Luther! Read Read!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan,

My point is that even Popes have said a lot of things which are wrong and contradict the faith - just not “from the chair of Peter” - this is not to mention the numerous amount of believing priests who have said incorrect things.

Also, I really would suggest you go back and read my post again - I hardly think your answers have done it justice.

Again, Luther mispoke in a pastoral and personal (not public teaching) letter to a friend, as he himself surely would have admitted. Your inability to distinguish and to allow some latitude I think is unfair. Surely you would want someone to put the best construction on careless comments you might make.

How about some Christian charity for brother Martin? Again, many Catholic priests have undoubtedly said incorrect things that have caused people to lose their salvation. Of course, they haven’t even had their personal letters to friends published in books around the world!

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?
 
Angelmessenger,

One correction: Martin Bucer definitely taught that only the elect received regeneration (and hence that regeneration could not be lost) before Calvin. (He wrote this in his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels in 1527, when Calvin was sixteen and had not yet written any theology!). Whether Bucer was the first to say this I’m not sure–I have not figured out where Zwingli stood on it, for instance. But Calvin was not original in this (in fact, he wasn’t really original in any of his ideas as far as I can tell).

The relevant point, of course, is that Luther definitely did not teach OSAS. And the Reformed, who did teach a form of OSAS, were even clearer than Luther in saying that a regenerate person would not persevere in deliberate sin (I dare you to find any quote from Calvin or Bucer suggesting, even out of context, that a believer could commit adultery many times every day!). The teaching that most folks on here are (rightly) upset about, which is maintained by some (not all) Southern Baptists and to a lesser extent by other evangelical Protestants, results from the combination of at least three elements:

The doctrine that regeneration cannot be lost;
The doctrine that all human beings can freely choose to accept Christ and thus receive regeneration, and then retain the free will either to persevere in sanctification or not to do so (this is what distinguishes heretical OSAS believers from traditional Calvinists); and
The teaching that justification is not directly affected by the sinful behavior of a believer.

Luther only taught the third of these. Calvinists teach the first, and to some extent the third but with even more qualifications than Luther did. It’s simply unjust to take out your frustration with modern Baptists by taking a quote from Luther out of context, ignoring the huge difference between his thought and theirs.

Edwin
 
Jan,

My point is that even Popes have said a lot of things which are wrong and contradict the faith - just not “from the chair of Peter” - this is not to mention the numerous amount of believing priests who have said incorrect things. Also, I really would suggest you go back and read my post again - I hardly think your answers have done it justice.

Those that do contradict the faith after repeated warnings may find themselves outside the Catholic Church. Remember St Paul’s words concerning these false preachers----Those that preach a different doctrine than ours are to be cast out! I repeat that a Pope cannot make a mistake regarding faith and morals, though he can give a bad example if he leads a sinful life

Again, Luther mispoke in a pastoral and personal (not public teaching) letter to a friend, as he himself surely would have admitted. Your inability to distinguish and to allow some latitude I think is unfair. Surely you would want someone to put the best construction on careless comments you might make.

How about some Christian charity for brother Martin? Again, many Catholic priests have undoubtedly said incorrect things that have caused people to lose their salvation. Of course, they haven’t even had their personal letters to friends published in books around the world!

In all fairness since Luther retracted his former opinion concerning OSAS he ‘may’ be innocent of that unsound teaching. I had acknowledged this, nevertheless he is guilty of many other unsound doctrines which forever split Christianity.

We should never make excuses for anyone who teaches an unsound doctrine

God bless you

Jan
 
Luther never believed in OSAS. The quote from the Melanchthon letter does not teach OSAS. It teaches that if (this is clearly an impossible supposition, but he’s throwing it out to make his point) someone were to have faith in Christ but commit serious and repeated sin, the sin in itself would not separate the person from Christ. He clarified his position in later writings, making it clear that a believer would not in fact do this, and that if someone gave themselves over to sin they would “lose faith and the Holy Spirit.” Nothing he said earlier contradicts this later clarification. I’m not claiming that Luther never contradicted himself, just that this isn’t necessarily an example, and it certainly had nothing to do with OSAS, which he never taught.

Edwin
 
Angelmessenger,

It’s simply unjust to take out your frustration with modern Baptists by taking a quote from Luther out of context, ignoring the huge difference between his thought and theirs.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

I’m not in any way frustrated and I spoke the truth. You cannot deny that any unsound doctrine has to be guarded against. I would be just as outspoken if we were speaking about a Catholic theologian of our day who was spreading a false gospel other than what the Apostles taught.

Innocent of the doctrine of OSAS he ‘might’ be— but guilty of many other false teachings he is!

God bless you

Angel
 
angelmessenger and others,

Need some clarification.

Help me out here. From my reading and listening to Catholic Answers I am under the assumption that a Pope can speak falsely about issues of faith and morals, just not when he is speaking authoritatively, in concert with the bishops, on behalf of the Church. Further, when he is making this kind of announcement (speaking “ex cathedra”) it is manifestly clear to all that he is doing so.

Am I wrong to think this?

Thanks,
isfatherwrong?
 
From the Catholic Answers tract: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. *A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. *
Click to expand...
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
Click to expand...
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Click to expand...
Italics are mine. It appears that I am right. Solemnity is key.
 
Hi,

Yes you are correct in saying that only what a Pope solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. It’s also true that there are a large number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined, though many points have been defined.

God bless

Jan
 
40.png
Contarini:
Luther never believed in OSAS. The quote from the Melanchthon letter does not teach OSAS. It teaches that if (this is clearly an impossible supposition, but he’s throwing it out to make his point) someone were to have faith in Christ but commit serious and repeated sin, the sin in itself would not separate the person from Christ. He clarified his position in later writings, making it clear that a believer would not in fact do this, and that if someone gave themselves over to sin they would “lose faith and the Holy Spirit.” Nothing he said earlier contradicts this later clarification. I’m not claiming that Luther never contradicted himself, just that this isn’t necessarily an example, and it certainly had nothing to do with OSAS, which he never taught.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I have very much enjoyed your spot on comments on Luther!

You have the patience of a Saint! 👍

Peace <><
 
40.png
kaycee:
I have very much enjoyed your spot on comments on Luther!

You have the patience of a Saint! 👍

Peace <><
Click to expand...
Far from it. But I’ve been doing this Internet stuff for years, and for the most part (by no means always) I’ve learned when to back off and take a deep breath. There are plenty of places in my posts on these boards where I haven’t done that, but I’m glad that you haven’t noticed them!

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
No one has denied that he made the statement. I have explained at some length what he meant by it and how it fits into his teaching as a whole. You need to explain exactly how you find my arguments unconvincing. Simply bursting into the thread at this stage and blustering is not adequate.

But if you would actually read the text in question, you would see that he goes on to give a reason. He was simply saying that his “Papist” opponents didn’t know enough about translation to challenge him. I’m not denying that he could be a bombastic ***hole at times, only that he believed that one could give oneself over deliberately to sin and still have true faith. He clearly did not teach this. I have quoted him explicitly teaching the contrary. If you choose to deny the evidence to suit your prejudices, then you may find yourself sharing a cell with Jack Chick in Purgatory.

Edwin
Click to expand...
So you are saying that Luther can:

*make the statement, “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day"

*call a book of the New Testament “an epistle of straw” and dismiss it from his bible

*deliberately add a word (“alone”) to a key verse to change its meaning
  • yet I am going to share Purgatory with Jack Chick, because I dare to point out these facts, instead of quoting from other parts of Luther’s work that more suit your argument.
If your argument is that Luther didn’t really mean what he said in the above quotes, then how do we know he meant what he said elsewhere?

Or are you simply saying that he was very mixed up and confused?

Either way what a disaster to have such a man create a new religion. Once he began demolishing the Catholic faith he began a tidal wave of dissent a destruction of God’s revelation that has continued on ever since.
 
Hi,

Either way what a disaster to have such a man create a new religion. Once he began demolishing the Catholic faith he began a tidal wave of dissent a destruction of God’s revelation that has continued on ever since.

I agree with you entirely here!

God bless

Jan
 
angelmessenger and rsj1,

rjs1 said:
Either way what a disaster to have such a man create a new religion. Once he began demolishing the Catholic faith he began a tidal wave of dissent a destruction of God’s revelation that has continued on ever since.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the Church was incredibly and amazingly sick in Luther’s day, much like the religious establishment in the OT that the prophets confronted.

On another post, I wrote:
Lutheranism is not built on the conviction that Luther was dead right, but rather that he and others like Melanchthon and Chemnitz, etc, were being more faithful to the Scriptures AND the consensus of the Fathers (many, who used phrases akin to Sola Scriptura). Like Bereans examining Paul, people tested the claims of Luther and others and thought it was more faithful than what Rome was promulgating. Luther is no more infallible than any Church Father was infallible. Again, surely not everything that prophets, apostles, or even popes have thought, said, and even written is considered infallible. When I read the words that the gates of hell won’t overcome the Church and that the Spirit guides into all truth, I believe that means that Jesus and the message of His Passion (thank you Mel Gibson) will be lifted higher until the end comes. The message of reconciliation for the world through the perfect life and innocent death of Jesus Christ will rise to the top.
Click to expand...
(that was from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&page=2&pp=100, post 112)
rsj1 wrote:
So you are saying Luther can:
*make the statement, “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day"
Click to expand...
Well, again - he should not have and would have said so himself. In his formal theological writings that he meant to have published (not personal letters) he said as much.
*call a book of the New Testament “an epistle of straw” and dismiss it from his bible
Click to expand...
Actually, you might be surprised that many non-heretical, respected Church Fathers also accorded the book of James, Hebrews, II Peter and Revelation LESS STATUS than the other NT books. You can find Luther saying dumb things about James, but the fact is, is that Luther never did throw James out (he included it in His German Bible) and neither did Lutherans.
deliberately add a word (“alone”) to a key verse to change its meaning
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t believe it changed the meaning for a moment. Even today, sometimes when translating one language to another, words need to be added to clarify meaning. This happens in Catholic Bible translations even. Further, in the book of James, the word faith is clearly being defined differently than Paul defines it, and so it surprises no one that James says it is not “faith alone” (that is the intellectual assent that “there is a God”, which even demons believe and therefore shudder)
If your argument is that Luther didn’t really mean what he said in the above quotes, then how do we know he meant what he said elsewhere?
Click to expand...
I know this is directed at Edwin, but let me take a stab (hope you don’t mind Edwin) By looking at those writings that he said best represented his teaching. Really, it shouldn’t be a mystery - he made it very clear that he thought much of what he had written wasn’t the best and that people should focus on certain things he had written. These writings would be the Bondage of the Will, the small and large catechisms (and I believe the Smalcald Articles) Go there for the real skinny. You can find the Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles in the Book of Concord, available online. Also, a good work Luther was proud of was his Commentary on Galatians.
Or are you simply saying that he was very mixed up and confused?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Just that he was a human being who made errors and should be given some leeway. Just as I’m sure there are Catholic priests who do the same. Further, I think Luther would have been very open to correction on the comments you are most concerned about (and they should cause all of us concern!).

Enjoying this conversation guys.
 
Hi,

—“Well, I don’t believe it changed the meaning for a moment. Even today, sometimes when translating one language to another, words need to be added to clarify meaning. This happens in Catholic Bible translations even. Further, in the book of James, the word faith is clearly being defined differently than Paul defines it, and so it surprises no one that James says it is not “faith alone” (that is the intellectual assent that “there is a God”, which even demons believe and therefore shudder”

The expression “faith alone” only appears once in the Bible in James 2:24—where it is rejected!

The fact is, the word alone is a problem. James clearly says that “a man is justified by works.” Paul and James do not mean the same thing by ‘works’ otherwise they would contradict one another. Since we know this couldn’t happen, we have to agree that Paul and James mean two different things by the word ‘works’. James is teaching that works show true faith.

Paul speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14). He then explains that we must show the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Paul therefore agrees with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.

Conclusion---- Luther adding the word–alone–is misleading because justification does not come from faith alone.

Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification.

God bless

Jan
 
Hi father,

----“With all due respect, the Church was incredibly and amazingly sick in Luther’s day, much like the religious establishment in the OT that the prophets confronted”

**Christ’s Church can never be sick!.–Some of her members-- yes-- but the Church is the “Pillar and foundation of truth”

God bless

Jan**
 
40.png
Contarini:
Well, you should not get too used to your happiness, because it is founded on sand. (What kind of happiness is it anyway that is based on someone having uttered heresy?)

If you were actually looking at this fair-mindedly, you sould notice that this was in a letter to a friend, not in a formal theological treatise. Luther knew that Melanchthon’s problem was scrupulosity, hence he engaged in rhetorical hyperbole. Technically speaking, he did mean what he said. But it is abundantly clear from other writings that Luther didn’t think a person who trusted in Christ would wilfully commit serious sin. He says this explicitly in his commentary on Galatians of 1531, which everyone agrees is one of his central theological texts.

I have pointed this out ad nauseam, but it doesn’t stop the flood of happy Catholics rejoicing at the supposed fall of their brother in Christ.

You need to explain why you would take a rhetorical flourish in a letter as representative of Luther’s thought, rather than a considered opinion expressed in a formal Biblical commentary. Until you can explain this, you are guilty of malice and dishonesty every time you claim that the letter to Melanchtnon is representative of Luther’s views.

This is absolutely no different from the tactics of Jack Chick and other anti-Catholics who take bizarre sentences like “the priest is God on earth” out of context and claim that Catholicism regards priests as divine.

Edwin
Click to expand...
well put… 🙂

this is similar to another thread, where they are saying B16
put Harry Potter books on a ban list, due to a personal note
he wrote to the author of a book concerning the Harry Potter
craze…

🙂
 
Hi,

Scripture confirms that ingulgences come from God. If there were abuses, and I’ve no doubt there were, then Luther is to be commended for condemning them.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

St francis of Assisi also encountered problems but he didn’t try to set up another church other than the one instituted by Christ-----No he knew that the doctrine of the Church goes back to the time of the apostles. Her doctrine of today is the same as that of the apostles.

" Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

Luther didn’t only condemn the abuses however he used it as an excuse for his heterodoxy.

God bless

Jan
 
Hi,

----"If you were actually looking at this fair-mindedly, you sould notice that this was in a letter to a friend, not in a formal theological treatise. Luther knew that Melanchthon’s problem was scrupulosity, hence he engaged in rhetorical hyperbole.

Luther suffered from the same problem— -scrupulosity—his new doctrine allowed him ease from his conscience.

—“Technically speaking, he did mean what he said.”

I see :confused:

--------" But it is abundantly clear from other writings that Luther didn’t think a person who trusted in Christ would wilfully commit serious sin."

Well he was wrong once again wasn’t he? I’ve known some people (God help them) who once trusted in Christ only to turn to the world and reject all they had believed in.

God bless

Jan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top