Did Martin Luther start the Protestinism?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Reply to Gabriel of 12 post# 18

I have trouble with several things in this post. First of all, quoting what a bunch of Catholics think about Luther doesn’t prove much of anything does it? Quoting Chesterton, a hardcore Catholic, and St. Thomas More, a deeply Catholic holyman, what good does that do to assess Luther’s character? It would be like quoting some twentieth century democrats and what they thought of Abraham Lincoln 100 years separated from him and from different parties. Have you tried quoting Protestants and what they thought of Luther? And even so, these opinions don’t mean much.

Luther never taught that God made adultery a “good thing.” He taught that there was no sin that could not be overcome by God’s grace and love with a contrite heart. It’s about faith as per Paul’s letter to the Romans and Galatians. It’s about inner conversion through faith. Luther taught that human beings couldn’t do anything good without the grace and guidance of God Himself. Luther was a pious man. He prayed, according to his journals and friends, around 4-6 hours per day. He was an enthusiastic preacher, a very scrupulous man who went to confession while Catholic DAILY. Some of his confessions went on for hour. He was also quite the tortured soul and had a strong, complex conscience.

Much of your post sounds like Wikipedia material quite honestly. Yes, Luther did study William of Ockham, as men like Warren Carroll like to point out but he also studied Aristotle a great deal (Aquinas’s hero).

Also, Luther did INDEED nail his 95 theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenburg. That is widely documented on both sides.

Luther’s statement that God was a Mighty Fortress is a POSITIVE thing and a pious proclamation of God as Almighty. I’m surprised you try to characature “A Mighty Fortress” as it is not what you’re saying it was. Luther wrote the song based on Psalm 46. Tell me how that is a bad thing? In fact, “A Mighty Fortress” is in most Catholic hymnals to this day? It is in the hymnal in our catholic churches around this diocese! A sample of the lyrics:

A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he amid the flood
of mortal ills prevaling.
For still our ancient foe
doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

Also you speak about the reformation already underway before Luther and that he did nothing to help it. If you look at people like Jan Hus or Wycliffe or any of these guys who attempted to challenge, reform, or criticize the Church they got executed or silenced fast. There was no reformation until Luther.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment that Catholics remind us he said ad nauseum appeared in his 1522 Preface to the New Testament. All of Luther’s Bibles after 1522 never have this quote. Luther himself retracted the comment from his editions of the Bible. If he thought it was worth removing, then quoting it forever isn’t very useful. Luther called the Epistle of James “a good book because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther doubted the whether James should’ve been part of the canon of Scripture because he thought it wasn’t of apostolic origin. This opinion came long before Luther. Eusebius and Jerome made comments casting doubt on the idea that James was actually apostolic. The irony is that not only did Erasmus, the great humanist, make statements that he didn’t think James was apostolic, Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s other contemporary, also made such statements. Yet those are never quoted here in CAF like Luther’s comment. Luther’s final judgment on the seeming contradictions between Romans and James was, according to Luther: "We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works."
It’s ironic that the Catholic Encyclopedia itself says "“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” There was some doubt from many men, Luther not the only one.

Reformation was already underway before Luther when “humanism” came on the scene with its counterpart “Renaissance” or rebirth which had a negative prejudice judgement on the preceding age. These gave way to much needed reform within the Church that dealt with the morality of man not the Apostolic Catholic Doctrines. St.Thomas More (an English man loyal to the Pope and the teachings up to his martyrdom) a contemporary of Luther and others wanted to correct the abuses not do away with the Pope and the magisterium, but to reform the lax ed morality in the clergy.

Luther an Augustinian monk, introduced from his “Nominalism” philosophy (which denied that there were such things as universals) which conflicted with his Catholicism of morality and law. Luther believed “God is a mighty fortress” that God could make adultery a good thing and we would have to practice it as we avoid it now.

This philosophy of men (by William of Ockham) lead Luther into his man made theologies of So-la Scriptura and Justification by faith. Luther believed that his new theology could be saved through an “external relationship”. For example; Luther stated that human beings were a pile of manure, which conflicted with the Church teachings that man was created good in the image of God, that Luther which this pile of “blank” was then covered over by the snow of grace.

St.Thomas Aquinas teachings countered Luther’'s, which teaches that the "human being is a pile of snow that becomes dirty after a time. Grace comes like a new snowfall and renews the original snow pile.

The reason I mentioned this is because Luther’s reformation derived from a philosophy of men which introduced man made theologies that refused the authority of the Church Jesus instituted upon the Apostles and held to the “authority of the scriptures only” to be his new faith which protested the divine offices of the Pope and the bishops.

To conclude here are a few contemporaries who know Luther which will give you an impression of Luther when he walked the earth;

St.Thomas More called Luther “an ape, ***, drunkard, a lousy little friar, a piece of scurf, a pestilence buffoon, a dishonest liar”.

G.K Chesterton called Luther “one of those great elemental barbarians”.

It isn’t a question if Luther dropped 7 books from the canon of scripture, Luther relabeled them as “not inspired of God” (apocryphal). Luther also wanted to remove new testament books and boasted that the book of James was a book of straw.

Luther did not help with the reformation of the Catholic church already begun before him, Luther added chaos and confusion with his new man made theologies, which freed up men to part ways from the Church while humanism took flight in “freedom of man’s will” to do what ever man willed to do, include interpret God’s scriptures for oneself, which did nothing for the reformation but confuse the many and gain individual wealth to his “princes” whom Luther also held to his secular authorities who also financed him to protest the Catholic Church, while they took properties from the Church to themselves as the many saw their princes “lawgivers” go over to Luther for the self delusion of freedom not reform.

Luther’s German’s translation of the bible was never the first either as some falsely claimed, nor did he ever nail his 95 theses on the door of the castle in Wittenberg, but posted them at the university of Wittenberg on a bulletin board.

Although they contained some good criticism, what drove his madness came from his own province of Germany where his own German priests were selling indulgences, not to mention Luther’s difficulties with Tetzel.

 

[pablope]

Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment that Catholics remind us he said ad nauseum appeared in his 1522 Preface to the New Testament. All of Luther’s Bibles after 1522 never have this quote. Luther himself retracted the comment from his editions of the Bible. If he thought it was worth removing, then quoting it forever iry of the Church (at the Council of Trent)

. Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon." There was some doubt from many men, Luther not the only one.

Gurney…I have always wondered…what made Luther retract his epistle of straw comment and what was the reason he did not succeed in removing the James epistle in the Bible?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Search on google. I looked this up quite awhile ago and found a lot more information that i’d love to post, but I don’t think we’re necessarily allowed to post links.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t care what Luther’s contemporaries thought of him either, but those who knew him can speak more accurately than the sentimental posters for Luther here who speak from afar who never knew him. I would take a contemporary opinions of Luther than one who just read his writings and never knew the man.

I had listed here some of Luther’s protestant contemporaries also who disagreed with Luther and labeled him other things, along with King Henry VIII, I deleted the list to shorten my post, and removed my Chesterton Introduction with them, (for this I apologize) who was last listed, who also gave his opinion who was a convert to Catholicism, whom; as you stated, came along much later. What struck me most was St.Thomas More’s opinion of Luther who met him, a holy man to have such a negative opinion of a human being carries alot of weight for this Catholic, considering the righteous man St.Thomas More was well known for, from both Catholics and Protestants, who remained loyal to the Catholic Church until they chopped his head off for his Catholic faith.

=Marc Anthony;7243628]Wait, a few contemporaries? Chesterton was no contemporary of Luther’s, considering he was born in 1874 and Luther in 1478.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good question, Pablo. I’ve often wondered the same thing. I think even Luther might have realized how over-the-top the comment was. Hard telling. But by removing it he obviously was signaling that he didn’t maintain that view or want it furthered. And yet anti-Luther apologists on here quote it every chance they get. If he had kept it and stuck by it I would take it more seriously.

Gurney…I have always wondered…what made Luther retract his epistle of straw comment and what was the reason he did not succeed in removing the James epistle in the Bible?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sentimentality goes both ways, Gabriel. You speak sentimentally of popes in here on a daily basis and we don’t need to produce contemporaries of the popes to counteract your sentimental admiration for such men? Aren’t we all speaking “from afar” about everyone in history in this forum? Whether it’s Augustine of Hippo, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or Jesus Our Saviour Himself, aren’t we all far-removed from these personalities? If we had to produce contemporary quotes each time to counter “sentimental” attachments to historical figures, yeesh, this would be an all-too-lengthy forum and we’d all die of boredome and insanity!

As for St. Thomas Moore’s head being chopped off, a sad development of the turbulent and fiery times in which he lived. I guess we should mention Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham. Why do I mention these chaps? Because they were all executed, mostly burned alive, under More’s chancellorship for heresy. Just as guys like Thomas Cranmer went from executioner to executed, so did More. Sad and polemical era. That is why we must do all we can to NOT be polemical over over-zealous and too fanatical now in dealings between Catholic and Protestant brethren. Civility, solid arguments, no polemics, and sound reasoning with charitability is perhaps what both sides were lacking then and all of us is lacking now!

Blessings

I don’t care what Luther’s contemporaries thought of him either, but those who knew him can speak more accurately than the sentimental posters for Luther here who speak from afar who never knew him. I would take a contemporary opinions of Luther than one who just read his writings and never knew the man.

I had listed here some of Luther’s protestant contemporaries also who disagreed with Luther and labeled him other things, along with King Henry VIII, I deleted the list to shorten my post, and removed my Chesterton Introduction with them, (for this I apologize) who was last listed, who also gave his opinion who was a convert to Catholicism, whom; as you stated, came along much later. What struck me most was St.Thomas More’s opinion of Luther who met him, a holy man to have such a negative opinion of a human being carries alot of weight for this Catholic, considering the righteous man St.Thomas More was well known for, from both Catholics and Protestants, who remained loyal to the Catholic Church until they chopped his head off for his Catholic faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How about some facts; Luther broke his vows to God, and took a wife and married a nun. Here is a Luther quoting what took place after his revolt began in his last years " We experience it daily, that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemporate, more dishonest"… He writes to his wife in 1545 of his own Wittenberg “let us get out of this Sodom”… In 1539 Philip of Hese was already married took on a second wife at the secret approval of Luther and his companion Philip Melancthon. You know I do not need to proceed further here with facts. The case I make is ironic, Luther sought to bring reformation to the Church, while at the same time became entangled with his self made authoritative immoralities.

=gurneyhalleck1;7243913]I have trouble with several things in this post. First of all, quoting what a bunch of Catholics think about Luther doesn’t prove much of anything does it? Quoting Chesterton, a hardcore Catholic, and St. Thomas More, a deeply Catholic holy man, what good does that do to assess Luther’s character? It would be like quoting some twentieth century democrats and what they thought of Abraham Lincoln 100 years separated from him and from different parties. Have you tried quoting Protestants and what they thought of Luther? And even so, these opinions don’t mean much.

Luther mocked and insulted Aristotle. Luther did not nail his 95 theses to any Church, your sources on both sides have followed hear say. The reason why your sources were misinformed because Luther’s disciple Philip Melancthon mentioned this after Luther’s death to make him a defiant Legend from his writings which was proven later to be unreliable factual matters. Philip is the one called the “theologian of the reformation” because it was made known that he; Philip salvaged Luther’s teachings (thought) and softened them and combined humanism with the reformation. So when you read Luther and cannot see him as St.Thomas saw him, you are probably looking at Luther from the modified version of his disciple Philip Melancthon, who painted Luther as a defiant legend, which won him points to say the least.

Sorry I don’t read Wikipedia don’t trust the sources, unless a poster directs his quotes from it? You got the wrong poster, and I don’t read Warren Carroll. What is this? quess my source?

Much of your post sounds like Wikipedia material quite honestly. Yes, Luther did study William of Ockham, as men like Warren Carroll like to point out but he also studied Aristotle a great deal (Aquinas’s hero).

Also, Luther did INDEED nail his 95 theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenburg. That is widely documented on both sides.

I did not characterize the song in any way. I used Luther’s teaching of philosophy/theology from how he portrayed God as Mighty, that God can change laws, revealing his teaching of God as a Mighty Fortress, this has nothing to do with the song, only to do with Luther’s philosophical style into his theology.

Luther’s statement that God was a Mighty Fortress is a POSITIVE thing and a pious proclamation of God as Almighty. I’m surprised you try to characature “A Mighty Fortress” as it is not what you’re saying it was. Luther wrote the song based on Psalm 46. Tell me how that is a bad thing?

The Church herself never needs reform or change, she is the body of Christ. That is where Jan, Wycliffe, Luther and others went wrong. What needed Change was for the Church members needed to get caught up with societies becoming literate, educated and freethinking was new to everyone at large in the “new freedom of man’s will” which humanism influenced the protestant theologies. Along with its counter part in the Renaissance thinking of the time, which brought about need for internal reform of men, not change Jesus teachings and Apostolic Traditions in the Church, as these protestant did to their own Church’s but could not succeed changing the Catholic Church to their doctrines.

True although Vatican I and II did make reformations for the new languages and new peoples in order to hear the gospel message. But Luther’s protest to authority never got changed, sacraments are all in place, Indulgences are still active in the Church today although without abuse etc…

Also you speak about the reformation already underway before Luther and that he did nothing to help it. If you look at people like Jan Hus or Wycliffe or any of these guys who attempted to challenge, reform, or criticize the Church they got executed or silenced fast. There was no reformation until Luther.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your accusation of More is debatable, a Chancelor did not authorize capital punishment, And If I recall, St.Thomas More refused the Chancelor position? To which Cranmer succeeded the Chancelor position who later tried (More) him in a mocked court, which had him executed.

In summary here to these posts, there is enough blame to go around on all fronts. I was just pointing out from the source from which the blame originated from Luther’s rebellion, not reformation of the Catholic Church.

=gurneyhalleck1;7244289]As for St. Thomas Moore’s head being chopped off, a sad development of the turbulent and fiery times in which he lived. I guess we should mention Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham. Why do I mention these chaps? Because they were all executed, mostly burned alive, under More’s chancellorship for heresy. Just as guys like Thomas Cranmer went from executioner to executed, so did More. Sad and polemical era. That is why we must do all we can to NOT be polemical over over-zealous and too fanatical now in dealings between Catholic and Protestant brethren. Civility, solid arguments, no polemics, and sound reasoning with charitability is perhaps what both sides were lacking then and all of us is lacking now!

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

Now, I thought (and I acknowledge that I can easily be wrong) that Luther was, in essentials, angry at various Church abuses and wrote several letters to Rome asking them to check it out. When they didn’t, he got so mad he posted the 99 theses knowing he’d be excommunicated, essentially excommunicating himself.

Posting the 95 Theses was an invitation to debate. A common practice among scholars at Universities of the day.

Father Martin was a professional theologian, member of the Augustinian Order, trained in very good Universities and notable enough to be sent to Rome by his order.

BTW, I am quite skeptical of the joint agreement on justification since I talked to an educated Lutheran on the subject and he was EXTREMELY unhappy with the paper because apparently one of the Lutherans refused to sign it or signed under protest or something (I don’t know the details).

The agreement was between the RCC and the World Lutheran Federation, which represents most of the Lutherans in the world (almost all the Lutherans of Europe). The Missouri Synod is an American-only church, which is not involved in the LWF. Proportionately they are a small percentage of the international Lutheran movement (although they might seem numerous in the USA). They are part of the American Protestant milieu and that may have something to do with the man’s reaction.

At any rate this Lutheran was very adamant that he disagreed in general with the conclusions reached in the agreement.

 

[swords99]

What would the Christianity be today if Martin Luther had not changed? Was he also the main person to drop the 7 books from the Catholic Bibles and what was found wrong by the people of Protestant faith?

Luther never wanted to start a new church/faith. He only wanted the catholic church to address some wrongs such as indulgences and other abuses where people were paying money towards their dead loved ones. The catholic church was getting too wealthy at the expense of the poor and the Bible being in Latin made it hard for the average person to read it for himself. But instead of addressing these things, the pope defrocked Luther.

As for the 7 books, they are apocrypha and nowhere claimed to be inspired for a variety of reason such as suspect authorship and the late date of the writings.

 

[Bluegoat]

Your accusation of More is debatable, a Chancelor did not authorize capital punishment, And If I recall, St.Thomas More refused the Chancelor position? To which Cranmer succeeded the Chancelor position who later tried (More) him in a mocked court, which had him executed.

Blessings

No it isn’t. Why would you even say that?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Saying “how about some facts” implies the facts I provided are fiction. I’m trying to figure that intro out? Also, you seem intent on defaming Luther’s morality and assassinating his character to deligitimize his theology. I’m wondering why? You say here constantly that a pope can be immoral to an almost criminal level and yet still be infallible in teaching faith and morals. Why is it not necessary for morality and good theology to go hand in hand with popes but when Luther does something immoral, his theology becomes a house of cards? I’ve heard him say harsher things that this quote you provide here but what’s the point? There were popes that had lovers, illegitimate children, prostitutes, avarice, and intense sins yet you’d tell us they’re infallible and sound theologically?

How about some facts; Luther broke his vows to God, and took a wife and married a nun. Here is a Luther quoting what took place after his revolt began in his last years " We experience it daily, that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemporate, more dishonest"… He writes to his wife in 1545 of his own Wittenberg “let us get out of this Sodom”… In 1539 Philip of Hese was already married took on a second wife at the secret approval of Luther and his companion Philip Melancthon. You know I do not need to proceed further here with facts. The case I make is ironic, Luther sought to bring reformation to the Church, while at the same time became entangled with his self made authoritative immoralities.

This gets down to bias. You think we can trust Sir Thomas More, a BRITISH Catholic churchman who lives thousands of miles from Luther. You use him as some reliable and crucial testifier of Luther’s character and sincerity when More scarcely knew him. Melancthon worked intimately with Luther, knew him for many many years, and they collaborated intensely on theology and building evangelicalism in Germany and yet you discount his depictions as fiction and hero worship nonsense? Your logic eludes me here…There are MANY people who knew and loved Luther and characterize him in honest ways, both good and bad, just like Gabriel of 12 and Gurneyhalleck1 are not perfect in real life, it takes a lot of testimony from a lot of people to get a good idea of who he was and what he was about. I suspect you have mostly read anti-Luther Catholic literature about the man. I have read many books on Luther from Catholic, Protestant, and neutral points of view and have a good overall idea of who he was and what he did in life. He did indeed nail the theses to the wall. It’s well-documented by all. Why you feel the need to say it didn’t happen is beyond me because it doesn’t change a thing about the Reformation or its theological and ecclesiastical impact on Christendom. You seem intent, as I said, in assassinating his character and poking holes in minor areas to deligitimize the man.
Luther mocked and insulted Aristotle. Luther did not nail his 95 theses to any Church, your sources on both sides have followed hear say. The reason why your sources were misinformed because Luther’s disciple Philip Melancthon mentioned this after Luther’s death to make him a defiant Legend from his writings which was proven later to be unreliable factual matters. Philip is the one called the “theologian of the reformation” because it was made known that he; Philip salvaged Luther’s teachings (thought) and softened them and combined humanism with the reformation. So when you read Luther and cannot see him as St.Thomas saw him, you are probably looking at Luther from the modified version of his disciple Philip Melancthon, who painted Luther as a defiant legend, which won him points to say the least.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**And if you understood what He meant by a “Mighty Fortress” you’d appreciate the high honor, might, power, and protection that God gives us in Luther’s view. A Mighty Fortress imagery that Luther gives us about God has nothing to do with changing laws but rather a focus on his powerful grace that is like a fortress against the wiles of Satan and the desperation he slings at us. **
I did not characterize the song in any way. I used Luther’s teaching of philosophy/theology from how he portrayed God as Mighty, that God can change laws, revealing his teaching of God as a Mighty Fortress, this has nothing to do with the song, only to do with Luther’s philosophical style into his theology.

Wow. I cannot respond to this. To think the Church never needs reform is just, wow, unbelievable. The Church was selling indulgences, full of graft and corruption, peasantry exploited, priests unlearned in the Scriptures, benefices bought and sold, bishoprics bought and sold, the cup denied the people, most people were encouraged only to take communion once per year, pilgrimages became a $$$ industry, superstition was rampant, grace an afterthought, the Mass in a language people couldn’t understand, Peter’s Pence fleecing the coffers of Europe, the Church deeply involved in ecclesiastical courts and judicial system, the papacy using money taken from English taxes used by the pope to fund England’s enemies in wars, on and on…treasury of merit and indulgences propoganda, on and on…The Church is always in need of reform. As long as human beings are in it, whether the Holy Spirit guides the doctrines or not, they are regularly not carried out properly, scandal exists, sinfulness exists, and delivery often falls short. And obviously Luther didn’t think that he was “changing Jesus’s teachings” but rather restoring what had been lost, right? From his point of view…
The Church herself never needs reform or change, she is the body of Christ. That is where Jan, Wycliffe, Luther and others went wrong. What needed Change was for the Church members needed to get caught up with societies becoming literate, educated and freethinking was new to everyone at large in the “new freedom of man’s will” which humanism influenced the protestant theologies.
**That’s basically what I said, yes. **
True although Vatican I and II did make reformations for the new languages and new peoples in order to hear the gospel message. But Luther’s protest to authority never got changed, sacraments are all in place, Indulgences are still active in the Church today although without abuse etc…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, Bluegoat; “No what isn’t”? can you please be more specific to what you are referencing?

=Bluegoat;7244567]

No it isn’t. Why would you even say that?

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat; “No what isn’t”? can you please be more specific to what you are referencing?

That TM was not responsible for capital punishment, in particular of religious reformers. I tend to think people make to much of it at times, but it isn’t a questionable historical fact.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Blessings gurney; We are discussing Luther’s protestantism. For me to begin a journey of the man, It interests me how his contemporaries viewed him on both sides. This is why I introduced St.Thomas More quotes, never to attack his character, but to reveal his character which turned him against Church teachings. Luther began first with “indulgences” for this he should be commended. Yet after he got blood stained hands, he went on to attack the magisterium authority, the sacraments, the Mass, apostolic succession etc… from the support of his princess’s who were the ones who benefited by wealth, from not purchasing Catholic church’s, monasteries and properties but taking them outright.

Although I would agree, a persons character does not reflect the True teachings of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, be it Pope, Bishop, priest or Luther. What is troubling with Luther is that he began dealing with disciplinary issues and graduated into trying to change Apostolic Tradition and the revelations of Jesus Christ to fit his new man made theology; For example, Luther introduced that Jesus co-habited with bread and wine in the Eucharist? Although he was not the first Catholic to introduce this teaching after it got condemned, Luther reintroduced “Consubstantiation” of the Eucharist, then denied “absolution” from a priest from the biblical practice of binding and loosing (forgive and or retain confessed sin).

The Catholic church new of Luther’s problems with his priesthood of fears and convictions of God’s justice. In fact he walked out on his first Mass after being ordained. These are some things that troubled Luther in the beginning, thus I introduced comments from St.Thomas More. The disciplinary issues needed in the Church sparked his priestly convictions to new heights.

For the record from his 95 theses; In 1520 the pope issued “Exsurge Domine” which condemned 41 propositions of Luther’s, Luther later burned the bull refused to recant them, which got him excommunicated on January 3rd, 1521, long before Trent issued its anathema’s.

=gurneyhalleck1;7245216]Saying “how about some facts” implies the facts I provided are fiction. I’m trying to figure that intro out? Also, you seem intent on defaming Luther’s morality and assassinating his character to deligitimize his theology. I’m wondering why? You say here constantly that a pope can be immoral to an almost criminal level and yet still be infallible in teaching faith and morals. Why is it not necessary for morality and good theology to go hand in hand with popes but when Luther does something immoral, his theology becomes a house of cards? I’ve heard him say harsher things that this quote you provide here but what’s the point? There were popes that had lovers, illegitimate children, prostitutes, avarice, and intense sins yet you’d tell us they’re infallible and sound theologically?

No, not just St.Thomas More, but Luther’s protestant contemporaries also. These are not an attack on Luther, but how his contemporaries viewed him. Those who loved him, were in power and supported him and got rich. I state this because Luther gained power and influence and abused it, the same reason why he protested the authority of the Catholic Church and replaced it with his own authority and scipture. Which contradicted the scriptures which teach that the “Church is the Pillar of Truth”.

**

This gets down to bias. You think we can trust Sir Thomas More, a BRITISH Catholic churchman who lives thousands of miles from Luther. You use him as some reliable and crucial testifier of Luther’s character and sincerity when More scarcely knew him. Melancthon worked intimately with Luther, knew him for many many years, and they collaborated intensely on theology and building evangelicalism in Germany and yet you discount his depictions as fiction and hero worship nonsense? Your logic eludes me here…There are MANY people who knew and loved Luther and characterize him in honest ways, both good and bad, just like Gabriel of 12 and Gurneyhalleck1 are not perfect in real life, it takes a lot of testimony from a lot of people to get a good idea of who he was and what he was about. I suspect you have mostly read anti-Luther Catholic literature about the man. I have read many books on Luther from Catholic, Protestant, and neutral points of view and have a good overall idea of who he was and what he did in life. He did indeed nail the theses to the wall. It’s well-documented by all. Why you feel the need to say it didn’t happen is beyond me because it doesn’t change a thing about the Reformation or its theological and ecclesiastical impact on Christendom. You seem intent, as I said, in assassinating his character and poking holes in minor areas to deligitimize the man.

**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I stand by my quote, “debatable”. Thomas More, nor Cranmer had not the power themselves to execute a prisoner of the King. Either the King or a trial ensued. Gurney indicated as if Thomas More himself had the Kings prisoners executed. Unless I am missing something here? I don’t find Thomas More holding an ax of the executioner. Cranmer on the other hand, because he lied under oath is another story from his influence could of operated as an executioner producing mock trials. I don’t find Thomas More acting out of character doing the Kings business. That is why I raised the issue debatable.

=Bluegoat;7245464]That TM was not responsible for capital punishment, in particular of religious reformers. I tend to think people make to much of it at times, but it isn’t a questionable historical fact.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Blessings be upon you as well, Gabriel. Well we agree a lot on Luther’s outcomes. I do not like the results of the Reformation personally. They were divisive and ultimately chaotic. And when it comes to Luther I don’t find him blood-stained. The Peasant’s Rebellion and the violence that took place in Germany had more to do with polemics and politics and men like CARLSTADT! than Luther. Luther is on record as lamenting the peasants’ rebellion and being disgusted with the carnage of it. He did not lead the charge in that conflict. But much of his rhetoric, like many other of his contemporaries, was not helpful at all. I find Luther to be an unstable man myself. In my readings of him he was an overly-scrupulous, obsessive-compulsive type indivdual with a temper. He was prone to taking things personally and verbal vendettas. I find his anti-semitic rants deplorable.

I also agree that he took a series of disciplinary and corruption issues and eventually re-wrote a lot of history.

Personally I disagree with Luther GREATLY as to the way he changed church polity from patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, etc. into this “priesthood of all believers.” I also disagree with his view of the Eucharist as well as his changes with the sacraments. I also think he went too far with his readings of Romans. I totally disagree with Luther that apostolic succession isn’t essential. It is. And I think sola scriptura is trouble waiting to happen.

But I think looking at the personality of the guy and his attitudes or scruples or scars isn’t particularly helpful. I think Catholic apologists come off more charitably and more effectively when they stick to the facts. Look at the facts, outcomes, ramifications, without trashing the guy or seeking to make him sound like a weenie.

I also think it’s important for posters to know that Lutheranism is not ALL Martin Luther. As you pointed out, Melancthon was a huge contributor to Lutheran thinking. Many forget the enormous (name removed by moderator)ut and contributions of Martin Chemnitz as well. And of course we could list another 30 Lutheran theologians that made their mark on Lutheranism in the next 300 years that shaped it to what it is today.

Blessings gurney; We are discussing Luther’s protestantism. For me to begin a journey of the man, It interests me how his contemporaries viewed him on both sides. This is why I introduced St.Thomas More quotes, never to attack his character, but to reveal his character which turned him against Church teachings. Luther began first with “indulgences” for this he should be commended. Yet after he got blood stained hands, he went on to attack the magisterium authority, the sacraments, the Mass, apostolic succession etc… from the support of his princess’s who were the ones who benefited by wealth, from not purchasing Catholic church’s, monasteries and properties but taking them outright.

Although I would agree, a persons character does not reflect the True teachings of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, be it Pope, Bishop, priest or Luther. What is troubling with Luther is that he began dealing with disciplinary issues and graduated into trying to change Apostolic Tradition and the revelations of Jesus Christ to fit his new man made theology; For example, Luther introduced that Jesus co-habited with bread and wine in the Eucharist? Although he was not the first Catholic to introduce this teaching after it got condemned, Luther reintroduced “Consubstantiation” of the Eucharist, then denied “absolution” from a priest from the biblical practice of binding and loosing (forgive and or retain confessed sin).

The Catholic church new of Luther’s problems with his priesthood of fears and convictions of God’s justice. In fact he walked out on his first Mass after being ordained. These are some things that troubled Luther in the beginning, thus I introduced comments from St.Thomas More. The disciplinary issues needed in the Church sparked his priestly convictions to new heights.

For the record from his 95 theses; In 1520 the pope issued “Exsurge Domine” which condemned 41 propositions of Luther’s, Luther later burned the bull refused to recant them, which got him excommunicated on January 3rd, 1521, long before Trent issued its anathema’s.

No, not just St.Thomas More, but Luther’s protestant contemporaries also. These are not an attack on Luther, but how his contemporaries viewed him. Those who loved him, were in power and supported him and got rich. I state this because Luther gained power and influence and abused it, the same reason why he protested the authority of the Catholic Church and replaced it with his own authority and scipture. Which contradicted the scriptures which teach that the “Church is the Pillar of Truth”.

---

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wow, great summary post gurney; My only experience with Lutherans is attending a summer bible camp with a child hood friend who invited me. I tell you, these Lutherans were the best charitable people I ever met, I have fond memories of them and great food. My question to you is: Does the same Martian Lutheran church exist today that Martian started?

=gurneyhalleck1;7245621]Blessings be upon you as well, Gabriel. Well we agree a lot on Luther’s outcomes. I do not like the results of the Reformation personally. They were divisive and ultimately chaotic. And when it comes to Luther I don’t find him blood-stained. The Peasant’s Rebellion and the violence that took place in Germany had more to do with polemics and politics and men like CARLSTADT! than Luther. Luther is on record as lamenting the peasants’ rebellion and being disgusted with the carnage of it. He did not lead the charge in that conflict. But much of his rhetoric, like many other of his contemporaries, was not helpful at all. I find Luther to be an unstable man myself. In my readings of him he was an overly-scrupulous, obsessive-compulsive type indivdual with a temper. He was prone to taking things personally and verbal vendettas. I find his anti-semitic rants deplorable.

I also agree that he took a series of disciplinary and corruption issues and eventually re-wrote a lot of history.

Personally I disagree with Luther GREATLY as to the way he changed church polity from patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, etc. into this “priesthood of all believers.” I also disagree with his view of the Eucharist as well as his changes with the sacraments. I also think he went too far with his readings of Romans. I totally disagree with Luther that apostolic succession isn’t essential. It is. And I think sola scriptura is trouble waiting to happen.

But I think looking at the personality of the guy and his attitudes or scruples or scars isn’t particularly helpful. I think Catholic apologists come off more charitably and more effectively when they stick to the facts. Look at the facts, outcomes, ramifications, without trashing the guy or seeking to make him sound like a weenie.

I also think it’s important for posters to know that Lutheranism is not ALL Martin Luther. As you pointed out, Melancthon was a huge contributor to Lutheran thinking. Many forget the enormous (name removed by moderator)ut and contributions of Martin Chemnitz as well. And of course we could list another 30 Lutheran theologians that made their mark on Lutheranism in the next 300 years that shaped it to what it is today.