Actually I wouldn’t go so far as to say that… Our republic in the USA is stylized after the Roman republic before Julius Caesar overthrew the republic. Without protestants though, there definitely would not be a Republic in America today.
I disagree maybe your Martin Luther was not fan of monarchies but his politics would have surely been scorned in todays world…Luther initially preached tolerance towards the Jewish people, convinced that the reason they had never converted to Christianity was that they were discriminated against, or had never heard the Gospel of Christ. However, after his overtures to Jews failed to convince Jewish people to adopt Christianity, he began preaching that the Jews were set in evil, anti-Christian ways, and needed to be expelled from German politics. In his* On the Jews and Their Lies*, he repeatedly quotes the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus called them “a brood of vipers and children of the devil”
Church of England
If I was a follower of Luther this might be a real problem. I am “Lutheran”. This does not mean that Luther’s word is law. Luther possesed no special authority.
Yes ancient Rome invented a Republic, but Republican aspirations don’t seem to appear at all while the West was solidly Catholic.
What??? So the fact that your religion is named after the man has nothing to do with the man? Somehow I think the greater body of your synod would disagree. Your whole religion is based on this man’s interpretation of scripture so I do not see how you can ignore his beliefs.
That’s right.
Your shock doesn’t surprise me. It would be natural for a Catholic to have difficulty separating the man from the truths he tought.
Keep doing that, and you’ll end up Catholic.
And what “truths” are those…Martin Luther not only had a false interpretation of scriprture but even went as far as ommiting from scripture that which disagreed with his false teaching. Including the book of James which of course goes entirely against his “faith alone” apostasy…24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. James 2:24 NIV
Monarchy is all very well: but not the absolute type, thank you very much. ##Gottle of Geer said:## This is a very tired libel##
”?I, for one, know separation is great, if you mean the historical definition of “separation” and not the ACLU definition.
This is kind of the point I was getting at. Cathoicism was comfortable when bishops crowned kings and when kings were said to rule with divine authority (channeled through Rome of course).
Lutherans would desribe themselves as “evangelicals.” Lutheran is, like most such names, a slur that stuck. It’s trite and silly to go after Lutherans for this. Deal with their actual teachings as found in their Confessions, or leave them alone. Ad hominem attacks on Luther are cheap shots and I’m more and more inclining to the view that they should be treated as beneath contempt, as should equally silly tactics when used against Catholics.
Luther was a big supporter of monarchies. The Calvinists had a big influence on the development of representative government. Lutheranism, as far as I can tell, did not.
Calvinism of a dogmatically presbyterian sort, yes. Not particularly Lutheranism or Anglicanism, as far as I can see, both of which staunchly supported absolute monarchies just as much as post-Reformation Catholicism did.