Calvin,Luthern and Zwingli

[PerryJ]

Why did I get very uncomfortable reading the last few Post? To make Judgment calls on Luther’s state of mind or sanity, or even whether or not he was bigoted some 500 years after his death is a Little far bit of a stretch. On top of not being the topic of the thread. I will say that if he had not fallen in with the German Princes that he would not have left the Church do see that he became a pawn of the Political powers and that It may have influenced a lot of his later writings. That does not take away from the fact that he made some valid points, or that he had some valid criticisms. Many if not all were addressed and corrected by the council of Trent.

We need to stop reliving these old arguments and look at what we share and how we can Come together back to one Faith. 100 years ago there was a mighty river between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, now days there is but a rolling creek. There are few major points that separate these days and I pray that forums like this we can discover that they are not as major as we think and that the Bishops of the Catholic church and Lutheran Leaders ( sorry I don’t know the structure of Lutheranism above parish Pastor) can work toward unity.

I agree that all Christians are Church brethen and animosity is not right. I do not understand how pointing out facts concerning Luther is wrong. Luther started the Protestant Reformation and more then Lutherans came from this Reformation. I do not believe most people understand why Luther changed Christianity. It is certainly much more complex the his thesis. To understand him is to understand that he changed religion based upon personal inadequacy. I point this out so people investigate and find the fullness of Christ.

One should note also that not all Christians will get to Heaven. (Catholics included.) To not understand the fullness of Christ’s teaching can be dangerous. Christ certainly did not preach live and let live. We are to profess the truth. In this case facts concerning Luther is very pertinent.

 

[JonNC]

=PerryJ;5331323]I agree that all Christians are Church brethen and animosity is not right. I do not understand how pointing out facts concerning Luther is wrong. Luther started the Protestant Reformation and more then Lutherans came from this Reformation. I do not believe most people understand why Luther changed Christianity. It is certainly much more complex the his thesis. To understand him is to understand that he changed religion based upon personal inadequacy. I point this out so people investigate and find the fullness of Christ.

PerryJ,
If you wish to discuss our differences - remember, Lutherans do not accept everything Luther taught, and in fact reject some things, such as his anti-Judaism - I am all for it, because as Scott said, the dialogue of the last 50 years has brought us much closer.
I do not believe I need to understand the personal “inadequacies” of Pope Leo X, or John Tetzel, or Johann Eck to understand the Catholic faith. If you want to understand Lutheranism, understand what we believe, teach, and confess. The personality flaws of Luther, Melanchton, Chemnitz, and any other are irrelevent to what we believe, teach, and confess.

Luther started the Protestant Reformation and more then Lutherans came from this Reformation.

I reject this. Zwingli, Calvin, etc. were big boys and made their own decisions. Anabaptists were a completely separate development, and the Lutheran confessions regularly criticized them. Modern day “evangelicals” often think we’re too much like you.

One should note also that not all Christians will get to Heaven. (Catholics included.) To not understand the fullness of Christ’s teaching can be dangerous. Christ certainly did not preach live and let live. We are to profess the truth. In this case facts concerning Luther is very pertinent.

Now this I appreciate, except the last sentence. Here you show a true concern for your siblings in Christ, as I hold for you. The so-called facts you presented here about Luther’s personality are not only not pertinent, they are also not completely accurate, tainted by polemics, and in the end undermine your professed efforts to bring us together in truth.

And finally, I believe Mary was full of grace, ever-virgin, and resides in heaven with her son.


Jon

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ,
If you wish to discuss our differences - remember, Lutherans do not accept everything Luther taught, and in fact reject some things, such as his anti-Judaism - I am all for it, because as Scott said, the dialogue of the last 50 years has brought us much closer.
I do not believe I need to understand the personal “inadequacies” of Pope Leo X, or John Tetzel, or Johann Eck to understand the Catholic faith. If you want to understand Lutheranism, understand what we believe, teach, and confess. The personality flaws of Luther, Melanchton, Chemnitz, and any other are irrelevent to what we believe, teach, and confess.

I reject this. Zwingli, Calvin, etc. were big boys and made their own decisions. Anabaptists were a completely separate development, and the Lutheran confessions regularly criticized them. Modern day “evangelicals” often think we’re too much like you.

Now this I appreciate, except the last sentence. Here you show a true concern for your siblings in Christ, as I hold for you. The so-called facts you presented here about Luther’s personality are not only not pertinent, they are also not completely accurate, tainted by polemics, and in the end undermine your professed efforts to bring us together in truth.

And finally, I believe Mary was full of grace, ever-virgin, and resides in heaven with her son.


Jon

The difference is that Catholics believe that Christ protects the teaching of the Church. (This can be proven via the Bible.) It is the same today as it was then.

Luther on the other hand changed a religion that existed for 1,500 years. Do you have anything in the Bible that states another prophet would come after Christ? That a prophet would change the basic beliefs of Christianity. That this prophet would know more then the Church that Christ built for us? The Church that defined the Bible? One can say that the Church was corrupt and Luther brought about change; but, this is not about corruption. This about a change in basic Christian beliefs that a mortal man created. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that another prophet would come. In fact it states the opposite. Luther, as the Bible denotes, can not be a prophet and can not change Christianity as he did. With that Luther never stated he was a prophet; however, for one to change basic Christian beliefs such as faith and works would he not have to be a prophet. If you extend this beyond Lutherans would not the Protestants that do not believe in the Eucharist have to believe he was a new prophet? One that could correct 1,500 years of all Christians taking the Eucharist. Changing the beliefs that tens of thousand of Christians died for with the Eucharist.

Would not a prophet be the only one that could take the Bible and throw out seven books of the Bible. Seven books that Christ even quotes from.

Catholics do not follow a man. The Pope is not teaching us doctrine. Christ is teaching us. Luther though is changing doctrine that was set at the very beginning of Christianity. He is not a prophet and can not change Christianity based upon his personal beliefs. Just as Muhammed can’t. The Bible states that their will be no more prophets.

 

[JonNC]

The difference is that Catholics believe that Christ protects the teaching of the Church. (This can be proven via the Bible.) It is the same today as it was then.

Luther on the other hand changed a religion that existed for 1,500 years. Do you have anything in the Bible that states another prophet would come after Christ? That a prophet would change the basic beliefs of Christianity. That this prophet would know more then the Church that Christ built for us? The Church that defined the Bible? One can say that the Church was corrupt and Luther brought about change; but, this is not about corruption. This about a change in basic Christian beliefs that a mortal man created. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that another prophet would come. In fact it states the opposite. Luther, as the Bible denotes, can not be a prophet and can not change Christianity as he did. With that Luther never stated he was a prophet; however, for one to change basic Christian beliefs such as faith and works would he not have to be a prophet. If you extend this beyond Lutherans would not the Protestants that do not believe in the Eucharist have to believe he was a new prophet? One that could correct 1,500 years of all Christians taking the Eucharist. Changing the beliefs that tens of thousand of Christians died for with the Eucharist.

Would not a prophet be the only one that could take the Bible and throw out seven books of the Bible. Seven books that Christ even quotes from.

Catholics do not follow a man. The Pope is not teaching us doctrine. Christ is teaching us. Luther though is changing doctrine that was set at the very beginning of Christianity. He is not a prophet and can not change Christianity based upon his personal beliefs. Just as Muhammed can’t. The Bible states that their will be no more prophets.

Well, Perry, at least we are on to doctrine now, and not personalities.

1. The Doctrine of Justification: See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification to see where we are now.
2. On the Eucharist. While we disagree on Transubstantiation (also rejected by the Orthodox), we agree on the real presence. Those who deny the real presence might think Zwingli a prophet, not Luther. You’ll have to ask therm.
3. Luther didn’t take any books out the Bible. He participated in the Church-sanctioned centuries long debate regarding the canonicity of the dc books. Even after being excommunicated, he kept the dc books in his translation.
4. Whether or not he changed what the ECF’s and apostles taught is a matter of opinion and, in fact, dialogue.

Jon

 

[PerryJ]

Well, Perry, at least we are on to doctrine now, and not personalities.

1. The Doctrine of Justification: See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification to see where we are now.
2. On the Eucharist. While we disagree on Transubstantiation (also rejected by the Orthodox), we agree on the real presence. Those who deny the real presence might think Zwingli a prophet, not Luther. You’ll have to ask therm.
3. Luther didn’t take any books out the Bible. He participated in the Church-sanctioned centuries long debate regarding the canonicity of the dc books. Even after being excommunicated, he kept the dc books in his translation.
4. Whether or not he changed what the ECF’s and apostles taught is a matter of opinion and, in fact, dialogue.

Jon

Luther had in fact relegated the DC to a different status to support his beliefs. I am not sure what you mean by “the Church sanctioned centuries long debate”. However if you are refering to Jerome he did question the books; however, he stood with the Church on the issue. He also stated that anyone that stood against the Catholic faith was a heretic. (This obviously does not apply to current Protestants as they are doing the best they can based upon what they have learned.) In fact Jerome’s assumption was proved wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls and as such Jerome and Luther have been historically proven wrong. You also know that in Luther’s own hand writing it can be seen that he relegated these books just to support his beliefs.

He changed the beliefs in purgatory and faith and works; which, both are supported by the Bible. This not a matter of opinion. Both are supported by the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. Some of which were taught by the Apostles. The fact that he changed Christian beliefs is not opinion. It is historical fact that he changed Christianity that existed for 1,500. As such he would have to be a prophet; yet, the Bible states that there would not be anymore prophets.

Your are my brother in Christ and I do not attempt to be negative. I do mean to be direct. Have you read the early Church Fathers? Have you read the Didache? They are Catholic in every sense. Lutherans are very close to the fullness; however, they are not there. I challenge not to be negatvie; but, to prompt all Protestants to read the early Church Fathers.

Challenge me all you wish. Perhaps Christ is using you to teach me something about my faith.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I agree that all Christians are Church brethen and animosity is not right. I do not understand how pointing out facts concerning Luther is wrong. Luther started the Protestant Reformation and more then Lutherans came from this Reformation. I do not believe most people understand why Luther changed Christianity. It is certainly much more complex the his thesis. To understand him is to understand that he changed religion based upon personal inadequacy. I point this out so people investigate and find the fullness of Christ.

One should note also that not all Christians will get to Heaven. (Catholics included.) To not understand the fullness of Christ’s teaching can be dangerous. Christ certainly did not preach live and let live. We are to profess the truth. In this case facts concerning Luther is very pertinent.

If we must discuss go into the way and what fores of the Reformation in regard to Luther. We have to look at the whole picture. Luther got caught up in a Political whirlwind. That And the fact that he could not see how the Church that he loved and the Pope that he was loyal to could not see that he was not trying to be a bullheaded agitator, or any such thing. As History shows the Church did address many of the concerns that Luther had raised. Of course he had passed away by this time. if there had been this type of option of Luther to go before and present his views to those that were not out to do noting more than shut him up, A major portion of the reformation may not have occurred. Henry the XIII may not have even had the nerve to separate from Rome.

I distaste these type of threads as often I find myself looking as if I am defending those that oppose the Church. that is not my stance. but i can see if I place myself in Luther place surrounded by those whom he was that I may have developed feeling of total and unjustified refection by the Church in which case As time passed would lead me to writing more and more Criticisms of the church. The facts of the matter is that there were those inside the Church that are just as liable for what happened during the reformation as Luther and to try to paint him as nothing but a crazy bigoted heretic is not doing one in this day just. We Catholic have to except the fact that is does not matter who was right or wrong, But that the whole affair was handled very badly and in a non Christian manner by most that were involved.

I personally do not care what his mental state was or why he did what he did or why the those from the Vatican and other Bishops did what they did. it happened 500 years ago and does nothing to bring unity to the Body of Christ today to rehash it.

The Facts are that in today’s world things that Catholic and Lutherans share are more important.

!) That Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
2) That he was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
3) That in the Eucharist we have the Body and Blood and divinity of Christ.

I know there are more feel free to add to this list.

Peace Brothers.

Oh I just thought of something. there is going to be those in heaven that never heard the Gospel or the Name of our Lord, because of were they lived and when they lived. but they had the love of God in there hearts and would have excepted Christ if given the chance. That they lived more a Christian life than a lot of those that claim to be Christians.
I C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia in I believe the Last book of the Chronicles when all the Narnian’s and those from the land south of Narnia were going into the barn one by one the god of those people( repented Satan) was picking them off one at a time, but when the onw boy went in Aslan stopped him and Said not him He is mine and told him that even though he, the boy, did not know him, that He, Aslan knew Him.

 

[JonNC]

=PerryJ;5332032]Your are my brother in Christ and I do not attempt to be negative. I do mean to be direct. Have you read the early Church Fathers? Have you read the Didache? They are Catholic in every sense. Lutherans are very close to the fullness; however, they are not there. I challenge not to be negatvie; but, to prompt all Protestants to read the early Church Fathers.

Challenge me all you wish. Perhaps Christ is using you to teach me something about my faith.

Challenge you? I only challenged what I believe is a misunderstanding of Luther. I would never challenge your faith, my brother in Chirst. In fact, I rejoice in it, as I hope you do mine. Perhaps Christ is using us both to enrich our faith, and love for one another.
Pray for unity between us.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If we must discuss go into the way and what fores of the Reformation in regard to Luther. We have to look at the whole picture. Luther got caught up in a Political whirlwind. That And the fact that he could not see how the Church that he loved and the Pope that he was loyal to could not see that he was not trying to be a bullheaded agitator, or any such thing. As History shows the Church did address many of the concerns that Luther had raised. Of course he had passed away by this time. if there had been this type of option of Luther to go before and present his views to those that were not out to do noting more than shut him up, A major portion of the reformation may not have occurred. Henry the XIII may not have even had the nerve to separate from Rome.

I distaste these type of threads as often I find myself looking as if I am defending those that oppose the Church. that is not my stance. but i can see if I place myself in Luther place surrounded by those whom he was that I may have developed feeling of total and unjustified refection by the Church in which case As time passed would lead me to writing more and more Criticisms of the church. The facts of the matter is that there were those inside the Church that are just as liable for what happened during the reformation as Luther and to try to paint him as nothing but a crazy bigoted heretic is not doing one in this day just. We Catholic have to except the fact that is does not matter who was right or wrong, But that the whole affair was handled very badly and in a non Christian manner by most that were involved.

I personally do not care what his mental state was or why he did what he did or why the those from the Vatican and other Bishops did what they did. it happened 500 years ago and does nothing to bring unity to the Body of Christ today to rehash it.

The Facts are that in today’s world things that Catholic and Lutherans share are more important.

!) That Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
2) That he was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
3) That in the Eucharist we have the Body and Blood and divinity of Christ.

I know there are more feel free to add to this list.

Peace Brothers.

On these three things and many more we agree. Thanks for your charitable contribution.
I can always count on kind words, and a calming influence from you.

Jon

 

[PerryJ]

If we must discuss go into the way and what fores of the Reformation in regard to Luther. We have to look at the whole picture. Luther got caught up in a Political whirlwind. That And the fact that he could not see how the Church that he loved and the Pope that he was loyal to could not see that he was not trying to be a bullheaded agitator, or any such thing. As History shows the Church did address many of the concerns that Luther had raised. Of course he had passed away by this time. if there had been this type of option of Luther to go before and present his views to those that were not out to do noting more than shut him up, A major portion of the reformation may not have occurred. Henry the XIII may not have even had the nerve to separate from Rome.

I distaste these type of threads as often I find myself looking as if I am defending those that oppose the Church. that is not my stance. but i can see if I place myself in Luther place surrounded by those whom he was that I may have developed feeling of total and unjustified refection by the Church in which case As time passed would lead me to writing more and more Criticisms of the church. The facts of the matter is that there were those inside the Church that are just as liable for what happened during the reformation as Luther and to try to paint him as nothing but a crazy bigoted heretic is not doing one in this day just. We Catholic have to except the fact that is does not matter who was right or wrong, But that the whole affair was handled very badly and in a non Christian manner by most that were involved.

I personally do not care what his mental state was or why he did what he did or why the those from the Vatican and other Bishops did what they did. it happened 500 years ago and does nothing to bring unity to the Body of Christ today to rehash it.

The Facts are that in today’s world things that Catholic and Lutherans share are more important.

!) That Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.
2) That he was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
3) That in the Eucharist we have the Body and Blood and divinity of Christ.

I know there are more feel free to add to this list.

Peace Brothers.

Oh I just thought of something. there is going to be those in heaven that never heard the Gospel or the Name of our Lord, because of were they lived and when they lived. but they had the love of God in there hearts and would have excepted Christ if given the chance. That they lived more a Christian life than a lot of those that claim to be Christians.
I C.S.Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia in I believe the Last book of the Chronicles when all the Narnian’s and those from the land south of Narnia were going into the barn one by one the god of those people( repented Satan) was picking them off one at a time, but when the onw boy went in Aslan stopped him and Said not him He is mine and told him that even though he, the boy, did not know him, that He, Aslan knew Him.

I agree with most of your post. I certainly believe Luther started something he could not stop. I believe he made many severe mistakes that were sinful as we all do. I am trying to point out that he was just a sinful man that did not have a great revelation. He was just a man and we should not have changed our beliefs or the Bible based upon this man’s personal thoughts. I also agree that the Church created much of the environment that allowed this to occur. My point is that Luther was a man and not a prophet.

I also agree that Lutheran’s are very close to Catholics. Many denomination are not and Luther was the first force in the Reformation. I wish the other denominations to truly understand where their belief started. The Lutherans on this site that I have posted with tend to know all of these facts.

 

[PerryJ]

Challenge you? I only challenged what I believe is a misunderstanding of Luther. I would never challenge your faith, my brother in Chirst. In fact, I rejoice in it, as I hope you do mine. Perhaps Christ is using us both to enrich our faith, and love for one another.
Pray for unity between us.

Jon

It appears the post did not read as I intended. I meant for you to challenge my knowledge not my faith. I do not doubt that you are a good Christian and God smiles upon you. I have learned much from Lutherans on this site over the past years. I have found Lutherans to be well read, have strong insight and a powerful Christian spirit. If you have wisdom to show me where I error I am willing to listen.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

On these three things and many more we agree. Thanks for your charitable contribution.
I can always count on kind words, and a calming influence from you.

Jon

Thank you for your kind words. I only say what I feel.

As stated in Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3:1-8

1 There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
6 A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

So if we look at the Scripture there was a time for divisions, maybe now is the time for us to reunite.

The Christian world has enough people against it without fighting amongst ourselves.

 

[JonNC]

It appears the post did not read as I intended. I meant for you to challenge my knowledge not my faith. I do not doubt that you are a good Christian and God smiles upon you. I have learned much from Lutherans on this site over the past years. I have found Lutherans to be well read, have strong insight and a powerful Christian spirit. If you have wisdom to show me where I error I am willing to listen.

It is reasonable to accept that we have differences , or we would be in the same communion. My hope is that the leaders of our communions will continue to work together, and bring us together.
My only request would be that you to explore Luther the man from our perspective, however. This is a good website.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/martin-luther-topical-master-index-for.html

Jon

 

[PerryJ]

It is reasonable to accept that we have differences , or we would be in the same communion. My hope is that the leaders of our communions will continue to work together, and bring us together.
My only request would be that you to explore Luther the man from our perspective, however. This is a good website.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/martin-luther-topical-master-index-for.html

Jon

I will read it. I want you to know that my sources are secular. They had equally negative comments about many Catholics.

I will read it though. I love to read history and theology.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for your kind words. I only say what I feel.

As stated in Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3:1-8

1 There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
6 A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

So if we look at the Scripture there was a time for divisions, maybe now is the time for us to reunite.

The Christian world has enough people against it without fighting amongst ourselves.

This is really true. And, you know, unity does not have to be all or nothing. There is so much we already agree on, and are therefore, unified in. We confess the same Creeds, share a common Baptism, and so many other things. And one thing western nonCatholic Christians need to remember: we are part of the western church, and the enemies of Rome are our enemies as well.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I agree with most of your post. I certainly believe Luther started something he could not stop. I believe he made many severe mistakes that were sinful as we all do. I am trying to point out that he was just a sinful man that did not have a great revelation. He was just a man and we should not have changed our beliefs or the Bible based upon this man’s personal thoughts. I also agree that the Church created much of the environment that allowed this to occur. My point is that Luther was a man and not a prophet.

I also agree that Lutheran’s are very close to Catholics. Many denomination are not and Luther was the first force in the Reformation. I wish the other denominations to truly understand where their belief started. The Lutherans on this site that I have posted with tend to know all of these facts.

Perry,

I don’t think that you will find many that believe Luther more than just a man with problems and faults just like the rest of us. I also do not mean to come across as being critical of you. If I have I apologize. You are correct that there are many today just as there were in his day that take what he wrote and said and carry far beyond what I believe he ever intended.

We can not discount the influence of Calvin, Zwingli, Or never Henry XIII in the state of what has become disunity of Christiandom I heard it said that Luther once said that when discussing Zwingli that he would rather partake of the Eucharist with a Papist than communion with Zwingli and his group. I paraphrase. But word to that effect. The point of all this is because some one refused to listen to any thing in opposition to what they held as true thing grew far out of control.
You know you have to wonder what would have happened if rome had not responded to Luther at all?

 

[PerryJ]

I will read it. I want you to know that my sources are secular. They had equally negative comments about many Catholics.

I will read it though. I love to read history and theology.

This site is definetly not historical. It is personal opinion and quotes taken out of context.

For examples it speaks of sales of indulgences? I do not deny that indulgences were out of hand; however, these so called sales were to fund charities. Specifically the indulgences that Luther rejected were donations to build the Sistene Chapel.

I would start by reading “The Reformation a History; By Diarmaid MacCullcoh”. I am sorry; but, your site is a religious apologetic not based upon facts. Granted the site is defending some absurd rhetoric against Luther; however, it would be much stronger if they used historical context with the quotes. Plus the use of the “medieval” excuse is rational concerning his support of burning witches. To use it to support other acts is not a coherent argument. Many people were anti-semitic at the time; however, the Catholic Church had repeatedly issued Papal Bulls to protect them. Note many Catholic Priest ignored these Papal Bulls; however, the point is that at the time being anti-semetic was a known prejudice.

I will try and read more; however, I have read two articles and both had serious historical errors.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This is really true. And, you know, unity does not have to be all or nothing. There is so much we already agree on, and are therefore, unified in. We confess the same Creeds, share a common Baptism, and so many other things. And one thing western nonCatholic Christians need to remember: we are part of the western church, and the enemies of Rome are our enemies as well.

Jon

You are quite right. I am not sure how such union would work, but many eastern Churches have over the year remained or come back to union with Rome without having to give up their individuality. As long as we live and talk and listen to one another the Hope is there. I mean Look there are also those that have come back to Rome form the Anglicans as whole dioceses and received the right to to continue to use the Anglican form of the Mass. there called Anglican usage Churches I believe.

 

[PerryJ]

Perry,

I don’t think that you will find many that believe Luther more than just a man with problems and faults just like the rest of us. I also do not mean to come across as being critical of you. If I have I apologize. You are correct that there are many today just as there were in his day that take what he wrote and said and carry far beyond what I believe he ever intended.

We can not discount the influence of Calvin, Zwingli, Or never Henry XIII in the state of what has become disunity of Christiandom I heard it said that Luther once said that when discussing Zwingli that he would rather partake of the Eucharist with a Papist than communion with Zwingli and his group. I paraphrase. But word to that effect. The point of all this is because some one refused to listen to any thing in opposition to what they held as true thing grew far out of control.
You know you have to wonder what would have happened if rome had not responded to Luther at all?

Again I agree with your post. Note it is thought that Calvin had the same fears as Luther. This is hard to verify as his writings on the subject are limited. Certainly Calvin created a much wider gap with his support of double predestination.

What can you say about Henry. I would say that Luther and the others were trying to use Christian thoughts and they thought they were doing right. Henry appears to have been driven by purely self centered thoughts. Luther and the others may have been wrong; but, I agree that their intent was not to do wrong.

 

[JonNC]

This site is definetly not historical. It is personal opinion and quotes taken out of context.

For examples it speaks of sales of indulgences? I do not deny that indulgences were out of hand; however, these so called sales were to fund charities. Specifically the indulgences that Luther rejected were donations to build the Sistene Chapel.

I would start by reading “The Reformation a History; By Diarmaid MacCullcoh”. I am sorry; but, your site is a religious apologetic not based upon facts. Granted the site is defending some absurd rhetoric against Luther; however, it would be much stronger if they used historical context with the quotes. Plus the use of the “medieval” excuse is rational concerning his support of burning witches. To use it to support other acts is not a coherent argument. Many people were anti-semitic at the time; however, the Catholic Church had repeatedly issued Papal Bulls to protect them. Note many Catholic Priest ignored these Papal Bulls; however, the point is that at the time being anti-semetic was a known prejudice.

I will try and read more; however, I have read two articles and both had serious historical errors.

Perry,
I did not intend to mislead you. When I said from our perspective, I assumed you would understand that it was apologetics. I apologize. I should have been more clear.

Jon

 

[GKC]

You are quite right. I am not sure how such union would work, but many eastern Churches have over the year remained or come back to union with Rome without having to give up their individuality. As long as we live and talk and listen to one another the Hope is there. I mean Look there are also those that have come back to Rome form the Anglicans as whole dioceses and received the right to to continue to use the Anglican form of the Mass. there called Anglican usage Churches I believe.

No dioceses; parishes only, and not many of those, under the Pastoral Provision. But yes, they are referred to as Anglican Use. Anout 6-7 such parishes around right now.

GKC