Well, that’s good. It takes several lenses to draw history into clear focus.
Luther didn’t write this to a congregation; he wrote this in a personal letter to a close friend and fellow pastor, Philip Melancthon. You would know that if you took the time to actually understand the context. But instead you just took some out-of-context lines to score a cheap point. Luther was plainly speaking in hyperbole - anyone can understand that from the text alone, and this is made even more obvious when we compare the whole of Luther’s theology and published writings to the few sentences you’ve provided. What’s more likely - that the millions of words Luther wrote were actually all superseded by a few lines in a personal letter, or that you’ve ignored the context and misapplied the meaning?
Hi, Don!
…your defense is that this was Luther’s personal correspondence and that by virtue of “privacy” it should not be held against him (sorry here I go parroting, again)?
Again, (sorry for my constant parroting) context?
Jesus Taught that it is not food that contaminates man but that which comes out of man’s mouth for it is a reflection (yeah, I’m paraphrasing now) of the deposit of the heart (interesting that Jesus used the term heart and not mind, don’t you think?)–Luther expression, as “private” as they may have been cannot be dismissed with a white-wash “just good ole boys tooting their trumpets, he, he, he…”
Again, (I’m really sorry about this parroting thing) I copy & pasted from blocks which I cited at the foot of the pasted material–no Chinese acrobatics on my part!
Again, Luther didn’t say Christ did!! In context, it is obvious that this is a sarcastic comment from Luther, and even then it’s clear others were saying it (falsely) about Christ - that the world saw Him, who was perfect, as if He was some crude adulterer. Did you even read what you posted?
“Was not everyone about Him saying…”
…for your benefit I will revisit the site and corroborate your claim that I left out the part where Luther states that he was being sarcastic–though not a great reader, I don’t remember that particular take…
I certainly hope so. Ignorance can be cured through education. The other reason would mean that you have more sinister motives, and I do not believe nor wish that to be the case.
I think that that is truly relative… if the source of ed is flawed the cure cannot be far from the tree; as for sinister… never met the fellow!
I’ve presented proof. The proof is self-evident to anyone who speaks English. What more do I need to do? Give a list of historians and theologians who would agree that you’ve misapplied Luther? (It would include popes.) Present your source, please.
Perhaps the complete quote where the segment quoted is placed in its “correct” form so as not to be out of context.
Interesting thing about Popes… if they speak openly the world (which non-Catholic Christians usually head, less its the Jews) quickly moves to raze and crucify (as the simple term of John Paul II “It is as it was…” or something to that effect); so, other than the present Pope, they have learned to be diplomatic–specially in terms of unification; other sources, well I doubt that non-Catholics would disapprove of anything “reformation,” unless it’s the Catholic Reformation.
…yep… quite enlightening!
That is NOT what Luther means! You must understand the context. Luther is simply saying that Christ didn’t die to forgive ‘pretend’ sinners, but real ones. People who are actually weighed down by their wrongdoings and feel the wages of their sin closing in on the. For these people, here comes Christ, our Rescuer, to give a real forgiveness for real sin.
…interesting… though he could have stated something in the vein of: ‘God’s Mercy is beyond any sin–for all sins can be forgiven by God’ (oh, wait… that’s too Catholic–yeah, ‘sin immensely makes more sense’).
Also, you say “alluding.” That means you are, indeed, stamping your own interpretation on the text. Your interpretation is flat-out wrong. It is incompatible with the entire remainder of Luther’s works. It seizes on a few out-of-context snippets. I could make anyone say anything if I were to take things out of context. Shall I do the same to your posts to prove the point? I’d only use things you’ve actually said. Seriously, I don’t mean this as a pithy comment; let me know if that would be a helpful tool toward understanding the importance of ‘context.’
In the origins of North America the papist were alienated, oppressed, and imprisoned (laws were invoked and practiced to keep Catholics oppressed and bound)… what was Luther’s endearing term for Catholics?
So it is OK to think one way, express hate and exaggerated exegesis because the inference is that “God is Good, all the time?”
Luther never taught either of these things! He confessed the opposite so clearly that he believed we should pray only to the sole, sinless Mediator.
…get ready, here it comes (sooorrry, I must parrot, yet again), so where did the creators of the site get their information… where’s the true source that has everything in its place?
If I state that the water is wet… I may be an ignoramus for making such a statement but if I am quoted as making that statement how can it be said that it is out of context or that I meant something else… now, if I state that the water is cool/hot/blue/green… these are clearly adjectives that detail how I experienced a body of water… interpreting the prior statement is mute since water cannot but be wet!
Maran atha!
Angel
