Luther! Read Read!

[Steven_Merten]

Gottle of Geer:

With the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself definitively to follow the path of ecumenical research, setting herself to listen to the Spirit of the Lord. The way of ecumenism has become the way of the Church. ##

Hello Gottle of Geer,

I stand by my original post 47 and 50.

I think those who abandon Christ’s teachings and accept Luther’s opposition to Christ’s teachings in order to promote ecumenanism with Luther’s followers have done a great diservice to Christ and His Catholic people.
Steven Merten:

Hello St. Curious,

Luther quotes Jesus as his opponant. If I were a Protestant, I would want to know this. I would want to know if someone, even in my case, it would be a Pope, was leading me away from Christ.

Luther****The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live." NAB LUK 10:25**“Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life**?” Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

**"You shall love the Lord your God **
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”

NAB MAR 10:17

"Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments:

’You shall not kill;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
You shall not defraud;
Honor your father and your mother.’"

I am sure that Luther was opposing Catholic priests and monks who were out preaching Christ’s words. In so doing Luther condemned Christ’s teachings themselves.

Who did the dividing, Luther or we Catholics? Do you say that Luther never ever slammed Catholics? If he did do you reprimand your leader for his conduct as much, hopefully more, than you reprimand we Catholics at a Catholic website?

Believe it or not there still are Catholics who leave the Church for Luther’s garbage. We Catholics have an obligation to protect Catholics by showing them the true words of Jesus over Luthers perversions.

 

[Steven_Merten]

## Not just Luther:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp950712.htm

1. From the painful confrontation of this historical situation with the Gospel law of unity, the ecumenical movement arose, a movement which aims at restoring even visible unity among all Christians, “that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God” (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1). The Second Vatican Council gave the greatest importance to this movement, pointing out how it implies, for those who work for it, a communion of faith in the Trinity and in Christ, and a common longing for the one and universal Church (cf. Ibid., n. 1). But authentic ecumenical commitment likewise requires of all Christians, motivated by a sincere desire for communion, freedom from prejudices which hinder the development of the dialogue of charity in truth.

The Council formulates a differentiated judgment on the historical evolution of the separations. “Large communities” it says, "became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3). This was the initial moment of separation. Subsequently, the situation changed: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers” (ibid.).

With the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself definitively to follow the path of ecumenical research, setting herself to listen to the Spirit of the Lord. The way of ecumenism has become the way of the Church. ##

Hello Gottle of Geer,

In regards to your post 236 “## ##” rebuttle of my posts 47 and 50.

Are you saying that the Vatican II Magistierium condemns the Magistierium of Luther’s day for condemning Luther’s perversion of scriptures where he opposes Christ’s teaching to obey the commandments if we wish to enter into life? Are you saying that a modern Vicar of Christ is correcting Luther’s day Vicar of Christ on a faith and morals issue? Are you saying that now Vicars put more emphasis on ecumenanism than on faithfulness to protecting the truth of Christ’s teachings?

Luther The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."
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 LUK 10:25

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

"You shall love the Lord your God
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”

 

[Bishopite]

Catholic Dude:

I kept hearing people say that luther said this:No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.

Well I looked around and it means what it says.

I found the letter he said this HERE.
It is from a page devoted to Luther’s writings,
located HERE.

Im so happy I found it! Im saving this!
What do you think?

Yes, that would affirm Martin Luthers theological postion. He was antinomian in his theology in that he also thought that the mental assent of faith was enough faith to be saved. This is what Trent condemned as heresy, ironically, today’s Protestant would also agree with the council of Trent! Go figure.

 

[Contarini]

bishopite,

You are completely wrong in your interpretation of Luther. Luther did not think that faith was simply an intellectual assent. No Luther scholar would maintain such a thing. This is an ignorant caricature. Apparently few people on this thread are actually interested in the truth. You would rather keep your stereotype. OK, keep it.

Sorry for the anger, but I’ve spent post after post pointing out (with ample documentation) what Luther’s views actually were, and people simply ignore the evidence. Well, have your distortions if you love them so much. But you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about other Christians’ beliefs.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi,

If you quote from the catechism–I would believe it! It’s not me who is naive.

**If you seriously think that authentic quotes can’t be distorted by being taken out of context, then you are incredibly naive. Have you never read any anti-Catholic propaganda? **

**

You know these are his words–yet you choose to disbelieve them, as you have everything else the man said which has proven he wasn’t very Christian at all.

**

Please point me to one place where I have disbelieved Luther’s words. What I have done is explain carefully what he meant by them. You choose to ignore this. You choose to base your view of Luther on a few scattered quotations selected by his enemies. Yet when Protestants treat Catholicism like this, you are rightly angry. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

**I have not denied that Luther was bitterly hostile to Jews. I have challenged you to show that he was saying anything more than many people of his day said. This doesn’t justify him–that is not the issue. If you want to judge him as “not very Christian” on that basis, that’s your concern. But then, of course, you have to be ready to condemn every Catholic in history who said similar things as “not very Christian” either. I suggest that if you look into the evidence fairly, you’ll find that the cost of this may be quite high. **

Are you aware of St. Bernardino of Siena’s anti-Jewish activities, for instance?

Have you read any of St. John Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish sermons? There isn’t much to choose between Chrysostom’s rhetoric and Luther’s. Was Chrysostom also “not very Christian”?

—"Walker claims that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. He has provided no evidence for this. Why do you believe it?"

**You’re clutching at straws here—it wouldn’t matter if anyone else shared his views,-or worse if that’s possible,— they would deserve to be shown up for what they are too!

**

**I’m not clutching at straws, just trying to keep the discussion on track. You cited Walker to prove that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. That is what we are arguing about, because that’s what I’m denying. You are “clutching at straws” by trying to maneuver me into denying that Luther was anti-Jewish–which as you note would be extremely silly of me. **

**Walker said that Luther moved anti-Judaism to a new level. He has not provided any evidence of this. Yet you believe him. Why? That is what I asked, and that is what you have spectacularly failed to answer. **

 

[Contarini]

If you want to show up everyone who was anti-Jewish, why don’t you demonstrate your honesty and good will by starting with someone recognized as a saint by your own Church–St. John Chrysostom! Here are some quotes from Chrysostom’s homilies against the Jews:

**"**But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! " (Homily 1.3.2)

“Certainly it is the time for me to show that demons dwell in the synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews.” (1.6.6)

“Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast.” (1.6.7)

“Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals?” (1.6.8)

“What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.” (1.7.1)

"If a man were to have slain your son, would you endure to look upon him, or accept his greeting? Would you not shun him as a wicked demon, as the devil himself? They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof? " (1.7.5)

“For the martyrs have a special hatred for the Jews since the Jews crucified him for whom they have a special love.” Homily 6.1.7

“The man who does not have enough of loving Christ will never have enough of fighting against those who hate Christ.” Homily 7.1.1

Now are you going to say that Chrysostom wasn’t very Christian?

Despite knowing about luthers disgusting views, concerning the Jews, you’re still trying to support him. His own words condemn him for his intense dislike and prejudice against Jewish people

So what you’re saying is that because he said some nasty and repellent things, Walker has the right to attribute to him other things that he didn’t say? Truth, apparently, doesn’t matter to you.

If someone were to make a false statement about Hitler, I’d defend Hitler. I’m a historian. It’s my job to defend the truth. Your accusation that I’m “supporting” Luther when I’m simply pointing out the truth shows how little you care for plain historical truth.

**But that’s a cop-out on my part. With regard to Luther, I will defend him as a person in whom there is much to admire in spite of his faults. Just as I will also defend St. Thomas More, who persecuted Protestants viciously and was responsible for the burning of several men whom I regard as holy. **

History is a lot more complicated than you are willing to admit. The only way you can keep your picture of clear-cut heroes and villains is to shut your eyes to about nine tenths of the evidence. And I have to say you seem to be pretty good at that. So you’ll probably have a happy life.

Edwin

 

[Steven_Merten]

Contarini:

bishopite,

You are completely wrong in your interpretation of Luther. Luther did not think that faith was simply an intellectual assent. No Luther scholar would maintain such a thing. This is an ignorant caricature. Apparently few people on this thread are actually interested in the truth. You would rather keep your stereotype. OK, keep it.

Sorry for the anger, but I’ve spent post after post pointing out (with ample documentation) what Luther’s views actually were, and people simply ignore the evidence. Well, have your distortions if you love them so much. But you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about other Christians’ beliefs.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

So are you saying that Luther condemned Christ’s teaching, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” But Luther taught “you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about Luther’s beliefs”?

Can you give us quotes from Luther as to what actions, works, disobedience, conduct, which Luther did teach that Jesus will judge and condenm people to hell for committing?

Luther****The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe.Luther’s 1543 book, “On the Jews and their lies” took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God’s name. Luther wanted to “be rid of them” and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that “We are at fault in not slaying them” for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. **Hitler’s Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther’s desires to a tee

By Jim Walker.

Like this ?

"The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…
"…a criminal assembly of Jews… a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ…
"The synagogue is nigh to a curse. Obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or to hear; she has deliberately perverted her judgment: “I would say the same thing about their souls”.

The Jews "are inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil . . . debauchery and drunkenness have given them the manners of pigs and lusty goats. … The Christian’s duty is to hate the Jews.

They sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils; they outraged nature and overthrew their foundations of the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands, they murder their offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are foes of our life… … It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews. [my emphases]

It is because you shed the precious blood, that there is now no restoration, no mercy anymore, and no defense…"

Cohn Sherbok, D. The Crucified Jew, Harper Collins, London, 1992, p. 33

That, it seems, counted as sound Christian teaching.

The author is a Saint and Bishop.

To find out which Saint preached the duty of hating the Jews - thereby reversing the teaching of Christ - go to post 3 on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=7411 - and then explain how these words are any better than the worst of Luther’s words on the same subject.

IMHO, these words are worse - Lutherans do at least not regard their preachers of hatred as Saints of Christ. Unlike us

Luther did not deny entrance into religious orders to men of Jewish descent - several orders in Spain did, beyween 1490 and 1580. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

****If you seriously think that authentic quotes can’t be distorted by being taken out of context, then you are incredibly naive. Have you never read any anti-Catholic propaganda? ****

Please point me to one place where I have disbelieved Luther’s words. What I have done is explain carefully what he meant by them. You choose to ignore this. You choose to base your view of Luther on a few scattered quotations selected by his enemies. Yet when Protestants treat Catholicism like this, you are rightly angry. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

**I have not denied that Luther was bitterly hostile to Jews. I have challenged you to show that he was saying anything more than many people of his day said. This doesn’t justify him–that is not the issue. If you want to judge him as “not very Christian” on that basis, that’s your concern. But then, of course, you have to be ready to condemn every Catholic in history who said similar things as “not very Christian” either. I suggest that if you look into the evidence fairly, you’ll find that the cost of this may be quite high. **

Are you aware of St. Bernardino of Siena’s anti-Jewish activities, for instance?

Have you read any of St. John Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish sermons? There isn’t much to choose between Chrysostom’s rhetoric and Luther’s. Was Chrysostom also “not very Christian”?****

There is one major difference - one is regarded as a Saint and Doctor, the other is regarded as a heretic and schismatic.​

Is vilification of the Jews permissible, as long as one is an orthodox Catholic ? That is the implication, if one is to condemn Luther but not Chrysostom. ##

—"Walker claims that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. He has provided no evidence for this. Why do you believe it?"

**

angelmessenger:

You’re clutching at straws here—it wouldn’t matter if anyone else shared his views,-or worse if that’s possible,— they would deserve to be shown up for what they are too!

**

**I’m not clutching at straws, just trying to keep the discussion on track. You cited Walker to prove that Luther went beyond other figures of his day. That is what we are arguing about, because that’s what I’m denying. You are “clutching at straws” by trying to maneuver me into denying that Luther was anti-Jewish–which as you note would be extremely silly of me. **

**Walker said that Luther moved anti-Judaism to a new level. He has not provided any evidence of this. Yet you believe him. Why? That is what I asked, and that is what you have spectacularly failed to answer. **

IOW - let’s hear about these “other figures”. To say he went “beyond others”, is to make a comparison of Luther with others - but the comparison is meaningless, if we can’t tell what it is that those others said.​

That is why it is relevant and necessary to know what evidence Walker had for his comparison of Luther with these (unnamed & unquoted) “others”. ##

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

So are you saying that Luther condemned Christ’s teaching, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” But Luther taught “you will answer at the judgment for every idle word, and that includes uninformed, uncharitable, false statements about Luther’s beliefs”?

My post said nothing about what Luther taught on the subject. Why do you assume that I agree with Luther? Is the concept of historical fairness and accuracy totally alien to you?

BTW, in response to your earlier question, to which you now allude, I can’t find Luther teaching that believers are judged on the basis of their works. As far as I can tell, he believed that believers are covered with Christ’s righteousness at the judgment.

And like you, I think this is flatly contrary to the plain sense of Scripture. So please spare me your endlessly repeated proof-texts!

Just in case you and others have genuinely missed what I have said ad nauseam now, I’ll repeat it for the hundredth time:

Luther did not think that a person trusting in Christ would be condemned for any sin they committed while trusting in Christ.

But at the same time, Luther thought that a person trusting in Christ would sin only through the weakness of the flesh (not through deliberate choice), and would repent of any sins they did commit.

And since he did not believe in eternal security, this meant that one’s sins could influence one’s final salvation, but only indirectly.

This may be somewhat paradoxical, but it’s hardly contradictory or hopelessly obscure. I can’t avoid the conclusion that the reason so many of you are just not getting it is that you are stubbornly determined not to get it.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steven Merten:

Hello Gottle of Geer,

I stand by my original post 47 and 50.

I think those who abandon Christ’s teachings and accept Luther’s opposition to Christ’s teachings in order to promote ecumenanism with Luther’s followers have done a great diservice to Christ and His Catholic people.

FWIW - the section you quoted in post 239, was from JP2; not me.​

My apologies if that was not clear.

If there is no ecumenism, the divisions won’t improve - they will remain, or worsen.

Catholic ecumenism didn’t begin a mere 40 years ago - it goes back at least as far as the late 1600s:

societaschristiana.com/archives/000132.html

The Good Shepherd did not stay with the 99 sheep which had not strayed - He went looking for the one that was lost. Not to engage in ecumenism, would be to stay in the fold looking after the 99.

What is meant by “opposition to Christ’s teachings” ? Are we talking about really incompatible doctrines - or about doctrines commonly, but not correctly, seen as incompatible ?

Ecumenical dialogue is meant to promote better understanding of exactly these problems - then we can know where the divergences are, and (equally important) where they are not. As well as where there is agreement.

Apologetics is not going to be much good, if it’s based on an incorrect understanding of what another body of people believes. Dialogue helps, however indirectly, to improve the quality of apologetics; provided that apologists take the triouble to see what others believe, rather than relying on what they think or have been led to think that they believe. ##

 

[Steven_Merten]

## FWIW - the section you quoted in post 239, was from JP2; not me.

My apologies if that was not clear.

If there is no ecumenism, the divisions won’t improve - they will remain, or worsen.

Catholic ecumenism didn’t begin a mere 40 years ago - it goes back at least as far as the late 1600s:

societaschristiana.com/archives/000132.html

The Good Shepherd did not stay with the 99 sheep which had not strayed - He went looking for the one that was lost. Not to engage in ecumenism, would be to stay in the fold looking after the 99.

What is meant by “opposition to Christ’s teachings” ? Are we talking about really incompatible doctrines - or about doctrines commonly, but not correctly, seen as incompatible ?

Ecumenical dialogue is meant to promote better understanding of exactly these problems - then we can know where the divergences are, and (equally important) where they are not. As well as where there is agreement.

Apologetics is not going to be much good, if it’s based on an incorrect understanding of what another body of people believes. Dialogue helps, however indirectly, to improve the quality of apologetics; provided that apologists take the triouble to see what others believe, rather than relying on what they think or have been led to think that they believe. ##

Hello Micheal,

Many times Jesus warns people which sins will damn their souls to hell. Please visit WARNING! Jesus Does Not Forgive All It is important to Jesus to bring the strays back into the flock for eternal life. Jesus does not throw out the teaching that unrepentant sin is an obstical to eternal life in order to bring the strays back to His fold. The way that Jesus brings the strays back to the fold is by preaching the gospel, a way of holiness and repentance from sin.

**“opposition to Christ’s teachings” **Luther condemns Jesus teaching “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”. The Church of Luther’s day fought and condemned Luther who was leading a portion of the body of the Church away from Jesus teaching. So also should Vatican II era Church leaders if they are not. An ecumenical united body of the Church in hell is not the answer to division in the Church. Church leaders boldly preaching and protecting Jesus teaching to obey the commandments of God if they wish to enter into life is the only true path to ecumenical unity.

If Protestants truly believe that obedience to God, which is love for God, is the path to eternal life through Jesus and not some form of “faith alone” which elliminates or deephasises the importance of Christ’s teachings to obey the commandments to go to heaven through Him, then let Protestants and Catholics unite on a Joint declaration that we all agree If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luther****The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

Luther

No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.

NAB GEN 3:1

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’" **But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!..”**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.’"

 

[J.Boller]

Steve Merten, just for clarification, are you saying that there is no forgiveness if you lie or become angry, or that you should not expect it?

 

[Steven_Merten]

J. Boller:

Steve Merten, just for clarification, are you saying that there is no forgiveness if you lie or become angry, or that you should not expect it?

Had Luther repented, he could have been forgiven.

 

[J.Boller]

I didn’t mean Luther specifically. I think we all agree that without repentance there is no forgiveness.
I just got the impression from your post that there are certain sins that cannot be forgiven, but from re-reading I realise that you were talking of those who have left the Catholic Church in relation to Gottle of Geer’s post.

 

[Steven_Merten]

J. Boller:

I didn’t mean Luther specifically. I think we all agree that without repentance there is no forgiveness.
I just got the impression from your post that there are certain sins that cannot be forgiven, but from re-reading I realise that you were talking of those who have left the Catholic Church in relation to Gottle of Geer’s post.

hello J. Boller,

“No Salvation outside the Church” is another long drawn out thread. So I do not want to bring that whole ordeal into this already long thread. (not that long threads are bad, they are good, lets just not combine two long threads.) Lets deal with that on other threads devoted to the issue.

Without bringing in a lot of rebuttles on the “no salvation” theme. Even people who leave the Church can be forgiven as Luther who left the Church could have been forgiven.

It is Luther’s attacks on Christ’s teachings **If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." **which I was discussing with Gottle of Geer.

Luther The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

----“So what you’re saying is that because he said some nasty and repellent things, Walker has the right to attribute to him other things that he didn’t say? Truth, apparently, doesn’t matter to you”

It matters---- but does it matter to you?— That is my question. I also said in my previous post that it didnt matter who had said these things that they too deserved to be ‘shown up’ for what they had done.

The evidence you asked for and the truth that the views of Luther unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism read the book by William L. Shirer “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” there you will find documents which support this

God bless

Jan

 

[J.Boller]

Angelmessenger, would I be correct in assuming that you live in North America?
Granted, that is not hard to guess since the site is based in the USA, but it is also evidenced by the way you discuss the Third Reich.

I have not read Mr. Shirer’s book, but I live in a society that analyses the war every day. Do you know the dagger stab theory and do you think it was influenced by Luther’s teachings? Do you think it was more influenced by Luther’s writings than by the writings of his catholic contemporaries? Or by the Protocol of the Wise of Zion? Or by the medieval rumour that Jews poisoned the wells? Or by the rumour that they used blood in their unleavened bread? By the tale of Ahasverus?

Saying that Luther caused Hitler is like saying the Catholic Church caused Salazar, Franco and Mussolini. It didn’t, but it never spoke against them whereas I know several ministers who were freedom fighters.
This is not to say that the Catholic Church is worse in any way. But when it comes to dictators it is definately not better.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi J,

-----“This is not to say that the Catholic Church is worse in any way. But when it comes to dictators it is definately not better”

Never the Church–Some members yes. Can anyone now give me some information on St John Chrysontom. I’d like to check the information regarding his anti-Jew writings too?

God bless

Jan

 

[angelmessenger]

No J------I live in England–Jan