Did Martin Luther start the Protestinism?

[pablope]

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
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… 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.

Nice post, Gurney…on my previous question about the James epistle…I thought you had the answer…that question has always piqued my curiosity…

Anyway, on another note…have you gotten over the Giants win in the WS? If so, maybe you can reduce the announcement at the bottom of your posts…it is blinding my eyes…(LOL)…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Gabriel, much appreciated. I wanted to crack up at your misspelling at the bottom “Martian.” Aliens created the Lutheran Church! aaaggggh!

I agree with you that Lutherans are neat people. My son goes to a Lutheran school and they’re the most God-fearing, Bible-loving, nice, solid teachers. They’re way better than the Catholic school here that my wife and I had planned on sending Luke to. The Catholic school just isn’t good for a host of reasons (long story). That doesn’t mean all Catholic schools are lousy though.

I agree that the church Luther started is much different from the 2010 edition. Yes.

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?

 

[manualman]

The 95 theses (factual or mythical) were posted when Luther was an Augustinian priest. These articulations do NOT well describe Luther’s later ideas and theology very well. Most of them, as noted by some above, are well within the bounds of legitimate debate in catholic theology.

Notably absent (IIRC) are his later ideas about ‘Sola Fide’ and ‘Sola Scriptura’. The recent joint statement is well and good, but simply doesn’t fit some of what Luther later said. Perhaps we can charitably write some of those things off as hyberbole that comes off wrong when taken out of context. What really can’t be dismissed is Luther’s invention of the ‘Sola Scriptura’ concept (yes, I’m aware of the less developed ideas by Wyclif and Hus) as a defense mechanism when he was called on his, umm, excessive use of hyperbole in articulating ‘Sola Fide.’ Basically, the heat got too hot, so instead of proving his detractors wrong, he had to declare them irrelevant.

It’s hard to say what would have happened without Luther. Unquestionably there was bad corruption at the time. Had there NOT been, he would have been just another angry man forgotten by history. Circumstances beyond his control where what made his arguments resonate so massively. Perhaps there would simply have been another. Perhaps Calvin would have come along anyways. Who can say? (God, but he isn’t telling)

As for Hesychios, the smug criticism of catholic bishops past in their treatment of eastern priests operating in their area seems a bit misplaced considering the harsh opposition of Russian Orthdox to catholics seeking to reclaim their parish facilities that were previously seized by the Soviets. Perhaps catholic bishops and EO patriarchs share the same fallen human tendency to tribalism? Maybe we all need a Savior.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s a tough pill for a southern california guy to swallow…I understand I loves muh Giants!

Nice post, Gurney…on my previous question about the James epistle…I thought you had the answer…that question has always piqued my curiosity…

Anyway, on another note…have you gotten over the Giants win in the WS? If so, maybe you can reduce the announcement at the bottom of your posts…it is blinding my eyes…(LOL)…

 

[JonNC]

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?

It may be true that he decided it was, as was said, over the top. It may also be that it was (as it is) misunderstood.
The full quote is: *“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”*So, he was making a comparison. He was comparing it to these others.
What he does say about it on its own merits is: *“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle… *

ISTM that, to Luther, its value is in its promulgation of the law of God. And this is not somethig to be devalued.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, as he moved further away from the heat of his excommunication, he dialed down the tone.

Jon

 

[manualman]

What, Luther had a temper? Shocking!

 

[JonNC]

What, Luther had a temper? Shocking!

What? Did I say that?? Surely you jest.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

As for Hesychios, the smug criticism of catholic bishops past in their treatment of eastern priests operating in their area seems a bit misplaced considering the harsh opposition of Russian Orthdox to catholics seeking to reclaim their parish facilities that were previously seized by the Soviets. Perhaps catholic bishops and EO patriarchs share the same fallen human tendency to tribalism? Maybe we all need a Savior.

I was very much with you until I read this.

I was relating how Roman Catholic bishops treated Eastern Catholic communities under their care to ‘protect’ their Latin rite flocks. When asked for more info I provided it.

I learned this from the EC themselves, and if you are suggesting it would be better left unsaid that is just another example of what we have been discussing, namely “if you think there is a problem, shut up about it”. It’s just the truth.

 

[agent_grey]

No Luther did not start Protestantism. There have been pridefull men since biblical times that tried to pit the private mind against public revelation. If you read the Old Testament you will find these ones where mowed down.

 

[manualman]

I was very much with you until I read this.

I was relating how Roman Catholic bishops treated Eastern Catholic communities under their care to ‘protect’ their Latin rite flocks. When asked for more info I provided it.

I learned this from the EC themselves, and if you are suggesting it would be better left unsaid that is just another example of what we have been discussing, namely “if you think there is a problem, shut up about it”. It’s just the truth.

Tone certainly is difficult to be sure of on the web. But your posts ‘feel’ smug in regards to the failings of western bishops while simultaneously silent on the similar human shortcomings of EO leadership. I certainly don’t deny that fallen human mistakes have been made in prudential judgements and temporal leadership decisions by catholic bishops. Bishops need a Savior too. And I haven’t asked for you to ‘shut up.’ I’d just hope that you’ll recognize that the human failings you so often point out occur on both sides of the tragic schism.

 

[swords99]

What is very interesting is that Luther didn’t become enlightened until after he read the Holy Bible. He did not even own a bible until in his 20’s which was given to him by his Confessor. Interesting that all that time as a monk he was ignorant of the Scriptures. It was upon reading them, notably Paul’s Epistles, that Luther came to understand what peace with God meant. That man is sinful and can do nothing to save himself. Luther realized that the RCC had strayed off course from the simple teachings of Christ and the Apostles. They never taught that salvation is found in a church or organization, but in the person of Christ alone.

Before this time Luther was a monk whipping himself and trying to find God without avail. Nor did he find any surcease from his guilt of being a sinner deserving of the wrath of God. He found no assurance in his “good works” as to whether they were ever enough to appease an all holy God.

Luther’s questioning as to why the pope didn’t just empty purgatory is a valid one.

 

[Hesychios]

What is very interesting is that Luther didn’t become enlightened until after he read the Holy Bible. He did not even own a bible until in his 20’s which was given to him by his Confessor.

Most people did not own bibles, they were generally too expensive.

Interesting that all that time as a monk he was ignorant of the Scriptures.

I doubt that, seriously. You evidently have little knowledge of what is involved in living a monastic life, and are relying on your imagination to fill in the blanks to your satisfaction.

Luther’s questioning as to why the pope didn’t just empty purgatory is a valid one.

In light of the selling of indulgences, perhaps, it would seem to be most charitable.

But spiritual exercises are worthwhile, and we might see that as useful toward metanoia, or repentence, and the ultimate salvation of sinners. A charitable donation, being a sacrifice in lieu of a spiritual exercise or in combination with a spiritual exercise is probably good for the sinner. That would in fact be what a tithe is.

The question of whether a sacrifice, as a form of heartfelt prayer, can be good for any other sinner besides oneself is worth discussing, but I believe we can pray for others, the living and the departed alike.

 

[manualman]

Always the same lame protestant arguments because nobody appears to listen to the answers.

It’s hard for a modern person who can get a free bible nearly at will to comprehend the incredible cost of creating one prior to the invention of the printing press. Try an experiment: tonight hand copy out legibly ONE page of the bible and see how long it takes you. Now add up the pages and do the math. THAT is why copies of the bible were rare and nearly priceless, especially so since not only did you need a man for that amount of time, you needed a LITERATE man for that amount of time to produce one and literate men were in fairly scarce supply in those days.

But it is is distortion approaching the status of a lie to assert that the inability to own ones own bible meant enforced ignorance. Public readings occurred all the time, and a priest of Luther’s standing would have been EXPECTED to conduct studies in the Scriptures (of which his congregation certainly possesed copies). If Luther was ignorant of scripture, it was HIS fault for neglecting his studies, not just the hierarchy’s.

What Luther had was a severe problem with a condition called scrupulosity. This is a condition in which the sufferer is pathologically afraid that he might unwittingly be sinning. Nearly any action or decision is agonized over in case there is some unrecognized sin lurking within. It is a crippling condition that requires external help. If you are a student of Luther, you can’t help but see that he suffered it. Combine that with his notorious pride which prevented him from getting help from (gasp) somebody else and the guy was a time bomb. His Sola Fide idea was a revolutionary attempt at a solution to his problem of scrupulosity. He believed that he had discovered in the Scriptures the principle that one’s behavior in life is IRRELEVANT! How soothing to the scrupulous soul that must have felt at first. That hyperactive conscience no longer needed consulting AT ALL! But it was a false solution and the condition of western civilization today is a DIRECT result of this new and dangerous idea. This Sola Fide feels good at first, but has a devastating effect in the long term.

As to the pope and indulgences, do a little homework. The pope can never simply release someone from purgatory. Indulgences by their very nature are conditional upon the sincere repentence of the sinner, the reception of Grace in the sacraments and the complete detachment from the desire to sin again. The intial indulgence circumstance (such as in that era giving of substantial money for the completion of a cathedral) is just a prompt towards the real meat, the stuff I mentioned above. In short, the pope has never claimed to have the authority to release someone from purgatory, merely the authority to disclose the means by which one can be released from it by GOD. That means ALWAYS includes the cleansing of the soul from concupiscence, which is the point of purgatory in the first place!

 

[manualman]

Separate rant, I very rare to encounter protestants who actually understand purgatory. What they denounce is almost always a caricature of purgatory. They imagine purgatory to be something like hell, but with a timer attached. When the timer goes off, you get out. Nothing doing. (and no wonder they oppose such and idea, it’s incompatible with catholic beliefs as well). Catholics probably bear some blame for this because of some archaic language once attached to indulgences (i.e. number of days attached). This has nothing to do with the length of stay in purgatory. Rather, it was previously intended to convey the level of penitential value the indulgence had by comparing it to (now long since forgotten) typical penances assigned in confession. But I digress. I should explain what purgatory is in words a protestant can understand.

So you and I (me catholic, you protestant) are standing on the street waiting for a bus. Instead, it runs over us and kills us. We stand before judgement. Now I hope we both agree that before the bus hit us, we still have some problems with sin (lies, lust, greed, envy, sloth, gluttony, you know the drill). The protestant likely expects that God will look at him and only see the righteousness of Christ that “covers” him, not his own sinful life. God then says “well done, my good and faithful servant…” and proceeds merrily into paradise. Here’s the problem. If you enter that paradise the same man as your were before the bus hit, it is NOT paradise anymore. You’ve already wrecked it. Even if God manages to delude himself that you are as perfect as Christ, the other saints are going to notice and be hurt when you continue your lies, your selfishness, and so on. That simply ain’t paradise.

You may protest (no pun intended) that the process of judgement itself will result in a change in you so that you no longer contain those flaws. Now we’re getting somewhere. But are you saying that God stripped you of your free will and will thenceforth PREVENT you from sinning? Probably not. Most protestants believe in free will (except the weirdest of Calvinists). So somewhere in there you had to CHOOSE to change.

THAT, my friend, is purgatory. Welcome to catholicism. You just might have to get used to the idea that the change, the purging of those last inclinations towards sin might not be instant. As usual, free will is messy. Good thing we have Grace. Grace is our only chance to “finish the race” (as somebody holy once put it).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Would you care to be more specific and elaborate to which poster you’re addressing this? Which “lame Protestant argument” is coming from which poster?

Always the same lame protestant arguments because nobody appears to listen to the answers.

It’s hard for a modern person who can get a free bible nearly at will to comprehend the incredible cost of creating one prior to the invention of the printing press. Try an experiment: tonight hand copy out legibly ONE page of the bible and see how long it takes you. Now add up the pages and do the math. THAT is why copies of the bible were rare and nearly priceless, especially so since not only did you need a man for that amount of time, you needed a LITERATE man for that amount of time to produce one and literate men were in fairly scarce supply in those days.

But it is is distortion approaching the status of a lie to assert that the inability to own ones own bible meant enforced ignorance. Public readings occurred all the time, and a priest of Luther’s standing would have been EXPECTED to conduct studies in the Scriptures (of which his congregation certainly possesed copies). If Luther was ignorant of scripture, it was HIS fault for neglecting his studies, not just the hierarchy’s.

What Luther had was a severe problem with a condition called scrupulosity. This is a condition in which the sufferer is pathologically afraid that he might unwittingly be sinning. Nearly any action or decision is agonized over in case there is some unrecognized sin lurking within. It is a crippling condition that requires external help. If you are a student of Luther, you can’t help but see that he suffered it. Combine that with his notorious pride which prevented him from getting help from (gasp) somebody else and the guy was a time bomb. His Sola Fide idea was a revolutionary attempt at a solution to his problem of scrupulosity. He believed that he had discovered in the Scriptures the principle that one’s behavior in life is IRRELEVANT! How soothing to the scrupulous soul that must have felt at first. That hyperactive conscience no longer needed consulting AT ALL! But it was a false solution and the condition of western civilization today is a DIRECT result of this new and dangerous idea. This Sola Fide feels good at first, but has a devastating effect in the long term.

As to the pope and indulgences, do a little homework. The pope can never simply release someone from purgatory. Indulgences by their very nature are conditional upon the sincere repentence of the sinner, the reception of Grace in the sacraments and the complete detachment from the desire to sin again. The intial indulgence circumstance (such as in that era giving of substantial money for the completion of a cathedral) is just a prompt towards the real meat, the stuff I mentioned above. In short, the pope has never claimed to have the authority to release someone from purgatory, merely the authority to disclose the means by which one can be released from it by GOD. That means ALWAYS includes the cleansing of the soul from concupiscence, which is the point of purgatory in the first place!

 

[manualman]

Apologies gurney. I was referring to certain portions of #51. I’m a bit averse to quoting whole posts. Hard on the scroll wheel finger!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A little trigger happy are we!? Thanks, manual

Apologies gurney. I was referring to certain portions of #51. I’m a bit averse to quoting whole posts. Hard on the scroll wheel finger!

 

[Holly3278]

Those are some pretty big questions, but to just touch on a few points:

• Regarding the question of whether he “started” Protestantism, there were periodically other protests and breakaways from the Church of Rome in previous centuries, including the movement started by Jan Hus a century before (modern day Moravians claim descent from this movement).
• As has been discussed in other threads, Luther’s translation of the Bible included the 7 books, so he did not “drop them,” although he did accord them lesser status than the others. For whatever reasons, beginning about 200 years ago, many Protestant translations did not include those books.

As for the second point, is it not true that Luther did not consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired but only left them in because of their historical value?

 

[IowaJay]

As for the second point, is it not true that Luther did not consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired but only left them in because of their historical value?

I would say somewhere in between - he did indicate that they could be read during worship from time to time.

 

[Holly3278]

I would say somewhere in between - he did indicate that they could be read during worship from time to time.

Hmmm, okay. Could you point out this place in between where Luther stood?