E
eazyduzit
Guest
Never heard of this priest. Just came across it by chance. Surprised me too.Don’t know if there’s anything to it, but TIME WILL TELL.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
- Status
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
M
Michael68
Guest
I agree that its completely ridiculous that anyone would say the Pope or anything Catholic is Anti Christ. I don’t believe we have to accept this nonsense!
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Martin Luther quotes
2. See the tract Admonition to Peace , which was written to the authorities to care about the peasants, the tract you quote was about stopping a rebellion against the authorities, I.e he supported both the peasants, and the government, also they were meant to be published at the same time so don’t argue that he changed his view.
So much for hating peasants, he cared for them , but opposed rebellion, and it has been noted by historians that the peasants would have been slaughtered by the government no matter what , it was not luthers fault.
3.There is nothing more lovely, friendly and charming relationship communion or company than a good marriage .
He supported woman he even helped former nuns escape their monesteries who would not have allowed them to leave.
4.See the tract Jesus is a Jew , he supported the Race of the Jews , although he supported attacking Judaism , yes that was wrong .
To summarize Luther was converted, preached the true gospel of grace alone and faith alone ( in accordance with the ECF by the way ) cared for the church , allowed priests and bishops to marry in accordance with scripture, supported , the peasants, and woman , and courageously refused to back down from the truth even with excommunication ,his faults were excessive course language , persecution of Anabaptists and Judaism, and not doing enough in the peasants war , he is a reformer, not perfect, but God used him anyway, ya know sorta like the murderer Paul, doubting Thomas , thrice denier Peter , adulterer David , etc he is a reformer who made mistakes and sinned at times newsflash we all do that , Gods people aren’t perfect but we appreciate their service to Christ ( something you out of bitterness of the split refuse to do) learn from there mistakes forgive and move forward, ps I’m saying this out of care and concern topper , pls don’t take this the wrong way .
Now back on topic , why do u insist that the idea of the pope being the antichrist being authoritative when most of us Kutherans accept only four creeds which say nothing of the sort?
- Anyone who is into find Christ must first find the Church , How could anyone know where Christ is and what faith is unless he knew where his believers are?
2. See the tract Admonition to Peace , which was written to the authorities to care about the peasants, the tract you quote was about stopping a rebellion against the authorities, I.e he supported both the peasants, and the government, also they were meant to be published at the same time so don’t argue that he changed his view.
So much for hating peasants, he cared for them , but opposed rebellion, and it has been noted by historians that the peasants would have been slaughtered by the government no matter what , it was not luthers fault.
3.There is nothing more lovely, friendly and charming relationship communion or company than a good marriage .
He supported woman he even helped former nuns escape their monesteries who would not have allowed them to leave.
4.See the tract Jesus is a Jew , he supported the Race of the Jews , although he supported attacking Judaism , yes that was wrong .
To summarize Luther was converted, preached the true gospel of grace alone and faith alone ( in accordance with the ECF by the way ) cared for the church , allowed priests and bishops to marry in accordance with scripture, supported , the peasants, and woman , and courageously refused to back down from the truth even with excommunication ,his faults were excessive course language , persecution of Anabaptists and Judaism, and not doing enough in the peasants war , he is a reformer, not perfect, but God used him anyway, ya know sorta like the murderer Paul, doubting Thomas , thrice denier Peter , adulterer David , etc he is a reformer who made mistakes and sinned at times newsflash we all do that , Gods people aren’t perfect but we appreciate their service to Christ ( something you out of bitterness of the split refuse to do) learn from there mistakes forgive and move forward, ps I’m saying this out of care and concern topper , pls don’t take this the wrong way .
Now back on topic , why do u insist that the idea of the pope being the antichrist being authoritative when most of us Kutherans accept only four creeds which say nothing of the sort?
O
opulumpu
Guest
Paul, Peter, Thomas, David, humbled themselves, admitted their error or sin, but did not cause the Church to splinter. Martin Luther was arrogant to the core, never admitted guilt or error and brought about the sad and unfortunate splintering of the Church which continues to this day. I do not see any humility in your statements, any admission that you are wrong much less any desire to help not have the Church united as one. I suggest you try imitating Paul, Peter, Thomas and David and see where it takes you.
When I read these arguments by Protestants, they remind me of the 9-11 terrorists who chose to die in their WRONG beliefs. They were sincere, but they were SINCERELY WRONG. I am sure you will agree with me on this.
Wishing you God’s blessings
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Uncalled for.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi pab,
Next, how does ‘Impleat vos Deus odio papae’ translate?
The Toppe article that you linked is excellent. To bad Toppe couldn’t have added an ‘r’. Then he would been ‘cool’. I found it interesting that he quotes Schweibert. I am a big fan but only very rarely do I find anyone quoting him. Toppe comments on the Schweibert text regarding Luther’s being unaware how far he had drifted from orthodoxy (in 1519):
“Schwiebert describes the position in which Luther found himself after the debate: “In the Leipzig Debate [Luther] came face to face with the orthodox Roman position on sin, grace, justification, the Church, and papal power, and he began to realize how far he had really drifted.”
Pab, don’t you think that a competent Theologian should have recognized that his beliefs had fallen outside of the boundaries of the orthodox beliefs of his own Church? I mean, that’s a pretty important thing for a competent Theologian to have a handle on. It’s one thing to question the teachings of your church, but if you challenge something that you don’t understand very well, it would seem that you are extremely likely to make some huge mistakes.
In fact, Luther had been aware that Eck had been challenging him, especially on the issue of papal power, for about 16 months, which means that he had had significantly more than a year to prepare for the Leipzig Debate. And yet, it was at Leipzig, probably the most important debate in Christian history, and Luther arrived without a good understanding of the orthodox Catholic position on sin, grace, justification, the Church, and papal power. It was at this 7 day long debate that Luther finally realized what the (better) Catholic Theologians already knew – that he had already drifted FAR outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy. It was during that Debate that Luther committed himself to a final break with the Church.
How in the world could a supposedly well trained Theologian not understand the orthodox position of his own Church on all of these important issues? Clearly he was in no position to be deciding matters of doctrine when he didn’t know it well enough to even know that his beliefs were not orthodox.
Interestingly, earlier on the same page in Schweibert, we find additional evidence of Luther’s lack of understanding of the Catholic doctrine that he felt so well qualified to challenge:
“The Leipzig Debate greatly accelerated Luther’s theological development. Since the beginning of his spiritual struggle in the monastery at Erfurt, Luther had been steadily drifting from the Catholic fold, but the change was so gradual that not even he was fully aware of the magnitude.” Schweibert, “Martin Luther and His Times”, pg. 316
Luther should not have been criticizing a theology he didn’t even understand. Schweibert continues:
“Luther maintained that a council was composed of human beings and was subject to error.” Ibid, pg. 417
What is interesting about this is of course that Luther NEVER allowed ANYONE to question HIS authority, meaning his authority as an individual Theologian. So……Councils were subject to error, but HE never allowed anyone to contend that he was wrong, and to continue to suggest that HE was subject to error.
First of all, great post. I do appreciate it when people add real substance to the dialogue.
Next, how does ‘Impleat vos Deus odio papae’ translate?
The Toppe article that you linked is excellent. To bad Toppe couldn’t have added an ‘r’. Then he would been ‘cool’. I found it interesting that he quotes Schweibert. I am a big fan but only very rarely do I find anyone quoting him. Toppe comments on the Schweibert text regarding Luther’s being unaware how far he had drifted from orthodoxy (in 1519):
“Schwiebert describes the position in which Luther found himself after the debate: “In the Leipzig Debate [Luther] came face to face with the orthodox Roman position on sin, grace, justification, the Church, and papal power, and he began to realize how far he had really drifted.”
Pab, don’t you think that a competent Theologian should have recognized that his beliefs had fallen outside of the boundaries of the orthodox beliefs of his own Church? I mean, that’s a pretty important thing for a competent Theologian to have a handle on. It’s one thing to question the teachings of your church, but if you challenge something that you don’t understand very well, it would seem that you are extremely likely to make some huge mistakes.
In fact, Luther had been aware that Eck had been challenging him, especially on the issue of papal power, for about 16 months, which means that he had had significantly more than a year to prepare for the Leipzig Debate. And yet, it was at Leipzig, probably the most important debate in Christian history, and Luther arrived without a good understanding of the orthodox Catholic position on sin, grace, justification, the Church, and papal power. It was at this 7 day long debate that Luther finally realized what the (better) Catholic Theologians already knew – that he had already drifted FAR outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy. It was during that Debate that Luther committed himself to a final break with the Church.
How in the world could a supposedly well trained Theologian not understand the orthodox position of his own Church on all of these important issues? Clearly he was in no position to be deciding matters of doctrine when he didn’t know it well enough to even know that his beliefs were not orthodox.
Interestingly, earlier on the same page in Schweibert, we find additional evidence of Luther’s lack of understanding of the Catholic doctrine that he felt so well qualified to challenge:
“The Leipzig Debate greatly accelerated Luther’s theological development. Since the beginning of his spiritual struggle in the monastery at Erfurt, Luther had been steadily drifting from the Catholic fold, but the change was so gradual that not even he was fully aware of the magnitude.” Schweibert, “Martin Luther and His Times”, pg. 316
Luther should not have been criticizing a theology he didn’t even understand. Schweibert continues:
“Luther maintained that a council was composed of human beings and was subject to error.” Ibid, pg. 417
What is interesting about this is of course that Luther NEVER allowed ANYONE to question HIS authority, meaning his authority as an individual Theologian. So……Councils were subject to error, but HE never allowed anyone to contend that he was wrong, and to continue to suggest that HE was subject to error.
T
Topper17
Guest
Continued:
Luther’s belief on the Pope as the Antichrist evolved rather quickly in his early career. One of the things that inspired him was his mistaken belief that the papal supremacy was a recent development. In fact, Luther actually believed that papal supremacy was, during his time, only a 400 year old concept. Lutheran biographer Martin Brecht points out the difficulties with this misconception during the Leipzig Debate of 1519 (a year and a half before Luther was excommunicated):
“The actual critical point of the debate was the problem of papal supremacy in the church, which Luther had singled out in his last counter thesis in an extremely risky manner by saying that this superiority had been fixed in law only 400 years earlier. Even Luther’s friends were extremely uncomfortable with this. Karlstadt told Spalatin that he would have advised Luther against presenting this thesis, Here Luther was in error. Karlstadt’s resigned comment, that ‘a person with a sharp mind does not take advide from a dumbbell,’ penetratingly illuminates the personal and substantive differences existing here. Consciously distancing himself from Luther, Karlstadt emphasized in his obedience to the Roman Church, taking no stand on the question of the pope. According to Luther, Karlstadt did that out of concern for his own ecclesiastical benefices. Most of the other Wittenberg colleagues, however, agreed with Karlstadt. They considered it unfortunate that Luther had broached this theme in his sermons. Amsdorf was to get him to tone it down. Christoph Scheurl in Nuremburg also believed that Luther had exaggerated and had gotten caught. He would have preferred that Luther back down at this point and limit himself to the questions under dispute.” Brecht, Vol 1, pg. 306
Here Brecht admits that Luther was clearly wrong about papal supremacy being “only in the last 400 years”. What is crucial about this mistake of Luther is that it was one of the big factors that led him to conclude that the Pope was the Antichrist. We also learn here that all of his Wittenberg colleagues KNEW that Luther was wrong on the matter, and that they could not persuade him to back off the issue. Of course Luther was not exactly prone to taking criticism or being told that he was wrong.
How was it possible that the supposedly well-educated Luther was so wrong on this important point and all of his Wittenberg collegues, and also many of those elsewhere knew better? Contrary to the standard legend of Luther, he did not have a good grasp of Church history, at all. Writing as a then Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan states:
“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4
This of course means that Luther was unaware of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Tertullian, or their writings. How weird is it that Tertullian became a heretic (a Montanist) and Luther thought he was the first Early Church Father?
All of this of course points to the fact of Luther being, well, nowhere NEAR as good a Theologian as the manufactured Legend of Luther would have us believe he was, and nowhere near as well versed in Church history. If he had had a better understanding of Church history, he would have realized that his claim about papal supremacy being only 400 years old was false. Of course his friends couldn’t convince him otherwise. He didn’t like it when people told him he was wrong.
I think that this information places Luther’s accusation that the Pope was the Antichrist into its proper context, meaning the qualifications of the theologian making that accusation. Did he really have the authority to make that kind of accusation? If so, then what specifically and exactly was his authority to make such an audacious and preposterous claim? Pab, this last one is one of those questions that we will NEVER get and answer to.
Would Luther have made such disrespectful accusations about the Pope if he had realized how poorly educated he was on the ancient Church (the Early Church Fathers) and if he had realized how poorly he actually understood the teachings of his own Church?
God Bless You pab, Topper (not Toppe)
Luther’s belief on the Pope as the Antichrist evolved rather quickly in his early career. One of the things that inspired him was his mistaken belief that the papal supremacy was a recent development. In fact, Luther actually believed that papal supremacy was, during his time, only a 400 year old concept. Lutheran biographer Martin Brecht points out the difficulties with this misconception during the Leipzig Debate of 1519 (a year and a half before Luther was excommunicated):
“The actual critical point of the debate was the problem of papal supremacy in the church, which Luther had singled out in his last counter thesis in an extremely risky manner by saying that this superiority had been fixed in law only 400 years earlier. Even Luther’s friends were extremely uncomfortable with this. Karlstadt told Spalatin that he would have advised Luther against presenting this thesis, Here Luther was in error. Karlstadt’s resigned comment, that ‘a person with a sharp mind does not take advide from a dumbbell,’ penetratingly illuminates the personal and substantive differences existing here. Consciously distancing himself from Luther, Karlstadt emphasized in his obedience to the Roman Church, taking no stand on the question of the pope. According to Luther, Karlstadt did that out of concern for his own ecclesiastical benefices. Most of the other Wittenberg colleagues, however, agreed with Karlstadt. They considered it unfortunate that Luther had broached this theme in his sermons. Amsdorf was to get him to tone it down. Christoph Scheurl in Nuremburg also believed that Luther had exaggerated and had gotten caught. He would have preferred that Luther back down at this point and limit himself to the questions under dispute.” Brecht, Vol 1, pg. 306
Here Brecht admits that Luther was clearly wrong about papal supremacy being “only in the last 400 years”. What is crucial about this mistake of Luther is that it was one of the big factors that led him to conclude that the Pope was the Antichrist. We also learn here that all of his Wittenberg colleagues KNEW that Luther was wrong on the matter, and that they could not persuade him to back off the issue. Of course Luther was not exactly prone to taking criticism or being told that he was wrong.
How was it possible that the supposedly well-educated Luther was so wrong on this important point and all of his Wittenberg collegues, and also many of those elsewhere knew better? Contrary to the standard legend of Luther, he did not have a good grasp of Church history, at all. Writing as a then Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan states:
“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles………he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan (Lutheran to EO convert), “Luther the Expositor”, pg. 83-4
This of course means that Luther was unaware of the 17 Early Church Fathers who proceeded Tertullian, or their writings. How weird is it that Tertullian became a heretic (a Montanist) and Luther thought he was the first Early Church Father?
All of this of course points to the fact of Luther being, well, nowhere NEAR as good a Theologian as the manufactured Legend of Luther would have us believe he was, and nowhere near as well versed in Church history. If he had had a better understanding of Church history, he would have realized that his claim about papal supremacy being only 400 years old was false. Of course his friends couldn’t convince him otherwise. He didn’t like it when people told him he was wrong.
I think that this information places Luther’s accusation that the Pope was the Antichrist into its proper context, meaning the qualifications of the theologian making that accusation. Did he really have the authority to make that kind of accusation? If so, then what specifically and exactly was his authority to make such an audacious and preposterous claim? Pab, this last one is one of those questions that we will NEVER get and answer to.
Would Luther have made such disrespectful accusations about the Pope if he had realized how poorly educated he was on the ancient Church (the Early Church Fathers) and if he had realized how poorly he actually understood the teachings of his own Church?
God Bless You pab, Topper (not Toppe)
M
MaryT777
Guest
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, we reject this. Catholic answers has the best info regarding this and I posted in on post 186-188.
Mary.
Exactly. That is why it is not a doctrine. It is a historical judgement. But scripture, as I’ve shown, does present the reasons why we believe that the mentioned teachings are opposed to Christ. and as I said, and Mary proves by the fantastic list of Fathers who chose to apply the term “anti-Christ” for various teachings they believed opposed Christ, the term could be applied by Catholics to various protestant teachings, to the extent they disagree with Catholic teaching.
I just listed them: the confessions cite scripture, the early councils, and the Fathers, and their disapproval of the mentioned teachings, just like the Fathers did.
Jon
Would you say that the like of Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I showed any humility, or admitted their error or when they splintered the Church centuries before. I ask because, I don’t know.
I will say this: you have no idea whether or not Luther admitted his sins or errors, since there is a seal of the confessional.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
“could be applied by Catholics to various protestant teachings” from your post above. Could is the operative word. You’d have to show me a Catholic teaching where that’s done as the Lutherans have done.
Mary.
Of course you do not have to accept this. I wouldn’t expect any Catholic to accept it.
By the same token, don’t expect us to accept the claim that salvation is linked only and exclusively through that portion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that is in
communion with the Bishop of Rome. Salvation is indeed there, but not because of the Bishop or Rome.
Don’t expect us to accept the innovation known as “invincible ignorance”, when it comes to Baptized, believing Christians, even those of us who have a general idea of Catholic teaching. Of course, we can agree that God saves whom He chooses, including those not part of the Church Catholic, for reasons only He may know.
Don’t expect us to accept that the Bishop or Rome has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church on Earth, a teaching contrary to scripture and the early councils.
As a starting point, however, in this age of ecumenical dialogue, the first thing we do need to accept is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers in both of our communions, and pray that He will guide our leaders into closer and closer communion with each other.
Jon
How many Lutheran teachings are declared heretical by the Catholic Church?
Same thing. Its the same thing. Its about teachings.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
Of course not, and that might have something to do with the direction each charge goes in. As the one on the receiving end of “heretical”, I frankly see absolutely no difference at all. Am I supposed to be less offended because you think the term antiChrist is worse? Its also obvious that we do not consider the Catholic Church “completely” opposed to Christ (antiChrist), since there is significant agreement on doctrine between us.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
The LCMS official site lists these differences; it might seem we have a ways to go and I don’t believe we have significant agreement on doctrine.
Mary.
Q: What are the main theological differences between the theology of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church?
A: At the risk of oversimplification, and keeping in mind that individual Lutheran (and Catholic) theologians would undoubtedly disagree about the success of recent Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues in lessening or even “resolving” historic doctrinal differences between these two churches, listed below are what the LCMS would regard as some of the major theological differences between the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church:
1.The authority of Scripture.
Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope, the church, and certain traditions of the church.
2.The doctrine of justification.
Lutherans believe a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or “infused with”) some “work” or “love” active within a Christian.
3.The authority of the pope.
Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans do not believe the office of the papacy as such has any divine authority or that Christians need to submit to the Pope’s authority to be “true” members of the visible church.
4.Differences remain about both the number and the nature of the sacraments.
Roman Catholics speak of seven Sacraments while Lutherans tend to speak of only two (or three). More important than number is how the Sacraments are understood. To take a single example, Lutherans believe that in the Sacrament of the Altar (Communion) Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, but they do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the elements are permanently changed from the substances of bread and wine to the substances of body and blood. Transubstantiation is rejected for several reasons: It is a philosophical explanation for a work of Christ’s almighty Word which we can only believe, not explain. In seeking to explain a mystery it changes the plain and simple meanings of God’s Word (Scripture refers to the elements as both bread and wine and body and blood, 1 Cor. 11:26-27). Transubstantiation leads to the assertion that the body and blood of Christ remain present “even apart from the administration of the Supper” and so encourages veneration of the elements apart from their sacramental use and detracts from the use Christ commands: “Take eat … drink … for the forgiveness of your sins.” Lutheran rejection of transubstantiation should not in any way be taken to mean a denial that Christ’s very body and blood are truly present in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper for the forgiveness of sins.
5.Differences remain about the role of Mary and the saints.
Unlike Catholics, Lutherans do not believe it is proper or scriptural to offer prayers to saints or to view Mary as in any sense a “mediator” between God and human beings.
While Lutherans believe any doctrinal error has the potential to distort or deny Scripture’s teaching regarding salvation, we also believe that anyone (regardless of denominational affiliation) who truly believes in Jesus Christ as Savior will be saved.
Return to Other Denominations | Return to Top
LCMS official site
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Star,
Thanks for your response.
In the future I should probably refer to FofC Lutherans as adhering to Pope is the “VERY anti-Christ” bologna. In fact, as we move through this thread especially, it is becoming clear to me that there is only a very small percentage of Lutheranism that holds to that dribble. They do seem to be proportionally overrepresented here.
Maybe you could help me with this. As far as you know, in the US, is it only WELS and the LCMS that are ‘Confessional”, meaning following the FofC?
As for Luther’s hatred, it doesn’t appear that you have read very much of the available literature. Of course the education that the laity receives in Lutheran churches does not deal very much with Luther’s rather uncharitable actions, books, and letters. So I really don’t blame you for not having a ‘balanced view’ of the man. As for Luther hating the Pope and Catholics in general, I would suggest that you contact Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards, who, among many others, disagrees with you. He tells us quite clearly that:
**“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
In other words, Luther hated ALL Catholics, “as agents of Satan.”
Seriously Star, give Edwards a call and tell him you think he is wrong. You might want to read at least one of his 4 books on Luther though before you do. I would suggest “Luther’s Last Battles”. It is excellent. It documents the way that he treated his opponents, which by the way, included a lot of people by the end of his life.
God Bless You Star, Topper
Thanks for your response.
Star – I do NOT make false charges. I can appreciate it that you don’t want to be included in the Formula of Concord nonsense about the Pope being the VERY Antichrist. If that doesn’t apply to you, as it seems, then I apologize. On the other hand, wasn’t it you that said that the antichrist label is the only thing that makes sense?
In the future I should probably refer to FofC Lutherans as adhering to Pope is the “VERY anti-Christ” bologna. In fact, as we move through this thread especially, it is becoming clear to me that there is only a very small percentage of Lutheranism that holds to that dribble. They do seem to be proportionally overrepresented here.
Maybe you could help me with this. As far as you know, in the US, is it only WELS and the LCMS that are ‘Confessional”, meaning following the FofC?
As for Luther’s hatred, it doesn’t appear that you have read very much of the available literature. Of course the education that the laity receives in Lutheran churches does not deal very much with Luther’s rather uncharitable actions, books, and letters. So I really don’t blame you for not having a ‘balanced view’ of the man. As for Luther hating the Pope and Catholics in general, I would suggest that you contact Lutheran Scholar Mark U. Edwards, who, among many others, disagrees with you. He tells us quite clearly that:
**“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
In other words, Luther hated ALL Catholics, “as agents of Satan.”
Seriously Star, give Edwards a call and tell him you think he is wrong. You might want to read at least one of his 4 books on Luther though before you do. I would suggest “Luther’s Last Battles”. It is excellent. It documents the way that he treated his opponents, which by the way, included a lot of people by the end of his life.
God Bless You Star, Topper
P
pablope
Guest
- Status