How do Protestants view Martin Luther?

[Bbigam]

When I was a Protestant (mostly Methodist - my folks are now non-denominational) my family always saw Luther as a courageous reformer and hero who stood up to the evils and false teachings of the Catholic Church. Sort of as the Father of the Reformation, which was assumed to be a wonderful and important thing. That didn’t mean we agreed with him on every doctrinal detail, but that wasn’t important.

I was a good little Protestant but I personally never really liked Luther very much. I’m not entirely sure why, but I remember that sometimes it bothered me that he had abandoned his vow of chastity, and married a nun who had abandoned her vows too. I had a brief discussion about this with my parents recently - they strongly disagreed that he had abandoned his vows and said that he had no choice when “they forced him out.” They still see him as a hero. I see him as maybe sincere, but regardless, using strong language, a schismatic and heretic who was justly excommunicated, and who did a whole lot of damage to the Church.

 

[Cat]

I’ve never really understood Protestant’s views of Martin Luther. How can they argue the fact he took seven books out of the Old Testament.

Revelation 22-18-19 “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” That kind of sums it up…

He also added to Romans 3:28
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Someone please explain how Protestants really view him,and the fact there theology is based on his?

I would recommend trying to see this from the Protestant point of view. Stand on the Protestant side of the river and look over at the Catholic side, rather than standing on the Catholic side of the river and looking at the Catholic side. You’ll see things differently.

Protestants are taught that the Catholic Church ADDED books to the Bible.

That is condemned by the passage of Scripture that you quoted.

So Protestants see Martin Luther as a hero of the faith who stood up against an evil cult that added teachings of man to the Bible. Martin Luther restored the Bible to the form in which God gave it to us.

Many Protestants (and many Catholics) know nothing about history. They have no idea that the Deutero-Canonical books were part of the Bible for 1500 years before Luther came along, and that Luther removed them from the Scripture.

All they know is what they are taught, namely that the books were added by the Catholics.

You might wonder why people believe what they are taught without question . Well, did YOU question your parents, school teachers, and priests while you were growing up? Did you look them in the eye and say, “Prove it.”

Of course not. Most of us with loving parents accepted what they taught us. Besides, in many schools, especially Catholic schools, questioning a parent, or doubting a teacher, especially if that teacher is a religious sister or a priest, would result in some sort of rebuke. It is considered the mark of a rebel to actually question an authority figure.

Also, we accepted what we were taught because we loved and trusted our parents, teachers, and pastors. When I was growing up, I loved my Sunday school teachers and pastors (I was raised in a Baptist church). They were kind, loving, friendly people. I had no reason to think that they were teaching me things that were inaccurate. I TRUSTED them.

I also knew many Lutherans growing up; my piano teacher was chief organist at a large Lutheran church, so I got to know a lot of the Lutherans. I still call them “Salt of the Earth.” Lutherans are among the most charitable people in the world–they give their time and their money to help the poor and they sponsor some of the best music in the area!

When people are kind and loving a child simply doesn’t have the maturity to recognize that they can be teaching historical inaccuracies. Even when people are NOT loving and kind, a child tends to accept what these people teach.

And whatever the child is taught is generally carried over into adulthood.

My husband and I became Catholic only after we learned the hard way that people can never be trusted. We were actually ousted from our evangelical Protestant church. A tribunal was held, false charges were made against us, false witnesses testified against us, no one who supported us was invited to the tribunal, and the outcome is that were told to leave the church.

This horrible event made us realize that people can not be trusted. This made it possible for us to actually investigate other churches and belief systems with an open mind, and one of the belief systems we investigated was Catholicism. We learned about the history of Christianity and realized that what we had been taught all our lives was not the truth.

But it took a major upheaval to get us to doubt what we had been taught since childhood. So don’t be surprised when Protestants on their side of the river see things totally differently than Catholics on their of the river. We tend to hold onto what we were taught as children.

 

[Cat]

[No message]

 

[Easter_Joey]

I’ve never really understood Protestant’s views of Martin Luther. How can they argue the fact he took seven books out of the Old Testament.

Revelation 22-18-19 “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” That kind of sums it up…

He also added to Romans 3:28
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Someone please explain how Protestants really view him,and the fact there theology is based on his?

I’m a Lutheran (until I can move out of the house in about 5 years), so I’ll try to explain what Lutherans generally think. As for taking books out of the Bible, Lutherans claim that Catholics added them in the Council of Trent, because Jerome questioned their inspiration. As for adding alone to Romans 3:28, most either don’t know about it (especially at my age) or they are fine with it because “it is reinforcing what Paul meant” or something like that. Overall, he is viewed as a guy who (rightly) got rid of abuses that were happening in the Catholic Church. Most Lutherans don’t know of some of his heretical beliefs either. I use to wonder why the original church and the church that defined the Trinity would get it wrong, until I found out the church wasn’t wrong (except for the indulgence scandal). Another thing Lutherans don’t (usually) understand is that Catholics teach grace alone, not grace first, then works the rest of the way (without God’s help). It comes from a misunderstanding of indulgences. Sorry if I got off topic.

Joey

 

[Lovesa]

I think a common problem is that Catholics think Protestants, particularly Lutherans, view Luther as a type of pope when in reality Lutherans did not canonize every single view and theological speculation that Luther sold? Lutherans cling to the Augsburgh Confession, the formulas of concord, the Large and Small Catechisms, and confessions of the Lutheran faith influenced by not only Luther but guys like Melancthon and Martin Chemnitz, etc. Luther was a central, vital figure in Protestantism, but not many Protestants see him in the way many Catholics think they do IMO…

I agree that this might be part of the issue. As much as Luther was central to the start of the faith, he is hardly our first pope or anything. It is a rather normal perception, though. The first time I had my Catholic (then) boyfriend, over to my house, it took him fifteen minutes to ask where my “shrine to Luther” was. I just had to stare at him like :ehh:

As for Luther, he is seen as having had good ideas. However, he was human and therefore prone to error, so where he screwed up he can be forgiven. As for the deuterocanonicals, he didn’t think they were inspired, as some have said.

 

[mirandajb]

Revelation 22-18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

This ‘book’ refers to the ‘book’ of Revelation, not the entire Bible. Please look at how the Book of Revelation starts in Chapter 1…anyone who reads ‘this Book aloud’. Many people misunderstand and misquote the last verse of the Bible.

Stay blessed.

Joe

 

[GaryTaylor]

Regardless the book of Revelation sealed public Revelation. There is no more such a thing as public Revelation.

God who spoke through the Prophets in parts, spoke to us all at once by giving us the All, who is His Son, Jesus Christ. So in this sense the ending of Revelation does apply to all public Revelation.

Which is exactly why even private Revelations acknowledged by the CC are exactly that private Revelation. There is no adding or distracting from the deposit of faith. Only co-existence with it and further understanding of it withoit contradiction. As we live we come to understand more fully and clearly as individuals the message of Jesus Christ to each one of us. So then does His Church on earth.

The Apostles in order that the full and living Gospel might be preserved in the Church left Bishops as their successors. They gave them “their” own position of teaching authority.

Thus the apostolic preaching which without doubt is expressed in a specific special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line till the end of time.

Nevertheless, the church acknowledges the historic significance of other works not included in Her canons. Here too Sacred Tradition though distinct yet closely connected, transmits to every generation all that the CC is and all that She believe’s. The Holy Spirit through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church, and through Her in the world, leads believers to the Full Truth, and thus the Word of Christ dwells in them in all its richness.

The Magesterium has the task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, be it Written or Tradition, it has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the CC alone.

Its authority is excercised in the name of Jesus Christ. entrusted to the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. The Magesterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant.

“He who hears you, Hears me”

‘parts from the CCC’

 

[GaryTaylor]

As for Luther, he is seen as having had good ideas. However, he was human and therefore prone to error, so where he screwed up he can be forgiven. As for the deuterocanonicals, he didn’t think they were inspired, as some have said.

Right, kinda gets back around to scripture and Gods view of mans opinions. Man’s opinions are inferior to God’s truth, because truth requires greater conviction than does opinion.

Thus when its relied on what Luther thought, his opinion gave way to error. What was factual in Luthers understanding and sight wasn’t wrong. There were human errors commited in the CC.

Peace