Follow up on SS

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Lutherans are constantly expounding on historical Popes, councils etc yet view any discussion of Luther as irrelevant and ad hominem. Why? Because his theology does not hold up under scrutiny, his behavior is not of the Holy Spirit so discussion of Luther puts Lutherans in a tight spot, Fact is Luther is NOT irrelevant and can’t be thrown under a bus as a simple mistake. As far as ad hominem? Toppers posts are extraordinarily well researched documented and referenced. Not ad hominem at all.

Thanks Mary. Protestantism and especially the Lutheran variant has hidden the negative aspects of Luther’s character and teachings. The reason - they don’t want it to become known that their ‘brand’ of Christianity was developed by someone with significant mental problems. If people knew the details of Luther’s life, they might be inclined to question the validity of Protestant theology. Better that they simply not know the ‘particulars’.

Heiko Oberman, a Protestant, wrote one of the best biographies of Luther. Like all (honest) biographers and Theologians, he makes some revealing comments about Luther’s mental health.

“……he would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………

He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. **Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. ****He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………
**
**A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. **The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. **Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….
**
**Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because it is his personality and character that are at issue. Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. **Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Oberman, pg. 313-314

One of the most important things noted by Oberman above is that character and temperament are important. Oberman is also opposed to the standard Protestant nonsensical argument that Luther’s doctrines (his “cause”) and the man Himself should not be viewed as a two pieces separate subjects, which is exactly how the defenders of the false Legend would have us see them.

Oberman also mentions that, where generalized judgments were concerned, Luther would outdo anyone. In my experience this tendency towards generalization has become part of the Protestant thought, and that Protestant Apologists rely on generalization FAR MORE than do Catholic Apologists. This is because Protestantism is not ‘precise’. Being full on intra-denominational contradictions, it cannot be. Protestantism is much more reliant on ‘feelings’. It wilts in the face of the Catholic appeals to facts, logic, reason, and appeals to Christian history. That is exactly why we so much evasion here to Catholic arguments. The weaknesses of Luther’s positions also required him also to focus on generalities and attacks on his opponents.

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part two:

Lutheran Minister and PhD Henry Linderman comments:

“Disturbances of mind and reason are frequently caused by bodily disorders, nervous afflictions, aggravated by wrong diet, lack of proper exercise, enforced solitude, uncongenial environment and monotony of daily routine. In Luther’s case a supersensitive conscience, gloomy experiences in early youth, misconception of vital Christian truths, of sin, grace, God and Christ all combined with physical causes mentioned before made his early years in the monastery a living death he so clearly describes in later years.” Linderman, 33-34

I happen to have a signed copy of this Lutheran Pastor’s short biography, “Martin Luther, Man of God”. According to Dr. Lindeman, Luther suffered not only from various psychological difficulties but also from physical problems which would do nothing other than exacerbate the disturbances of his mind. What is most surprising though is Lindeman’s reference to Luther’s “misconception of vital Christian truths”, including those involving “God and Christ”. THAT is an AMAZING admission from a Lutheran Pastor! How can a (supposedly) “valid” version of Christianity have been developed by a man who had a “misconception of vital Christian truths”? Obviously we are going to have to learn more about Luther’s “misconceptions”, and we will.
**
“Melanchthon was afterwards to hear from Luther’s own lips something of the dark states of terror from which he suffered since his youth…**’As he himself related, and as many are aware,’ says Melanchthon, ‘when considering attentively examples of God’s anger, or any notable accounts of His punishments, such terror possessed him as almost to cause him to give up the ghost.” He describes, as a full-grown man, when such fears overcame him, he would actually writhe in his bed. He suffered from these terrors either for the first time, or most severely, in the year in which he lost his friend by death in an accident, i.e. before his admission to the monastery.’ It was not poverty,’ Melanchthon continues, ‘but his love of piety which led him to choose the religious life, and, while pursuing his theological and scholastic studies, he drank with glowing fervor from the springs of heavenly doctrine, namely, the writings of the prophets and apostles (i.e. the Old and New Testament)…Overwhelmed with these pains and terrors, he plunged only the more zealously into the study of the Bible.” Hartmann Grisar, “Luther”, pg. 17-18

Grisar was a Catholic Priest who wrote an extraordinary six volume biography of Luther. In this quote, we learn that Luther’s psychological terrors plagued him from his youth, which means that we are going to have to study his childhood to determine if it was the stuff from which psychosis is made. Luther’s terrors were so horrible that he would writhe on his bed. We also learn that Luther experienced those terrors “either for the first time or most severely” in the year before his entry into the monastery. Apparently, the “Legend” of the monastery being the reason for his psychological torment is false. The most important aspect of this quote is that in response to those terrors, Luther turned to a zealous study of the Bible. Of course, none of us would be upset by this fact, BUT, if those terrors were SO horrific that they caused him to misunderstand the Gospel Message (as Marius suggests), then THAT is a real “problem” (for Protestantism). SO…it is now clear, that it was Luther’s “terror”, that led to his “zealously studying of the Bible”, which then led to the “discovery” of SS+PI, and of course also Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture.

Maybe (just maybe) someone who was that terrified and that psychologically unstable should not have forging new directions in Christian Theology.

Of course Lutherans say that these facts about Luther are irrelevant. What else could they possibly say in response to these facts? As we have seen – not much.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[benhur]

Of course Lutherans say that these facts about Luther are irrelevant. What else could they possibly say in response to these facts? As we have seen – not much.

Pretty bad when an alledged mental case really upsets the status quo of the CC. What is that saying ? Further, what does it say when CC ordains and gives him teaching responsibility ? God has used even a jackass to speak truth in the face of spiritual “error”/vision. What is that scripture, “in our weakness he is made strong” ? Shall we go into the lives of some other saints ?

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur: Even if Luther did not made no new dogma he did make new doctrine. He did develop new ways or terminology to explain his new doctrines, which some of the reformers did not agree with, The Catholic Church certainly did not agree with Luther’s way of explaining the doctrines he was teaching.

What ? We split hairs on meaning of dogma / doctrine ? OK , I don’t think Luther said anything doctrinally that was not said before him for the most part. Yes, new terminology for a few things, but like I said “trinity” was new once upon a time. That reformers were of varied opinion on just how far to reform does not change anything I just said.

 

[JonNC]

Pretty bad when an alledged mental case really upsets the status quo of the CC. What is that saying ? Further, what does it say when CC ordains and gives him teaching responsibility ? God has used even a jackass to speak truth in the face of spiritual “error”/vision. What is that scripture, “in our weakness he is made strong” ? Shall we go into the lives of some other saints ?

It really isn’t worth the effort, Benhur. Besides, we already know that the Saints were sinful human beings. ISTM we gain so much more when we focus on the good and godly things they said and did.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Pretty bad when an alledged mental case really upsets the status quo of the CC. What is that saying ? Further, what does it say when CC ordains and gives him teaching responsibility ? God has used even a jackass to speak truth in the face of spiritual “error”/vision. What is that scripture, “in our weakness he is made strong” ? Shall we go into the lives of some other saints ?

My point exactly when I asked if the Church was
hard up for priests or what? Lol. I don’t understand
why they didn’t excommunicate him before he went
so far as they knew he had one heck of a problem.
Instead they put him in a teaching capacity at a university!
But I think we know now that the church DOES this with
it’s problem priests- moves them around.

It would appear this Pope has more of a trigger finger
when it comes to removing priests.

As far as upsetting the status quo? Not seeing it
Benhur.

 

[spina1953]

Part two:

Lutheran Minister and PhD Henry Linderman comments:

“Disturbances of mind and reason are frequently caused by bodily disorders, nervous afflictions, aggravated by wrong diet, lack of proper exercise, enforced solitude, uncongenial environment and monotony of daily routine. In Luther’s case a supersensitive conscience, gloomy experiences in early youth, misconception of vital Christian truths, of sin, grace, God and Christ all combined with physical causes mentioned before made his early years in the monastery a living death he so clearly describes in later years.” Linderman, 33-34

I happen to have a signed copy of this Lutheran Pastor’s short biography, “Martin Luther, Man of God”. According to Dr. Lindeman, Luther suffered not only from various psychological difficulties but also from physical problems which would do nothing other than exacerbate the disturbances of his mind. What is most surprising though is Lindeman’s reference to Luther’s “misconception of vital Christian truths”, including those involving “God and Christ”. THAT is an AMAZING admission from a Lutheran Pastor! How can a (supposedly) “valid” version of Christianity have been developed by a man who had a “misconception of vital Christian truths”? Obviously we are going to have to learn more about Luther’s “misconceptions”, and we will.
**
“Melanchthon was afterwards to hear from Luther’s own lips something of the dark states of terror from which he suffered since his youth…**’As he himself related, and as many are aware,’ says Melanchthon, ‘when considering attentively examples of God’s anger, or any notable accounts of His punishments, such terror possessed him as almost to cause him to give up the ghost.” He describes, as a full-grown man, when such fears overcame him, he would actually writhe in his bed. He suffered from these terrors either for the first time, or most severely, in the year in which he lost his friend by death in an accident, i.e. before his admission to the monastery.’ It was not poverty,’ Melanchthon continues, ‘but his love of piety which led him to choose the religious life, and, while pursuing his theological and scholastic studies, he drank with glowing fervor from the springs of heavenly doctrine, namely, the writings of the prophets and apostles (i.e. the Old and New Testament)…Overwhelmed with these pains and terrors, he plunged only the more zealously into the study of the Bible.” Hartmann Grisar, “Luther”, pg. 17-18

Grisar was a Catholic Priest who wrote an extraordinary six volume biography of Luther. In this quote, we learn that Luther’s psychological terrors plagued him from his youth, which means that we are going to have to study his childhood to determine if it was the stuff from which psychosis is made. Luther’s terrors were so horrible that he would writhe on his bed. We also learn that Luther experienced those terrors “either for the first time or most severely” in the year before his entry into the monastery. Apparently, the “Legend” of the monastery being the reason for his psychological torment is false. The most important aspect of this quote is that in response to those terrors, Luther turned to a zealous study of the Bible. Of course, none of us would be upset by this fact, BUT, if those terrors were SO horrific that they caused him to misunderstand the Gospel Message (as Marius suggests), then THAT is a real “problem” (for Protestantism). SO…it is now clear, that it was Luther’s “terror”, that led to his “zealously studying of the Bible”, which then led to the “discovery” of SS+PI, and of course also Salvation by Faith Alone in Scripture.

Maybe (just maybe) someone who was that terrified and that psychologically unstable should not have forging new directions in Christian Theology.

Of course Lutherans say that these facts about Luther are irrelevant. What else could they possibly say in response to these facts? As we have seen – not much.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

I Topper: Great Post! I just a few days ago watched a PBS movie on Martin Luther. I had watched several years ago and think it a good bio on him. It seems that Luther had great may problems growing up. it seem that Luther struggled with his father over a great many things which I think helped to cause his mental problems. Luther was it also it seems to have problems with authority which stem from defying his father on many things and issues. its no wonder then that he so defied authority as well as those with the Church when he did not get his way on his thinking.

 

[benhur]

It really isn’t worth the effort, Benhur. Besides, we already know that the Saints were sinful human beings. ISTM we gain so much more when we focus on the good and godly things they said and did.

Jon

May I add that you seem to also have the patience of Job considering the negative post, page one and page two.

 

[benhur]

My point exactly when I asked if the Church was
hard up for priests or what? Lol. I don’t understand
why they didn’t excommunicate him before he went
so far as they knew he had one heck of a problem.
Instead they put him in a teaching capacity at a university!
But I think we know now that the church DOES this with
it’s problem priests- moves them around.

It would appear this Pope has more of a trigger finger
when it comes to removing priests.

As far as upsetting the status quo? Not seeing it
Benhur.

Your thought on priestly problems today crossed my mind also… The status quo not upset ? I hope Ignatius of Loyola didn’t hear you say that, Fr.Counter-Reformatiom himself.

 

[benhur]

I Topper: Great Post! I just a few days ago watched a PBS movie on Martin Luther. I had watched several years ago and think it a good bio on him. It seems that Luther had great may problems growing up. it seem that Luther struggled with his father over a great many things which I think helped to cause his mental problems. Luther was it also it seems to have problems with authority which stem from defying his father on many things and issues. its no wonder then that he so defied authority as well as those with the Church when he did not get his way on his thinking.

By defy father authority you mean like devote your life to Godly ministry instead of becoming a worldly lawyer like his father wanted ? Reminds me of St. Francis and a whole bunch of other saints not following the parental preferred profession.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

It really isn’t worth the effort, Benhur. Besides, we already know that the Saints were sinful human beings. ISTM we gain so much more when we focus on the good and godly things they said and did.

Jon

For the record, I was also very frustrated about our ‘dialogue’ towards the end, but of course for a very different reason. My frustration came from not being able to obtain straight answers to important but very simple and direct questions. My sense is that your frustration comes from my refusal to accept the Lutheran faith as being ‘equal’ to Catholicism. Hopefully, we will not frustrate each other in the in the same manner in the future.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

My point exactly when I asked if the Church was hard up for priests or what? Lol. I don’t understand why they didn’t excommunicate him before he went so far as they knew he had one heck of a problem. Instead they put him in a teaching capacity at a university! But I think we know now that the church DOES this with it’s problem priests- moves them around. It would appear this Pope has more of a trigger finger when it comes to removing priests.

Here is a Reader’s Digest version:

In complete terror over a very scary incident Luther promises to St. Anne that he would join a monastery if he survives (the lightening, July 1505). Even though he probably didn’t want to go, two weeks later he joined the Augustinians, probably too afraid of breaking his ‘vow’ to St. Anne not to. The first year (the novice year) in the monastery goes very well with the rigorous practices of the Augustinians seeming to have quelled his long present fears. After the first year Luther is accepted as a monk. Johann Stauptiz, the Vicar General of the German Augustinians places Luther into training to be a priest. After a surprisingly short period of time Luther is made a priest (July 1507). Staupitz sends Luther to the University of Wittenberg, Europe’s least distinguished university to be an instructor on moral philosophy (Winter 1508). Luther obtains his Biblical Baccalaureate and Sententiarius degrees in March of 1509. Staupitz tells Luther he wants him to study Theology and get his Doctorate. Luther doesn’t want to but agrees to follow Staupitz’s order. Luther obtains his Doctorate from the University of Wittenberg, probably Europe’s poorest university in the fall of 1512 and begins to lecture as a Doctor in the fall of 1513. Wittenberg didn’t even have the beginnings of a library until 1512, which could explain Luther’s lack of knowledge of the Fathers (Schweibert. Pg. 223)

Staupitz Luther’s Father Confessor, and was involved in Luther’s becoming a novice, a monk, a priest, studying Scripture, obtaining his Doctorate and being assigned as a ‘professor’ at the University of Wittenberg. It was also Staupitz who once wrote to Luther than he loved him with a ‘love surpassing that for a woman’. I am not suggesting that anything untoward happened, but it is very clear that Stauptiz and Luther had a very deep relationship.

As with all things Luther, it is the details that have been hidden for so many centuries which supply many of the answers and the context. A few quotes and observations will flesh out the situation.

First of all, about Luther’s education:

Lindsay claims that Luther’s education was not very good, Pg. 18. Lutheran Beutel (pg. 6 Companion) said that Luther graduated from his Doctoral studies in 4 years, the shortest possible time, and Lutheran Linderman (Pg. 34) said that Luther’s education in theology was short and incomplete. Lutheran Schweibert wrote that Melanchthon said that Luther’s education at Erfurt was not all that good.

Referring to Luther’s education at Eisleben, prior to his entry to the University of Erfurt:

“Luther received a good education, although he was not academically gifted: in exams he took at the age of 18, he came in 30th out of 57 students.” Jonathan Hill, “The History of Christian Thought”, pg. 181

Lutheran Schweibert also wrote that Luther’s education was sadly wanting for a Reformer (pg. 116) and Grisar states that Luther’s preparation for his Professorship was ‘all too meager’. Pointing to Luther’s poor education, McGrath states that Luther was unaware of the correct Catholic teaching on Salvation (Dangerous, pg. 41) Erikson (pg. 163) tells us that as early as 1508/9 Luther begins to misquote or misunderstand Church doctrine.

When we look at the evidence of Luther’s bizarre behavior in the monastery and the reports that his fellow monks worried about his sanity, it is incomprehensible that he would be promoted to a position where he was not only a Priest, but a Professor responsible for training Priests. Staupitz is at the center of those promotions. He is also, according to Luther, the one who ‘inspired’ Luther to discover Salvation by Faith Alone (Ozment, ‘Age’, pg. 232)

It was also Staupitz who (in 1518) after Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan, released Luther from his vows as a monk, the first of his three ‘excommunications’. It was also at that meeting that Staupitz told Cajetan that he had often tried to get Luther to recant and return to the teaching of the Church. However, by that time, Luther was not turning back. Staupitz ended up not returning Luther’s letters which pained him to no end.

In the tragedy of the Reformation there is enough blame to go around, although Lutherans are extremely prone to not blame Luther for anything. At any rate, personally, I hold Staupitz responsible for promoting someone who should never have been a monk, a Priest, a Theologian and especially, should never have been a Professor training future Priests. Early in the Reformation though (1518), only a few months after the 95 Theses, Staupitz appears to have recognized Luther as a heretic and most certainly regretted his actions. History is full of mistakes like those of Staupitz.

I hope these facts help Mary. I recognize that they are quite in opposition to the “Legend” that we all learned, but they are the facts.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Pretty bad when an alledged mental case really upsets the status quo of the CC. What is that saying ? Further, what does it say when CC ordains and gives him teaching responsibility ? God has used even a jackass to speak truth in the face of spiritual “error”/vision. What is that scripture, “in our weakness he is made strong” ? Shall we go into the lives of some other saints ?

It really isn’t worth the effort, Benhur. Besides, we already know that the Saints were sinful human beings. ISTM we gain so much more when we focus on the good and godly things they said and did.

Jon

Oh that’s ridiculous. There is no comparison at all
between St. Teresa of Avila and Martin Luther haha.
For one thing Luther would have to clean up his mouth
with lye.

Nevertheless, even though he’s the last person Protestants
want to talk about and with good reason he remains
probably the king of busting Christian unity and so
down through the centuries tons and tons of books and
research have gone into Luther. A couple pages on CAF
shouldn’t cause anyone to feel victimized if they
are at all intellectually honest.
Now Luther was the father of the reformation. YOU
might find that a godly holy thing but Catholics don’t
and I doubt those working in ecumenical capacitys
do either. They are trying to fix what Luther should
never have broken obviously.
What good did he do? Well obviously he cleaned up
the corruption in indulgences sales. But that’s kind of
like saying child molesting priests brought attention to a
problem or caused the Church to clean up its
administrative and managerial outlooks. It’s a good
thing but we don’t canonize the child molesting
priest for it do we?
Luther created dialogue among theologians and
religious. He forced the Church to clarify and define
neglected areas of theology and doctrine in order
to actively defend it. That’s a very very good thing-
unfortunately the benefit in that went entirely to
Catholics and not so much to Protestants.
Due to Luther more than anyone else we see the
development of freedom of religion especially
in this country. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately
his views on Sola and PI did not provide the
necessary safeguards to keep that good freedom
from being abused as badly- we could even say
mauled-when we look at the Independent Catholic
Church and the ECLA today. Not to mention the
chaos in LDS, JW, SDA type religions. And so
lack of necessary safeguards previously provided
by the RC is a BAD thing.
Five hundred years of ever splintering theologies
weakens the entire Body of Christ. That’s never a good
thing. Granted its better than schism but both injure Christ.
That’s my take on Luther. I’m not interested in
discussing his parents or his sex life. We are too
far removed from his time for any of that to be
at all instructive.
Now you are free to explain the godly and holy
acts of Luther as you see fit. Or explain where
I went wrong with Luther in this post.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your comments. I think you are right on the money.

I Topper: Great Post! I just a few days ago watched a PBS movie on Martin Luther. I had watched several years ago and think it a good bio on him. It seems that Luther had great may problems growing up. it seem that Luther struggled with his father over a great many things which I think helped to cause his mental problems. Luther was it also it seems to have problems with authority which stem from defying his father on many things and issues. its no wonder then that he so defied authority as well as those with the Church when he did not get his way on his thinking.

Actually I am shocked that PBS would do something other than regurgitate the “Legend”.

**“In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before him was that of his own stern righteous Father Hans at Mansfield, an avenger of all sin, a punisher of the least misdeeds without mercy and kindness, a gloomy, threatening monster. **The fear of divine wrath made him unnaturally apprehensive and his anxiety grew until wakefulness became a habit.” Lutheran PhD Linderman, pg. 32

In reality, a person cannot get as psychologically unbalanced as Luther and have come from a normally loving home, UNLESS they had some kind of physical cause for their emotional maladies.

**“The picture of deity which his parents transmitted to him reflected their own mood: a hard father and strict judge, exacting a joyless virtue, demanding constant propitiation, and finally damning most of mankind to everlasting hell. Both parents believed in witches, elves, angels, and demons of many kinds and specialities; and Martin carried most of these superstitions with him to the end. ** A religion of terror in a home of rigorous discipline shared in forming Luther’s youth and creed.” Durant, “The Reformation in Germany”, pg. 341

“The severity of his parents towards him in his youth had bred in him a great fear of God, but no love, and so he was forever trying to appease an angry Judge by his own righteousness. “I was the most outrageous seeker of salvation through works, not trusting in God’s righteousness, but in my own.”** And so he came actually to hate God, to loath the very sight of Christ on the cross, and his despair brought him to the verge of suicide.”** Vedder, pg 9

The literature is full of comments about Luther’s childhood and the effect of that childhood on his fear and hatred of God. But of course, none of that is found in the “Legend”

“As Luther puts it: “From childhood on, I knew I had to turn pale and be terror stricken when I heard the name of Christ; for I was taught only to perceive him as a strict and wrathful judge.” Erik H. Erickson, “Young Man Luther”, pg 70-71

“**He blamed his (childhood) atmosphere for his special monkishness, his intensity of monastic “scrupulosity”, his obsessional preoccupation with the question of how on earth one may do enough to please the various agencies of judgment – teacher, father, superior, and most of all, one’s conscience. **But remember, he said all this after he had taken his vow and broken it in disgust.” Dr. Erik Erikson, “Young Man Luther”, pg 78-79

“According to the professor (meaning German Protestant Professor of Theology Scheel), an occasional “lusty caning” did not harm Martin any more than it did the other children: but the professor and his school (meaning basically, Protestantism) must present Martin as entirely intact and un-weakened by any ordinary or special childhood event, so that the divine event, the catastrophe (the thunderstorm) which later concluded his academic education so unexpectedly, appears to as divine interference.” Erikson, pg. 78

Erikson makes a good point. Whatever it was that caused Luther to become what he did must have either done him good or at least not done him any harm, because, according to especially Lutherans “Gee, didn’t he turn out great!”. I guess that all depends on whether you believe the “Legend” or the historical facts.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

BTW, if you have any popcorn available, now would be a good time………

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben

May I add that you seem to also have the patience of Job considering the negative post, page one and page two.

When you say 'negative post, page one and page two", I know you cannot mean my posts. My posts are simply the truth. They are primarily quotes from Lutheran and other Protestant Scholars. So unless those people are ‘negative’, then my posts are not negative. If the truth about Luther depicts him in a negative light, it just might be that the fault is Luther’s. I’m just sayin…

My posts actually provide balance to the false and dishonest "Legend’ of Luther which has been so well believed for centuries. If you believe that Luther is being unfairly represented here, you can always post things of substance in opposition.

BTW, it might not actually be ‘patience’.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;12011731]Oh that’s ridiculous. There is no comparison at all
between St. Teresa of Avila and Martin Luther haha.
For one thing Luther would have to clean up his mouth
with lye.

I, for one wasn’t making a comparison.

Nevertheless, even though he’s the last person Protestants
want to talk about and with good reason he remains
probably the king of busting Christian unity and so
down through the centuries tons and tons of books and
research have gone into Luther. A couple pages on CAF
shouldn’t cause anyone to feel victimized if they
are at all intellectually honest.

Protestants, generally, don’t talk about him because they have their own leaders. Lutherans talk about him all the time, and as we have seen from some rather lengthy and multiple posts on this and other threads, Lutherans are quite willing to criticize and evaluate Luther.

Now Luther was the father of the reformation. YOU
might find that a godly holy thing but Catholics don’t
and I doubt those working in ecumenical capacitys
do either. They are trying to fix what Luther should
never have broken obviously.

This goes back to what Benhur said, how could this supposedly deranged friar, in of all places Wittenburg (certainly not the center of…anything really) have had such a great influence to have single-handedly, “brake” western Christianity.
I personally find nothing godly or holy about division in His Church. OTOH, I also don’t believe, anymore than the Catholic Church does, that Luther was the sole cause of that division.

What good did he do? Well obviously he cleaned up
the corruption in indulgences sales. But that’s kind of
like saying child molesting priests brought attention to a
problem or caused the Church to clean up its
administrative and managerial outlooks. It’s a good
thing but we don’t canonize the child molesting
priest for it do we?

Mary, you’re better than this. It is nothing like that. Just factually, I don’t believe it was Luther selling indulgences and getting caught.

Luther created dialogue among theologians and
religious. He forced the Church to clarify and define
neglected areas of theology and doctrine in order
to actively defend it. That’s a very very good thing-
unfortunately the benefit in that went entirely to
Catholics and not so much to Protestants.

I think Lutherans benefit greatly from it.

Due to Luther more than anyone else we see the
development of freedom of religion especially
in this country. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately
his views on Sola and PI did not provide the
necessary safeguards to keep that good freedom
from being abused as badly- we could even say
mauled-when we look at the Independent Catholic
Church and the ECLA today. Not to mention the
chaos in LDS, JW, SDA type religions. And so
lack of necessary safeguards previously provided
by the RC is a BAD thing.

The “safeguards” are expressed in part by Chemnitz in my signature. SS is done by the Church. PI is not done outise the teachings of the Church.
As for the ELCA, you read just as I did how they, in their statement on human sexuality, intentionally jettison SS, in favor of looking at other things. So, how can Luther be bropught to account for groups that clearly change or ignore the practice? How can it be said that JW’s and SDA’s and, Anabaptists, and free will Baptists, who follow almost nothing of Luther, be the fault of Luther?
Calvin is not the fault of Luther.
John and Charles Wesley are not the fault of Luther.
King Henry is not the fault of Luther.
Joseph Smith is not the fault of Luther.
JonNC is not the fault of Luther. JonNC is responsible for himself, even though I was born and raised by a Lutheran pastor, went to a Lutheran college, and have been Lutheran for nearly 60 years now, not Luther, not my dad, not anyone is responsible but me.

Five hundred years of ever splintering theologies
weakens the entire Body of Christ. That’s never a good
thing. Granted its better than schism but both injure Christ.

Agreed.

That’s my take on Luther. I’m not interested in
discussing his parents or his sex life. We are too
far removed from his time for any of that to be
at all instructive.

And yet, that seems to be the thrust of a thread that is supposed to be about Sola Scriptura.

Now you are free to explain the godly and holy
acts of Luther as you see fit. Or explain where
I went wrong with Luther in this post.

If we are willing to look soberly, without polemics, at the sad history of the Reformation era, and recognize that we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, grow toward the unity He calls for, then I will be able to look at the great things Catholics have done since then, and you will be able to look at some of the wonderful things Luther wrote.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

I think you know that I have expressed a desire
to discuss the others involved in the Reformation
such as Zwingli and Calvin and that guy everyone
loves to forget- John Knox. I think it’s appropriate
on an SS thread simply because they are the fathers
of SS along with Luther and quite frankly I don’t
think the Reformation could have happened
without SS and more to the point PI.
Unfortunately for me no one is really interested
in the these other guys- just Luther.

Now there has always been heresies and schisms
in the Church. And I’m really trying to be tactful
here when I say there is nothing in the history of
Christianity to account for the monstrosity of
the theology on some of these, not all, ECLA sites.

Now this perversion of Christian doctrine arose
from the Lutherans but I don’t place responsibility
on the the remnant if faithful Lutherans. But I
believe we CAN put responsibility directly at the
doorstep of Luther and SS. This isn’t even an issue
of PI. And as we agree there ate no real scriptural
foundations to much of the thinking in the ECLA.

So why blame SS? To know that or to know why
I compared Luther to the molesting priests you
would have to have a clear view of what Luther’s
SS did. What it functionally did was suggest to
people over time that the Church had no knowledge
and no authority in Scripture. For centuries after
Protestants simply laughed at the notion that
Catholics even read a Bible much less cared
about it. Pretty much because we weren’t pouring
over it by candlelight looking to see if the
Church was wrong in interpretation.

Anarchy does not just exist in government. It
also exists in religion. Luther (and the others)
created a state of anarchy. And that anarchy has
been building ever since. And we see the damage
it’s caused now when we read these totally
convoluted mission statements beyond all
understanding with these off shoot churches.

SS did this by suggesting there was NO authority
and rejecting all authority except the individual.
which means of course the individual is also
the authority on when to throw the scripture
out.

Luther misled the children. Yes the Church needed
what is euphemistically called reform. But what
Luther and his supporters and the others did was
create not reform but revolt and as you can see
the revolt is these days against Christ Himself

 

[steido01]

Well obviously [Luther] cleaned up
the corruption in indulgences sales. But that’s kind of
like saying child molesting priests brought attention to a
problem or caused the Church to clean up its
administrative and managerial outlooks. It’s a good
thing but we don’t canonize the child molesting
priest for it do we?

No. No, Luther is not at all like child-molesting predators. For the sake of those who were injured, please do not use this comparison again - not even as a comparative rhetorical device. The topic has no place in ecumenical discussion.

 

[marywarfield]

I, for one wasn’t making a comparison.

Protestants, generally, don’t talk about him because they have their own leaders. Lutherans talk about him all the time, and as we have seen from some rather lengthy and multiple posts on this and other threads, Lutherans are quite willing to criticize and evaluate Luther.

This goes back to what Benhur said, how could this supposedly deranged friar, in of all places Wittenburg (certainly not the center of…anything really) have had such a great influence to have single-handedly, “brake” western Christianity.
I personally find nothing godly or holy about division in His Church. OTOH, I also don’t believe, anymore than the Catholic Church does, that Luther was the sole cause of that division.

Mary, you’re better than this. It is nothing like that. Just factually, I don’t believe it was Luther selling indulgences and getting caught.

I think Lutherans benefit greatly from it.

The “safeguards” are expressed in part by Chemnitz in my signature. SS is done by the Church. PI is not done outise the teachings of the Church.
As for the ELCA, you read just as I did how they, in their statement on human sexuality, intentionally jettison SS, in favor of looking at other things. So, how can Luther be bropught to account for groups that clearly change or ignore the practice? How can it be said that JW’s and SDA’s and, Anabaptists, and free will Baptists, who follow almost nothing of Luther, be the fault of Luther?
Calvin is not the fault of Luther.
John and Charles Wesley are not the fault of Luther.
King Henry is not the fault of Luther.
Joseph Smith is not the fault of Luther.
JonNC is not the fault of Luther. JonNC is responsible for himself, even though I was born and raised by a Lutheran pastor, went to a Lutheran college, and have been Lutheran for nearly 60 years now, not Luther, not my dad, not anyone is responsible but me.

Agreed.

And yet, that seems to be the thrust of a thread that is supposed to be about Sola Scriptura.

If we are willing to look soberly, without polemics, at the sad history of the Reformation era, and recognize that we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, grow toward the unity He calls for, then I will be able to look at the great things Catholics have done since then, and you will be able to look at some of the wonderful things Luther wrote.

Jon

Now I believe you designate yourself as an Evangelical
Catholic but of a different synod. And with caps.
So I must ask why if you are not RC and not
ECLA what exactly is the point of your using such?

 

[marywarfield]

No. No, Luther is not at all like child-molesting predators. For the sake of those who were injured, please do not use this comparison again - not even as a comparative rhetorical device. The topic has no place in ecumenical discussion.

For the sake of the RC victims or for your sake
Steido? Fact is many historians have stated Luther
himself had these types of leanings- discussion of
Zwhich just like his patents I don’t want to
dwell on as times are different. And what was socially
acceptable then is not now.

The unfortunate aspect to victimization no matter
who it is or was is the Church itself is the biggest
victim therefore Christ.
Yes we can look at the plight of individuals
but the target ultimately is the Roman Catholic
Church- she takes the biggest hit and it
doesn’t matter if it is a nut job with a political
agenda, closet communists, child molesting
priests, or Martin Luther.