Fellow Protestants, please help...

[TertiumQuid]

But the “visible church” DID “declare the canon of Scripture.” No “invisible church” could possibly have done such a thing.

Keep in mind, The Old Testament church was fallible, and passed on a set of beliefs to each generation that preceded Christ. The “magisterium” (for lack of a better word) of the Old Testament church did not claim infallibility, nor is it even considered today by Roman Catholics to be infallible, yet they passed on particular teachings. This is really the point- each generation has had a church that has given them particular teachings- this though does not mean the church must needs be infallible.

In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the “True Church” actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah).

But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult.

Luther held that the Church was God’s hand maid and servant. It does not create God’s Word, God’s Word creates the Church. As the servant of the Word, it gives the Word to the body of Christ, His people. Indeed, who would know God’s Word if it were not for the Church continually upholding it and pointing God’s people to it in each generation? One shouild be able to sense the thrust of Luther’s argument: when the visible Church goes bad, going against it is an awesome and fearful undertaking. The Church is God’s handmaid. It is to protect and promulgate the Word- but what happens when the servant disobey’s the Master? Who can condemn the handmaid and not be fearful?

The Luther quote in question is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear from the context. Luther asks, Old Testament Judaism had God’s law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

 

[piperspop]

Mercygate,

Before long, this thread will have you so confused with trivia about different denominations that you REALLY won’t know what a Christian is. May I make a suggestion? Get a copy of “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. While not simple, this book explains what it is to be a “mere Christian”, and was found acceptable by Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Roman Catholic priests and ministers.
You will find that Catholics are indeed Christians, just as other Christian faiths may be catholic (small c).
In any event, it explains the journey of soul (Lewis) from atheism to God to Christianity. It is a wonderful read.

Good Luck!

 

[mercygate]

The addition or deletion of the 7 books do not change the gospel of God’s grace.

You have got to be kidding. You belong to a tradition that states that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then you say that the Bible is negotiable?

 

[mercygate]

Keep in mind, The Old Testament church was fallible, and passed on a set of beliefs to each generation that preceded Christ. The “magisterium” (for lack of a better word) of the Old Testament church did not claim infallibility, nor is it even considered today by Roman Catholics to be infallible, yet they passed on particular teachings. This is really the point- each generation has had a church that has given them particular teachings- this though does not mean the church must needs be infallible.

In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the “True Church” actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah).

But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult.

Luther held that the Church was God’s hand maid and servant. It does not create God’s Word, God’s Word creates the Church. As the servant of the Word, it gives the Word to the body of Christ, His people. Indeed, who would know God’s Word if it were not for the Church continually upholding it and pointing God’s people to it in each generation? One shouild be able to sense the thrust of Luther’s argument: when the visible Church goes bad, going against it is an awesome and fearful undertaking. The Church is God’s handmaid. It is to protect and promulgate the Word- but what happens when the servant disobey’s the Master? Who can condemn the handmaid and not be fearful?

The Luther quote in question is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear from the context. Luther asks, Old Testament Judaism had God’s law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

You cannot separate the Law from the Hebrew people any more than Christ can be separated from His Bride or his Word can be separated from His Person.

 

[Reformed]

You have got to be kidding. You belong to a tradition that states that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then you say that the Bible is negotiable?

I just was making a point that the gospel of God’s grace shines as bright in the Catholic Bible as well as the Protetstant Bible. The dispute of the cannon cannot be used to nullify the truth of God’s amazing grace.

 

[justasking4]

Hi, I am a protestant who is very much interested in the Catholic Church yet at the same time I am hesitant because I have almost always understood the Catholic Church to be not Christian. Please help me understand these quotes from Maritn Luther. They seem to be very contradictory to what most people portray ML as. I’m just trying to figure out if I’m misinterpreting these quotes.

Thank you!

---

“We concede––as we must––that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and hat we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not from them?”
(Sermons on the Gospel of John chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works [St Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], 304)

“I never approved of a schism nor will I approve of it for all eternity…That the Roman Catholic Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted…Though nowdays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better…There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the body of unity of the body.” (letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo , January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses; quoted by Patrick O’Hare in The Facts about Luther, 356).

---

If indeed these words came out of Maritn Luther, then how can I claim to be following the Truth when I am part of a movement that was not intended by the originator? These quotes are thoroughly convicting me and I am hoping there is a logical explanation for these!

Read and study the Scriptures. Compare what they teach with the doctrines of the church. Talk with your pastor and a priest. Compare what they say with the Scriptures. Can they back up their beliefs with the Scriptures? Look at the details of each.

 

[TertiumQuid]

You cannot separate the Law from the Hebrew people any more than Christ can be separated from His Bride or his Word can be separated from His Person.

I’m not exactly sure how this follows from what I’ve posted, but I only have posted in this thread to give clarification to the Luther quotes in the opening post. I’m really not here to debate your points. If you think that somehow I’ve misinterpreted Luther, I’d be willing to take your comments into consideration. I’m sure though, someone else here would be interested in a dialog not pertaining to the clarification of Luther’s quotes.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hi, I am a protestant who is very much interested in the Catholic Church yet at the same time I am hesitant because I have almost always understood the Catholic Church to be not Christian. Please help me understand these quotes from Maritn Luther. They seem to be very contradictory to what most people portray ML as. I’m just trying to figure out if I’m misinterpreting these quotes.

Thank you!

---

“We concede––as we must––that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and hat we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not from them?”
(Sermons on the Gospel of John chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works [St Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], 304)

“I never approved of a schism nor will I approve of it for all eternity…That the Roman Catholic Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted…Though nowdays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better…There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the body of unity of the body.” (letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo , January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses; quoted by Patrick O’Hare in The Facts about Luther, 356).

---

If indeed these words came out of Maritn Luther, then how can I claim to be following the Truth when I am part of a movement that was not intended by the originator? These quotes are thoroughly convicting me and I am hoping there is a logical explanation for these!

Unless you are joining a Lutheran church, why would you care about Martin Luther?
Even amongst the magisterial reformers, you have different branches. Of course you also have the radical reformers as well. Just do not get the whole Martin Luther thing…

 

[Rightlydivide]

You have got to be kidding. You belong to a tradition that states that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then you say that the Bible is negotiable?

Interesting. As a dispensationalist, why would I follow the deuterocanonical books? I have them in my Bible as well.

 

[sdenko]

Unless you are joining a Lutheran church, why would you care about Martin Luther?
Even amongst the magisterial reformers, you have different branches. Of course you also have the radical reformers as well. Just do not get the whole Martin Luther thing…

Why should I “not get the whole Martin Luther thing…”?

Is there a reason that Martin Luther is not something I should get into?

Furthermore, my concern for Martin Luther is based upon his pivotal role in the beginning of the Reformation. For me to know truth, I must examine why the Reformation started in the first place and what it was founded on. If I can determine that yes, the Reformers were or were not justified in beginning the Reformation outside of the Catholic Church, then I’ll have solved a significant predicament I’m faced with: is Protestantism the fullness of God’s truth, or, is there something else?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why should I “not get the whole Martin Luther thing…”?

Is there a reason that Martin Luther is not something I should get into?

Furthermore, my concern for Martin Luther is based upon his pivotal role in the beginning of the Reformation. For me to know truth, I must examine why the Reformation started in the first place and what it was founded on. If I can determine that yes, the Reformers were or were not justified in beginning the Reformation outside of the Catholic Church, then I’ll have solved a significant predicament I’m faced with: is Protestantism the fullness of God’s truth, or, is there something else?

I do not think you should get into Martin Luther unless you have a desire to use his writings or to join those associated with his movement. If you want to examine why the Reformation started in the first place, there are hundreds of books on the subject. Since I am sure you have read them; you will understand that you could just as easily ask about the Anglicans, Zwingli, Smyth, Calvin, Grebel, or Menno Simons.
The Reformation is the result of hundreds of historical convergences and factors.
The year is 2008, if it had not been Martin Luther playing a pivotal role it would have been thousands of others. Why limit yourself to the Reformation? You could just as easily look at any number of the early dissenting groups prior to 1500. I have of course read Luther in seminary. I cannot stand the guy or his writings. I fail to see how that has anything to do with me.
But suit yourself, you have backed yourself into a win/win corner to turn Catholic if you base it upon Martin Luther alone.
Why you would base it upon him alone is beyond me and is a rather shoddy historical approach.
Have fun reading.

 

[sdenko]

I do not think you should get into Martin Luther unless you have a desire to use his writings or to join those associated with his movement. If you want to examine why the Reformation started in the first place, there are hundreds of books on the subject. Since I am sure you have read them; you will understand that you could just as easily ask about the Anglicans, Zwingli, Smyth, Calvin, Grebel, or Menno Simons.
The Reformation is the result of hundreds of historical convergences and factors.
The year is 2008, if it had not been Martin Luther playing a pivotal role it would have been thousands of others. Why limit yourself to the Reformation? You could just as easily look at any number of the early dissenting groups prior to 1500. I have of course read Luther in seminary. I cannot stand the guy or his writings. I fail to see how that has anything to do with me.
But suit yourself, you have backed yourself into a win/win corner to turn Catholic if you base it upon Martin Luther alone.
Why you would base it upon him alone is beyond me and is a rather shoddy historical approach.
Have fun reading.

Sir, with all due respect. You do not know me and you do not know the countless hours I have poured into try to understand the Christian faith. I have yet to even break the surface of this faith, but my research into Martin Luther is only a small bit of what I have done. Indeed, I know that I need to spend more time researching other Christian movements, however this specific question about Martin Luther’s quotes is only related to my initial research into Martin Luther. Seeing as he is one of the prime movers in the Reformation movement (not to diminish the role of others) I thought it best to start there.

Within the Christian faith there are multiple traditions and yes, I do want to understand as much as I can about all of them and why they exist. I will not settle for one tradition without examining all of the other options and yes, Luther is included in this.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sir, with all due respect. You do not know me and you do not know the countless hours I have poured into try to understand the Christian faith. I have yet to even break the surface of this faith, but my research into Martin Luther is only a small bit of what I have done. Indeed, I know that I need to spend more time researching other Christian movements, however this specific question about Martin Luther’s quotes is only related to my initial research into Martin Luther. Seeing as he is one of the prime movers in the Reformation movement (not to diminish the role of others) I thought it best to start there.

Within the Christian faith there are multiple traditions and yes, I do want to understand as much as I can about all of them and why they exist. I will not settle for one tradition without examining all of the other options and yes, Luther is included in this.

The thing about starting a post is ya gotta be able to take the heat. Especially since this is your initial post and I find the premise so shaky.
But of course I do not know you. Goodness gracious.
So you are a closet Catholic you say. Great. Knock yourself out brother. But I see it a little different.
If you believe Sacred Tradition and Scripture investigate the 100 or so viable options.
If you are a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, you have some more options to pick from.
But under no circumstance, in 2008, with thousands of Protestant denominations, and hundreds of churches that appeal to Sacred Tradtion and Scripture, would I spend a whole lot of time on Father Luther.
But that is just me…with all due respect towards you. Take care.
Just curious. What flavor of Protestant are you?

 

[Glory3509]

I understand your situation. I am formally Presbytarian. I am also formally other things that are to complicated to get into here.

What I have found is that as a Christian you have to consult God and trust he will put you where he wants you. If he wants you to become apart of the Catholic Church do it. Find where you fit. Don’t get to involved in the laws of churches and opinions of others. I have found that I do not agree with any church 100%. There will always be disagreements. Trust God. The day I joined God blessed me greatly and quieted my heart.

Oh…by the by…Luther was anti-semetic. Jesus is a Jew. God did not approve of Luthers hatred.

 

[eucharisteo]

Are you saying your church pot lucks are not very fun?

:thumbsup:correct.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Unbelievable post: Martin Luther is a prodigal son of Mother Church. She will not reject Lutherans to be ouside of the body of Jesus Christ as a new religion independent from the body of Jesus Christ, only a son (Lutheran) in rebellion who has not returned home. Those offspring of Lutheranism hear both sides of history not just the Lutheran opinion, but what Mother Church has to say for her rebellious children, Come Home, return to the Mother that gave you birth in Christianity as your founder Martin Luther explained, all of Christianity including the bible comes from Roman Catholic church, your rebellion only rejects what was given to you in Love.

Mother is still waiting for all Lutherans to return. Many have gone so far astray as to splinter into new Christian ideologies seperate from the Apostolic Traditional and Scriptural teachings handed down to Mother Church in the Roman Catholic Church these 2000 years.

Peace to my seperated brethern, From your older Catholic brother, come home.

 

[MarkBrown]

To my dear Baptist brothers out there, what was Jesus’ first recorded miracle?

As a former Baptist…Welch’s grapejuice, jeesh

Why do you always take two baptist fishing with you? If you take one he will drink all your beer. If you take two, they will watch each other and your beer will be safe!

Mark

 

[sdenko]

Wow. So much for me finding much help on these boards.

I come on here, yes, as a closet Catholic, but a very reluctant Closet Catholic at that.

Since I’ve grown up in the Baptist church I’ve been inundated with the notion that Catholics are not saved and are destined to eternal damnation. However, now I’m not so sure of that premise.

The case remains, however, is that I don’t want to become Catholic if it does not possess the Truth of God. That being said, so far, everything that I have read has convinced me that the Catholic Church is the one true holy apostolic church. Nonetheless, there is still the reluctant part of me to essentially go against everything I was led to believe when I was younger. So in a sense, no I don’t want to become Catholic (which is why I merely posted on these boards to ask a question of fellow Protestants to help me explain away these quotes in hopes of proving them wrong…instead I get criticized for “spending too much time on Father Luther”…whatever that means)

I didn’t start this topic to debate anyone. I just started to ask a simple question of help from Protestants to understand these quotes which I had found and to help me explain them away as nonsense or to be confronted with the reality that Luther said these.

I’ve found neither.

Oh well…I’ll try elsewhere.

 

[With_Questions]

Hi, I am a protestant who is very much interested in the Catholic Church yet at the same time I am hesitant because I have almost always understood the Catholic Church to be not Christian. Please help me understand these quotes from Maritn Luther. They seem to be very contradictory to what most people portray ML as. I’m just trying to figure out if I’m misinterpreting these quotes.

Thank you!

---

“We concede––as we must––that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and hat we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not from them?”
(Sermons on the Gospel of John chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works [St Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], 304)

“I never approved of a schism nor will I approve of it for all eternity…That the Roman Catholic Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted…Though nowdays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better…There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the body of unity of the body.” (letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo , January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses; quoted by Patrick O’Hare in The Facts about Luther, 356).

---

If indeed these words came out of Maritn Luther, then how can I claim to be following the Truth when I am part of a movement that was not intended by the originator? These quotes are thoroughly convicting me and I am hoping there is a logical explanation for these!

Your second quote of course was written in 1519, prior to when Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

At that time Martin Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church. If you recall, he was later excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

One question you might consider asking yourself is whether the excommunication of Martin Luther was just in the eyes of God.

The first quote to me simply acknowledges what we have received from the Catholic Church. It seems to me that I can believe the first quote and not necessarily be Catholic. It just means you are not a flaming anti-Catholic.

Of course, if you want to be discouraged from being Protestant by reading Martin Luther, I could point you to some stuff he said about the Jews that should do the trick. But I won’t bother.

Have you read about the anabaptists of that time period? You might consider reading about them (example Michael Sattler).

I also at one time believed that Catholicism was basically just another non-Christian religion. I no longer believe that. However, that does not mean that I am going to St. Marys next week and convert. If I were to actually consider becoming Catholic, I would be reality checking myself with a few hard questions.

Catholicism believes they are the “one true church”. Everybody else is something less. “Protestantism” (whatever that is) is just a heresy. When God looks at the Church of Jesus Christ today, is this really what God sees. Is the Catholic church really in a superior/inferior relationship to everybody else from God’s perspective? If it is, how do I explain the obvious workings of the Holy Spirit I see in my Church.

To become a Catholic, you have to sign off on believing that everything the Catholic Church believes is true. Let’s take one doctrine, the Immaculate Conception. How do I as a non-Catholic know this is true?

It seems to me the only way I could know this is true would be if papal infallability is true, unless I can see this clearly taught in the Bible which I can not.

OK, how do I know papal infallability is true? The only way I as a non-Catholic could know this is true would be either to (1) clearly see this in Scripture or (2) so overwhelmed by evidence from other non-Scriptural sources that I decide that I don’t need to see it in Scripture.

For me to go the route of (2) I then would also have to ask myself the silly question of just how much evidence I need to be so overwhelmed that would cause me to bypass my natural inclination to see it clearly in Scripture before I buy into it.

But that’s me. I like to know something is true before I buy into it.

 

[With_Questions]

is Protestantism the fullness of God’s truth, or, is there something else?

Just reading your posts because I see me (somewhat) anyway in you.

There is a third option. Perhaps neither of the two is the “fullness of God’s truth”.