More proof that you posting style doesn’t change. Please link to the post where I said people should stop asking questions and making points.
Jon
- Status
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, I enjoyed the recent political thoughts of who is a good and bad poster. It reminded me of the Romper Room preschool show years ago and Santa’s naughty and nice list.
Sorry, Topper, you didn’t make the “nice list” ROFLOL…
I hope you can still sleep at night., The truth is always persecuted though.
Once again it’s people that post about posting styles that always seem to be implying
the “other posters” are “naughty” when in actuality I see the posters that hold themselves up to being the “good posters” as the most ineffective.
I guess posting is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe we can stick to the topic, in fact I just thought I saw another post about your posting style,
Mary.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon,
Read the post again. He never said you said as such. He as making a suggestion.
You need to be more accurate before you make more “charges” about Topper’s posting style which is getting tiresome and in my opinion immature.
Mary.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
I tire of your Luther hates everyone false charge , Most of Lutheranism only accepts four creeds , NO MORE , the pope as the anti Christ is NOT official teaching , you only have shown Luther opposition to the papacy but not that he hated Catholics which is a false charge , but yes , the true reformer made mistakes , forgive and get over it , and let’s argue on the papacy using Scripture, tradition , and the ECF .
M
MaryT777
Guest
Regarding “No Lutheran cares etc.” it really doesn’t matter because there are lurkers that read the forums and non Lutherans that may care about an issue raised by a poster.
If we needed a coherent vote of “yes we all care” by a particular denomination to deem a post worthy none would “get the nod.”
Mary.
M
MaryT777
Guest
We have argued the papacy using Scripture, tradition and the ECF before many times and the problem becomes the Catholics reject the Lutheran explanation and scripture references that go with it because they do not find the Concord book authoritative in any manner as a “right reflection of Scripture.” Thus it is a good point Topper raised from a Catholic perspective regarding the authority of the Confessions.
So it seems as if a doctrine was manufactured based on Sola Scriptura regarding the Pope
and then those that believed as such sifted through the scripture and ECF’s to find “proof.”
The problem becomes an issue of authority in the end. Who has it and who lacks it.
Mary
C
Church_Militant
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Behave people…***There’s a lot of Mickey Mouse stuff around that should be discounted and disregarded,
Being nasty to each other gets us all exactly nowhere…
***Behave people…***There’s a lot of Mickey Mouse stuff around that should be discounted and disregarded,
Being nasty to each other gets us all exactly nowhere…
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Lol , hilarious emote
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I stole it from one of the Apologetics mod’s posts a while back. It’s appropriate…
My own are more like…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Then show where they are wrong,Mary. Do what RCwitness did. Give references to scripture, the councils, and Fathers, like the sola scripturists did.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
From Catholic answers:
The Antichrist
The claim that the pope is the Antichrist has been part of anti-Catholic rhetoric since the Reformation, when it was needed to justify the Protestant Reformers’ desire to leave the Catholic Church.
Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord states, “[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ . . . Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord” (Smalcald Articles 2:4:10, 14).
The Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster Confession states, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and that son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God” (25:6).
To make the prophecies of the Antichrist fit the pope, some even claimed that “the temple of God” in which the Antichrist pretends to be God (2 Thess. 2:4) is the Vatican.
Although the Fathers of the Church speculated on the Antichrist in various ways, they would never have agreed. They showed the temple to be the Jewish temple, rebuilt by Antichrist in Jerusalem. Rather than the bishop of Rome, the early Fathers identified the Antichrist as a government official—a king coming to power in the ruins of the Roman Empire. He would probably be Jewish, possibly from the tribe of Dan. And most importantly, rather than claiming like the pope to be the vicar or emissary of Jesus Christ, he would claim that Jesus was not the Christ but thathe was instead. He would then seduce many of the Jewish people by attempting to fulfill the political.aspirations they held for the Messiah. The quotes that follow illustrate both the different ideas they had about the Antichrist and how different their conception was from the anti-papal idea that arose in later centuries.
“[T]he whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made complete in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and sheep shall be turned into wolves . . . and then shall the deceiver of the world appear, pretending to be the Son of God, and [he] shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands” (Didache16:3-4 [A.D. 70]).
continued
M
MaryT777
Guest
Polycarp of Smyrna
Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7]; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1 [A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
“**y means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ” (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).
“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected
one. . . . It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved” (ibid., 5:30:2-3).
“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire” (ibid., 5:30:4).
Hippolytus
“Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision *, and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem” (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]).
“[W]e find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion’s whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: ‘Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse’s heel’ [Gen. 49:17]. What then is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis [Gen. 3:1], who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam? . . . *t is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise” (ibid., 14).
“Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews” (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).
Tertullian
“[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator” (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).
continued****
Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7]; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1 [A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
“**y means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ” (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).
“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected
one. . . . It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved” (ibid., 5:30:2-3).
“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire” (ibid., 5:30:4).
Hippolytus
“Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision *, and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem” (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]).
“[W]e find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion’s whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: ‘Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse’s heel’ [Gen. 49:17]. What then is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis [Gen. 3:1], who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam? . . . *t is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise” (ibid., 14).
“Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews” (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).
Tertullian
“[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator” (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).
continued****
M
MaryT777
Guest
Cyprian of Carthage
“If they [the heretics] desire peace, let them lay aside their arms. If they make atonement, why do they threaten? Or if they threaten, let them know that they are not feared by God’s priests. For even Antichrist, when he shall begin to come, will not enter into the Church [even though] he threatens; neither shall we yield to his arms and violence, [though] he declares that he will destroy us if we resist” (Letters 69[70]:3 [A.D. 253]).
“**oth baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one and the Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results that with them [heretics and schismatics] all things are futile and false, nothing that which they have done ought to be approved by us. . . . And the blessed apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle and said, ‘You have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time . . . ‘[1 John 2:18]. Wherefore we who are with the Lord and maintain the unity of the Lord, and according to his condescension administer his priesthood in the Church, should repudiate and reject and regard as profane whatever his adversaries and the antichrists do; and to those who, coming about of error and wickedness, acknowledge the true faith of the one Church, we should give the truth both of unity and faith, by means of all the sacraments of divine grace” (ibid., 54[69]:19).
“**ecause there can be nothing common to falsehood and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to Antichrist and Christ, we ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church and not to give way to the enemies of the faith and truth in any respect. Neither must we prescribe the form of custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose and upon whom he built his Church . . . despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth [that Paul gave] . . . furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience” (ibid., 70[71]:2-3).
Lactantius
“[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people” (Divine Institutes 7:17 [A.D. 307]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him. At first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness” (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [A.D. 350]).
“Having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth [2 Thess. 2:8], and deliver him over to the fire of Gehenna” (ibid.).
Augustine
“Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come and to carry on his destruction to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ” (The City of God 20:19 [A.D. 419]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
.****
“If they [the heretics] desire peace, let them lay aside their arms. If they make atonement, why do they threaten? Or if they threaten, let them know that they are not feared by God’s priests. For even Antichrist, when he shall begin to come, will not enter into the Church [even though] he threatens; neither shall we yield to his arms and violence, [though] he declares that he will destroy us if we resist” (Letters 69[70]:3 [A.D. 253]).
“**oth baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one and the Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results that with them [heretics and schismatics] all things are futile and false, nothing that which they have done ought to be approved by us. . . . And the blessed apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle and said, ‘You have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time . . . ‘[1 John 2:18]. Wherefore we who are with the Lord and maintain the unity of the Lord, and according to his condescension administer his priesthood in the Church, should repudiate and reject and regard as profane whatever his adversaries and the antichrists do; and to those who, coming about of error and wickedness, acknowledge the true faith of the one Church, we should give the truth both of unity and faith, by means of all the sacraments of divine grace” (ibid., 54[69]:19).
“**ecause there can be nothing common to falsehood and truth, to darkness and light, to death and immortality, to Antichrist and Christ, we ought by all means to maintain the unity of the Catholic Church and not to give way to the enemies of the faith and truth in any respect. Neither must we prescribe the form of custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose and upon whom he built his Church . . . despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but admitted the counsel of truth [that Paul gave] . . . furnishing thus an illustration to us both of concord and of patience” (ibid., 70[71]:2-3).
Lactantius
“[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people” (Divine Institutes 7:17 [A.D. 307]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him. At first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness” (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [A.D. 350]).
“Having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth [2 Thess. 2:8], and deliver him over to the fire of Gehenna” (ibid.).
Augustine
“Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come and to carry on his destruction to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ” (The City of God 20:19 [A.D. 419]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
.****
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Stars,
Thanks for your response.
“When the issue [of Luther’s abusiveness] is dealt with at all, scholars have not hesitated to attribute the polemical excesses of the older Luther to ill health and aging. The older Luther is seen as overly coarse, abusive, and verbose because he was sick, depressed, and perhaps even slightly senile old man. For some this is an attractive interpretation. One tends to be more tolerant to the foibles of the sick and old, attributing normally unacceptable behavior to the effects of illness or of age, rather than to the individual himself.” Edwards, “LLB”, pg. 8
I think that Edwards is pointing a finger at mostly Protestant and specifically the ‘older’ Lutheran biographers and historians. I have seen a LOT of writers take this approach, seemingly, at least as much as possible, attempting to ‘excuse’ Luther’s abhorrent behavior as much as possible. However, even as good as Edwards is, at least in this statement, he misses something very important.
Luther was FAR from an ill old man when he began to exhibit the kind of abuse of his opponents that Edwards.
When Luther was a young man, he cooked up the antichrist thing.
As a young man he recommended that wives reluctant to have marital relations should be executed by the state.
As a young man he recommended that the secular authorities ‘slaughter without mercy’ the peasants in the 1525 Peasant’s War. 100,000 were slaughtered and Luther was happy to take the credit.
Luther was not exactly an old man when he began to write against the Jews or when he, as the head of his communion, authorized a bigamous marriage and then counseled everyone to lie about his involvement.
The list goes on and on Stars. There are a TON of quotes in which Luther demonstrates a complete lack of Christian charity, and right from the very beginning of his reformation, not just in his later years.
That being said, Edwards continues on:
“In other words, this interpretation may serve to exculpate from responsibility for later excesses the ‘real’ (that is, the younger) Luther, his theology, and the Reformation he initiated……” LLB, pg. 8
Later in this chapter, Edwards explores Luther’s mental health issues. This section goes on for 7 pages and is well worth reading.
Thanks for your response.
In speaking of Luther’s harsh polemics and his abusive style of polemics, the same Lutheran Scholar, Mark U. Edwards makes a point that goes directly to your comments:
“When the issue [of Luther’s abusiveness] is dealt with at all, scholars have not hesitated to attribute the polemical excesses of the older Luther to ill health and aging. The older Luther is seen as overly coarse, abusive, and verbose because he was sick, depressed, and perhaps even slightly senile old man. For some this is an attractive interpretation. One tends to be more tolerant to the foibles of the sick and old, attributing normally unacceptable behavior to the effects of illness or of age, rather than to the individual himself.” Edwards, “LLB”, pg. 8
I think that Edwards is pointing a finger at mostly Protestant and specifically the ‘older’ Lutheran biographers and historians. I have seen a LOT of writers take this approach, seemingly, at least as much as possible, attempting to ‘excuse’ Luther’s abhorrent behavior as much as possible. However, even as good as Edwards is, at least in this statement, he misses something very important.
Luther was FAR from an ill old man when he began to exhibit the kind of abuse of his opponents that Edwards.
When Luther was a young man, he cooked up the antichrist thing.
As a young man he recommended that wives reluctant to have marital relations should be executed by the state.
As a young man he recommended that the secular authorities ‘slaughter without mercy’ the peasants in the 1525 Peasant’s War. 100,000 were slaughtered and Luther was happy to take the credit.
Luther was not exactly an old man when he began to write against the Jews or when he, as the head of his communion, authorized a bigamous marriage and then counseled everyone to lie about his involvement.
The list goes on and on Stars. There are a TON of quotes in which Luther demonstrates a complete lack of Christian charity, and right from the very beginning of his reformation, not just in his later years.
That being said, Edwards continues on:
“In other words, this interpretation may serve to exculpate from responsibility for later excesses the ‘real’ (that is, the younger) Luther, his theology, and the Reformation he initiated……” LLB, pg. 8
Later in this chapter, Edwards explores Luther’s mental health issues. This section goes on for 7 pages and is well worth reading.
T
Topper17
Guest
Luther’s treatment of ALL of his opponents was abusive. The fact that he made his attacks on them often as harsh as he make them, in and of itself, does not, I think,‘disqualify’ him from being a ‘true reformer’ as you put it. His ‘mistakes’ in this realm were quite human, as are those of us all. That behavior and the hatred that he inflicted on SO MANY people though SHOULD cause us to question whether God would chose to use a man of this nature and character to reform the Church. In other words, why would God ‘use’ someone like Luther, who many found to be so distasteful, when he could have found someone who would not actually repel people so terribly?
I think what ‘disqualifies’ Luther from being viewed as a ‘Reformer’ sent by God to refocus the Church are the anti-Christian teachings that he promoted.
In the slaughter of the peasants, the reluctant wives, the Anabaptists, the Jews, and other equally abhorrent teachings, Luther quoted Scripture (furiously of course) to justify his horrific recommendations.
We are asked to believe, by Lutheranism and greater Protestantism, that Luther ‘discovered’ two basic Scriptural Truths that NOBODY had ever “noticed” in Scripture previously – Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura. Those teachings were radical. They were at the CORE of the Reformation and they were what the Church opposed.
Luther justified these radical and never before taught beliefs, quoting Scripture ad infinitum to justify them. We are asked to believe that he was correct on those doctrines and that his exegesis was correct on those doctrines and that that of ALL of prior Christianity had been in error. That is asking the whole of Christianity to place a LOT of chips on the Scriptural Exegesis abilities of ONE MAN. It would be one thing if it was only these two issues that we find Luther at odds with either all of Christian history or what we would all know to be Christian charity and morality.
If Luther was THAT wrong on all of these ‘other issues’, the ‘lesser-known’ ones, and was CONVINCED that he was Scripturally ‘correct’ on them, then what assurance we have that he somehow managed to find things in Scripture, like Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura, that he believed were so well justified in Scripture, and nobody else before him did?
In other words, it is those ‘lesser known’ teachings by which Luther disqualifies himself from serious consideration as a valid ‘reformer’ sent by God to guide the whole church. There is a reason that all of those things are ‘lesser known’ in the standard “Legend” of Luther.
In my experience, when people think that they have a compelling argument to offer in response to some opposing point, they practically fall all over themselves in a rush to post it. On the other hand, when they KNOW that they don’t have an argument or position that is going to look very good, they tend to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the thread, hoping to cause people to not notice that they don’t really have a viable response.
My sense is that you will not be reticent. After all, you are willing to step right up there and mirror the teachings of Lutheranism with regards to the antichrist. As such, I am looking forward to your comments about the points made in this post.
God Bless You Star, Topper
I think what ‘disqualifies’ Luther from being viewed as a ‘Reformer’ sent by God to refocus the Church are the anti-Christian teachings that he promoted.
In the slaughter of the peasants, the reluctant wives, the Anabaptists, the Jews, and other equally abhorrent teachings, Luther quoted Scripture (furiously of course) to justify his horrific recommendations.
We are asked to believe, by Lutheranism and greater Protestantism, that Luther ‘discovered’ two basic Scriptural Truths that NOBODY had ever “noticed” in Scripture previously – Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura. Those teachings were radical. They were at the CORE of the Reformation and they were what the Church opposed.
Luther justified these radical and never before taught beliefs, quoting Scripture ad infinitum to justify them. We are asked to believe that he was correct on those doctrines and that his exegesis was correct on those doctrines and that that of ALL of prior Christianity had been in error. That is asking the whole of Christianity to place a LOT of chips on the Scriptural Exegesis abilities of ONE MAN. It would be one thing if it was only these two issues that we find Luther at odds with either all of Christian history or what we would all know to be Christian charity and morality.
If Luther was THAT wrong on all of these ‘other issues’, the ‘lesser-known’ ones, and was CONVINCED that he was Scripturally ‘correct’ on them, then what assurance we have that he somehow managed to find things in Scripture, like Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura, that he believed were so well justified in Scripture, and nobody else before him did?
In other words, it is those ‘lesser known’ teachings by which Luther disqualifies himself from serious consideration as a valid ‘reformer’ sent by God to guide the whole church. There is a reason that all of those things are ‘lesser known’ in the standard “Legend” of Luther.
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand up for what you believe and admit it here publically. I would also appreciate your comments about what I have written above.
That is exactly what I am looking to do Stars, debate it point by point. As you might have noticed from others, its pretty common to have my points ignored, point by point, and my questions ignored, question by question.
In my experience, when people think that they have a compelling argument to offer in response to some opposing point, they practically fall all over themselves in a rush to post it. On the other hand, when they KNOW that they don’t have an argument or position that is going to look very good, they tend to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the thread, hoping to cause people to not notice that they don’t really have a viable response.
My sense is that you will not be reticent. After all, you are willing to step right up there and mirror the teachings of Lutheranism with regards to the antichrist. As such, I am looking forward to your comments about the points made in this post.
God Bless You Star, Topper
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
The TOPIC please
P
pablope
Guest
But Scripture do not, and cannot make that charge…the men of the Reformation, using their own interpretation…did…and applied it to the bishop of Rome.
So the question then is…where did they get the authority to make that charge?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
The accusation of the pope as being the antichrist, being man-made, CAN be rejected by wiser and better informed men, especially if they have ANY interest in truly advancing the cause of Christian unity. It appears though, as I suggested much earlier on this thread, that Lutherans, or at least the ones who hold to the ‘antichrist stuff’, are, as I said, STUCK with the antichrist language, as it is in their confessions, which they hold as authoritative, even though man-made. We hear a lot about how the term ‘antichrist’ means something entirely different than what the text of the Confessions actually state. Early in this thread, about 2 weeks before I joined in, pablope posted a link and text from the Lutheran Confessions:
Delving into this question brings us to an amazing statement from Confessional Lutheranism. From the same website that pablope posted on the Lutheran Confessions, we learn more details about the view from Confessional Lutherans about the authority of their Confessions:
bookofconcord.org/whatarethey.php
“The Lutheran Confessions: What Are They?
The Spirit in Which They Were Written
"We use the word “confession” in a variety of ways today. They are written, formal statements with which a group of Christians, or an individual, declare to the world their faith, their deepest and undaunted convictions.
The Lutheran Confessions represent the result of more than 50 years of earnest endeavor by Martin Luther and his followers to give Biblical and clear expression to their religious convictions. The important word in that definition is the word “convictions.” This word reveals the spirit in which the Lutheran Confessions were written, not a spirit of hesitation or doubt, but of deepest confidence that Lutherans, when they were writing and subscribing the Confessions and creeds, because their content was all drawn from the Word of God, Scripture, were affirming the truth, the saving truth.
Listen to what the Lutheran confessors say in the very last paragraph of the Book of Concord (FC SD, XII, 40), a statement that describes their assurance and their doctrinal certainty:
“Therefore, it is our intent to give witness before God and all Christendom, among those who are alive today and those who will come after us, that the explanation here set forth regarding all the controversial articles of faith which we have addressed and explained—and no other explanation—is our teaching, faith, and confession. In it we shall appear before the judgment throne of Jesus Christ, by God’s grace, with fearless hearts and thus give account of our faith, and we will neither secretly nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it. Instead, on the strength of God’s grace we intend to abide by this confession.
Agreed, with the most important term being ‘at best’. We have seen it admitted here on these threads that the Lutheran Confessions are not infallible and that they are of human origin, which means that they are man-made. Here we see the opinions of man elevated to such a degree that ALL of the people who belong to the communions that they started, even hundreds of years later, are HELD to believe THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS.
The accusation of the pope as being the antichrist, being man-made, CAN be rejected by wiser and better informed men, especially if they have ANY interest in truly advancing the cause of Christian unity. It appears though, as I suggested much earlier on this thread, that Lutherans, or at least the ones who hold to the ‘antichrist stuff’, are, as I said, STUCK with the antichrist language, as it is in their confessions, which they hold as authoritative, even though man-made. We hear a lot about how the term ‘antichrist’ means something entirely different than what the text of the Confessions actually state. Early in this thread, about 2 weeks before I joined in, pablope posted a link and text from the Lutheran Confessions:
This is from Luther’s Smalkald Articles, Part Two, Article IV, Of The Papacy. This is Confessional for some Lutherans but certainly not all of them. In fact this accusation seems to come only from a small segment of Lutheranism. Notice the exact language - The Pope “IS THE VERY ANTICHRIST”. This official teaching does NOT say that it is the ‘office’ of the papacy which is teaching in opposition to Christ, or ANY of those watered down explanations that we have heard often. The Pope “IS THE VERY ANTICHRIST”. Period.
In fact, I think this is the key question before us. You can tell it is the key question because it is the one which is the most avoided. The whole ‘By What Authority?’ is one of the least popular questions with Protestants and especially when it comes to Luther.
Delving into this question brings us to an amazing statement from Confessional Lutheranism. From the same website that pablope posted on the Lutheran Confessions, we learn more details about the view from Confessional Lutherans about the authority of their Confessions:
bookofconcord.org/whatarethey.php
“The Lutheran Confessions: What Are They?
The Spirit in Which They Were Written
"We use the word “confession” in a variety of ways today. They are written, formal statements with which a group of Christians, or an individual, declare to the world their faith, their deepest and undaunted convictions.
The Lutheran Confessions represent the result of more than 50 years of earnest endeavor by Martin Luther and his followers to give Biblical and clear expression to their religious convictions. The important word in that definition is the word “convictions.” This word reveals the spirit in which the Lutheran Confessions were written, not a spirit of hesitation or doubt, but of deepest confidence that Lutherans, when they were writing and subscribing the Confessions and creeds, because their content was all drawn from the Word of God, Scripture, were affirming the truth, the saving truth.
Listen to what the Lutheran confessors say in the very last paragraph of the Book of Concord (FC SD, XII, 40), a statement that describes their assurance and their doctrinal certainty:
“Therefore, it is our intent to give witness before God and all Christendom, among those who are alive today and those who will come after us, that the explanation here set forth regarding all the controversial articles of faith which we have addressed and explained—and no other explanation—is our teaching, faith, and confession. In it we shall appear before the judgment throne of Jesus Christ, by God’s grace, with fearless hearts and thus give account of our faith, and we will neither secretly nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it. Instead, on the strength of God’s grace we intend to abide by this confession.
T
Topper17
Guest
Lutheran Confession The Spirit in Which They Were Written continued:
"Here we observe that those who wrote and signed the Lutheran Confessions were not merely settling controversies, or expressing opinions, or devising new and clever doctrinal formulations. They were confessing their faith and expressing their determination never to depart from that confession. They take their stand as in the presence of God and stake their very salvation on the doctrine they confess. So confident are they of their position, so certain of their doctrine, that they dare bind not only themselves but also their posterity to it. And in another place they show their willingness to submit themselves not only to the content but to the very phrases of their confession:“We have determined not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in [the Confessions]” (Preface of the Book of Concord, quoted from Concordia Triglotta [St. Louis: Concordia, 1921], p. 23).”
I am sure that such a profession seems like an impossible anachronism today, a mark of inflexible pride which can no longer be respected or emulated by enlightened people.”
From bookofconcord.org/whatarethey.php
I would have to agree. I actually DO find this statement to be “a mark of inflexible pride which can no longer be respected or emulated by enlightened people.”
The above statement from 1921 is an official statement of the LCMS. What we learn is that the LCMS will stand by the exact language of their Confessions and will “not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in [the Confessions]”.
That statement seems consistent with the statements I have seen from LCMS leadership. The official accusations, as to the Pope being “the very Antichrist” will apparently stand forever, or at least as long as the LCMS remains in existence. This IN SPITE of the fact that they admit that their confessions are man-made.
Early in this thread, two Confessional Lutherans stated that they would like to see the language of their confessions altered:
Much of the division it seems stems from the late 16th century when the Formula of Concord was supposed to heal the wounds to unity within Lutheranism. As you can see, it didn’t work out all that well. Right from the very beginning there were deep divisions within Lutheranism, which were baked into the cake by Martin Luther’s right of the individual to rebel against his church, and Sola Scriptura of course, which ultimately leads to the right of the individual.
We have heard Lutherans here comment that they need some kind of a Magisterium. We have also seen Lutherans here comment that communions like the LCMS have something of a Magisterium, in that they have the ability to set their own doctrines. I think that that fails to recognize the Achilles Heel, the fatal flaw in that kind of thinking.
As for our defense against the preposterous charge that the pope is the antichrist – just exactly what do the accusers expect? Does the spirit of ecumenism dictate that we are just supposed to roll over and accept that kind of nonsense? Should we not be allowed to make a spirited defense of our Church on a Catholic Apologetics site? Does the ‘spirit of ecumenism’ mean that we should have to listen to the most outrageous false claims and sit back and just WATCH?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
"Here we observe that those who wrote and signed the Lutheran Confessions were not merely settling controversies, or expressing opinions, or devising new and clever doctrinal formulations. They were confessing their faith and expressing their determination never to depart from that confession. They take their stand as in the presence of God and stake their very salvation on the doctrine they confess. So confident are they of their position, so certain of their doctrine, that they dare bind not only themselves but also their posterity to it. And in another place they show their willingness to submit themselves not only to the content but to the very phrases of their confession:“We have determined not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in [the Confessions]” (Preface of the Book of Concord, quoted from Concordia Triglotta [St. Louis: Concordia, 1921], p. 23).”
I am sure that such a profession seems like an impossible anachronism today, a mark of inflexible pride which can no longer be respected or emulated by enlightened people.”
From bookofconcord.org/whatarethey.php
I would have to agree. I actually DO find this statement to be “a mark of inflexible pride which can no longer be respected or emulated by enlightened people.”
The above statement from 1921 is an official statement of the LCMS. What we learn is that the LCMS will stand by the exact language of their Confessions and will “not to depart even a finger’s breadth either from the subjects themselves, or from the phrases which are found in [the Confessions]”.
That statement seems consistent with the statements I have seen from LCMS leadership. The official accusations, as to the Pope being “the very Antichrist” will apparently stand forever, or at least as long as the LCMS remains in existence. This IN SPITE of the fact that they admit that their confessions are man-made.
Early in this thread, two Confessional Lutherans stated that they would like to see the language of their confessions altered:
I can’t imagine an Intra-Lutheran Council. After all, many of the competing and doctrinally conflicting Lutheran communions seem to have such a negative opinion of each other. They don’t have alter or Eucharistic fellowship with each other in a lot of cases.
Much of the division it seems stems from the late 16th century when the Formula of Concord was supposed to heal the wounds to unity within Lutheranism. As you can see, it didn’t work out all that well. Right from the very beginning there were deep divisions within Lutheranism, which were baked into the cake by Martin Luther’s right of the individual to rebel against his church, and Sola Scriptura of course, which ultimately leads to the right of the individual.
We have heard Lutherans here comment that they need some kind of a Magisterium. We have also seen Lutherans here comment that communions like the LCMS have something of a Magisterium, in that they have the ability to set their own doctrines. I think that that fails to recognize the Achilles Heel, the fatal flaw in that kind of thinking.
As for our defense against the preposterous charge that the pope is the antichrist – just exactly what do the accusers expect? Does the spirit of ecumenism dictate that we are just supposed to roll over and accept that kind of nonsense? Should we not be allowed to make a spirited defense of our Church on a Catholic Apologetics site? Does the ‘spirit of ecumenism’ mean that we should have to listen to the most outrageous false claims and sit back and just WATCH?
God Bless You Mary, Topper
- Status