Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

[Rightlydivide]

While I enjoy the historical portion of the discussion, I have absolutely no interest in Martin Luther. I am not Lutheran.

 

[notsmart]

While I enjoy the historical portion of the discussion, I have absolutely no interest in Martin Luther. I am not Lutheran.

I am not German, but I do enjoy reading about Germans.
What the heck is wrong with having an interest in a person who is a historical figure? You can’t ignore that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am not German, but I do enjoy reading about Germans.
What the heck is wrong with having an interest in a person who is a historical figure? You can’t ignore that.

Let me clarify. Sorry about that. I enjoy the part about what people may or may not have said. I think it is fine to study Luther. I read him in school. I did not enjoy reading him at all.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

While I enjoy the historical portion of the discussion, I have absolutely no interest in Martin Luther. I am not Lutheran.

You don’t need to be a Lutheran to follow Luther. Most if not all follow him even though some don’t want to admit it since he started the Protestant Reformation. Anyone against the Catholic church is PROTESTING it. Hence the word “Protestant”.
The Catholic faith was founded by Jesus Christ. Anything else is an off-shoot from Catholicism. There are even off-shoots from off-shoots…

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by OneTrueCathApos
Martin Luther:

“If men believe in Christ and accept Him as their personal savior, His justice will be imputed to them and they will go straight to Heaven. It does not matter what evil they have done during their lives. It does not matter whether they are, or not, repentful of their sins. It does not matter at the moment of their death whether they have contrition or not, or if they are in a state of Grace. If they accepted Christ as their “personal” Savior, they will be saved.”

Site your source, my friend. Site your souce on this. This is not what Luther believed, nor how he spoke of faith. Site your source.

You seem unwilling or unable to site your source for this quote, though you have for others. Curious. but I’ll site mine:

Smalcald Articles

Of Repentance.

1] This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1:18 does, saying: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Again, Rom 3:19: All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him. And Christ says, John 16:8: The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.

2] This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He strikes in a heap [hurls to the ground] both manifest sinners and false saints [hypocrites], and suffers no one to be in the right [declares no one righteous], but drives them all together to terror and despair. This is the hammer, as Jeremiah 23:29 says: Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio [torture of conscience], true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death.

3] This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: **You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc. **
4] But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise. And John, preceding Him, is called a preacher of repentance, however, for the remission of sins, i.e., John was to accuse all, and convict them of being sinners, that they might know what they were before God, and might acknowledge that they were lost men, and might thus be prepared for the Lord, to receive grace, and to expect and accept from Him the remission of sins. Thus also Christ Himself says, Luke 24:47: 6] Repentance and remission of sins must be preached in My name among all nations.

Augsburg Confession

Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

Jon

 

[notsmart]

You don’t need to be a Lutheran to follow Luther. Most if not all follow him even though some don’t want to admit it since he started the Protestant Reformation. **Anyone against the Catholic church **is PROTESTING it. Hence the word “Protestant”.
The Catholic faith was founded by Jesus Christ. Anything else is an off-shoot from Catholicism. There are even off-shoots from off-shoots…

Define what you exactly mean by against the Catholic Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You don’t need to be a Lutheran to follow Luther. Most if not all follow him even though some don’t want to admit it since he started the Protestant Reformation. Anyone against the Catholic church is PROTESTING it. Hence the word “Protestant”.
The Catholic faith was founded by Jesus Christ. Anything else is an off-shoot from Catholicism. There are even off-shoots from off-shoots…

I am not protesting you guys. I am not protesting the orthodox. I am not protesting the Lutherans or Anglicans. I am following the Bible. My beliefs were not shaped those first crucial six months after my conversion by reading anything but scripture. So your oversimplification does not hold water with me.

 

[JonNC]

You don’t need to be a Lutheran to follow Luther. Most if not all follow him even though some don’t want to admit it since he started the Protestant Reformation. Anyone against the Catholic church is PROTESTING it. Hence the word “Protestant”.

This is not the origin of the term “protestant”. But using your definition, I guess the Orthodox are protestant, too.

Jon

 

[notsmart]

Lutherans do not believe they are following Luther as far as I can tell. In fact, it seems it is very insulting to any Lutheran from my basic research. They follow Jesus Christ.

 

[Steadfast]

The idea of “accepting Jesus as ones Personal Savior” began with the revivalism of the 19th century. It was completely unknown before that.

Luther did not translate metanoia “do better”. He translated it “repent” which is what it means. Jerome erred when he translated it “do penance”.

Here is St. John Chrysostom on the Jews:

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”. You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now.

And that’s just one quote, he wrote and delivered eight Homilies Against the Jews. the quotation here is from the first. I didn’t have to look far.

I don’t point this out to exonerate Luther but to point out that such rhetoric was quite common through all ages of the church and it is just as right to single Chrysostom out for it as Luther.

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans do not believe they are following Luther as far as I can tell. In fact, it seems it is very insulting to any Lutheran from my basic research. They follow Jesus Christ.

No, notsmart. Didn’t you know we secretly inserted a 4th article in the creed, which starts… “and we believe in Martin Luther…”
We call it the “Luthiloque”.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

It just seems to me that anyone who studied this era of history will find many people to make up the divergent strains of thought. Luther being ONE.

 

[notsmart]

No, notsmart. Didn’t you know we secretly inserted a 4th article in the creed, which starts… “and we believe in Martin Luther…”
We call it the “Luthiloque”.

Jon

Shhh. The secrect pact requires that no one should know this until they are deemed ready to accept the Luthredemptrix doctrine we have yet to unleash…

 

[notsmart]

It just seems to me that anyone who studied this era of history will find many people to make up the divergent strains of thought.

“This era of history”?

One could say christianity at large is divergent from Judaism.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Most if not all follow him even though some don’t want to admit it since he started the Protestant Reformation.

That’s historically ignorant… as well as easily disproved. You don’t have to go any further than Anglicanism to disprove that.

Let’s see: no source citations despite asking for them… quotes taken out of context…hmmm. Looks a lot like Protestant prooftexting and in general shoddy apologetics to me.

Try another tack, OneFalseCathApos.

 

[Crumpy]

Luther, in my opinion, is one of the greatest heroes of Western Civilization in the last 600 years whether I agree with him or not. He is an architect of Western thinking…

And now…prepare for the lynch mob to attack me!

…yes if you like architectural disasters and religious heresy.

forget about doctrinal arguments. The reformation was a rebellion against foreign (papal) influence. Kings and other leaders used the excuse of the reformation to take control and nationalize the churches (which is not “Biblical”, if you know what I mean).

Yes, and look what it has wrought – we have in Europe and the US a general idea that “you believe what you want, leave me alone.” This is RELATIVISM with a capital R. The doctrinal differences came after the rebellion against papal and church authority. A lot of protestants don’t even have a cultural memory about how they got where they are.

They act like the Bible popped out of the sky and it was obvious what to do with it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

“This era of history”?

One could say christianity at large is divergent from Judaism.

This era of history being the formation of Protestantism. Implied I believe in the thread. Since we are discussing Luther…
I, like another poster just did, attempting to point out that Luther is a part of this era of history.

 

[Ruthie]

OneTrueCathApol, your posts in this thread sound like Chick tracts.

Nuff said.

Rebuke intended.

Wake up, fellow. Don’t be a “noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Cor 13:1)

God bless us all with the virtue of charity,

Ruthie

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If Luther is one of your greatest heroes of all times, then why do you claim to be Roman Catholic? Luther was a heretic, a hater of the Catholic church. You say try to understand him, that there were mistakes with the papacy, BUT LET ME REMIND YOU, THERE WERE NO MISTAKES WITH THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. DOCTRINES WERE NEVER CHANGED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. LUTHER CHANGED THE WORD OF GOD TO FIT HIS MINDSET IN THAT DAY. Now, I think perhaps, as a “Roman Catholic” as you are, you might want to learn a little about your own faith, about your own Doctors of the Church.
Here we go again, another “Roman Catholic” who claims that Protestanism, a divorce from the Catholic church, was a good thing…good grief…

Well writing in caps usually means you’re YELLING at me as per internet etiquette. And thanks for using quotations in calling me a “Roman Catholic.” I guess that means that you have the personal qualifications and powers given you to judge how “Catholic” I am. I would not presume to do that to you. This is the problem we’re facing right now in CAF and in circles like these. We’re judging just how Catholic a person is. It stinks. I never said that Protestantism is a “good thing.” Can you please go find that in my post? My point was that protestantism significantly contributed to the development of Western Civilization and democracy. Surely as an intelligent person you can agree with that, correct? The Reformation led to the rise of nations, a separation of church and state, new focus on secular art, secular science, and individual freedoms all that didn’t exist in that manner or at that level during the Middle Ages. Martin Luther is considered heroic by many because he risked his life to fight for what he believed in. He was courageous and I believe sincere in his desire to get European society right with God. You can yawn and shrug all you want with me and judge how good or evil a person I am all you want as well. You don’t know me. You also don’t know Martin Luther or the reformers. I think it’s important to always assume that your adversaries or opponents have good intentions. Disagree with a person but don’t assume they have no character or bad motives. I think Luther had a very dark side and many dubious opinions. I have a vast myriad of disagreements with this guy. I simply happen to find many of his actions heroic.

I also resent you telling me that I need to go and study the doctors of the church and learn my faith. It’s arrogant, condescending, and assumes that I have not already. I have read a great deal, friend, and have come to different conclusions than you at times apparently. Instead of deciding and judging my sincerity or motives, just disagree with me. Notice I haven’t used any caps or yelled?

When you said that Martin Luther changed the Gospel to fit his views and own mindset, the same could be said by protestants about Catholicism. It’s not that simple. You claim the Church has never made mistakes or errors. Some would disagree with that statement. I hope they don’t, though, or risk receiving a condescending, arrogant post like the one I just finished responding to!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

…yes if you like architectural disasters and religious heresy.

forget about doctrinal arguments. The reformation was a rebellion against foreign (papal) influence. Kings and other leaders used the excuse of the reformation to take control and nationalize the churches (which is not “Biblical”, if you know what I mean).

Yes, and look what it has wrought – we have in Europe and the US a general idea that “you believe what you want, leave me alone.” This is RELATIVISM with a capital R. The doctrinal differences came after the rebellion against papal and church authority. A lot of protestants don’t even have a cultural memory about how they got where they are.

They act like the Bible popped out of the sky and it was obvious what to do with it.

So moral relativism wouldn’t have happened if Catholics had stayed in charge of the West? People are people, sins and all…and I disagree with you a bit. Not all protestants are ignorant of history as you assume. I have debated with some that are mind-bogglingly astute and well-studied in history. You’re right that the rise of nations played a role in the reformation but it was not the sole impetus or purpose of the reformation. Maybe Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Zwingli, and the rest actually believed in what they fought for?