have faith, you need not obey at all.”[69]

“Luther thought if we have faith, we can disobey God. But faith includes obedience, and so cannot justify disobedience.”[70]

“… [P]oor Luther did not see that faith includes obedience to God, and so he wrote: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”[71