All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[minux]

Jesus made Peter who he is.

Bingo, my three sons. Not more complicated than that.

 

[niceatheist]

That may be, but none of that deals with the fact that the late Medieval and Renaissance Church was hardly an institution to hold up as some glorious example of Jesus’ kingdom on Earth. It was corrupt, willfully political, and increasingly out of touch with many Christians. Worst of all, there had been warnings of a potential split for decades. Blaming Luther is missing the larger point, that the Church badly needed reforms, and was decidedly unwilling to undertake any serious reforms. If it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been someone else. The German princes wanted to be free of Rome meddling in their affairs, and most certainly did not want what they increasingly viewed as a fifth column within their borders. The Church did nothing to address these issues, quite the opposite, it’s response was entrenchment. If there was any real response, it was to try to forge a nation state of its own in Italy (Julius II walking around in armor is pretty emblematic of where the Roman church was at the time).

Insisting that Rome was the Throne of Peter seems more like a means of sweeping away the major issues facing Western Christianity in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Really, it seems to be little more than “Well, sure, the church had its problems, but it doesn’t matter, because the Popes sat on the Throne of Peter, so anyone questioning that is an enemy.” It was precisely this attitude that played its part in making sure the rift could never be sealed. The Papacy was just as unwilling to compromise as Luther was. And what did Rome get for its trouble? It became a plaything for Spanish and French kings, who essentially nationalized the Catholic Church within their borders, just as the Protestant kings were doing with the reformed churches in their borders.

 

[steve-b]

That may be, but none of that deals with the fact that the late Medieval and Renaissance Church was hardly an institution to hold up as some glorious example of Jesus’ kingdom on Earth. It was corrupt, willfully political, and increasingly out of touch with many Christians. Worst of all, there had been warnings of a potential split for decades. Blaming Luther is missing the larger point, that the Church badly needed reforms, and was decidedly unwilling to undertake any serious reforms. If it hadn’t been Luther, it would have been someone else. The German princes wanted to be free of Rome meddling in their affairs, and most certainly did not want what they increasingly viewed as a fifth column within their borders. The Church did nothing to address these issues, quite the opposite, it’s response was entrenchment. If there was any real response, it was to try to forge a nation state of its own in Italy (Julius II walking around in armor is pretty emblematic of where the Roman church was at the time).

Insisting that Rome was the Throne of Peter seems more like a means of sweeping away the major issues facing Western Christianity in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Really, it seems to be little more than “Well, sure, the church had its problems, but it doesn’t matter, because the Popes sat on the Throne of Peter, so anyone questioning that is an enemy.” It was precisely this attitude that played its part in making sure the rift could never be sealed. The Papacy was just as unwilling to compromise as Luther was. And what did Rome get for its trouble? It became a plaything for Spanish and French kings, who essentially nationalized the Catholic Church within their borders, just as the Protestant kings were doing with the reformed churches in their borders.

Jesus never promised a Judas free Church. Judases come and go, NOT THE CHURCH Jesus established.

I’ll just add,

We all will be judged someday,( it’s one for one) by the one who established His Church and made all HIS PROMISES concerning that Church.

I personally don’t want to be outside that Church and hear Him say to me someday, what part of what I promised did you not understand?

If that’s the way the conversation starts, I know the rest won’t be good… Jesus gave many examples to that effect in the scriptures.

 

[niceatheist]

When the Papacy and senior clerics of the Church could be argued in some quarters to be the Judases (and no, that’s not how I view the leadership of the Church in the period, but trying to give you a notion of how some viewed the Pope and the Bishops at the time), then what? There had been a sense in reformist circles years before Luther came on the scene that the Church was in crisis; that the obsession of Bishops with accruing wealth, that the Church had become out of touch with many Christians, was going to lead to disaster. Some even offered reasonable suggestions; better trained priests, simpler forms of worship, more accessible forms of worship, and so forth. These weren’t heretical. And indeed, most Catholics now would look at what many of these early reformers were asking for or trying to implement and shrug their shoulders. As much as Luther became intransigent, so to was Rome.

And how bad would compromise have been? The Church from its earliest days had seen the value of compromise.

 

[TULIPed]

I personally don’t want to be outside that Church and hear Him say to me someday, what part of what I promised did you not understand?

I find it ironic that this is - almost word for word - the pitch I heard at a Baptist tent meeting long ago. Based upon the folks going up to get dunked, I would surmise that fear is indeed a potent motivator for evangelism.

However, my reading of the gospel (flawed as it is) would say though that Jesus attracted people less with fear and more with love. Love that challenged people about casting the first stone, love that rejoiced in receiving the prodigal, love that took time to speak with the woman at the well, love that healed the sick and made the blind to see, love that bore a cross - and rose again.

I wonder what would’ve happened 600 years ago if Luther and the Church had engaged each other with perhaps less fear and more (agape) love?

 

[niceatheist]

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

 

[thelibrarian]

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

Agree.
Luther never intended for their to be a split in the church. That is not what he wanted. People who sprung up as followers of his ideals made it so. He had a very good, valid point about indulgences. At the time, the church was accepting gold to pay them. That wasn’t Biblical by any stretch.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I personally don’t want to be outside that Church and hear Him say to me someday, what part of what I promised did you not understand?

I find it ironic that this is - almost word for word - the pitch I heard at a Baptist tent meeting long ago. Based upon the folks going up to get dunked, I would surmise that fear is indeed a potent motivator for evangelism.

It’s a bit hollow don’t ya think, since anyone who knows history, knows who started the baptists and when that sect began? And that was John Smyth.

TULIPed:

However, my reading of the gospel (flawed as it is) would say though that Jesus attracted people less with fear and more with love. Love that challenged people about casting the first stone, love that rejoiced in receiving the prodigal, love that took time to speak with the woman at the well, love that healed the sick and made the blind to see, love that bore a cross - and rose again.

I wonder what would’ve happened 600 years ago if Luther and the Church had engaged each other with perhaps less fear and more (agape) love?

Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone. When He was asked about those who are saved are few, He didn’t deny it He validated that few are saved … Meaning?

Then there were specific writings of Paul condemning division from the Church THEY the apostles were writing to and for. As St Luke wrote in Acts 9:31

** ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία, ekklésia = church ,
καθ’, kata = according to ,
ὅλης, holos = whole / all / universal ,
τῆς, ho = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

niceatheist:

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

Agree.
Luther never intended for their to be a split in the church.That is not what he wanted. People who sprung up as followers of his ideals made it so.

Luther’s errors were publicized. He didn’t go back on any of them when given the chance. In fact he didn’t even respond to them when the Church asked for his reply. So he was excommunicated. He most certainly did what he did voluntarily, ergo he intended to do them. And the consequences came. Was all that fixable? Yes. Did Luther even try and fix anything he started? No. Therefore what he did he intended to do.

thelibrarian:

He had a very good, valid point about indulgences. At the time, the church was accepting gold to pay them. That wasn’t Biblical by any stretch.

Indulgences are valid AND biblical. Please read this

 

[steve-b]

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

The Church has had 21 ecumenical plus scores of local councils over the last 2000 yrs. The Church is always reforming herself. Trent was the 19th ecumenical council.

 

[thelibrarian]

thelibrarian:

niceatheist:

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

Agree.
Luther never intended for their to be a split in the church.That is not what he wanted. People who sprung up as followers of his ideals made it so.

Luther’s errors were publicized. He didn’t go back on any of them when given the chance. In fact he didn’t even respond to them when the Church asked for his reply. So he was excommunicated. He most certainly did what he did voluntarily, ergo he intended to do them. And the consequences came. Was all that fixable? Yes. Did Luther even try and fix anything he started? No. Therefore what he did he intended to do.

thelibrarian:

He had a very good, valid point about indulgences. At the time, the church was accepting gold to pay them. That wasn’t Biblical by any stretch.

Indulgences are valid AND biblical. Please read this

Using prayer in relation to indulgences is biblical, a church official demanding all a family’s possessions or lots of gold to insure their loved one is not in purgatory is not Biblical. It was a practice very abused at the time

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

thelibrarian:

niceatheist:

The problem is that things had degraded to the point that it made someone like Luther possible. Luther and the Counter Reformation were the symptoms of the disease, not the causes.

Agree.
Luther never intended for their to be a split in the church.That is not what he wanted. People who sprung up as followers of his ideals made it so.

Luther’s errors were publicized. He didn’t go back on any of them when given the chance. In fact he didn’t even respond to them when the Church asked for his reply. So he was excommunicated. He most certainly did what he did voluntarily, ergo he intended to do them. And the consequences came. Was all that fixable? Yes. Did Luther even try and fix anything he started? No. Therefore what he did he intended to do.

thelibrarian:

He had a very good, valid point about indulgences. At the time, the church was accepting gold to pay them. That wasn’t Biblical by any stretch.

Indulgences are valid AND biblical. Please read this

Using prayer in relation to indulgences is biblical, a church official demanding all a family’s possessions or lots of gold to insure their loved one is not in purgatory is not Biblical. It was a practice very abused at the time

I see you didn’t open and read the link I provided.

 

[TULIPed]

It’s a bit hollow don’t ya think, since anyone who knows history, knows who started the baptists and when that sect began? And that was John Smyth.

I’m always thankful when somebody tells me there’s kryptonite in the room Steve - but for the life of me, I can’t see where it is here. However, I’m on your turf and you’re a smart guy, so…

Touche. You got me there.

Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone. When He was asked about those who are saved are few, He didn’t deny it He validated that few are saved … Meaning?

As a card carrying Calvinist, I wholeheartedly agree. Put that together with Ephesians 1:4, sprinkle in a little Romans 9, and now you’re cooking with gas.

(All the fluffy “For God so loved the world” stuff is rainbows and unicorns anyway.)

 

[niceatheist]

And yet even it eventually even the church acknowledged, if only tacitly, a number of the issues the reformers had raised.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s a bit hollow don’t ya think, since anyone who knows history, knows who started the baptists and when that sect began? And that was John Smyth.

I’m always thankful when somebody tells me there’s kryptonite in the room Steve - but for the life of me, I can’t see where it is here. However, I’m on your turf and you’re a smart guy, so…

Touche. You got me there.

No gotcha intended. I was merely pointing out, that one needs to know who started their church, and when they were started

I’m sure you’ve seen a list

Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone. When He was asked about those who are saved are few, He didn’t deny it He validated that few are saved … Meaning?

TULIPed:

As a card carrying Calvinist, I wholeheartedly agree. Put that together with Ephesians 1:4, sprinkle in a little Romans 9, and now you’re cooking with gas.

(All the fluffy “For God so loved the world” stuff is rainbows and unicorns anyway.)

And to your point,

I say this TULIPed, with all respect, I’m just giving information. What you do with it is up to you

going back in history, in this case, prior to the 16th century and Luther’s revolt, … every Protestant will find, regardless of the name their faction goes by, no Protestant faction existed prior to the 16th century revolt.

So,

Re: the point of the thread, Not just Luther, but all Protestants in general, how does one skirt the consequences taught in scripture, for being divided from, Our Lord’s Church, and that their division doesn’t effect THEM. How do they make that case?

Example,

From Paul to the Church of Rome

Rom 16:
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions διχοστασίαι and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[a] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Be sure to open that link for the definition.

That same Greek word in Rm 16:17 for dissension/faction is also used in Gal 5:20.

And the consequence ? for that sin

“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.
[Gal 5:21]

 

[steve-b]

And yet even it eventually even the church acknowledged, if only tacitly, a number of the issues the reformers had raised.

Example(s)?

 

[niceatheist]

The Council of Trent instituted a number of important reforms; limiting or abolishing at least some of what had riled Luther and the other Reformers; including the sale of indulgences, training for priests (this was a very significant reform, creating the priesthood we know today), making sure bishops were in residence within their diocese.

 

[steve-b]

The Council of Trent instituted a number of important reforms; limiting or abolishing at least some of what had riled Luther and the other Reformers; including the sale of indulgences, training for priests (this was a very significant reform, creating the priesthood we know today), making sure bishops were in residence within their diocese.

This is the perfect spot for quotes… properly referenced .

Re: indulgences and myths

 

[TULIPed]

the point of the thread, Not just Luther, but all Protestants in general, how does one skirt the consequences taught in scripture, for being divided from, Our Lord’s Church, and that their division doesn’t effect THEM . How do they make that case?

Yes quite. But, rather than sharpen the other side of the 2 bladed knife you wield so respectfully (and frequently) I shall retire to prepare for an early morning workout. Until the next thread, I bid you (and all at CAF) a cordial,

Adieu.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

the point of the thread, Not just Luther, but all Protestants in general, how does one skirt the consequences taught in scripture, for being divided from, Our Lord’s Church, and that their division doesn’t effect THEM . How do they make that case?

Yes quite. But, rather than sharpen the other side of the 2 bladed knife you wield so respectfully (and frequently) I shall retire to prepare for an early morning workout. Until the next thread, I bid you (and all at CAF) a cordial,

Adieu.

The greater question still remains. This topic in the bigger picture, is not just about Luther alone …

The greater question is, Does every division that came from his revolt, have a case…correct?