Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[RevDrNorth]

nothing to admire…zeeeeero!

Actually, according to a nun who was a professor of mine the Reformation helped bring about the counter reformation that dealt with some of the corruption in the Catholic Church. The nun saw this as a benefit from God.

So Dr. Luther in some ways helped the church which was headed down a bad path.

I must admit amusement when people throw words at Dr. Luther like “schismatic” when the whole Latin Rite Church went into schism against the One Holy Cahtolic and Apostolic Church (leaving just the Orthodox as the Church Christ founded). And the Latin Rite Church developed innovative doctrines that lead down the path to the corruption and mess it found itself in at the time of Luther. Read the Ecumencal Councils and see the difference between dogmas invented by the Latin Rite Church and that of the Orthodox (who continued to practice the faith of the Church established by Christ because they are that church).

With good reason a 19th century Russian theologian called the Pope the first Protestant. Zeeesh…you birth a Church in schism and then complain that one of your children (Luther) becomes schismatic At any rate, that is one of the reasons it is hilarious to see you criticizing Luther for being a schismatic

Luther was a man with foibles just like many a Pope. He bravely stood up to some of the corrupt practices and other issues that were in his opinion leading people away from the practice of the faith of Jesus Christ. Maybe God used Martin Luther to spank the Latin Rite Church??

Rev North (a fellow schismatic)

 

[fullofzeal]

Actually, according to a nun who was a professor of mine the Reformation helped bring about the counter reformation that dealt with some of the corruption in the Catholic Church. The nun saw this as a benefit from God.

So Dr. Luther in some ways helped the church which was headed down a bad path.

I must admit amusement when people throw words at Dr. Luther like “schismatic” when the whole Latin Rite Church went into schism against the One Holy Cahtolic and Apostolic Church (leaving just the Orthodox as the Church Christ founded). And the Latin Rite Church developed innovative doctrines that lead down the path to the corruption and mess it found itself in at the time of Luther. Read the Ecumencal Councils and see the difference between dogmas invented by the Latin Rite Church and that of the Orthodox (who continued to practice the faith of the Church established by Christ because they are that church).

With good reason a 19th century Russian theologian called the Pope the first Protestant. Zeeesh…you birth a Church in schism and then complain that one of your children (Luther) becomes schismatic At any rate, that is one of the reasons it is hilarious to see you criticizing Luther for being a schismatic

Luther was a man with foibles just like many a Pope. He bravely stood up to some of the corrupt practices and other issues that were in his opinion leading people away from the practice of the faith of Jesus Christ. Maybe God used Martin Luther to spank the Latin Rite Church??

Rev North (a fellow schismatic)

Please list the invented dogmas.

peace

 

[latinmasslover]

One is the payment for indulges issue of the time, to shorten their time in purgatory in the afterlife because of worldly payments of hard money. (ironically purgatory is no more in Catholic Theology) Also the church was also siding with the feudal lords of the time and the Pope had the Papal states at the time as a ruler of state.

Um, dear, the doctrine of Purgatory was never removed from Catholic theology, some Catholics just like to think so. Indulgences were not “bought.” True, there were those who abused the gift or did not teach the practice well. Indulgences were granted if the individual 1) prayed for the pope’s intentions 2) went to Confession within the week and was free from mortal sin 3) received Holy Communion that day, and 4) performed the work to which the indulgence was granted, whether it be GIVING ALMS, praying the Rosary, making the Stations, visiting a shrine, etc. The PLENARY indulgence (total remission) was granted under the same conditions except when the “work” was performed the person had to be free from venial sin as well. Luther making a stand against the whole Church because of an abuse by some is ludicrous and not worth admiring.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I’m amazed at the ignorance.

But Luther just had different opinions, which he is entitled to, and a different way of doing things;he was still a remarkable person.

Care to try to support any of those assertions?

Go ahead.

Luther interpreted the Bible in his own way.For example,he thought that Romans 3:24-(Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus)-meant that Christians are justified by faith alone.True, this view is contradicted by verses such as Romans 2:6-(at the end of time, every man shall be judged according to his deeds), but Luther just interpreted the Bible differently;It was his opinion, and he was entitled to it.

He was a remarkable person because he stood up against injustice.He defied the bad popes, such as pope Leo x(who was more interested in artitecture then he was in helping souls)and was brave at the Diet of Worms,when he stated his views despite knowing it was dangerous.Also, he translated all of the New Testament in less then three months, which is certainly an accomplishment, and he wrote some lovely hymns, such as ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’

We should not argue against our fellow Christians.They, too, are Soldiers for Christ.They love Him just as much as we do.

 

[latinmasslover]

Luther interpreted the Bible in his own way.For example,he thought that Romans 3:24-(Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus)-meant that Christians are justified by faith alone.True, this view is contradicted by verses such as Romans 2:6-(at the end of time, every man shall be judged according to his deeds), but Luther just interpreted the Bible differently;It was his opinion, and he was entitled to it.

He was a remarkable person because he stood up against injustice.He defied the bad popes, such as pope Leo x(who was more interested in artitecture then he was in helping souls)and was brave at the Diet of Worms,when he stated his views despite knowing it was dangerous.Also, he translated all of the New Testament in less then three months, which is certainly an accomplishment, and he wrote some lovely hymns, such as ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’

We should not argue against our fellow Christians.They, too, are Soldiers for Christ.They love Him just as much as we do.

It doesn’t seem that you’re too proud being Roman Catholic, I mean, since you’re defending a heretic who began the greatest split ever in the Church. Martin Luther opposed the Pope, not his bad behavior. There’s a big difference. How can you say he loved God, he broke his VOW of chastity to God, and enabled another to do the same by marrying her. (not to mention encouraging a whole bunch of others to do likewise) He led many down a false road, and because he’s “entitled to his opinion,” then it’s okay? It is never okay to lead others down the devil’s road. As to translating the NT in 3 months, would that be before he removed 7 books from the NT or after? Besides, he mistranslated to support his views anyway. I don’t call that an accomplishment. Anybody could do it.

2 Tim 4:2-4
Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I am Catholic and I respect him and what he did. The Church of his time was quite corrupt on many levels. Had the Church and Popes of the time listened to many of the valid concerns, the Reformation may not have happened. But, they had too much pride and it happened.

I hope the ecumenical efforts of today continue to keep an harmonious discussion and joining in many efforts across the faiths.

Many people don’t realize this but the counter-reformation actually started before the Protestant reformation. Things were already changing, but IMHO they weren’t changing fast enough for Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers:

Source:
Oxford Dictionary of World Religions definition of Counter-Reformation:

…The term was used in the 19th century to describe the Church’s response to the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism, but this is too limiting a concept. The early leaders of the Counter-Reformation (such as Cisneros in Spain, Pole or Giberti in Italy), the revival of religious orders such as the Augustinians and the Carmelites, or the foundation of new orders such as the Jesuits, owed little or nothing to the reaction of Protestantism…

 

[Mike_Brick]

In reading some of the posts here over the past couple of months, I am continually amazed at the very limited knowledge of history many of us have. For example

Luther interpreted the Bible in his own way…but Luther just interpreted the Bible differently; It was his opinion, and he was entitled to it.

He was a remarkable person because he stood up against injustice…and he wrote some lovely hymns, such as ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’

Yes he most certainly developed his own intrpretation of Sacred Scripture, and even added to it. Have you read this he wrote?“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (From An Open Letter on Translating, by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546. Translated from: “Sendbrief von Dolmetschen” in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke,

He was also the proud author of this, as seen in the following excerpts from his pamphlet: The Jews and Their Lies, (1543):
"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians…

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them…

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb…

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them."The Jews were soon expelled from Luther’s native Saxony.

Did he arrive on the scene during a time of great trouble in the Church and western world, yes. Did he help to resolve the conflicts within the Church, no. And I’m not so sure I would regard him as a remarkable for standing up against injustice, but he did write some good hymns. I encourage all to read his writings to see what kind of man he truly was.

God Bless

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

In reading some of the posts here over the past couple of months, I am continually amazed at the very limited knowledge of history many of us have. For example
Yes he most certainly developed his own intrpretation of Sacred Scripture, and even added to it. Have you read this he wrote?“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (From An Open Letter on Translating, by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546. Translated from: “Sendbrief von Dolmetschen” in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke,

He was also the proud author of this, as seen in the following excerpts from his pamphlet: The Jews and Their Lies, (1543):
"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians…

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them…

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb…

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them."The Jews were soon expelled from Luther’s native Saxony.

Did he arrive on the scene during a time of great trouble in the Church and western world, yes. Did he help to resolve the conflicts within the Church, no. And I’m not so sure I would regard him as a remarkable for standing up against injustice, but he did write some good hymns. I encourage all to read his writings to see what kind of man he truly was.

God Bless

WHAT???Luther wanted to kill Jews?Thats not fair…I’m sorry, I had no idea.Please forgive my ignorance, I am still very young.Pax Vobiscum

 

[mgrfin]

Luther not only wanted to kill the Jews, but, he laid the groundwork for what was to happen in Nazi Germany.

He also switched sides in the Peasants War, urging the Princes to slaughter the common folk. 100,000 of them died in this war.

Luther was foul-mouthed, crude, a boar. He had absolutely no respect for women; they were just tools for his lust. His most hated target was the Pope, and used the most vile language he could muster whenever he spoke of the Pope.

He needed his ‘theology’ cause he did not believe in free will, and needed an ‘in’ into heaven. I hope he got there.

mgrfin

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

He also switched sides in the Peasants War, urging the Princes to slaughter the common folk. 100,000 of them died in this war.

They “sort-of” mentioned this in the movie “Luther”, but if you didn’t pay close attention, you would have missed it completely.

 

[Mike_Brick]

WHAT???Luther wanted to kill Jews?Thats not fair…I’m sorry, I had no idea.Please forgive my ignorance, I am still very young.Pax Vobiscum

No forgivness is needed. This is a good example not to just rely on what we hear from others, but to check into important things for ourselves.

Please keep in mind that Luther was less than savory, but we Catholics had our scoundrels over the years as well, so we must not toot our horn too loudly either. Luther appeared to have been plagued with serious temptations in his personal life and that could be part of the reason that when he interpreted Scripture he saw what he wanted to see, which was actually a way to shift the “work” to God when he invented the concept of Faith Alone.

Now my non-Catholic Christian brethren will jump in here, but I’ll save them some keystrokes. One of the interesting things about our differences since the so called reformation of the Church is, while we often talk past one an other on many topics, a great many of us actually agree Faith is an unmerited, free gift, (Grace) from almighty God, which we must accept or reject. If we accept the gift of Faith in Jesus the Christ, then we must follow Jesus and produce “fruit” or proof of that faith, (notice I avoid like the plague the word “works”, but you know what I mean). Our lives must be lived out as an expression of our personal faith in God, not lived out because of our “membership” in a particular faith community.

God Bless Us All

 

[Contarini]

Luther not only wanted to kill the Jews,

No, Luther did not want to kill the Jews. He wanted to deprive them of wealth and status and reduce them to a state of misery and servitude; he wanted to destroy the writings of their rabbis; but he did not want to kill them.

He also switched sides in the Peasants War

No, he didn’t, because he was never on the peasants’ side.

He had absolutely no respect for women; they were just tools for his lust.

That is total nonsense. Luther always spoke with great respect of his wife.

Edwin

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

No, he didn’t, because he was never on the peasants’ side.

When the war started you might be technically right. But it seems to me that he portrayed himself as a champion of the peasants (Maybe I’m wrong? The Luther movie portrayed him this way anyway; a production by Lutherans). Maybe you are suggesting that he was actually a champion of the aristocrats and always was?

 

[Contarini]

When the war started you might be technically right. But it seems to me that he portrayed himself as a champion of the peasants (Maybe I’m wrong? The Luther movie portrayed him this way anyway; a production by Lutherans). Maybe you are suggesting that he was actually a champion of the aristocrats and always was?

He was never an advocate of violent revolution. He was originally sympathetic to the wrongs of the peasants and urged them to seek nonviolent solutions. He also initially urged the lords to refrain from violent measures against the peasants. But when the peasants took up arms, and he heard horror stories about their atrocities, he abandoned his more neutral position and became an advocate of the violent repression of the revolt.

Edwin

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

He was never an advocate of violent revolution. He was originally sympathetic to the wrongs of the peasants and urged them to seek nonviolent solutions. He also initially urged the lords to refrain from violent measures against the peasants. But when the peasants took up arms, and he heard horror stories about their atrocities, he abandoned his more neutral position and became an advocate of the violent repression of the revolt.

Edwin

Thanks for the response. The Luther movie (I know, I really shouldn’t be using a movie as a source ) showed Luther showing regret for his involvement in the massacre of the peasants. Is this historically accurate or merely speculation?

Any historic referrals would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the response. The Luther movie (I know, I really shouldn’t be using a movie as a source ) showed Luther showing regret for his involvement in the massacre of the peasants. Is this historically accurate or merely speculation?
!

He was “involved” in the sense that he approved of it. (I don’t think his approval made much difference–the nobles were scared out of their wits and were going to respond brutally anyway, but that doesn’t excuse Luther.) I believe he did explain afterwards that he was talking about how the nobles should respond to armed rebels engaged in atrocities and was not encouraging the massacre of helpless people (certainly that would be a fair defense of him, and about the only defense that can be made I think). However, I do not think that he ever admitted having made a mistake. Luther had a very strong notion of the authority of the civil government, and on a pragmatic level he really, really needed the support of the local rulers!

I do not have Martin Brecht’s three-volume biography in front of me (I only own one volume and that is at my office), but that would be the place to check for a thing like this.

Edwin

 

[Mike_Brick]

No, Luther did not want to kill the Jews. He wanted to deprive them of wealth and status and reduce them to a state of misery and servitude; he wanted to destroy the writings of their rabbis; but he did not want to kill them.

Edwin, we may be splitting hairs here where you wrote, “he did not want to kill them”. Perhaps he did not want to kill them himself, but over time his rants against them were encouraging to others who certainly did. Luther wrote:

"There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with ‘madness and blindness and confusion of mind.’ So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. [Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:267.]

No, he didn’t, because he was never on the peasants’ side.

You are correct, but also because of his sermons and writings, they thought he was in support of their efforts to improve their lot in life and were surprised to learn that he had always remained loyal to his benefactor, the German aristocracy, not the peasants.

God Bless Us All

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, we may be splitting hairs here where you wrote, “he did not want to kill them”. Perhaps he did not want to kill them himself, but over time his rants against them were encouraging to others who certainly did. Luther wrote:

"There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with ‘madness and blindness and confusion of mind.’ So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. [Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:267.

That’s at the end of sect. 10, arguing that Jews do not in fact have occasion to complain of Christians. At the beginning of sect. 11 he says “we dare not avenge ourselves,” and then proceeds to give his advice. This is bad enough in all conscience, but doesn’t include killing them (except that rabbis are to be killed if they teach, and Jews are not to be protected if they travel around). I think that the passage you cite is a rhetorical hyperbole saying that if anything Christians are culpably gentle to Jews (I do not have the German text in front of me, but in English we speak of someone being “generous to a fault” without actually saying that they should stop being generous). Since he goes on to say explicitly that this vengeance is not an option, he clearly is not making recommendations in sect. 10 but rather making a point about how well Christians treat Jews.

That being said, Luther’s use of hyperbole got him into all sorts of trouble and he is certainly culpable for his reckless use of language.

You are correct, but also because of his sermons and writings, they thought he was in support of their efforts to improve their lot in life and were surprised to learn that he had always remained loyal to his benefactor, the German aristocracy, not the peasants.

He was supportive of efforts to improve their lot, but he wanted this to happen through negotiation rather than through violence. That being said, after the revolt Luther used much less positive language about social reform. (And, again, there’s the problem of Luther’s reckless language, which leant itself to misunderstanding.) Many of the peasants had embraced something rather like modern “liberation theology”–the fact that the Pope condemns Marxist revolution doesn’t mean that he is opposed to social justice. The two aren’t necessarily the same thing. (Of course, the difference is that neither JPII nor BXVI has called on Latin American governments to massacre liberation theologians and their followers!)

Edwin
[/quote]

 

[Mike_Brick]

…That being said, Luther’s use of hyperbole got him into all sorts of trouble and he is certainly culpable for his reckless use of language…
Edwin

On that we are in complete agreement, and that is my point in my posts. His careless use of language at a minimum, has cast him into his own bad light today! This thread asks 450+ years later if we admire Martin Luther. I recall the words of, (was it?), Shakespeare, The good that men do is interred with their bones, while their evil lives on after them, or words to that effect. That was/is certainly the case with Martin Luther.

He was certainly very judgemental as a man and a teacher, and the standard he used was quite high. For example I believe when looking at Church doctrine he taught if any Catholic Church dogma was found to be in error, then all the rest of it would fall as well. That same standard by which he himself judged then can and should be applied to his work as well.

God Bless
Mike

 

[Contarini]

On that we are in complete agreement, and that is my point in my posts. His careless use of language at a minimum, has cast him into his own bad light today! This thread asks 450+ years later if we admire Martin Luther. I recall the words of, (was it?), Shakespeare, The good that men do is interred with their bones, while their evil lives on after them, or words to that effect. That was/is certainly the case with Martin Luther.

He was certainly very judgemental as a man and a teacher, and the standard he used was quite high. For example I believe when looking at Church doctrine he taught if any Catholic Church dogma was found to be in error, then all the rest of it would fall as well. That same standard by which he himself judged then can and should be applied to his work as well.

Well no, I completely disagree with that last part. We are obliged to accept as good and true whatever is good and true, no matter where it is found. The fact that Luther was intemperate and unfair does not change our obligation to love human beings in the first place, and every good and true idea in the second.

Why on earth do you want to be like Luther? It makes no sense.

Edwin