If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, thanks johnnyc176, you saved my day. PETER J almost had me convinced Protestants had a monopoly on judgementalism. :harp:
Eeeeehhhhhhrrrrmmmm… no. Though we might be close to it. 😛 Original Sin’s a pesky bugger sometimes, isn’t it? All about Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, Sloth, Greed, Lust… all about turning on one’s brothers and sisters because the Self is just a little bit better than them. It could be one’s Christian affiliation, one’s career, income, anything else that sets the individual apart. God knows I’m guilty of it ( in spades), but thanks be to God for His wonderful gift of salvation through Christ Jesus. By faith we are saved, not by works, so that no man should boast. Thanks be to God that He chooses those who are His and we humans don’t dictate to Him who may or may not approach Him.
 
Eeeeehhhhhhrrrrmmmm… no. Though we might be close to it. 😛 Original Sin’s a pesky bugger sometimes, isn’t it? All about Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, Sloth, Greed, Lust… all about turning on one’s brothers and sisters because the Self is just a little bit better than them. It could be one’s Christian affiliation, one’s career, income, anything else that sets the individual apart. God knows I’m guilty of it ( in spades), but thanks be to God for His wonderful gift of salvation through Christ Jesus. By faith we are saved, not by works, so that no man should boast. Thanks be to God that He chooses those who are His and we humans don’t dictate to Him who may or may not approach Him.
Nice verse from Ephesians, I’ll post more of it.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God it is not from works, so no one may boast.

For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. (NAB)
 
Nice verse from Ephesians, I’ll post more of it.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God it is not from works, so no one may boast.

For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. (NAB)
Exactly. The twentieth article of the Augsburg Confession also goes into this and this is a brief excerpt from that article:
11] This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.

12] And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For 13] Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. 14] And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man’s works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.

15] But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for Christ’s sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom. 5:1: 16]Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. 17] This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. Therefore 18] inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.

19] Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. 20] Some persons were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. 21] Some also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. 22] Hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in Christ.

23] Men are also admonished that here the term “faith” does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ.

24] Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon God; in a word, he is not 25] without God, as the heathen. For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon Him, 26] and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word “faith,” and teaches that the term “faith” is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified mind.

27] Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. 28] It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29] And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. 30] For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. 31] For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. 32] Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, 33] to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, 34] but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.

35] Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36] For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37] Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. 38] And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. 39] Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; 40] and the Church sings:

Lacking Thy divine favor,

There is nothing found in man,

Naught in him is harmless. www.bookofconcord.com
 
Wow, thanks johnnyc176, you saved my day. PETER J almost had me convinced Protestants had a monopoly on judgementalism. :harp:
Eeeeehhhhhhrrrrmmmm… no.
Heh. But in all seriousity, I think that claims, direct or indirect, that the-other-side is acting in bad faith are par for the course in some dialogues. That’s one reason, actually, that I’m always trying to spend a little less time on web discussion forums and a little more time reading this or that on the Vatican’s website.
 
" Final Authority is always given to Christ and to Him alone" were my exact words. Christ always has the last say, He is undisputed Lord of His Church. That authority is delegated on earth to those who preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, His " under shepherds," if you like. Everything is subordinate to the Scriptures, even tradition, in our church. God’s Holy Spirit inspired men to transcribe the Gospels and certain Ecumenical Councils ( guided by said Holy Spirit) determined the content of those Scriptures and when Luther transcribed the Bible into German, he left out the Apocrypha beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html.

" If this were true, you would have the gift of Infallibility with Universal Jurisdiction." That reply produced a physical reaction. Unfortunately, I was drinking my tea at the time and spewed it all over this monitor after reading that reply. I’m perfectly willing to admit I misunderstood RC Witness and I fervently hope I did, but what my brain processed was this: " If Jesus Christ really were Lord of His own Church, you would have the gift of infallibility with Universal Jurisdiction.“There may be two working and dissimilar understandings of the word " church,” as well. I use it to mean the entire global Christian Community, every branch that accepts the Nicene Creed and the rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. He might have meant the Roman Catholic Church and interpreted my words as being applicable only to the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod in my mind. If I were in any way unclear, I offer my apologies ( again) and hope this clears it up.
…yet, Luther did not remove but actually set apart these books:
Finally, in 1534 a complete version of the Bible, with Apocrypha, was released. They referred to the Apocrypha as “books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet good and useful to read.” Even the Roman Catholic Church had not yet canonized the Apocrypha—that happened at the Council of Trent in 1546—so this was not a controversial position. (christian-history.org/martin-luther-bible.html)
What misguided folks do not seem to accept is that the removal of these books (as those which Luther did want to remove from the New Testament) is a clear demonstration that if one man (Luther) can interpret on his own than any man can determine and interpret also on his/their own what the Word of God not only contains but also what it “really” means–just drop the clause “led/guided/inspired” by the Holy Spirit and it is so!

…for instance, there’s this “inspired man” who boats of removing books from the 73-Books Canon:
King James himself said, “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron). (kjvtoday.com/home/editions)
…don’t know who in France decided that wearing a Crucifix or cross in public was unlawful–less it is claimed as a jewelry piece; it could take a while, but someone in the near/far future may stake the claim of “inspired by the Holy Spirit” to support this determination by what is obviously an anti-Christian agenda by lost nationals.

In the US millions (tens or hundreds more millions, when factoring in the US’s abetting/financing worldwide abortion) of babies are aborted each year… all under the “women’s health” premise (which is really a euphemism for post pregnancy contraception)–just because there’s a claim and language that facilitates its palatable rendering does not make any of it truth-based.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Eeeeehhhhhhrrrrmmmm… no. Though we might be close to it. 😛 Original Sin’s a pesky bugger sometimes, isn’t it? All about Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, Sloth, Greed, Lust… all about turning on one’s brothers and sisters because the Self is just a little bit better than them. It could be one’s Christian affiliation, one’s career, income, anything else that sets the individual apart. God knows I’m guilty of it ( in spades), but thanks be to God for His wonderful gift of salvation through Christ Jesus. By faith we are saved, not by works, so that no man should boast. Thanks be to God that He chooses those who are His and we humans don’t dictate to Him who may or may not approach Him.
…interestingly, though, the King made a clear distinction on who was on His Right-hand-side and who would be completely rejected:
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (St. Matthew 25:41-46)
…you are so correct! …these poor fellows relied upon what they thought they knew about the Lord as they met Him empty handed, with little but “knowledge” in their hearts!

Jesus, being able to know their heart summarily rejected them!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Heh. But in all seriousity, I think that claims, direct or indirect, that the-other-side is acting in bad faith are par for the course in some dialogues. That’s one reason, actually, that I’m always trying to spend a little less time on web discussion forums and a little more time reading this or that on the Vatican’s website.
I hear you, man. For my part, I’m reading some of the material on the Wittenberg Trail website. Diplomacy is probably a great help to dialogue and some of these ministers are very diplomatic in their writings.
 
FWIW, I’m a lifelong Catholic and I cannot figure out what rcwitness meant by “If this were true, you would have the gift of Infallibility with Universal Jurisdiction” … but that does not necessarily mean that it was anything offensive.
" Final Authority is always given to Christ and to Him alone" were my exact words. Christ always has the last say, He is undisputed Lord of His Church. That authority is delegated on earth to those who preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, His " under shepherds," if you like. Everything is subordinate to the Scriptures, even tradition, in our church. God’s Holy Spirit inspired men to transcribe the Gospels and certain Ecumenical Councils ( guided by said Holy Spirit) determined the content of those Scriptures and when Luther transcribed the Bible into German, he left out the Apocrypha beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html.

" If this were true, you would have the gift of Infallibility with Universal Jurisdiction." That reply produced a physical reaction. Unfortunately, I was drinking my tea at the time and spewed it all over this monitor after reading that reply. I’m perfectly willing to admit I misunderstood RC Witness and I fervently hope I did, but what my brain processed was this: " If Jesus Christ really were Lord of His own Church, you would have the gift of infallibility with Universal Jurisdiction.“There may be two working and dissimilar understandings of the word " church,” as well. I use it to mean the entire global Christian Community, every branch that accepts the Nicene Creed and the rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. He might have meant the Roman Catholic Church and interpreted my words as being applicable only to the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod in my mind. If I were in any way unclear, I offer my apologies ( again) and hope this clears it up.
Sorry guys, just getting back to this…

This was the comment (as LutheranScholar reminded):
Final authority is always given to Christ and Him alone.
If an individual, or their Communion community actually accomplished this claim, then Jesus would be able to uninhibitedly work and Teach through these persons. Therefore, they would be Infallible, because Christ is the only Infallible one. I don’t think anyone truly gives Christ, and Him alone, final authority. We do in part and in degrees, and some more than others but no one gives Him alone all authority. And He knows this. That is why He established an office, which He built on, to Teach through. This office has the gift of Infallibility.

It is not because the pope gives authority to God alone, that merits the gift of Infallibility, but that Jesus set one of His followers apart, and gave him the gift of Infallibility to strengthen the others.

Glory be to God for the Infallibility within the Church! What a sovereign Lord! And so we can give Him authority, even though we are men of little faith! He strengthens the lowly and humble.
 
Okay, this is so ridiculous, the idea that if Luther came alive today that the Protestant/Catholic split that currently exists would be a huge issue of his…:rolleyes:

Luther would have more important concerns, okay?

Like desperately trying to claw his way out of his coffin before he runs out of air? Like, even if he cracks the coffin, trying to move the sealed stone casing over his above ground tomb? Like even if he breaks out, coming to grips with the fact that everyone he ever loved IS DEAD! Gosh, it is like none of you have thought this through…Jeez!

Seriously - think before you write.
 
Luther like all protestants was all about ‘my will’ instead of Thy Will. He would fall right in line with liberals whose pride gets in the way of their following the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church.
Can you back that up, if not , then this a straw man
 
Can you back that up, if not , then this a straw man
For me it’s a constant question of what, out of so many things posted on the Internet, do you choose to respond to? (I don’t mean that as a criticism of your choice to respond to that particular post, but I don’t believe it is any worse than tons of other stuff that can be found on the net.)
 
Okay, this is so ridiculous, the idea that if Luther came alive today that the Protestant/Catholic split that currently exists would be a huge issue of his…:rolleyes:

Luther would have more important concerns, okay?

Like desperately trying to claw his way out of his coffin before he runs out of air? Like, even if he cracks the coffin, trying to move the sealed stone casing over his above ground tomb? Like even if he breaks out, coming to grips with the fact that everyone he ever loved IS DEAD! Gosh, it is like none of you have thought this through…Jeez!

Seriously - think before you write.
Good point, that…
 
A Straw man? Umm…are you frigging kidding StarWarsFan?

Maybe you’ve never met anyone in real life, but outside of the Wizard of Oz, Straw Men aren’t alive.

Luther was made out of bones and meat and gooeys stuff, cuz he was, y’know,* h**uman*…idiot.
I know a lotta Lutherans live in the Midwest among the scarecrows, but seriously, how you could mix them up is beyond me. I’m part PA Dutch. Am I a “straw man” too? racist.

Hey, they invented something called moveable type, right around your favorite Luther fanboy period; check it out some time, kay?
 
A Straw man? Umm…are you frigging kidding StarWarsFan?

Maybe you’ve never met anyone in real life, but outside of the Wizard of Oz, Straw Men aren’t alive.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that he already knows that.

It helps to pay attention to the conversation. :o
 
Okay, this is so ridiculous, the idea that if Luther came alive today that the Protestant/Catholic split that currently exists would be a huge issue of his…:rolleyes:

Luther would have more important concerns, okay?

Like desperately trying to claw his way out of his coffin before he runs out of air? Like, even if he cracks the coffin, trying to move the sealed stone casing over his above ground tomb? Like even if he breaks out, coming to grips with the fact that everyone he ever loved IS DEAD! Gosh, it is like none of you have thought this through…Jeez!

Seriously - think before you write.
Hi, Clay!
…I think that you are missing the premise of the OP; it is not “if Luther were to return from the dead,” but if Luther’s lifetime would be the 21st century instead of the 16th!

…though you are right, in a way, since if Luther had not existed in the 16th century perhaps all of the schism following his revolt would not have taken place–and his “reasons” for challenging the Church’s Authority, Scriptures, and Doctrine would not be the same.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…though you are right, in a way, since if Luther had not existed in the 16th century perhaps all of the schism following his revolt would not have taken place–and his “reasons” for challenging the Church’s Authority, Scriptures, and Doctrine would not be the same.

Maran atha!

Angel
I think it is a tremendous mistake to say that the Reformation was solely Luther’s doing. In fact, the Catholic Catechism admits there were errors on both sides. You seem to be perpetuating the myth that Luther Alone caused the Reformation.

Luther Alone. I like the sound of that.

But there were many reformers, and the Catholic Church was seeking reform at the time. It was a complex intersection of political, economic, religious and philosophical differences. If Luther had not done what he did, perhaps it would have been different, but I think there still would have been schism. The German nobles, for one thing, were long tired of Rome taking them to the cleaners financially. And since the state derived its power from the church in those days, so that politics and religion were fused, the only way a ruler could possibly secede was a revolt from the church.
 
I think it is a tremendous mistake to say that the Reformation was solely Luther’s doing. In fact, the Catholic Catechism admits there were errors on both sides. You seem to be perpetuating the myth that Luther Alone caused the Reformation.

Luther Alone. I like the sound of that.

But there were many reformers, and the Catholic Church was seeking reform at the time. It was a complex intersection of political, economic, religious and philosophical differences. If Luther had not done what he did, perhaps it would have been different, but I think there still would have been schism. The German nobles, for one thing, were long tired of Rome taking them to the cleaners financially. And since the state derived its power from the church in those days, so that politics and religion were fused, the only way a ruler could possibly secede was a revolt from the church.
…no perpetuating here… there were two distinct issues happening: the Church errors and Luther’s revolt.

A “reformation” does not mean nor demand the reinvention of the wheel; Luther was not only concerned with the actual and perceived errors of the Church but with making his mark (check out how he is always claiming something to the effect “this is how I see/view/think/determine so and so…”); the fact remains that he did not want to negotiate reformation of the Catholic Church but to exert his own agenda (personal convictions and personal theology). Soon after we have many more 'luthers" backing him up for various reasons (some religious, some power grabbing, some autonomy, etc.).

I have no license (Authority) so I can formulate my opinion and present it for all to view/accept/reject.

I can be more critical than the Church since my word is basically silent–only the Church can make pronouncements of Faith and Doctrine.

But while I am impotent to demand/mandate I am free to ponder and cause others to view a different meaning/understanding.

If you were to read through the posts you would find that I have stated that do to the errors in the Church the Holy Spirit may have Inspired Luther to bring to the foreground some of the issues… did he do only what the Holy Spirit Inspired? I doubt it since he became the catalyst for myriads of seemingly unending schisms in the Mythical Body of Christ.

Since your screen name pronounces that you are seeking Truth (Jesus) you must agree with me that braking up the Body of Christ cannot be an Inspiration of the Holy Spirit–less you believe, as some do, that the Catholic Church somehow high jacked God’s Power and Authority, made the “true” church go underground for over a millennia, and, incredibly, took the Holy Spirit hostage…

…yet, even if all these premises were to be realistic, I doubt that the Holy Spirit would resolve the issues with the Body of Christ by creating tens of thousands of “bodies” so as to ascertain that “at least one of them would get it right.” 🍿🍿🍿

…you see, I too am seeking Truth–perhaps I am simply more aggressive in my operation. :nunchuk::nunchuk::nunchuk:

Maran atha!

Angel
 
So, I made two entries on this thread, in both of which I told what I thought were some really obviously very silly jokes, and apparently, they were taken seriously.

I understood the thread, and I did not think that Luther trying to escape from his coffin were he still alive was a real issue.

I know what a straw man is and I did not think anyone was accusing Luther of secretly being an animated scarecrow.

The above things were jokes that I told. I do not actually believe them, and when I acted like I knew better than those who disagreed, it was because I thought the character I was doing would be funnier if arrogant.

At the time I thought I was being obviously silly and very funny. I hope no one was upset by them. I regret them if they caused scandal or sadness.
 
[FTR: I do not see any posts by you to this thread except only this one?]
So, I made two entries on this thread, in both of which I told what I thought were some really obviously very silly jokes, and apparently, they were taken seriously.

I understood the thread, and I did not think that Luther trying to escape from his coffin were he still alive was a real issue.
*“Clawing at the lid of his coffin” is my standard answer to the question of What would so-and-so be doing were he alive today? Be at peace. :rotfl:

(* Which explains why I did not participate in any of the myriad threads by that subject)

tee
 
So, I made two entries on this thread, in both of which I told what I thought were some really obviously very silly jokes, and apparently, they were taken seriously.

I understood the thread, and I did not think that Luther trying to escape from his coffin were he still alive was a real issue.

I know what a straw man is and I did not think anyone was accusing Luther of secretly being an animated scarecrow.

The above things were jokes that I told. I do not actually believe them, and when I acted like I knew better than those who disagreed, it was because I thought the character I was doing would be funnier if arrogant.

At the time I thought I was being obviously silly and very funny. I hope no one was upset by them. I regret them if they caused scandal or sadness.
You were obviously being funny, man. It’s not you. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top