Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

[gcnuss]

OTCA,

I think this will be my last post in this thread since I feel myself coming perilously close to ignoring that wonderful teaching of Luther quoted in my signature line.

We Lutherans (and, perhaps, other non-Catholic Christians as well) have spent lifetimes dealing with Luther and his various pronouncements, inspired and less than inspired. We are much aware of his faults and we are also aware of all that he taught that was, and remains, good. I suggest that instead of cherry-picking only those things for which he can be faulted (rightly), you take some time to read his Small Catechism, his writings on the Blessed Virgin, his scriptural commentaries.

You continually expound on Luther’s defects as though they disqualify him from being used by God to any good purpose. Scripture itself gives us ample evidence that perfection is not a requirement for service to God. For one example, consider Moses. Here is a man who was a murderer and yet he became the one chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt. A second, and perhaps even more appropriate, case is King David, adulterer and murderer, whose name is lifted up as we call our Lord and Savior “Son of David.” And, then, we have St. Paul who was known and feared as a persecutor of the Church before his conversion.

You should know, too, that we do not look to Luther as the font of all that we believe. His writings, except for the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Smalcald Articles, are not included in the Book of Concord which, together with Holy Scripture, is the official exposition of Lutheran belief. All of his other writings carry weight only insofar as they help us to understand our relationship to God.

It must be very hard to comprehend the teachings of your Protestant religion by the one who started it all. Martin Luther.

Our religion is Christianity. We have much more than Luther’s words to help us. True, we do place value on Luther’s interpretations of God’s Word, but we are not limited to that. We, too, look back to the Early Church Fathers and to others from the apostles forward and we subscribe to the three ecumenical creeds, those foundational statements of Christian faith.

How much Luther has the average Protestant read? Or even the average Protestant clergyman?

The average Lutheran probably has read little other than the Small Catechism. For non-Lutherans I have no idea. Those of us who are clergy certainly read more of Luther. We have learned to differentiate between Luther, the faithful expositor of Scripture and Luther, the sinful and fallible human being.

That’s probably enough. OTCA, I admire your obvious devotion to the Catholic faith and your desire to lead others to it. However, I don’t think that anti-Lutheran diatribes are likely to win many people over. You might begin with a careful study of Ut Unum Sint, that wonderful encyclical of Pope John Paul II.

May God bless you in your continuing faith journey.

 

[Lujack]

I thought the Anglicans did it in 1534. Luther…okay, Luther STARTED something in 1517…I don’t know when he officially broke away…

No, you are right. Luther was before Anglicanism, I just mixed up the dates. Sorry about that.

My point, though, is that Anglicanism is a Protestant movement unrelated to Lutheranism.

 

[adstrinity]

No, you are right. Luther was before Anglicanism, I just mixed up the dates. Sorry about that.

My point, though, is that Anglicanism is a Protestant movement unrelated to Lutheranism.

I don’t think any Protestant movement is unrelated to Lutheranism. I think Luther gave hope to all those who wanted to live for, with, and in themselves.

 

[Lujack]

I don’t think any Protestant movement is unrelated to Lutheranism. I think Luther gave hope to all those who wanted to live for, with, and in themselves.

I’m not doing a very good job communicating today, am I? Hopefully, this one will get out what I mean.

Anglican doctrine is completely unrelated to that of Luther. While there are other Protestant denominations that have this claim as well, it is easiest to make the point with the Anglicans, because they don’t share the same lineage.

Luther’s split may have encouraged the Anglicans to be bold, but the English Reformation has more to do with Henry VII than it does with Luther. For that reason, I’m using them as an example of why an attack on Luther does not invalidate Protestantism (regardless of the fact that the attacks are inaccurate).

I hope that’s better.

 

[SIA]

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…

And you are an obvious hater of Luther. You hate him enough to fabricate information that you claim he quoted and did not and the mere basis of your thread is one of oh so many pointed questions here that only leads to the attempt to triumph Catholic belief over anything else.

 

[gcnuss]

Luther’s split may have encouraged the Anglicans to be bold, but the English Reformation has more to do with Henry VII than it does with Luther. For that reason, I’m using them as an example of why an attack on Luther does not invalidate Protestantism (regardless of the fact that the attacks are inaccurate).

I think you are quite right here. In fact, Pope Leo X awarded Henry the title of Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) in 1521after Henry wrote (or, perhaps, had ghost-written for him) Assertio Septem Sacramentorum Adversus Martinum Lutherum. Obviously, that was before Henry decided that the Pope was getting in the way of his own wishes.

Hmmm. I guess that my previous post wasn’t really my last here.

 

[Feenyx]

And so a heretic speaks! I must confess, I am indeed a Lutheran. (From here out, no more sarcasm… I just had to get it out this one time.) Let’s leap in here with both feet and get going on this. First some disclaimers:

1. I don’t presume to speak for all Lutherans.
2. I don’t presume to be speaking to all Roman Catholics.
3. I will speak freely and work to substantiate any claims I may have.
4. I won’t be goaded to speak on things I don’t know anything about.
5. When I speak in generalities, (which I try not to do) I am referring to my personal experience and not to global truths.

With that, here goes.

My personal experience has been that Lutheranism and how it differs from Catholicism and other denominations is generally poorly understood amongst even the general Lutheran populous. Many people I’ve met do not call themselves “Lutheran”, or even “Protestant”: most often just “Christian” and leave it at that. I have not met anyone that even claims to believe that Luther was infallible. If he said something crazy, then he said something crazy: just because I call myself a Lutheran doesn’t mean I agree with everything he said. I think, based on the responses you have received, OTCA, that your original question of “is this what Protestantism is really about?” was answered with a resounding “no”. Based on my understanding, Luther wasn’t even trying to start a new church; he was responding to what he felt were problems with the Church establishment at that time. Many of his writings that were the most volatile at the time (e.g. the 95 Theses) were more calls to reformation of practices that Luther felt (backed by Scripture and arduous study) did not reflect the content or intent of the Word. The Book of Concord (which was not actually written by Luther, but compiled by religious scholars from some of his writings after his death) should be considered the most accurate summary of Lutheranism, as that is what it was intended to be. Anything that was said by Luther that is not in the Book of Concord is wholly out of context just as a rule, as it was not intended to be taken as even any implication of doctrine, as is unedited, without review, and not officially supported by any major Lutheran group (that I know of) as definition of doctrine.

If anyone has specific (or general, I guess,) questions about the Book of Concord and how it relates to translations and interpretations of the Bible, or the doctrinal differences contained therein and their relationship to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, feel free to ask. Ad hominim attacks on Luther as a summary of Lutheranism is not only inaccurate, but irrelevant.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Based on my understanding, Luther wasn’t even trying to start a new church; he was responding to what he felt were problems with the Church establishment at that time. Many of his writings that were the most volatile at the time (e.g. the 95 Theses) were more calls to reformation of practices that Luther felt (backed by Scripture and arduous study) did not reflect the content or intent of the Word.

I think you are absolutely correct. He felt that the Catholic Church had some bad practices in it. Also I think he really understood what Paul was saying - that faith alone saves you. The rules and laws of the Jewish faith were no longer necessary if you took Jesus into your heart, in the same way that way that the rules of the Catholic church were not necessary . Even though I am a Catholic, I admire Luther. I certainly love Paul!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I think you are absolutely correct. He felt that the Catholic Church had some bad practices in it. Also I think he really understood what Paul was saying - that faith alone saves you. The rules and laws of the Jewish faith were no longer necessary if you took Jesus into your heart, in the same way that way that the rules of the Catholic church were not necessary . Even though I am a Catholic, I admire Luther. I certainly love Paul!

Another Catholic admiring Luther…God give me strength…

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

But Luther is no more the founder of Protestantism than George Washington is the founder of Bolivia. It was his action, not his doctrine, that inspired the other denominations to break away. You seem to be projecting the importance of apostolic succession that we have in the Catholic Church on to Protestant denominations that do not believe that way.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the Anglicans, who broke with the Church before Luther, and have their own “branch” denominations. An Anglican would not care about Martin Luther.

What on earth are you talking about? So you are going to justify his actions? Luther IS the founder of Protestanism…learn your history.

 

[JRKH]

What on earth are you talking about? So you are going to justify his actions? Luther IS the founder of Protestanism…learn your history.

Perhaps it would be best that you follow your own advice as shown in your signature:
“After a first and second warning, break off contact with a Heretic. Realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.”
Titus 3:10-11

You have given due warning to all about your understanding of Luther. You have more than fullfilled the requirements of Matthew 16: 15-18 as well.
Since the conversation really has no where else to go I suggest it be left to die.

Peace
Jame

 

[RobHom]

They probably have more immigrants now. Not such a homogeneous population as they used to have.

This is not a “probably”… you are definitely in the right area though! Some years ago…early 1970’s +/- a couple of years the German’s initiated a “gastarbeiter” program… (guest worker) which allowed “auslanders”…foreigners to come and work in Germany without citizenship restrictions. They had a serious flood of workers from Italy, Turkey, and other countries, and while they gave severance packages to many some years ago, many had children there and stayed, as well as when the “wall” came down…there was another influx of “immigrants”…though they were Germans as well… As communist East Germany was “godless”…therein lies much of the demographic change of religious populations.

When I lived in Germany from 56 to 60…the only non-Germans for the most part in the country were Americans who were a part of the Army of Occupation…and the Russians in East Germany.
When I returned to Germany in 74 to 77…the demographics had changed drastically.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh please…These are facts about Luther, that’s why the book is titled “Facts About Luther”…:doh2:

So, should we take Boettner’s “History of Catholicism” as being a true history of Catholicism, just because of the title? (He is a famous anti-Catholic, in case you were about to say “yes”.)

The fact that your sources come from TAN books tells me that they were not written from a Protestant point of view. Therefore, they are most likely biased. I don’t know the authors you cite, since I’ve never heard of them. I’d want to check their credentials before taking them seriously as scholars of Protestantism.

You should, too.

 

[RobHom]

The saddest part of that nonreligious number is the thought in my head that some might be a reaction to the kinds of back and forth attacks between us Christians, such as we’ve witnessed on this thread. If the verbal battles between Lutherans and Catholics have turned people away from the faith, well, we all should go to confession.

Jon

Actually Jon…the “non-religious” number is related to the post I made just previous to this one. It has much less to do with the differences between Lutherans and Catholics in Germany. I had both Lutheran and Catholic friends there…and they got along just fine! The Lutherans knew I was Catholic…and in reality, probably the only discussions we ever had on the subject was when we got into political discussions in a “Gastehaus”…after quaffing a number of steins of the good stuff… and the discussions were always friendly. I think we Americans have more of a problem in this area than they do…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So, should we take Boettner’s “History of Catholicism” as being a true history of Catholicism, just because of the title? (He is a famous anti-Catholic, in case you were about to say “yes”.)

The fact that your sources come from TAN books tells me that they were not written from a Protestant point of view. Therefore, they are most likely biased. I don’t know the authors you cite, since I’ve never heard of them. I’d want to check their credentials before taking them seriously as scholars of Protestantism.

You should, too.

Yes he should try reading “Here I Stand”. That is a very good informative book about Martin Luther.

 

[Lujack]

What on earth are you talking about? So you are going to justify his actions? Luther IS the founder of Protestanism…learn your history.

No, Luther is the founder of Lutheranism. He is also the first Protestant.

However, a Calvinist will trace their beliefs to the doctrines of John Calvin, not those of Martin Luther. An Anglican will trace their church to Henry VII, not Martin Luther.

Attacking Martin Luther is meaningless to anyone who is not a Lutheran, because Luther’s doctrines are not a part of their church. This lets alone the fact that the attacks are inaccurate to begin with, but I’ll leave that for more qualified posters.

 

[RobHom]

Luther said “Be a sinner”

Luther said “Doing good is more dangerous than sinning”

Luther said “There is no free will”

Luther said “The individual Christian is subject to no authority”

Luther said “Peasants deserve their harsh treatment”

Luther said “Polygamy is permissable”

Luther said “The bible could use some improvement”

Luther said “persecute the Jewish people”

As I said before, is this what Protestanism is really about?

My friend, even I… a lifelong Catholic, know that those things are not “what Protestantism is about”. While there may be some whose views may incorporate some of what you have shown… I do not for one minute believe that all “Protestants” do. I know many who would be deeply insulted that those thoughts were applied to them.

On this site is a refutation of claims regarding Luther’s endorsement of “polygamy”…that is based on a letter he wrote as it was quoted in a book written in 1917: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

I think we need to not spend time dwelling on the ills and wrongs of the past, be they real or merely perceived. We need to look forward to the future and working to find our way to bringing about the unification of all Christians and doing what is pleasing to God.

 

[RobHom]

No, Luther is the founder of Lutheranism. He is also the first Protestant.

Nominally so…however history dictates that there were others who had come before him. But another has been given that “honorific”… see below.

However, a Calvinist will trace their beliefs to the doctrines of John Calvin, not those of Martin Luther. An Anglican will trace their church to Henry VII, not Martin Luther.

Very much so.

Attacking Martin Luther is meaningless to anyone who is not a Lutheran, because Luther’s doctrines are not a part of their church. This lets alone the fact that the attacks are inaccurate to begin with, but I’ll leave that for more qualified posters.

The reality of it is…Luther did not set out to cause the “Reformation”…he had a bone to pick with the Church, and pick it he did. As to what is recorded in history regarding Luther was not completely the product of Luther, but also the Church’s responses to him.

According to this Catholic Education site… Calvin is actually the “founder” of the world of Protestantism.

**Calvin

In many respects, John Calvin (1509-1564) was the founder of world Protestantism. He was the real brain-power of the Reformation, the synthesizer and, to a certain extent, its theological systematizer, despite the fact that he was a quarter-century the junior of Luther and Zwingli and of the second generation of the Reformation. **

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0050.html

For those who want “information” on these issues…this site has many good articles…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

My friend, even I… a lifelong Catholic, know that those things are not “what Protestantism is about”. While there may be some whose views may incorporate some of what you have shown… I do not for one minute believe that all “Protestants” do. I know many who would be deeply insulted that those thoughts were applied to them.

On this site is a refutation of claims regarding Luther’s endorsement of “polygamy”…that is based on a letter he wrote as it was quoted in a book written in 1917: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

I think we need to not spend time dwelling on the ills and wrongs of the past, be they real or merely perceived. We need to look forward to the future and working to find our way to bringing about the unification of all Christians and doing what is pleasing to God.

:clapping: Yes, indeed. And here is a quote from Galatians where Paul teaches us how to act as Christians:

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You folks are wasting your time. OneTrueCathApos’s true colors are showing. He is bigoted. And he does NOT know his history, obviously. He reads Catholic encyclicals only when they make his case - and even derides his fellow Catholics. He strikes me to be the Jack Chick of CAF.

To answer OneTrueCathApos’s thread title, “Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??” The answer is, “No. It is not.”