Did Martin Luther allow divorce?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jas84173 said:
Who cares what he said
Click to expand...
I do. I will never stop ceasing to expose and disclose his works (i.e. the vast majority) for what they are, to inform his followers of what they (many) blindly accept to be ‘Gospel’; in the most charitable and gentle way of course - but, it seems that when you solely expose his works and quotes verbatim, they are somehow an inherent ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
That’s good. But I find that I have a much bigger problem with Calvinism. I just don’t understand how anyone could believe there’s a biblical basis for that…

Would you say Lutherans are closer to Catholics or to Calvinists?
 
Ew the concept of predestination is so anti-god I wouldn’t know where to start. Makes you want to pull your hair out dealing with it.

Shoo Calvin! Begone! Lol 😬
 
Calvinism is an umbrella term that can refer to a number of beliefs. Most of this prefer the term “reformed”. The name Calvinism stemmed from Lutherans who differentiated themselves from this belief. Lutheranism shares a lot with both. I’d say it depends on the reformed tradition to make the comparison of which it is closer too. I always saw the Orthodox as being the closest. They still have valid apostolic succession. Just in schism with the Holy See. The Anglicans and Lutherans are probably the next closest.
 
Last edited:
Haha i know. If you don’t hear from me for a while you know why Alyssa 😉
 
Sounds about as ambiguous as saying Christianity is an umbrella term for various things about Jesus. Yikes. Now I see how Protestants got lost, with that mind set the goal of 987654321 different denominations is well in reach.

Edit: Oh yea ofc. Maybe you were predestined to make me a sandwich 🤔
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
AugustTherese:
THAT is an ad hominem!
Click to expand...
Are you wanting to be the pot or the kettle ?
Click to expand...
You tell me. Does quoting Luther’s vile works make one a kettle or a pot?
 
AugustTherese said:
On the Jews and Their Lies” was written by whom again?
Click to expand...
Luther, and there was no excuse.

Johann Eck also wrote some virulent anti-Jewish tracts. “The absolute champion of anti- Jewish polemic in the early modern period was Luther’s Catholic opponent Johannes Eck, whose 1541 Refutation of a Jew Book was ‘a summa of the anti-Jewish literature of the Middle Ages, leaving out no accusation of genocide, blasphemy, or treason’” (Carter Lind- berg). The Roman Catholic Church (especially that of Luther’s time and before) doesn’t have a spotless record of defending the Jews and other groups against intolerance and hatred. “In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake. On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats” (Lewis W. Spitz).
“Although Johannes Eck, Luther’s dedicated opponent, and others wrote vitriolic attacks on the Jews, some of Luther’s colleagues, such as his dear friend Justas Jonas, present at Luther’s deathbed, Andreas Osiander, reformer in Nuremberg, were very understanding of the position of the Jews” (Lewis W. Spitz).
“When Osiander ventured to publish an anonymous tract defending Jews against the charge of ritual murder, Eck, knowing the true identity of the author, calls him the ‘evan- gelical scoundrel’ who dared to defend the ‘bloodthirsty Jews.’ The Lutherans, Eck curses on, were all evil monks who had stirred up the Peasants War and were now defending the archenemies of Christendom . . . Eck concludes his long-winded vituperation by accusing Osiander of slander against the whole of Christianity, because by denying the truth of ritual murders, the evangelical reformer was in essence accusing Christians of murder, magic, and lies” (Po-chia Hsia).

Are we agreed that Eck, too, has no excuse?

Despite this, these slanderers insist on quoting Luther to promote ideas he never had any intention of saying. And yet we need not defend Luther too far. The words from Luther’s pen were not inspired. Gordon Rupp had it right when he wrote about Luther: "I confess I am ashamed as I am ashamed of some letters of St. Jerome [and] some paragraphs in Sir Thomas More . . . and must say that their authors had not so learned Christ, and that, thank God, this is not the major part of what they had to say."

 
I like Martin Luther. I went to a Lutheran Church for a year before I became Catholic and I actually credit Martin Luther, in part, for my conversation. Not because of bad stuff leveled against him but because he inspired me to question a lot of the Protestant traditions I grew up with and this led to my conversation.

Obviously I think he was wrong in a lot but I too do not care for the “Martin Luther was a this, this and that, heretic” talk. The man is dead and I truly think he thought he was doing the right thing. I pray the man is in heaven. I want forgiveness for him like I want it for myself.

So, there is that… From a Roman Catholic, regarding Luther. I do think the name calling, even if it is the truth, done in mean spirit is wrong. The thread did not have to stray from the original question for sure and get into a “let’s bash Luther” thread. The man’s life and writings and teachings can be critiqued and disagreed with in a better way.
 
AugustTherese said:
You tell me. Does quoting Luther’s vile works make one a kettle or a pot?
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t know. I guess it depends on how out of context one does it to promote a polemic. We see this by some here, quoting scoundrels like O’Connor, O’Hare, Denifle, to name 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top