There is no shortage of church splits or countless variations of "Christianity" today. Each one questioning and challenging the next. I was asked recently what role I thought Martin Luther played in our modern denominational divisions. To consider that question in any public manner invites an entire spectrum of response.
To many protestants Martin Luther is not only a hero, but at the core of their understanding of Scripture and God. They claim Luther got it right and the Catholic church should have listened to him. If only the Catholic church would have bowed to Luther, we would all be united today. Somehow, I doubt it.
Luther saw himself as a great reformer of the Catholic church. He believed his ideas would single-handedly redirect the church. History has shown he failed in that mission. I think it is only fair to ask, if Luther was being led by the Holy Spirit, would he have failed in such a divine mission?
The result of Luther and his campaign has deeply divided Christianity. His challenge forged two separate churches. The second division, Protestantism, which hold Luther as their second founder, has gone on to divide over four centuries into a near infinity of separate churches.
I don't doubt for a moment that Luther really believed what he proclaimed. I do question where he drew his authority? He earned a doctorate in theology from the University of Wittenberg. Yet he began to develop his own personal theology, which erupted into outright blasphemy when he protested the use of indulgences in his 95 Theses.
Indulgences, which were granted by the pope, forgave individual sinners not their sins, but the temporal punishment applied to those sins. It was big bushiness back then. It was the main source of income to the church and it did not sit well with many. It's one thing to challenge the fund raising methods of the church, but Luther did much more than that.
His theological arguments against the use of indulgences, were based on the notion that Christianity is fundamentally a phenomenon of the inner world of human beings and had little or nothing to do with the outer world. It is this fundamental argument, not the controversy of the indulgences themselves, that most people in the church disapproved of.
When the focus turned to the spiritual value of "good works," that is, the actions that people do in this world to benefit others and to pay off the debts they've incurred against God by sinning, Luther ran. The split began as the northern humanists embraced Luther and his ideas and abandoned up until that time, the only Christian church.
Luther's first writing was "The Sermon on Good Works". He argued that good works do not benefit the soul; only faith could do such. Pope Leo declared 41 articles of Luther's teachings as heretical teachings, and Luther's books were publicly burned in Rome. Did Luther reach out and seek understanding in a loving Christian manner? No. He pressed for the German nation to use military means to force the church to reform.
In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, demanded that Luther recant his claims. Failing to submit to authority, Luther refused and he was placed under an imperial ban as an outlaw. He developed his new church, a bitter and angry man hidden away in a castle in Wartburg .
Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo explaining the substance of his ideas, "Von der Freiheit des Christenmenschen". That to failed. Luther was excommunicated from the church in 1521. What had started as an attempt to reform the church, turned into a new creation independent of the Catholic church. The fact that most forget is, was it not for the Catholic church, Luther would not have been introduced to Christianity or the Word of God from which he based his objections.
Luther planted the dangerous seeds of "custom theology". He brought forth the concept that man need not follow a single authority, but his own understanding and personal knowledge of God. If the the objections of Luther were valid, then it would be the shepherds of the flock that should tremble before God. Luther invited us all to choose not only our own Shepard, but flock, field, food and demand that our Christian leaders submit to the will of the people.
There are people who worship God. There are also people who worship idols they call God. We all think the other is wrong. All I can tell you is truth is not plural. Luther makes us choose.
39 comments:
1 - Luther is not my personal or faith hero.
2 - He is not at the core of my understanding.
3 - Had the CC bowed to Luther, we wouldn't be united today.
4 - "a near infinity of separate churches" is a huge misnomer and isn't warranted. Most non-catholic beleivers see the Church as the complete blood redeemed company; all the Children of God.
5 - degrees do not make authority in the Scriptural/spiritual sense.
6 - "outright blasphemy" what was said that was blaphemous (agains the work or person of the Holy Spirit)? or are you using the generic of the term and saying he used 'evil speaking'? Even at that, what specifically constitued blasphemy?
7 - "forgave individual sinners not their sins" I'm very curious regarding this differentiation. Can a murderer be forgiven without or apart from the deed of murder being forgiven - or can the converse be true; the act forgiven and the person not?
8 - the reality of Christianity is in the 'inner man' as shown in Scripture. The change to the innner man shows itself inthe outworking into result -this also is shon in Scripture.
9 - "He argued that good works do not benefit the soul; only faith could do such." Regarding salvation this is true. We are not saved by works we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ. Was salvation the subject/context of Luther's remarks? If so, then the pope Leo contradicted what the CC supposedly teaches regarding salvation by works.
10 - "Did Luther reach out and seek understanding in a loving Christian manner? No." He was as we are - a failing human being. Perhaps he went about it wrong, that doesn't mean the core of what he believed was wrong.
11 - "He developed his new church, a bitter and angry man hidden away in a castle in Wartburg." What church was that? He went to his grave claiming the CC the one true church that was on a bad course.
12 - "The fact that most forget is, was it not for the Catholic church, Luther would not have been introduced to Christianity or the Word of God from which he based his objections." This doesn't mean a thing.
13 - "He brought forth the concept that man need not follow a single authority, but his own understanding and personal knowledge of God." Not a true statement due to it's generality and the fact that you do not report here what ONE authority Luther DID believe in.
14 - "If the the objections of Luther were valid, then it would be the shepherds of the flock that should tremble before God." Scripture speaks directly to this point. Those who are shepards have much more responsibility before God and should act accordingly.
15 - "Luther invited us all to choose not only our own Shepard, but flock, field, food and demand that our Christian leaders submit to the will of the people." This is a false statement. There is only One Chief, Good and Great Shepard - Chrsit Jesus.
16 - "Luther makes us choose." God says, "Choose you this day who you will serve." Luther only clarified the choice: do we choose to serve the church or do we choose to serve the Lord? "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." [Joshua 24:15]
I find it strange that no Protestants today study the founder of their religion personal works. Sure they are more than happy to hear what Pastor so and so say Luther taught, but they never go and read his works for themselves. The reason for it is obvious too. Protestant leaders know if the common Protestant sitting in the pew actually read Luther’s writings, they would not follow his teachings, which are plainly offensive to any God fearing individual.
Luther believed that Jesus Christ was a sinner and fornicator!
Luther taught that people should sin and sin boldly!
Luther believed God is the author of good and evil!!!
Luther hated the Jews, and taught the German populace to do likewise! Hmmmmm….I wonder what effect that had on later generations of Germans.
Luther hated God’s holy prophet Moses.
Luther taught polygamy.
Luther prescribed sin to tortured souls who asked for spiritual advice in overcoming it!
Luther edited scripture, removing entire books and adding words to slant the meaning toward his new gospel.
Luther taught that individual Christians should decide which books of the Bible are canonical for themselves!
Luther incited the peasants to rebel against the German nobility, and then told the German Princes to slaughter the peasants!
Luther swore and drank enough to make a sailor look wholesome.
Luther broke solemn vows he made to God.
Luther was a double minded man whose teachings changed multiple times throughout his life.
Luther was filled w/ pride and wrote that he was the “Doctor of Doctors” in theology!
Luther wrote that the Devil appeared to him and preached against the Mass, Mary, and the Saints, and that the Devil gave him approval of his new doctrine of faith alone!!! HELLO….did you get that!?! The Devil gave him approval of his new doctrine!!! LUTHER WROTE THAT HIMSELF TOO!!!!!!!!!
The myths surrounding the man are hardly the true picture you get from studying his works. Don't take my word for it, read them yourself! But do not be surprised if you have a hard time finding them. It seems there is an effort to bury what the man actually taught, and substitute a watered down version that’s easy to swallow instead.
Your post is precicely why we don't follow men; we follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Luther is no better/no worse than you or I or any other man. Ackowledge this and turn to Christ who is your righteousness.
PS: "The Devil gave him approval of his new doctrine!!!" Demonic beings also gave witness to the Christ for who He really was. They have a spiritual knowledge regarding the Christ - they know their latter end.
Anon, that is typical Catholic propoganda. Every single one of your quotes of Luther is taken completely out of context. Then again, taking scripture out of context is the only way Catholics can back up their beliefs, so your post doesn't surprise me in the least.
"Protestant leaders know if the common Protestant sitting in the pew actually read Luther’s writings, they would not follow his teachings, which are plainly offensive to any God fearing individual."
What happened when the 'common' (I hate this denegrading term - but since you used it...) catholic sitting in the pew actually read the Word of God?
They ceased to follow CC teachings AND found them plainly offensive to any God fearing individual.
As for context and Luther:
Looking at Anon's first line regarding Luther...
1. Luther is just speaking about the imputation of sin. That seems to be the implication of Bjbear (and Dave below).
2. Luther was speaking about the idea of being accused of adultery, not about actually being guilty of it.
3. Luther was drunk, and not making any sense at all.
4. Luther was speaking sarcastically as part of a reductio of some opposing argument, as part of a deflection of personal criticism.
To figure it all out one MUST know the context; else you can pick and choose which of the above options you want.
I'll not accuse or defend him nor pick and option until I know the context. Do you Anon know the context? or are you just citing talking points that have no 'real' value?
“Anon, that is typical Catholic propoganda.”
Actually it isn’t its Luther’s own works! How could Luther’s own writings be “Catholic Propoganda”!?! Search out his teachings for yourself and read his own words. Nothing is taken out of context. Read them, and you’ll see. Don’t take my word on it!!!
“Then again, taking scripture out of context is the only way Catholics can back up their beliefs, so your post doesn't surprise me in the least.”
That seems very mean spirited. The same could be said for Luther’s doctrines. No one for 15 centuries before him taught anything he supposedly found so plainly in the Word. Doesn’t that sound fishy to you? It makes my common sense perk up.
“What happened when the 'common' (I hate this denegrading term - but since you used it...) catholic sitting in the pew actually read the Word of God?”
What do you think would happen to you if you actually read the Word of God without the theological lens of your faith traditions? Any honest seeker of truth can surely find it.
“They ceased to follow CC teachings AND found them plainly offensive to any God fearing individual.”
Actually, a well informed Catholic knows his faith is solidly grounded in scripture, tradition, and history. There is nothing contradictory in scripture to authentic orthodox Catholic teaching. Study it without your preconceived notions, and you’ll be hard pressed to say otherwise. If you look honestly at the situation, no one follows what Luther actually taught in the first place, read his works and see for yourself. His teachings should be offensive to anyone who claims the name Christian. Don’t take my word on it!!! READ THEM FOR YOURSELF!!!!
There seem to be some reactionaries on this website.
Are some here more interested in being right or in knowing the Truth?
"Actually it isn’t its Luther’s own works! How could Luther’s own writings be “Catholic Propoganda”!?!"
One can take anything out of context and twist it to one's own meaning! And I have read them.
"No one for 15 centuries before him taught anything he supposedly found so plainly in the Word. Doesn’t that sound fishy to you? It makes my common sense perk up."
Please. There have been "scripture only" worshipers throughout the history of Christianity. Often times they were killed or tortured as heretics thanks to bulls like Ad Extirpanda (as still allowable by the Catholic church since papal bulls are "infallible"). They just didn't propogate as fast as Luther's Reformation due to a number of factors, many outlined in the above papal bull.
"There is nothing contradictory in scripture to authentic orthodox Catholic teaching. Study it without your preconceived notions, and you’ll be hard pressed to say otherwise."
Oh man, thanks! I needed that laugh!!! Actually, doing that led me AWAY from the mainstream churches, including Catholicism! Any discussion I've had with Catholics, verses are ALWAYS plucked out of context or mixed with "Tradtion" in order to justify Catholic beliefs. Always, without fail this has been true.
"Actually it isn’t its Luther’s own works! How could Luther’s own writings be “Catholic Propoganda”!?! "
It was your use of Luther quotes that was termed propaganda, not anything specific that Luther said. You missed his point completely.
"No one for 15 centuries before him taught anything he supposedly found so plainly in the Word. Doesn’t that sound fishy to you? It makes my common sense perk up."
What makes my common sense perk up is the fact that you don't address the cuirculation of the Word at Luther's time. Limited circulation physcally and governmentally by the CC. This is an important fact to keep in mind.
"What do you think would happen to you if you actually read the Word of God without the theological lens of your faith traditions? Any honest seeker of truth can surely find it."
Specifically, what to you think my 'faith traditions' are? I'd be happy to enlighten you, but you seem to have preconceived notions - so you're the one who will have to put it on the table first. Plus, your question - What do you think would happen to you if you actually read the Word of God without the theological lens of your faith traditions? - IS one of the things Luther himself asked of the Church! He thought for a believer to be free, he had to be free to search theSciptures and that the Scriptures themselves were to be free. Under the CC they aren't making your subsequent comment - Any honest seeker of truth can surely find it - utterly false.
"Actually, a well informed Catholic knows his faith is solidly grounded in scripture, tradition, and history."
Sad, really sad. All beleiver's know that their faith is grounded in Christ.
"There is nothing contradictory in scripture to authentic orthodox Catholic teaching."
From your view point no, but there is that which contradictory in authentic orthodox Catholic teaching to scripture.
"Study it without your preconceived notions, and you’ll be hard pressed to say otherwise."
To assert that catholics do not have preconceived notions is to be intellectually dishonest. The whole idea of purgatory isn't found in the raw text, yet you all somehow can 'see' it. You take your beleif to the text, not from the text. Knowing the original languages reveals no such place or concept.
"no one follows what Luther actually taught in the first place"
Then why the argument? Perhaps catholics ought not to pigeon-hole the rest of us as being those who follow Luther. I continually get this accusation, for which it is not warranted.
I follow Scripture becasue the Spirit within me guides me into all truth. If I am obedient to HIm, I am blessed. If not, I am disobedient and subject to the government of God in my life as being the child of the Most Holy.
"There seem to be some reactionaries on this website.
Are some here more interested in being right or in knowing the Truth?"
Can one have The Truth and be wrong concerning The Truth?
Can one who has not The Truth be right concerning it?
The Spirit of God reveals the Truth. Follow Him and Him only. Following men will get you part of the Truth, perhaps.
“One can take anything out of context and twist it to one's own meaning! And I have read them.”
Well I believe you may need to read them again because none of the quotes can have any other meaning in their context, but the obvious!
“Oh man, thanks! I needed that laugh!!! Actually, doing that led me AWAY from the mainstream churches, including Catholicism!”
Well I may be presumptuous here, but is it possible your pride had something to do w/ that too? Because you come across that way. It’s a wonder Christendom has done so well w/out your genius for so long!
READ LUTHER’S WORKS FOR YOURSELF. START WITH HIS TRACT “On the Jews and their lies.”
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
"Well I believe you may need to read them again because none of the quotes can have any other meaning in their context, but the obvious!"
What from what you posted indicates no hyberbole?
What from what you posted indicates no sarcasm?
What from what you posted indicates no rant (drunken or otherwise)?
So you can distinguish the tone from the plain text/words?
Ridiculous.
In our day of mass electronic communciation this phenomenon is readily seen. Emails (and blog postings), moment by moment, are misunderstood and mistaken because the text is dis-jointed from the tone.
Besides you have no idea of the circumstances in which the quotes were originally delivered (or at least you didn't post it when asked). You don't show you know what happened before, during and after the quote; keep in mind you weren't there, nor was I.
Read his works and see for yourself. The quotes can not be taken in their context to mean anything but the obvious. Luther was no man of God, to put it nicely.
Keep in mind it's hard to find his works. I had to pay close to a hundred dollars to get a collection of his Tracts.
Lutheran's do not want the true face of the founder of their religion to be seen, and for obvious reasons.
I'm neither Lutheran nor Catholic, I am Christ's.
Having stated that:
"The quotes can not be taken in their context to mean anything but the obvious."
You provided them OUT of context. You haven't provided the context, yet you maintain that the context supports you. You MUST provide the context. If you are going to engage in debate then you must provide the substantiation of your claim. Making statements like 'Read his works and see for yourself' isn't going to cut it - especially when you acknowledge that you had to pay close to a hundred dollars to get a collection of his tracts - you have the material post it and prove it.
"Luther was no man of God, to put it nicely."
How presumptuous of you! I recall a scuffle when a radio host said that a pope's entrance to Heaven was between the pope and his Lord. Here you go and make a much strong statement. Rescind, cease and desist.
"Lutheran's do not want the true face of the founder of their religion to be seen, and for obvious reasons."
The same can be and has been said of the Catholic Church. Spreading ill-will won't get you anywhere. In fact, it is a divisive means and a show of ecclesiasctical pride. Both being condemned by Scripture. Rescind, cease and desist.
Sorry for my late entry into the fray.
Since I'm at work, I only have time to deal with a few of the charges levied here. My apologies, but too bad. ;)
Here is Luther's "Sin boldly" quote in context:
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.
The context I get out of that is that we are not to fool ourselves into thinking we are not sinners.
As far as editing the canon, the seven apocryphal books of the old testament that Luther supposedly "removed" were not even added to the canon until the Council of Trent during the counter-reformation.
The idea that it is proof that Luther was not of the Holy Spirit because he failed to redirect the church discounts God's free will given to man. If the church of that time was not of God, it would only stand to reason that Luther DID succeed in his divine mission, although not in the way he originally intended. And, as one of the anonymous posters said, decrees like Ad Extirpanda which gave the authority to torture heretics and burn them at the stake, Unum Sanctum, which declared that the Catholic Church rather than Christ was the way to salvation, plus the Pope of that time, Pope Leo X, is supposedly quoted as having said "He has served us well, this myth of Christ." To me, those don't sound like words and actions of a divine institution, nor forbidding the Word of God being read by the general populace.
However, all of that is ancient history. To drudge it up again and again only drives us further apart as believers.
Furthermore, if you want to find out Luther's intent of his writings, I suggest you ask him when you get to Heaven. ;)
"Furthermore, if you want to find out Luther's intent of his writings, I suggest you ask him when you get to Heaven. ;) "
Aren't you presumming I'll get to heaven, and Luther is there?
; )
Why don't you stop pointing fingers and deal with the subject at hand.
You make statements, provide no proof, you get called, you change the subject ...
Aren't you presumming I'll get to heaven, and Luther is there?
Um... YEP!
The Bible is quite clear on how to be saved. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at who is in heaven... and who isn't. Possibly myself included.
Hello all!
Anonymous is correct, Luther's own words condemn him.
I used to be Lutheran until I studied Luther for myself instead of swallowing what my Pastor taught me every Reformation Day.
It is my belief he was a fraud. I also feel that he was most likely insane or oppressed by the devil, or both. His pride is palpable in his works.
Everyone who follows the religion that Luther started should read his teachings, and compare them to the bible. Compare his teachings on the Jews to St Paul’s. Compare his teachings on the Ten Commandments to St John's. The truth of the matter becomes painfully obvious.
May the scales fall off your eyes too!
I used to be Lutheran too. I left the Lutheran church because of how soft and "inoffensive" it had become in regards to salvation.
I think one of the problems is that people make Luther synonymous with all non-Catholics, or think that we follow all of his beliefs. That is far from the case... even for most Lutherans.
This is evident in what anonymous said in response to anonymous' refuting of anonymous' answer to anonymous, which was an incorrect assumption of what anonymous said in regards to anonymous' criticism of anonymous.
"As far as editing the canon, the seven apocryphal books of the old testament that Luther supposedly "removed" were not even added to the canon until the Council of Trent during the counter-reformation."
Sorry, you must be mistaken. The seven books of the OT that Luther removed, because his new gospel was contrary to them, were part of the OT Christ and the Apostles used, the Septuagint. Do you think Christ and the Apostles didn't know which books belonged to the OT, but Luther did?
I agree totally with Name Hidden's take on anonymous vs. anonymous anonymously.
-Anonymous
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/reformers.htm
The seven books of the OT that Luther removed, because his new gospel was contrary to them, were part of the OT Christ and the Apostles used, the Septuagint.
Oh yeah. It had NOTHING TO DO with the fact that they weren't used by the Jews, they weren't yet added to the canon, they weren't written in Hebrew, Jerome didn't want to add them to the Vulgate, or that the author of Macabees ends one of the books with an admission that it may not be completely accurate. His intention MUST be because they contradicted with his "new gospel". Sorry, but people who try to divine the intentions of others and use them as a basis of a logical argument is one of my pet peeves.
Do you think Christ and the Apostles didn't know which books belonged to the OT, but Luther did?
Hmm... I don't remember Christ or the Apostles ever saying which books were inspired or not. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch in his epistle, so simply quoting from an apocryphal book, if they ever did, doesn't mean that a book should be in the canon.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/reformers.htm
Yeah, bible believing Christians who refused to bow to wishes of men wanting to claim dominion over their souls have been persicuted LONG before the Reformation.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/reformers.htm
By posting this you further the insanity of catholics believing we all follow these men and have them as idols.
Often one accuses another of the very thing they themselves are guilty of.
Often I hear catholics bemoan what they believe are unjust attacks - perhaps some are indeed unwarranted - but posting this doesn't help your cause. You've posted sopmething that has an agenda already in place.
Failure occurred in the times they lived in and ours. Why perpetuate that crap?
The initial posting made the note about the influence Luther had on division in the Church (the Body not the CC) - perhaps we see it more clear today. But the fact that we divide is due to our own divisive characters not his.
It is our responsibility to separate TO God FROM evil. Do that - each one in holiness - and we will find ourselves together with the Lord Jesus and our divine Center and the power of the Spirit of God as our Gatherer. To do anything less we do what Luther, Calvin and a host of others have done since the VERY FIRST DAYS of the Church when many said they were of Paul, Apollos and of Peter.
If we believe, with the heart to repentance, Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose the third day for our justification then we are Christ's - all for one and one for all (to steal an expression).
"Oh yeah. It had NOTHING TO DO with the fact that they weren't used by the Jews"
Hello, ARE YOU SERIOUS? They were used by Jesus and the Apostles, who were 100% Jewish! Did you even read the post?
The Jews, who rejected Jesus, after the destruction of the Temple removed those books from their canons to further separate themselves from the Christians who used them!!! They retranslated their OT so the Christians couldn't use some of the prophecies that pointed to Christ (a virgin will conceive was changed to a "young girl" etc...). The same group of Jewish elders also denied the NT canon! Do you accept their teachings on that too?
Study your history. Most of the seven books Luther removed from the OT have been found written in Hebrew since Jerome. Thank you Dead Sea scrolls!
It's also important to note that Jerome was not the entire Magisterium of the Church of Christ. Instead of using second hand sources, read what Jerome himself said on the issue. He was a faithful servant of the Church (even though he was a little grumpy).
Whatever the biblical author wrote in Mac is irrelevant. None of the NT books claim to be inspired. Do you hold them up to the same standard? Read the beginning of Acts, it hardly sounds like, “Thus saith the Lord!”
It’s very easy to see that Luther removed the books because they went against his new gospel. The books teach intercessory prayer, free will, prayer for the dead etc...
Why do you think Luther accepted those books before he started his new religion? Do you realize Luther also rejected many NT books that conflicted with his new gospel? Check into it!
Hello, ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Well excuse me for looking somewhere other than catholic.com! Let me guess, you go by the name "simpleton" on Powerball's forumn.
The Jews, who rejected Jesus, after the destruction of the Temple removed those books from their canons to further separate themselves from the Christians who used them!!!
Really? Then why ONLY those books?
The same group of Jewish elders also denied the NT canon! Do you accept their teachings on that too?
Well OBVIOUSLY they denied the NT canon. And thank you, but I can do without the rhetorical condescension.
Study your history. Most of the seven books Luther removed from the OT have been found written in Hebrew since Jerome. Thank you Dead Sea scrolls!
I know my history, thank you. While in the Septuagint, they weren't considered scripture by the Jews in Palestine.
It's also important to note that Jerome was not the entire Magisterium of the Church of Christ.
Never said he was. There has been question over those books since the begining, otherwise they would have been added to the canon BEFORE the Council of Trent. But they weren't!
None of the NT books claim to be inspired. Do you hold them up to the same standard?
Yes, I do, although not to the standard which you twisted my words into! I NEVER said they should be excluded because they don't claim to be inspired!!! I said that Macabees outright says it might not be accurate! None of the other NT books say that!
It’s very easy to see that Luther removed the books because they went against his new gospel.
It is when you are filtering all of your opinions through your denominational beliefs. I see plenty of reason to see that that most likely wasn't the case, but since neither of us know Luther's mind, we can't say with authority why he did it. But evidence points to the reasons I posted.
Why do you think Luther accepted those books before he started his new religion?
Because he was told to? He was a Catholic Priest, after all.
Do you realize Luther also rejected many NT books that conflicted with his new gospel? Check into it!
I am well aware of Luther's "epistle of straw" type comments, but he didn't take them out of the canon, so I really don't see what bearing it has on the discussion.
I did not mean to start a fight. Although I knew I probably would with the post.
We as Christians are divided. That's not good. We need to go back and look at the cause of the division. I have honestly found (and this is not some agenda driven propaganda) that most people people who take an honest look at the Catholic faith move a bit closer to it.
We should all be seeking truth. That truth will lead us to Christ. From there we need to learn how to apply our faith. If you have a good reason for isolating yourself so be. I simply see the results of Luther as a continuing tradgedy the harms us all.
It good to talk about this stuff. Just keep your emotions in check and we will are learn much more.
I have honestly found (and this is not some agenda driven propaganda) that most people people who take an honest look at the Catholic faith move a bit closer to it.
I've found the results very mixed, depending on how deeply they looked. For me, the deeper I look at the core, the farther I move from it. And I don't consider myself rebellious to the will of God. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is just what has happened.
"We as Christians are divided. That's not good."
Good and right!
"We need to go back and look at the cause of the division."
We need to have an exercise in first causes. So oftern we can't dive to the root of it and settle for a symptom and doing that will never solve the issue.
"I have honestly found (and this is not some agenda driven propaganda) that most people people who take an honest look at the Catholic faith move a bit closer to it."
Consider me one who didn't after taking an honest look.
"We should all be seeking truth. That truth will lead us to Christ."
Right and good!
"From there we need to learn how to apply our faith."
Do we apply our faith - or should we allow the Holy Spirit to be applied to our faith?
"If you have a good reason for isolating yourself so be."
Scripture NEVER instructs us to separate from God's people. It does call us to personal holiness and separation TO Him FROM evil.
"I simply see the results of Luther as a continuing tradgedy the harms us all."
We cannot blame Luther. If he was wrong and divisive then we ought to recognize that and run from it.
Perhaps he had the right idea/theology and had the wrong motive.
Perhaps he was 100% wrong doctrinally and otherwise.
It doesn't matter - our personal responsibility is to the Lord Jesus Christ first. We each do that and poof we find ourselves together. 1 John 1 tells us that:
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
Individuals walking with Christ IS the solution to our problem. It always has been - always will be. That's why there will be perfect harmony in Heaven - Christ the the Center and object of worship; there is no departure from Him then. We shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.
Yeah, did not John the apostle of love also say...
"Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works."
Who taught Luther's doctrine before him?
"Yeah, did not John the apostle of love also say..."
Read it again! You misquoted to support your view of Luther.
The subject here is the 'spirit of anti-christ'. Luther never denied that Christ came in the flesh. This doesn't mean Luther was 100% correct in everything, but the passage doesn't apply to him.
"Who taught Luther's doctrine before him?"
This is a ridulous argument, for when the Catholic Church is faced with the same accusation, the canned response is "We didn't define it, we're just clarifying it."
So there is real possibility that Luther was doing the very same. He was pointing out to those who had been denied the Word of God what was contained IN the Word of God. The Church then tried to squash it - and has been ever since.
”This is a ridulous argument...”
I seriously doubt you should think it is a ridiculous argument. If Luther taught a different gospel from the apostles it is hardly a laughing matter. Luther was pointing out ‘His’ interpretation of the written Word of God, which was unheard of before him.
2Peter 2:1-2
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
Catholic doctrine is easily discerned by studying a little Christian history. If the Church defined a dogma of the faith centuries into the Church’s existence, it is usually because that particular article of faith wasn’t attacked till then.
A good example is the Council of Nicene. The Church surly believed in the divinity of Christ before the third century, but it wasn’t attacked by heretical bishops until then.
Now, if you go and read the writings of the Christians before the Council of Nicene, it is easy to see they believed in the divinity of Christ. This cannot be said for Luther and his gospel. Study the previous 15 centuries of Christian history and you will find no one taught Luther’s doctrine before he did.
2Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
There is little possibility that Luther was clarifying anything. The communities that stem from his church have an inability to define anything with 100% certainty, unless the doctrine was previously defined by the Catholic Church. (All doctrine that Protestants agree on was defined by the Bishops of the Catholic Church!)
If any intellectually honest person looks into the 15 centuries of Christian teaching prior to Luther’s church, they will have to admit what Luther taught was a new gospel.
This is not about being right or wrong. You should put aside all human pride and study the case with an open prayerful heart. Your eternal soul could be at risk.
Romans 16:17-18
urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.
"Catholic doctrine is easily discerned by studying a little Christian history."
Sure. Catholic doctrine is. I will NOT base my faith on the history that has been clouded, contradicted and rewritten across time. I will base my faith on the Word of God which lives and abides forever.
"If the Church defined a dogma of the faith centuries into the Church’s existence, it is usually because that particular article of faith wasn’t attacked till then."
So you admit the possiblity of the contrary by using the word "usually"? This negates the claim of infallibility. Thanks. Every Word of God is pure.
"A good example is the Council of Nicene. The Church surly believed in the divinity of Christ before the third century, but it wasn’t attacked by heretical bishops until then."
Hmmm seems to me there are NT writers that spoke of those in thier time who denied Christ even existed. So much for the truth being attacked centrueis in or up to the time of the N. council.
"Now, if you go and read the writings of the Christians before the Council of Nicene, it is easy to see they believed in the divinity of Christ."
Do you have the ENTIRE writings? Even at that one cannot be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ. So if there were Christian writings that declared such things they themselves discount themselves by content. So you won't find Christian writing contrary to the Word of God on that point. Very weak example on your part.
"This cannot be said for Luther and his gospel. Study the previous 15 centuries of Christian history and you will find no one taught Luther’s doctrine before he did."
You have all the writings? Stay up. I'm n my way over.
2Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
True. What you see around you has been seen in the Catholic Church as well.
"There is little possibility that Luther was clarifying anything."
Only in your opinion.
"The communities that stem from his church have an inability to define anything with 100% certainty, unless the doctrine was previously defined by the Catholic Church."
This is the most pompous of statements! It may be true, but that doesn't guarantee that you are stuil correct. The church, I am told, is a living entity - therefore subject to change. Positive change AND negative change.
"(All doctrine that Protestants agree on was defined by the Bishops of the Catholic Church!)"
Not true.
"If any intellectually honest person looks into the 15 centuries of Christian teaching prior to Luther’s church, they will have to admit what Luther taught was a new gospel."
"intellectually honest" nice buzz-word usage. Luther never set up a church - he went to his grave claiming the Catholic church was the true Church just on a crash course.
"This is not about being right or wrong."
???
"You should put aside all human pride and study the case with an open prayerful heart."
And what then? Supposing I have done that and there is no aggreement with the Catholic church? Does God withold from his children when they ask honestly in christ's name for spiritual wisdom? No! Never! So given the resource in God - what then?
"Your eternal soul could be at risk."
Jesus Christ came in to the world to save sinners of whom I am chief. I have the Spirit witnessing to my spirit that I am a child of God. Since I am a Child I have the spirit of adoption and not bondage and fear. Since I am a child I am an heir of God and a joint-heir of Christ. I no longer live, but it is Christ who lives in me. My soul is in no risk - my life is hid with Christ in God.
"If Luther taught a different gospel from the apostles it is hardly a laughing matter."
When I read about a "different Gospel" in the bible, it is usually referring to people adding on to Chirstianity. Example: The Judaizers. They said that Gentile Christians had to also observe Mosaic law to be saved. That is a different Gospel. The documents about what the Apostles taught are found in the episltes and the book of Acts. Once you start getting into the early church fathers writing, you are no longer talking about the Apostles. I believe the Catholic Church has and was teaching a different gospel, based on the abomination Papal Bulls such as Ad Extirpanda, which allowed TORTURE and BURNING AT THE STAKE for "heretics", and Unum Sanctum, which says that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for salvation, as in addition to Christ, one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church. This was the view until Vatican II.
It is indeen no laughing matter.
I think 2 Timothy 4:3-4 happened long before Luther.
Post a Comment