Interesting Martin Luther Quote list

[jimmy]

RNRobert:

I understand that both Calvin and Zwingli also believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and had great devotion to her. I wonder how Protestantism today has gotten so far from that.

You are correct here are some quotes and the link for these quotes. catholicapologetics.net/refom_on_mary.htm

John Calvin
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used *Exodus *4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13

"Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

​

 

[bonica]

Psalm89:

In the past Lutherans taught that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, but as far as I know only in the sense that papist teachings are wrong and can lead people to hell.

I don’t believe that any Lutheran theologian taught that the Pope is the actual anti-christ from Revelations.

I found this on www.lcms.org:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

 

[chrisg93]

Psalm89,

I’m kinda stunned to learn about Lutheran theology.

Why do you comdem Catholic ad honimum attacks when you call us the Anti-Christ! That’s like - you call me Satan and I call you a bum. No comparison.

Do you personally believe that Anti-Christ junk?

Is that not “adding to this book” which will cause all the plaques to fall on the Lutheran Church?

Chris G

 

[jjanderson]

2. c. He regretted many things that happened, but always stood by his decision because he believed that Catholic teachings (about Justification and Sanctification) were sending people to hell.

Do you believe today that Catholic teachings about justification and santification are sending people to hell? I think if Luther were to come back to life today he would be Catholic. He would be horrified at what’s happened to the Lutheran church. They have split all over the place and much of Luther’s beliefs have been lost. Not to mention his Marian beliefs. Eucharist isn’t called Eucharist anymore, the kneelers have all come out, and communion is once a month. Although Lutheran’s have retained their belief in their version of the Real Presence (consubstantiaton) so little emphasis is put on the Eucharist that even the Real Presence has become very vague. I think Lutherans today are all mixed up with Calvin’s and Zwingli’s and contemporary Protestentant Evangelical theologies over the years that Lutherans
don’t really know traditional Luther anymore. (I know there are some like you that do.) I think Solo Scriptura did Luther in in the end. People started to self-interpret away from traditional Lutheran teaching.
PS Have you read the Canticle of Mary lately? (Luke 1:46-55. It’s very similar to Psalm 89.)

Peace in Christ +

 

[milimac]

Psalm89:

1. Luther was fallible.
   c. Lutherans DO NOT believe that Luther was infallible
2. Luther realized what the outcome of sola scriptura would be.
   a. He knew full well that instead of one Pope that everyman would see himself has a pope.

I would implore the Catholics on this board to argue theology over ad hominem attacks.

Be aware as well that Luther’s theology was not perfect, but that does not mean that every word out of his mouth is a lie.
If you want to read more about Lutheran theology please visit www.lcms.org

Thank you for the post, Psalm89, and I appreciate your offer to explain Lutheran theology. If your knowledge of the Lutheran faith is like my knowledge of the Catholic faith, I understand if you don’t have all the answers, but perhaps you or any other Lutherans that happen to be on the boards could address a few points as best you can.

First, you mention that Luther was fallible and his theology was not perfect. I agree, but how can fellow fallible people make that determination? If we’re fallible, aren’t statements such as that also subject to fallibility?

Has Lutheran theology advanced today to a less fallible state than it was in Luther’s time? How do we know? Are the Lutheran theologians of today a little less fallible than Luther or more tuned in to the Holy Spirit than he? Again, how do we know?

Similarly, I have difficulty with the Lutheran belief that scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine. What is scripture alone? Is it not ink and paper? It must be read and interpreted by human beings to be of any use, and is therefore subject to different interpretations. But these can sometimes contradict. Then what? Who’s right? Can fallible people even make that determination? Or is truth relative? (ex. Some may feel scripture permits abortion, others do not, but as long as you do what you feel scripture reveals, it’s all OK) Does the actual truth even matter?

I somewhat agree with the justification by faith alone doctrine (I don’t believe we can do anything to “earn” salvation), but I disagree with what actually seems to be a “words alone” doctrine. As in Galations 2 (as St. Paul was chastising our first Pope no less) what use is holding a belief (having faith) if you don’t act as if you believe it? And I think it’s in St. John’s Gospel where it says “You can have faith enough to move mountains, but if you have not love, you are nothing”. Furthermore, can someone who professes to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior even do that without love? Is love not also a work?

 

[meep]

Luther was a unique mix of seemingly contradictory traits–some admirable, some not. His “Small Catechism” and the Augsburg Confessions are interesting reads.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on Luther, including some of his seemingly contradictory quotes (made within the proximity of a few days):

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

Since Lutherans admit that their theology has developed so far from Luther’s own beliefs, I hope they will not feel attacked by an examination of his thoughts and his character in this thread. Psalm89-- I have had the pleasure of attending several Lutheran liturgies (ELCA, not Missouri–sorry), and want you to know that my mixed opinions of Luther don’t prevent me from having a high regard for Lutherans and their liturgy.

 

[Psalm89]

chrisg93:

Psalm89,

I’m kinda stunned to learn about Lutheran theology.

Why do you comdem Catholic ad honimum attacks when you call us the Anti-Christ! That’s like - you call me Satan and I call you a bum. No comparison.

Do you personally believe that Anti-Christ junk?

Is that not “adding to this book” which will cause all the plaques to fall on the Lutheran Church?

Chris G

See above about the Anti-Christ stuff.

The dialogues between Catholics and Lutherans have been harsh in the past.

 

[Psalm89]

jjanderson:

2. c. He regretted many things that happened, but always stood by his decision because he believed that Catholic teachings (about Justification and Sanctification) were sending people to hell.

Do you believe today that Catholic teachings about justification and santification are sending people to hell? I think if Luther were to come back to life today he would be Catholic. He would be horrified at what’s happened to the Lutheran church. They have split all over the place and much of Luther’s beliefs have been lost. Not to mention his Marian beliefs. Eucharist isn’t called Eucharist anymore, the kneelers have all come out, and communion is once a month. Although Lutheran’s have retained their belief in their version of the Real Presence (consubstantiaton) so little emphasis is put on the Eucharist that even the Real Presence has become very vague. I think Lutherans today are all mixed up with Calvin’s and Zwingli’s and contemporary Protestentant Evangelical theologies over the years that Lutherans
don’t really know traditional Luther anymore. (I know there are some like you that do.) I think Solo Scriptura did Luther in in the end. People started to self-interpret away from traditional Lutheran teaching.
PS Have you read the Canticle of Mary lately? (Luke 1:46-55. It’s very similar to Psalm 89.)

Peace in Christ +

Luther might become Catholic, but I doubt it. He would be LCMS

Actually I believe that the LCMS is one of the last bastions of Lutheranism that carefully follows the Book of Concord or any of Luther’s teachings.

We don’t agree with Calvin, or the Pope. The book that is in front of me, Christian Dogmatics by John Theodore Mueller fights Calvinsim as much as Catholicism.

Lutherans and Catholics still have a major theological difference on the Doctrine of the Means of Grace. The Catholic Church obviously hasn’t moved an inch since Trent, because it is infallible and couldn’t even if the Pope wanted to. Of course he wouldn’t want to.

 

[Psalm89]

milimac:

First, you mention that Luther was fallible and his theology was not perfect. I agree, but how can fellow fallible people make that determination? If we’re fallible, aren’t statements such as that also subject to fallibility?

The real question you are asking is can we know things to be true. Yes we can. Even a pagan can know that murder is wrong and helping the poor is a good thing. We are all fallible, but it doesn’t mean we can’t know anything.

milimac:

Has Lutheran theology advanced today to a less fallible state than it was in Luther’s time? How do we know? Are the Lutheran theologians of today a little less fallible than Luther or more tuned in to the Holy Spirit than he? Again, how do we know?

Lutheran theology is “less fallible” in the sense that we have had years to study scripture and check our theology over and over for truths. How can we know that something is true? By checking our ideas against a perfect source–the Holy Scriptures.

milimac:

Similarly, I have difficulty with the Lutheran belief that scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine. What is scripture alone? Is it not ink and paper?

When we say sola scriptura we mean several things, but the most important is **everything that is required for salvation is found in abundance in the writing of the apostles. **

Most certainly the apostles did not put into writing everything, that they taught orally.

The apostles insisted upon their written word as the only source and norm of faith against all errorists of their time. 1 Cor. 14:37-38, 2 Thess. 2:2

My question for you is: are the scriptures sufficient for salvation? If someone just had a bible, a sound mind and nothing else is there enough in there to get that person to heaven? Or does the person need the Pope/Catholic Church too?

milimac:

I somewhat agree with the justification by faith alone doctrine (I don’t believe we can do anything to “earn” salvation), but I disagree with what actually seems to be a “words alone” doctrine. As in Galations 2 (as St. Paul was chastising our first Pope no less) what use is holding a belief (having faith) if you don’t act as if you believe it? And I think it’s in St. John’s Gospel where it says “You can have faith enough to move mountains, but if you have not love, you are nothing”. Furthermore, can someone who professes to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior even do that without love? Is love not also a work?

I think that Catholics misunderstand Justification by Faith alone as much as Protestants don’t understand the infused grace.

Here is the definintion put forth by Lutherans:

Formula of Concord (Thor. Decl., III, 9) “Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe…that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, *absolved and declare free and exempt from all his sins *and from the sentence of well deserved condemnation,… without any merit or worth of our own, also *without any prededing, present, or any subsequent works, *out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obediance, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obediance is reckoned to us for righeousness.”

The justified sinner is immediately followed by his sanctificaiton, or renovation. Sanctification embraces all acts of divine grace by which the Holy Spirit turns a person for sin to holiness.

Justification and Sanctification are joined together and cannot be seperated, but the two must not be mingled with each other.

*Justification is the source of Sanctification. *Luther said “it is impossible to seperate works from faith.”

To sum it up we believe that you are not saved by your works, but without works you have a dead/false faith.

 

[Mary3]

Psalm89:

Lutheran theology is “less fallible” in the sense that we have had years to study scripture and check our theology over and over for truths. How can we know that something is true? By checking our ideas against a perfect source–the Holy Scriptures.

Roughly 500 years to study Scripture, right? If years of study make for a right interpretation, then the Catholic Church would have more experience than Lutherans, and their interpretation would carry more weight.

Psalm89:

When we say sola scriptura we mean several things, but the most important is **everything that is required for salvation is found in abundance in the writing of the apostles. **

Most certainly the apostles did not put into writing everything, that they taught orally.

The apostles insisted upon their written word as the only source and norm of faith against all errorists of their time. 1 Cor. 14:37-38, 2 Thess. 2:2

Then how would you explain 2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” ?

Psalm89:

My question for you is: are the scriptures sufficient for salvation? If someone just had a bible, a sound mind and nothing else is there enough in there to get that person to heaven? Or does the person need the Pope/Catholic Church too?

It seems that St. Paul believed that the Church was necessary when he said to Timothy, “If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[bonica]

Psalm89:

The apostles insisted upon their written word as the only source and norm of faith against all errorists of their time. 1 Cor. 14:37-38, 2 Thess. 2:2

I Corinthians****14:37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

At first glance this seems like it might support what you are saying but if you read it in context you will see that he is referring to speaking in tongues and prophesy. He is saying that the rules he is giving for their proper use are a command of the Lord. Then if someone does not recognize that it is a command of the Lord that person is not to be recognized by the church.

**2 Thessalonians 2:2 **not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

I do not see how this supports what you are saying. He says by spirit or by word so it is obvious that they must have taken those as authorities as well.

If the apostles “insisted upon their written word as the only source and norm of faith against all errorists of their time” how do you explain:

2 Thes. 2:15
1 Peter 1:25
2 Tim. 2:2
1 Cor. 11:2
1 Cor. 15:1-2

 

[bonica]

Mary3:

Roughly 500 years to study Scripture, right? If years of study make for a right interpretation, then the Catholic Church would have more experience than Lutherans, and their interpretation would carry more weight.

 

[jjanderson]

Psalm89:

Formula of Concord (Thor. Decl., III, 9) “Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe…that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, *absolved and declare free and exempt from all his sins *and from the sentence of well deserved condemnation,… without any merit or worth of our own, also *without any prededing, present, or any subsequent works, *out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obediance, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obediance is reckoned to us for righeousness.”

The justified sinner is immediately followed by his sanctificaiton, or renovation. Sanctification embraces all acts of divine grace by which the Holy Spirit turns a person for sin to holiness.END QUOTE)

REPLY:

Actually it was Melanchthon who narrowed justification down to the declaration that sinners are righteous on account of the external merits of Christ. Luther understood justification as a real transformation of persons from the state of sinfulness to that of reightousness.

The notion that justification and sanctification are one-time events is not Biblical.

Peace in Christ +

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… argue theology over ad hominem attacks.

How is merely posting a quote from Luther an attack?

 

[Psalm89]

jjanderson:

REPLY:

Actually it was Melanchthon who narrowed justification down to the declaration that sinners are righteous on account of the external merits of Christ. Luther understood justification as a real transformation of persons from the state of sinfulness to that of reightousness.

The notion that justification and sanctification are one-time events is not Biblical.

Peace in Christ +

Please provide proofs that Luther taught justification was a process and Melanchthon changed it.

We do not believe that justification and sanctification are one-time events.

Since you can fall out of faith, if you come back to the Lord you are once again justified by faith.

Sanctification is a life long process.

 

[Psalm89]

Before I defend anything else about sola scriptura I want this answered:

My question for you is: are the scriptures sufficient for salvation? If someone just had a bible, a sound mind and nothing else is there enough in there to get that person to heaven? Or does the person need the Pope/Catholic Church too?

Are the scriptures sufficient for salvation?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is the most disturbing quote from Luther …

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus **even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. **

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

Now, before I get accused of an Ad hominem attack, let me clarify what an Ad hominen argument is …

Ad hominem arguments try to discredit a claim or proposal by attacking its proponents instead of providing a reasoned examination of the proposal itself. Hence, “ad hominem” literally means “against the person.”

Let me be clear… I don’t care to attack the “person” of Luther, but I will certainly refute any and all HERETICS who claim our Lord Jesus Christ committed adultery. No kidding Luther was not “infallible.” He was a HERETIC.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

are the scriptures sufficient for salvation?

No. Salvation is by grace alone. No matter how smart you are, no matter your expertise in textual criticism of the thousands of ancient manuscriptus of Sacred Scripture, no matter how much ancient Hebrew you’ve learned, or ancient Greek, you cannot merely exegete Scripture and be saved. Not one person in the NT read their way to salvation. Not one.

That’s why the Ethiopian Eunuch needed the inspired teachings of St. Philip, and the Bereans needed the inspired teachings of St. Peter. In the words of the Eunuch after being asked how his “Scripture alone” method helped him to know the truth, he responded, “How can I, without someone to teach me?”

 

[Psalm89]

bonica:

Originally Posted by Mary3
Roughly 500 years to study Scripture, right? If years of study make for a right interpretation, then the Catholic Church would have more experience than Lutherans, and their interpretation would carry more weight.

That would be true if we used just the scriptures to guide us. Catholics do not, they hold to traditions as well, and the traditions become binding regardless of weak scriptural basis (Some of the Marian doctrines come to mind.) Some traditions in Lutheranism are just that, traditions, good things that might need to be changed in light of scripture. Some traditions will never change, like us using the Nicean Creed, but the Hymnal in the church changed in my lifetime. The message is the same, but the english was updated some.

Some Catholic traditions can never, ever change, no matter what the scriptures might say. But some Catholic traditions are debatable and can change like Latin Mass, the placement of the altar, and Limbo.

Traditions that correlate to scripture don’t change, but traditions that are traditions because “we’ve always done it this way” can change.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes. Some traditions are binding, just like Paul asserted. Just as was asserted by ALL of Christianity until the novelties of the middle ages. Just as the majority of Chrisitanity continues to assert today.

Why is your “sola Scriptura” and “sola fide” tradition binding? It has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.