Luther! Read Read!

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

I posted my reply to your other thread but don’t know how to put the link in here

God bless

Jan

 

[Steven_Merten]

rjs1:

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.

Hello rjs1,

I agree with you. The whole reason Jesus put one man, St. Peter in unequal authority over the other eleven Apostles, and all Christ’s followers, was for unity. Multiple leaders with equal authority cause division. When Luther attacks Christ’s unifying authority in St. Peter Successors, he is attacking the will of Jesus. God pours out His most fierce wrath on those who attack God’s structure of unifying Church authority.

Before His assention and authorization of the Catholic Church, Jesus pointed out the faults and evils of His Jewish Church leaders. However, Jesus told His followers, before He authorized the Catholic Church, that they still must obey Jewish Church leaders and respect their position of authority. A position of unequaled authority given to them by God.

**NIV MAT 23:2 **"**The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." **Whether it is a church, nation, company, military, club and even hell (as Jesus tells us), almost all groups in the world have one person in unequalled authority to unite these groups of individuals. When you have two or more individuals of equal authority, groups are weak in times of decision making on which path the group, as a united whole, will take. In times of decision making, unequaled authority in one leader will lead a group in a united direction. Multiple leaders with equal authority will have the tendancy of spliting the group into factions to go different directions. This is why in even marriage (a house) God put one person, man, in unequaled authority. Unequaled authority in one leader has more to do with unity than the capabilities of individual leaders over the capabilities of multiple leaders.

When, through dissention, you break the unifying, group binding, bond of unequaled authority in one person, the group dissintegrates (as Jesus tells us). This is why Jesus put St. Peter in unequaled authority over all His followers, even the other eleven Apostles. With two, twelve or thiry thousand leaders of equal authority (Protestant denominations) the flock scatters, splinters and becomes divided. Abraham Lincoln quoted Jesus in his famous “house divided” speach, before he unleashed the full force of the United States military to stop such an attack on unifying, unequaled United States presidential authority, at the begining of the American Civil War.

NAB MAT 12:25

“**A kingdom torn by strife is headed for its downfall. A town or household split into factions cannot last for long. If Satan is expelling Satan, he he must be torn by dissension. How, then, can his dominions last? **” (continued)

 

[Steven_Merten]

What Luther did in the distruction of Christ’s will and desire in His establishement of unifying unequaled authority in St. Peter will certianly bring out Jesus and the Father’s most feircest wrath upon Luther at judgement day. God’s most feircest wrath in the bible is poured out on Luther’s Protestant attempted schismatic forerunner Korah.

**NAB NUM 16 **

Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi [and Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben] took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, “Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD’s congregation?”…

…Punishment of Dathan and Abiram. Moses, followed by the elders of Israel, arose and went to Dathan and Abrim. Then he warned the community, “Keep away from the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that is theirs: otherwise you too will be swept away because of all their sins.” When Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing at the entrance of their tents with their wives and sons and little ones, Moses said, “This is how you shall know that it was the LORD who sent me to do all that I have done, and that it was not I who planned it: if these men die an ordinary death, merely suffering the fate common to all mankind, then it was not the LORD who sent me. But if the LORD does something entirely new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them alive down into the nether world, with all belonging to them, then you will know that these men have defied the LORD.” No sooner had he finished saying all this than the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families [and all of Korah’s men] and all their possessions. They went down alive to the nether world with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the community. But all the Israelites near them fled at their shrieks, saying, “The earth might swallow us too!”
**NAB JUD 1:10 **

These people, however, not only revile what they have no knowledge of but are corrupted through the very things they know by instinct, like brute animals. So much the worse for them! They have taken the road Cain took. They have abandoned themselves to Balaam’s error for pay, and like Korah they perish in rebellion. These men are blotches on your Christian banquets. They are wild ocean waves, splashing their shameless deeds abroad like foam, or shooting stars for **whom the thick gloom of darkness has been reserved forever. **

 

[Assurance]

Angelmessenger, Steve Merten, but for grace,

Could I encourage you guys to check this thread out?:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73096

I wrote a much larger invitation before, but when I submitted it, I lost it!

I’ve noticed this thread has started talking about Luther’s view of justification (Christian assurance) and the Papacy. That’s why I thought you might find my postings on this thread very interesting.

I’d be thrilled to engage you on it.

For purposes of argumentation only, I will concede the existence of purgatory, the idea that our works contribute to our justification before God, and that the Pope is who he says he is by Divine Rite.

Nevertheless, I believe Luther was akin to a prophet of God as I hope I can demonstate to you on this thread - but maybe you can show me I am wrong.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi father,

—“Nevertheless, I believe Luther was akin to a prophet of God as I hope I can demonstate to you on this thread - but maybe you can show me I am wrong.”

Luther tore the Church apart–that makes him a false prophet! Lutherans kept much of the Catholic Tradition, but based the rest of their teachings on the interpretations of a handful of men. The Catholic Church can however cite Scriptures in defense of its authority to pass on and interpret the faith.

Pope Pius IX: "Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”

God bless

Jan

 

[Assurance]

angelmessenger,

St. Paul: “No doubt there must be divisions among you to show who has God’s approval” (I note that the Church is united in God’s eyes and receives its unity solely from Him - it is a gift from Him)

You said: Luther tore the Church apart–that makes him a false prophet!

It seems to me that Christ tore the Church of His day apart too - seeing as how when His followers continued worshipping in the temple, they were eventually hunted down by one Saul and forced to leave (the Lutherans were forced to leave also). Jesus told his followers to respect those in Moses’ seat and what was meant to be the natural extension of the worship of the OT people turned out being something that tore the Church apart! “We must obey God rather than men”.

Its called the stumbling block of the cross. Luther’s only boast.

You say: The Catholic Church can however cite Scriptures in defense of its authority to pass on and interpret the faith.

Can you tell me which Scriptures you specifically have in mind?

You quoted Pope Pius IX: "Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”

Lutherans never left the external Church - they were condemned and kicked out. And which heresy it it in particular you have in mind regarding Lutherans?

Angelmessenger, if you would like to engage me further on these ideas maybe we could post on the “For Lutherans…” thread. Let me know if you’d like to do this.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

Contarini wrote ----"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.”

You said: I see

Angelmessenger,

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING is kind of key here. What Edwin means is that when Luther was writing to Melanchthon he meant what he wrote AT THAT TIME. I am willing to concede that. All Edwin and myself are trying to say is that Luther would have never upheld what he wrote here in his later formal doctrinal writings. Luther’s point was to emphasize the mercy and love of God (think Ephesians 1: 15-20 and 3:14-21) and when looking at the grand “NOTHING shall separate us” passage he got a little bit carried away - for as he admitted on many ocassions, our sin can cause us to separate ourselves from God, who never separates Himself from us. Again, don’t you think any Catholic priests or bishops or even Popes have made similar errors? I am blown away at your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this - because I know many devout Roman Catholics would do so.

--------" 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

Jan, I share your concern here. I think what is at issue is the world “willfully”, as has been discussed in some detail on previous posts. For it is unquestionable that Luther believed people could lose their salvation through their sin.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi father,

----“You said: Luther tore the Church apart–that makes him a false prophet! It seems to me that Christ tore the Church of His day apart too”

Christ didn’t come to tear any Church apart. He came to fulfill the prophecies written about him. He did however tell the leaders that they had put too much a burdon on the people with their man-made laws but the Ten commandments were to be kept. All that we have in the Church today was foreshadowed in the Old Testament–Baptism–Eucharist, the Priesthood.etc. The blood sacrifices were a sign of the great sacrifice to come—Christ dying on the cross to redeem mankind. There was no tearing apart–He made a new Covenant which included the gentiles.

----“seeing as how when His followers continued worshipping in the temple, they were eventually hunted down by one Saul and forced to leave (the Lutherans were forced to leave also).”

Obviously Saul was a zealous Jew who genuinely believed that the Christians were wrong–It took a miracle to convince him and to open his eyes to the truth. Jesus’ followers were preaching the good news in the temples, they certainly wouldn’t have been worshipping there. The new Christians met on a sunday to worship in their homes. Luther had a choice----Obey God or abandon Him—he chose the latter

-----"Jesus told his followers to respect those in Moses’ seat and what was meant to be the natural extension of the worship of the OT people turned out being something that tore the Church apart! “We must obey God rather than men”.

Jesus was telling the people to listen to the leaders–as they preached the correct doctrine concerning the coming Messiah etc but as the leaders were not practicing what they preached then the people were not to do as they did! luther didn’t obey this command–He didn’t listen to the age old truths he just decided to start a new Church which would ease his conscience concerning the truth of salvation written in the gospels. In other words he tried to reinvent the wheel!

—“You say: The Catholic Church can however cite Scriptures in defense of its authority to pass on and interpret the faith.
Can you tell me which Scriptures you specifically have in mind?”

The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth (2 Tim. 1:13). For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error. So you tell me where in the Bible is the idea that Christ’s Church would teach error? By promising to guide the Church into all truth by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), Christ would guard his flock from erroneous teaching.

“When Jesus said to the apostles, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” he was promising a divine ratification of the Church’s teachings. In the original Greek, the tense of the binding and loosing shows that a binding occurs in heaven either prior to or simultaneous with the binding performed on earth. In addition, the Greek verb is in the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding, not initiating it”

The only way that God would promise this union with heaven is if he intended to protect his Church from falsehood. After all, God is truth and he would not lead his flock into error, much less allow heaven to be bound by it. With this in mind, Christ prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail (Luke 22:32), built the Church upon him (Matt 16), and ordered him to tend and feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17).

----"You quoted Pope Pius IX: "Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”

Lutherans never left the external Church - they were condemned and kicked out. And which heresy it it in particular you have in mind regarding Lutherans?"

“In the 1520s, Luther and other Reformers attacked doctrines previously defined by the Church that led to some irreconcilable differences. Different interpretations of the Bible led to different churches. Still, the Protestants hoped to find some unity but, since they could not agree on doctrine, they all knew they could not have unity. And they could not agree on doctrine because they could not agree on how the Scriptures should be interpreted. The task of finding unity in truth plagued the relations between Protestant leaders thereafter.”
—“Angelmessenger, if you would like to engage me further on these ideas maybe we could post on the “For Lutherans…” thread. Let me know if you’d like to do this.”

Ok father

God bless

Jan

 

[Contarini]

angelmessenger:

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

True. But it did not allow him to let himself off the hook in terms of pursuing holiness. The worst thing people can reasonably accuse Luther of in terms of personal morality is his nasty language, and he shared that with many of his Catholic opponents (at least he didn’t make up malicious fairy tales about his opponents, as the great defender of Catholicism Cochlaeus did!). You can’t reasonably make the case that this resulted from his “new” doctrines. He did enjoy life more than many people of his day thought was compatible with holiness, but ironically many 20th-century defenders of Catholicism have exalted exactly that rollicking attitude to life as typical of Catholicism.

“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s feast and laughter and good red wine.”

If you like those lines of Hilaire Belloc, you can’t fault Luther for living according to their spirit.

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

I see

And have you followed–have you even tried to follow–my explanation of what he meant by it?

Let me say it one more time. Luther did believe that no sin *in itself *would affect your standing before God *as long as you had faith in Christ. *That was what he was saying to Melanchthon. BUT he believed that if you deliberately “gave yourself over to sin” you would cease to believe in Christ: as he put it in the Galatians commentary, you would “lose faith and the Holy Spirit.” This is explicit, and it is clear. The fact that most of the Catholics on this board are wilfully ignoring the evidence I have presented does not make the evidence go away.

As “IsFatherWrong” has pointed out, Luther did express himself more clearly later on. I’m not sure that he changed his view so much as he became aware of how it could be misinterpreted. But there is no reasonable excuse for your insistence on disregarding the Galatians commentary in favor of the letter to Melanchthon rather than interpreting the latter by the former, which is both a more mature expression of Luther’s thought and a more considered, formal statement of his theology.

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.

And if you had actually followed this thread, you would see that Luther agreed with you. He did not believe in OSAS. How many times do we have to say this before someone pays attention?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

rjs1:

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.

Yes, because anti-Catholics are fond of pointing out “facts” too. You’re playing exactly the same silly game–chanting tired out-of-context cliches like a mantra instead of looking seriously at the evidence.

Your charge that I quote from the magisterial Galatians commentary (widely acknowledged as Luther’s most mature statement of his doctrine of faith) simply because it “more suits my argument” is frankly beneath contempt. I am not going to fall for these ridiculous relativistic dodges.

Your arguments are simply bankrupt. You clearly don’t know Luther beyond the two or three quotes that Catholic polemicists have been circulating for centuries. You ignore my explanation of what Luther meant by the statement to Melanchthon, and you ignore the voluminous evidence I’ve presented from the Galatians commentary. Your methods are dishonest and contemptible, and I am not going to let politeness keep me from telling the truth.

The same with the addition of “allein.” Luther gave a well-argued rationale for this translation. If you choose to ignore it, the guilt is on your head. (You can disagree with it of course–but don’t pretend that it was simply an arbitrary choice.)

And of course the authenticity of James had been widely disputed in the early Church as well. But who cares about actual historical fact?

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?

For about the hundredth time, I’ll explain what he meant in the letter to Melanchthon.

He believed that no sin in itself would separate you from God as long as you had faith. But he also believed that the deliberate choice to “give yourself over to sin” rather than pursuing a life of holiness would cause you to lose your faith. I have shown this to be true from the Galatians commentary. I don’t think the two statements conflict. But if they do, then the conclusion is not that he “didn’t mean what he said” but rather that he changed his mind.

Either way what a disaster to have such a man create a new religion.

He did no such thing.

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.

You choose to make Luther the beginning. But other people would blame nominalist theology, or scholasticism generally, or the Gregorian Papacy, or Augustine, or Constantine, or whatever their favorite villain happens to be.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

Well not all Christians. I think more Lutherans would agree with Reen12 than with you.

Steven,

I missed where reen denied that Abraham was saved by faith in Christ. The quote you gave said nothing of the sort.

Edwin

 

[Sherlock]

Contarini:

“The worst thing people can reasonably accuse Luther of in terms of personal morality is his nasty language…”

That’s hardly the case. His support of the brutal suppression of peasants is certainly blameworthy.

Contarini:

Let me say it one more time. Luther did believe that no sin *in itself *would affect your standing before God *as long as you had faith in Christ. *

Unless one is a peasant, in which case rebellion WOULD affect your standing before Christ. Here are some excerpts from Luthers’ “AGAINST THE MURDEROUS, THIEVING HORDES OF PEASANTS” (1525):

“First they have sworn to their true and gracious rulers to be submissive and obedient, in accord with God’s command (Matt. xxii. 21), “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” and (Rom. xiii. 1), “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” But since they have deliberately and sacrilegiously abandoned their obedience, and in addition have dared to oppose their lords, they have thereby forfeited body an soul, as perfidious, perjured, lying, disobedient wretches and scoundrels are wont to do. Wherefore St. Paul judges them, saying (Rom. xiii. 2.), “And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” The peasants will incur this sentence, sooner or later; for God wills that fidelity and allegiance shall be sacredly kept…”
“Every man is at once judge and executioner of a public rebel; just as, when a fire starts, he who can extinguish it first is the best fellow. Rebellion is not simply vile murder, but is like a great fire that kindles and devastates a country; it fills the land with murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and destroys everything, like the greatest calamity. Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you. Third, they cloak their frightful and revolting sins with the gospel, call themselves Christian brethren, swear allegiance, and compel people to join them in such abominations. Thereby they become the greatest blasphemers and violators of God’s holy name, and serve and honor the devil under the semblance of the gospel, so that they have ten times deserved death of body and soul, for never have I heard of uglier sins. And I believe also that the devil foresees the judgment day, that he undertakes such an unheard-of measure; as if he said, “It is the last and therefore it shall be the worst; I’ll stir up the dregs and knock the very bottom out.” May the Lord restrain him! Lo, how mighty a prince is the devil, how he holds the world in his hands and can put it to confusion: who else could so soon capture so many thousands of peasants, lead them astray, blind and deceive them, stir them to revolt, and make them the willing executioners of his malice. . . .”

“And should the peasants prevail (which God forbid!), – for all things are possible to God, and we know not but that he is preparing for the judgment day, which cannot be far distant, and may purpose to destroy, by means of the devil, all order and authority and throw the world into wild chaos, – yet surely thy who are found, sword in hand, shall perish in the wreck with clear consciences, leaving to the devil the kingdom of this world and receiving instead the eternal kingdom. For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.”

So, it is more accurate to say that LUTHER himself decided what sins constituted a deliberate “giving oneself over to sin”, and that decision could be whatever Luther felt strongly about at any time. Who was Luther to decide that rebellious peasants deserved hell?

 

[Assurance]

Sherlock,

Luther may have spoken unwisely, harshly, and without measure here, but as far as the actions he advises there is nothing patently un-Christian as far as I can tell.

Unless you believe the authorities spoken of in Romans 13 can not hold their offices and be Christians at the same time.

As to him saying the peasants deserved damnation, how do you read Romans 13?

Wherefore St. Paul judges them, saying (Rom. xiii. 2.), “And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

Regards,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Assurance]

Angelmessenger,

I am answering your questions at this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&page=2

Seemed more pertinent over there.

In Christ,
Nathan

 

[Contarini]

Sherlock:

That’s hardly the case. His support of the brutal suppression of peasants is certainly blameworthy.

I chose my words carefully speaking of “personal” morality. Luther’s condemnation of the peasants was no different from the attitude of the Catholic authorities–it was more frantic in tone because Luther was suspected of having sympathies with them. But I’d say that’s rather a mark in his favor (inasmuch as at least he had said things before the rebellion that made it clear that he knew they had genuine grievances). This is yet another example of the glaring double standard used against Luther.

Unless one is a peasant, in which case rebellion WOULD affect your standing before Christ.

Do you even bother reading my explanations? You’re under no obligation to do so, of course. But if you aren’t reading what I’m saying, why respond? And if you aren’t interested in understanding Luther, why talk about him?

I have said over and over that Luther thought that a person could not deliberately, persistently engage in serious sin and still have true faith–either such a person did not believe in the first place or they had chosen to turn away from Christ in order to give in to the flesh. No one has disproven my argument, and most of you simply ignore it.

Obviously rebellion was a serious sin in the eyes of 16th-century people. Perhaps the most serious of all sins in the eyes of the elites at least. Saying that rebels are going to hell was really a no-brainer. It was like rape or genocide today (in terms of how people viewed it).

Of course the rebels didn’t think that they were rebelling against lawful authority, because they had “godly law” and in many cases also ancient customs on their side. But once you’ve identified a given act as rebellious, of course you’ve said that it’s about as evil as an act can be. Luther’s condemnation of rebellion was perfectly normal for the 16th century. Arguing that it somehow resulted from the immoral influence of his teaching is beyond absurd.

Edwin

 

[Assurance]

Contarini,

Well said. I notice an increasing harshness in your last few posts, which I note, is very unusual for you.

I don’t blame you for being upset though. People don’t seem to read very carefully what you’ve said before.

Lest I be misunderstood in my statements, when I say Luther said nothing patently unChristian here I mean this: It is not sinful for a leader who has been given authority by God to effectively suppress a rebellion. I believe this is true even today. Of course, this should be done with as much restraint as is humanly possible.

Love in Christ,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

I
Do you even bother reading my explanations? You’re under no obligation to do so, of course. But if you aren’t reading what I’m saying, why respond? And if you aren’t interested in understanding Luther, why talk about him?

I have said over and over that Luther thought that a person could not deliberately, persistently engage in serious sin and still have true faith–either such a person did not believe in the first place or they had chosen to turn away from Christ in order to give in to the flesh. No one has disproven my argument, and most of you simply ignore it.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

So Luther believed that either, God infused faith into us and we are saved or man had faith and now God will not allow him to sin OR people turn away from, Jesus and the Father, love for God and neighbor, faith and salvation, through sin. Well if you ask me, that is a pretty big OR.

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

NAB JOH 5:27

"The Father has given over to him power to pass judgment because he is Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned."

NAB REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”

NAB ROM 2:6 (St. Paul is speaking)

. . . when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

 

[Sherlock]

Isfatherwrong?:

Sherlock,

Luther may have spoken unwisely, harshly, and without measure here, but as far as the actions he advises there is nothing patently un-Christian as far as I can tell.
Unless you believe the authorities spoken of in Romans 13 can not hold their offices and be Christians at the same time.
As to him saying the peasants deserved damnation, how do you read Romans 13?

Regards,
isfatherwrong?

Well, you’ve made my point for me. Contarini stated that the worst that could be said about Luther’s personal morality was that he used “nasty language”. Let me add to that your list, namely that he was (at least in this case) unwise and harsh without measure. Sound like personal morality problems if you ask me. So let’s concede that Contarini’s assertion is false.

As for how I would read Romans 13: it depends on the context, doesn’t it? Is Paul stating a doctrinal truth, or is he making a comment regarding the particular situation of his day? How is anyone to know? Is slavery wrong, or is it right? Who can speak with authority regarding the interpretation of these passages, a very troubled monk or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church established by Christ? But I can’t help but notice that you skimmed right over the point that I was making, namely, that although Luther may have held (as Contarini states) that “no sin in itself would affect your standing before God” except for a “giving of one’s self over to sin”, that latter is going to be defined by Luther, a man with questionable attitudes towards the oppressed masses; no protection against teaching error (infallibility); and no apostolic succession. Guess I know where I will put my trust…

 

[Sherlock]

Contarini:

I chose my words carefully speaking of “personal” morality.

Ah, yes, “personal morality”. You know, I’m sure that Hitler had a nice “personal morality” too—maybe, like Luther, his worst crime was using “nasty language”. But who knows, maybe he was better than Luther in that regard, and so was better than Luther in “personal morality”.

Look, don’t try and pass off Luther’s enthusiasm for the killing of oppressed peasants as somehow different and separate than his “personal morality”. What garbage.

Contarini:

Luther’s condemnation of the peasants was no different from the attitude of the Catholic authorities–it was more frantic in tone because Luther was suspected of having sympathies with them. But I’d say that’s rather a mark in his favor (inasmuch as at least he had said things before the rebellion that made it clear that he knew they had genuine grievances). This is yet another example of the glaring double standard used against Luther.

Gee, how did I know that the line, “Catholics were bad too!!!” was coming? The difference is, my dear Contarini, that bad Catholics, whether they be bishops, priests, or layman (and even popes), —are all accountable to orthodox Catholic teaching, the teaching handed down by the Apostles. There’s Authority there. So, although I’m sure that some of the aforementioned have mouthed words as loathesome as Luther’s words, those words don’t carry the weight of doctrine. Protection is in place, shall we say…Not so with Luther: it was his way or the highway. Let me ask you: what words of Luther’s carry weight today, and which ones don’t? Who determines this process? Should I, if I were a Lutheran, toss out Luther’s views that I have quoted above, or should I be in favor of servility no matter what? Do you think that Luther would have approved of labor unions? (I’m thinking he wouldn’t…) My point is, Luther’s words carry no inherent authority. His words on salvation; his thoughts on the Virgin Mary; his thoughts on nasty peasants—there’s no reason to attach any more significance to his words than anyone else’s, if Protestantism is true. You can spend hours defending his doctrines and explaining away his “personal morality”, but in the end, why bother? If your only defense is, “You Catholics have been bad too!”, then that’s very weak. But even if I accept this as meaning something, I have to ask----how come Lutherans haven’t formally apologized for their role in such atrocities as the aforementioned Peasant Revolt, or the Nazi Holocaust? Or do you think these occasions of slaughter were justified because of Luther’s sentiments as expressed in his “AGAINST THE MURDEROUS, THIEVING HORDES OF PEASANTS” ?

Contarini:

Do you even bother reading my explanations? You’re under no obligation to do so, of course. But if you aren’t reading what I’m saying, why respond? And if you aren’t interested in understanding Luther, why talk about him?

Because he is a wonderful example of the inherent relativism of Protestantism. Or rather, your defense of him is: is there any authority that you can claim to support his views, other than some particular interpretations of Scripture? And if Scripture is the only authority, then by what standard is the Catholic interpretation of Scripture judged to be wrong? I mean, if Protestants can’t agree among themselves about essential matters, how does it follow that Catholics are wrong in their interpretation?

continued…

 

[Sherlock]

Contarini:

I have said over and over that Luther thought that a person could not deliberately, persistently engage in serious sin and still have true faith–either such a person did not believe in the first place or they had chosen to turn away from Christ in order to give in to the flesh. No one has disproven my argument, and most of you simply ignore it.

How does rebellion against oppression constitute a deliberate and persistent engagement in sin? Explain, please, who decides what is and what is not a persistent and deliberate engagement in sin. Would a strike against a company over unsafe working conditions damn one to hell? If not, why not, and who decides?

Contarini:

Obviously rebellion was a serious sin in the eyes of 16th-century people. Perhaps the most serious of all sins in the eyes of the elites at least. Saying that rebels are going to hell was really a no-brainer. It was like rape or genocide today (in terms of how people viewed it).

So why, then, is Luther’s rebellion regarded favorably by Protestants, but the peasants’ rebellion is not? And regardless of what you might think of rebellious peasants ( your personal morality), did those peasants that Luther proclaimed as all going to hell, really go to hell? He seemed pretty darn sure that they were going there in a handbasket…

Contarini:

Of course the rebels didn’t think that they were rebelling against lawful authority, because they had “godly law” and in many cases also ancient customs on their side. But once you’ve identified a given act as rebellious, of course you’ve said that it’s about as evil as an act can be. Luther’s condemnation of rebellion was perfectly normal for the 16th century. Arguing that it somehow resulted from the immoral influence of his teaching is beyond absurd.
Edwin

I never said that Luther’s condemnation of rebellion was the result of the “immoral influence of his teaching”. I’m saying that his support of the brutal suppression of the peasants was personally immoral, though you claim that his “personal morality” was guilty of no more than nasty language. Also, this doesn’t make coherent sense: if rebellion was regarded as such an evil in that period, then Luther was, by his own defintion, then, a very evil man by the very act of rebelling against the Church. Oh, but wait!! It all depends on whose rebellion it is, eh? Peasants can go to hell with Luther’s condemnations hounding them all the way, but he, ah, he is to be regarded as a brave and valiant man.