LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Stories of resistance by anyone during WWII are amazing and inspiring. I’m aware of this inspiring man’s story. He was, however, the exception to the rule.

It’s always important to keep a clear look out for those that are “exceptions to the rule”. I am in awe of those who who stand up for the truth in difficult life threatening situations. Dietrich Bonhoeffer really was a “Lutheran” pastor!

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Hadoque]

deb1;

I doubt very seriously that the film went into Martin Luther’s strong antisemiticism.

Yeah, and I am sure you are aware of the Catholic church embracing of the NAZI-regime as early as in 1933 when Pope Pius XII was head of the Catholic church? And it went on until Europe was released from the Nazis. The Catholic church knew how Nazi-Germany treated the jews and did NOTHING.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

I guess that you see and understand what you WANT to see or understand.

Hadoque

 

[Hadoque]

Eden

I genuinely started out my questions about Luther with an attempt to understand him and what Protestants believe. The further I got into his works, the more it strengthened my faith that the Catholic Church is the one true faith! I regret that it may not have been your purpose but without your counterpoints, I would not have had the impetus to find out more. Thank you for that.

I don´t think anyone wants to convert you but I think it would be good for you and other Catholics to understand what state the Church was in when Luther opposed it. And you also have to understand that religion is something you are brought up with and in my country we were not allowed to confess to any other religion but the Lutheran faith until only 60 years ago.

As a Christian people should try to understand what background you come from and not question their beliefs. Would Jesus call a person who truthfully confess to him a sinner, just because he was born in a country were Lutheran faith was mandatory?

Some people on this board are so naive and ignorant that they seem to think that we Lutherans are brought up neutral and then make our standpoints. You Catholics are not brought up neutral either. You are never taught about how sinful and political the papacy was when Luther opposed it. Give us some slack, we are Christians too.

Hadoque

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hadoque:

deb1;

Yeah, and I am sure you are aware of the Catholic church embracing of the NAZI-regime as early as in 1933 when Pope Pius XII was head of the Catholic church? And it went on until Europe was released from the Nazis. The Catholic church knew how Nazi-Germany treated the jews and did NOTHING.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

I guess that you see and understand what you WANT to see or understand.

Hadoque

that’s got to be the most uneducated thing i’ve ever heard. Jewish leaders all over the world have praised Pius XII and the church for what they did for the Jews during WWII. The number of Jews saved by the church in Europe is estimated at anywhere from 700,000-860,000. Albert Einstein himself said that no organization in the world did more to help the Jews than the Catholic church. When the Nazis threatened to arrest a number of Jews in Rome unless they payed them a certain amount of money, the head Rabbi of Rome went to the Vatican after not being able to raise enough money. Pius XII gave him the rest of what he needed. Pius XII also hid around 5,000 Jews in the city of Rome itself. There were also 3,000,000 Polish Catholics killed in the concentration camps during the course of the war…is that something the church would support too?
Rome’s head Rabbi converted to Catholicism after the war because Pius XII had interested him in the church by his actions towards the Jews and got him looking into it. Also, during the war it was illegal to be a semenarian and John Paul II lived in the bishop’s house in Poland (just miles from Aushwitz where he saw numerous childhood friends being taken off to) so he wouldnt be sent there himself. Are you familiar with St. Maximillian Kolbe? Read about him and his time in the concentration camp (he was a Catholic priest). Any time the pope spoke out against the Nazis they would retaliate by killing more Jews, not to mention the fact that the gestapo completely surrounded the Vatican and was waiting for any excuse to invade and try to set up a puppet pope. Pius XII had his resignation already written if that happened so they couldnt try to use him.
On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis “are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.” It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.
Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ "

But I’m sure you were already aware of all this and not just believing what you wanted to.

 

[Eden]

Hadoque:

deb1;

Yeah, and I am sure you are aware of the Catholic church embracing of the NAZI-regime as early as in 1933 when Pope Pius XII was head of the Catholic church? And it went on until Europe was released from the Nazis. The Catholic church knew how Nazi-Germany treated the jews and did NOTHING.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

I guess that you see and understand what you WANT to see or understand.

Hadoque

You don’t speak to the issue directly you deflect it onto the pope.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1sb.asp

 

[Eden]

Hadoque:

Eden

I don´t think anyone wants to convert you but I think it would be good for you and other Catholics to understand what state the Church was in when Luther opposed it. And you also have to understand that religion is something you are brought up with and in my country we were not allowed to confess to any other religion but the Lutheran faith until only 60 years ago.

As a Christian people should try to understand what background you come from and not question their beliefs. Would Jesus call a person who truthfully confess to him a sinner, just because he was born in a country were Lutheran faith was mandatory?

Some people on this board are so naive and ignorant that they seem to think that we Lutherans are brought up neutral and then make our standpoints. You Catholics are not brought up neutral either. You are never taught about how sinful and political the papacy was when Luther opposed it. Give us some slack, we are Christians too.

Hadoque

Hello Hadoque!

I neglected to mention in the post above that it’s nice to see you on this forum. I’m very grateful for the counterpoints which Protestant posters provide. But you will notice that this is a Catholic forum and so you will most often see responses from a Catholic perspective. I just wanted to point that out so you are not surprised. Despite that, we all welcome respectful opinions from people of other faiths. I indicated very clearly that* I* was interested in learning what Lutherans believed and how they reached that conclusion. So, I don’t see where the issue of conversion arose in this thread.

Rather than explaining to me why God gave Luther the authority to speak for him or responding to the interview for the book “The Holy Reich” which postulates that Luther’s ideas made the rise of Nazism possible in Germany, you deflect back onto the pope and the corruption in the Church at that time. If you’d like to discuss the Catholic Church and the Nazi era we could always start a new thread.

 

[Eden]

Thank you, James! As always you’ve given me a lot to think about. I’ll give your links and suggestions careful consideration and come back to you when I have an opinion to share or questions to ask.

 

[Eden]

Eden:

You don’t speak to the issue directly you deflect it onto the pope. Yes, anti-Cs definitely would like to make Catholics culpable for everything.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1sb.asp

 

[Eden]

More links to counter Hadoque’s claim that Pope Pius XII was in cahoots with the Nazis:

catholic.com/library/how_plus_xii_protected_jews.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1.asp

 

[INRI]

TertiumQuid:

Luther understood that the primary message of the Bible was clear enough that even a child could understand it (as do I).

I’m sorry, but there is no statement in the world that is more verifiably false as this one. It is quite literally laughable. You were doing so well there TertiumQuid, I would hate to have you stumble on something like this. What seems crystal clear to you is only that way because someone has made it crystal clear for your. You are reading the text with pre-selected “Protestant Glasses”. You and I both know that you could select proof texts that seem to support your version, and I could find ones that support my version of the Truth. We could even make a case that the Bible that refutes Jesus’s divinity! The Arians certainly did. The reason we have so much division in the body of Christ is that the message of the Bible seems clear, but the devil is in the details, so to speak.

This is the point at which the Protestant case always founders for me. It makes the assertion that the Bible is so clear on such-and-such a point, but then one can find a Protestant group that believes just the opposite! And not just on minor things either, on the biggies like how we obtain our salvation, or if we can lose our salvation!

That’s why the Catholic Church is so big on what we call Sacred Tradition, that our " reading glasses" are in line what the Apostles and the Church throughout the ages has understood about the scriptures, not just our private interpretation. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel every generation. Especially in the evangelical non-denom world, how many different times in different places does some pastor somewhere decide he’s going to structure his church on the Book of Acts, and then goes ahead and reconstructs some mishmash of Baptist/Presbyterian assumptions that only go back to the 16th century at the earliest. If I may make an analogy, Protestantism is like cut flowers, there’s no roots that go deeper than Martin Luther.

As i’ve mentioned previously, for Luther, the chief channel of bringing the Word to people was the office of the Pastor. God selects and calls specific individuals to lead His people in their gathering around the Word for their saving use of it. Luther was certain that God had singled out certain individuals for certain “horizontal” tasks. They were called to be leaders of the congregation so that the Word of God might proceed in orderly fashion.
Luther had greater faith than I thought!
Luther felt the pastoral office and priesthood of all believers was not to be played off against each other.
I’m not sure how the Catholic ordained priesthood is “played off” against the priesthood of all believers. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Our status as priests is chiefly a matter of our vertical relationships. The status of pastors is chiefly a matter of the horizontal relationship with God.
Horizontal relationship with God? Would you care to rephrase your remarks?
Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

James- Thank you so much for the links. The information will be useful as we move into the heart of the theological differences once we establish the basis of Luther’s authority.

Let’s start at the beginning. Do Lutherans believe that that Martin Luther spoke from his own opinion or do they believe that he was given the authority by God to speak His design? The theological points in Luther’s texts are not relevent until this question is answered. Because, of course, unless Luther had the authority from God, every thing that came from Luther’s mouth or pen was of Luther’s design. I believe that your answer previously was that “yes” Luther was speaking for God. Correct me if I am wrong. In a concise sentence or two could you explain how that authority was conferred upon him?

 

[Eden]

Hadoque:

Eden

I don´t think anyone wants to convert you but I think it would be good for you and other Catholics to understand what state the Church was in when Luther opposed it. And you also have to understand that religion is something you are brought up with and in my country we were not allowed to confess to any other religion but the Lutheran faith until only 60 years ago.

Some people on this board are so naive and ignorant that they seem to think that we Lutherans are brought up neutral and then make our standpoints. You Catholics are not brought up neutral either.** You are never taught about how sinful and political the papacy was when Luther opposed it.** Give us some slack, we are Christians too.

Hadoque

I realized that I did not address everything that I meant to in your post.I am sorry to hear that your countrymen were forced to confess to the Lutheran faith. What country is that? I assume from your signature it is Scandanavian. You are right. I did not realize there were countries in which Lutheranism was mandatory. However, you are incorrect when you say that I was never taught about the religious atmosphere and corruption in Luther’s time. I grew up in a Protestant nation- the U.S. The Protestant perspective on Catholics is “mainstream”.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Everybody,

I’m not a regular here at this forum (nor do I intend to be). I actually came here looking for this quote from John Henry Newman , and couldn’t resist this interesting thread. So, I’m going to be limiting my comments to this one thread, as my schedule is quite busy. This discussion has gotten a little “big” for me, so I decided it was best to go back and try to catch some of the things I let go by. I do appreciate the demeanor of many of you. I have jokingly referred to this thread as “Tertiumquid vs. 100 Catholics”. If you’ve directed any comments toward me in this thread, I’ll try to get to them eventually.

Some of you who know me, know I’m a stickler for footnotes and references, particularly with Luther. I try as much as possible to cite my sources in all my papers (many of which are contained in the link below my name). I also try (as much as possible!) to cite Luther according to the English edition of Luther’s Works, so any of you who want to, can actually read Luther in context to satisfy your own curiosity, or make sure I’ve cited Luther fairly and accurately (many good college libraries have Luther’s works). Also I utilize the popular anthology, What Luther Says. It is a great trustworthy source of Luther quotes.

Now earlier in this thread Malachi4U posted a bunch of Luther quotes without any references. I refer to this method as “hit and run” Luther quotations. Contexts are never given; references are either lacking, bogus, or referring to hard-to-get German sources. It’s the ol’ “cut and paste” Internet scholarship, of which I grow so weary. Before I let those quotes that Malachi4U posted simply go by, I’d like to look a little closer at this Luther quote he offered:

Malachi4U:

“The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”

This quote does not appear in the 55 volume English edition of Luther’s Works. I also did a google search and got about 67 hits. Of the 40 or so I looked at, none of them provided a context. Many of them did though provide a reference: Works 12.94. This reference is most likely to the German Weimar edition of Luther’s Works.

My next method of tracking down suspicious anti-Luther quotes is to consult the negative polemical books written by Roman Catholics about Luther. Sure enough, I found this quote (still without a context though) In Luther Vol. III by the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar. He cites the quote, and then goes on to say,

“By this statement, which so easily lends itself to misunderstanding, Luther does not mean to put women in the alternative of choosing either marriage or vice. In another passage of the same writing he says distinctly, what he repeats also elsewhere: “It is certain that He [God] does not create any woman to be a prostitute.” Still it is undeniable that in the above passage, in his recommendation of marriage, he allows himself to be carried away to the use of untimely language.”

Source: Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. III (St. Loius: B. Herder Book Co., 1919), 243.

Grisar’s discussion at this point has to do with Luther’s views of Marriage and Celibacy. Grisar understands Luther to repudiate celibacy, and presents many Luther citations attempting to prove that Luther over-stated the human desire for sex- that’s how the quote in question is being used in his biography. By quoting Luther saying, “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes,” I can guess that Luther must have been discussing human sexual desires, and exhorting people to marry.

Tangentially, I think Grisar is mistaken in his belief that Luther repudiated celibacy. Luther held that humans **by their own strength ** are unable to achieve true chasteness. Rather, complete chastity is a gift of God. Luther thus strongly advocated marriage! For anyone interested in learning more about Hartmann Grisar’s work on Luther, I did an overview of his work here:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

“Be a sinner and sin vigorously… Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed.”

This is another “hit and run” Luther quote (where contexts are never given; references are either lacking, bogus, or referring to hard-to-get German sources).

In this case, Luther the “antinomian” is presented. The quote above suggests that Luther did not believe in sanctification, or attempting to live a holy life pleasing to God. Such is far from the truth. Luther continually exhorted the people to abstain from sin, and to perform good works.

This quote is from LW 48:282. It is from “A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon” Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521. At the very end of the letter, Luther says,

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious31 sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “Passages such as this were misunderstood and used as main arguments against Luther. Luther was interpreted as encouraging laxity and licentiousness.”

Catholic scholar Heinrich Denifle had made popular the notion that Luther simply invented his doctrine of justification to excuse sinful behavior, thus Denifle spent considerable time painting Luther as a gross sinner. Later Catholic scholars saw past Denifle’s rhetoric and distorted facts and correctly saw that Luther never denied good works or holy living. Rather good works are the way in which faith expresses itself. For instance, Cathoic scholar F. Kiefl corrected "Denifle, maintaining that Luther’s doctrine of justification implied works as a fruit of justification, and that Luther was no libertine seeking excuses for low morality. He made the important point that Luther never sought to replace dogma by religious feeling” [Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, 21].

Sadly, many internet-savvy Roman Catholics unknowingly still follow Denifle’s argument, and frequently misuse Luther’s “sin boldly” statement, attempting to portray Luther as a gross antinomian. A simple reading of Luther’s context for this statement, as well as explaining Luther’s fundamental distinction between law and gospel, usually silences the argument. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther’s rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points” [Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 29].

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

I’ll answer my own question “Why did Luther have the authority to speak for God?”

Lutherans would likely say, "He didn’t have the authority directly from God. Luther tapped into a universal truth."

Please correct me if this is the wrong Lutheran answer.

If it is the correct answer, it leads one to ask, “**Is this not in direct contradiction to Jesus Himself; this idea that one does not need authority to speak for the Holy Spirit but that one may tap into a “universal truth”?” **

---

Why would Luther’s belief in the “universal truth” be contradictory to Jesus Christ’s own teachings?

"The only alternative to organized religion is disorganized religion

It was very important to Jesus that his Church be unified. In fact, that was part of his last prayer in the Gospel of John (see John 17). In order to ensure that His people would believe and work as one Jesus started a structured Church. Right from the first days of Christianity we can see that the Church Jesus founded had structure. It was organized. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are all mentioned in the Bible and in countless writings from the early Church.

Jesus set aside 12 men as Apostles to lead the Church (John 15:16, 20:21, Luke 22:29-30). Those Apostles appointed other men to lead the Church in the same capacity as they as the Church grew, and to replace them as they died. We call these men “bishops”. (See the ordination of Matthias in Acts 1. Bishops are also mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:1, and in Titus 1:5.) Every Bishop today could trace back their authority to one of the 12 apostles.

Over those 12 apostles Jesus appointed one head honcho, Peter, thus giving further structure and unity to His Church. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom”. In biblical terms, “keys” = authority (see Isaiah 22:22). Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Peter’s God given authority was passed down to our present day Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Bishop of Rome. **That passed on authority to govern the Church is called “Apostolic succession.” **

The Magesterium, that is, the Bishops united with the pope – much like the Apostles united with Peter, have the authority to give us the “final word” on matters of Faith and morals. When there is a debate about scripture, the Magesterium has the final word.

We can see this in action in Acts 15. There was a debate among Christians. The apostles (bishops) gathered to discuss it. **Peter (pope) gave the final word, and then “the whole assembly fell silent.” **Acts 15:12

What happens when you deny that Jesus founded a structured Church with people appointed to lead us with His authority? Since Luther started the protestant reformation, Protestants have started a new church almost every time they disagree about some big issue. Today there are almost 30,000 Christian denominations as a result - all disagreeing about certain things and all claiming that they base their beliefs on the Bible. There is no one to give a final word to make “the whole assembly…silent”.

 

[Eden]

(CONT’D)

Is that what Jesus had in mind when he prayed that we would all be one? I think not. Yet that is what you get when you have no organized religion…you get disorganized religion."

**If Luther believed that he had the authority to speak for God from the idea of “universal truth” only; he was in direct conflict with Jesus’ design Himself. **

In the opening of his epistle Peter identifies himself as an apostle, and from the end of the epistle he reveals agreement with Paul’s epistles and teaching (2 Pet. 3:15). Paul is clear that **the authority of the apostles comes from the Lord himself **(1 Cor. 11:23) for the foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20, 4:11). Peter agrees with Paul that the commands are “given by the Lord himself through your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2).

Paul links the ministry of the apostles with the ministry of the prophets. As the prophets were divinely inspired and spoke the express word of God (Num. 11:25, Ezek. 1:3), so **Peter and Paul’s inspiration was direct from God through Christ **(Gal.1:1). It was Peter and the apostles who first received the **direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit **at Pentecost (Acts 1:23–2.4), an event prophesied by Joel (Joel 2:28–32).

Peter also sees that the ministry of the apostles succeeds the ministry of the prophets when he says, “I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2). This supports his earlier words in 1 Peter 1:10–12, where he said the message first given by the prophets “has now been told . . . by those who have preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”—i.e., the apostles.

In fact, the whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles. Second Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.

He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).

Because of this it is Peter who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Just as the gospel does not consist of “cleverly invented fables,” so the interpretation of Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). As the false prophets spoke out of their own imagination,** so the Greek word for “private” in verse 20 of chapter 1 means “out of your own head.” It is the familiar opposite of “authoritative” or “inspired.”** So we can conclude that Peter viewed his own interpretation of Scripture as authoritative and inspired.

CONCLUSION: How can the idea of a “universal truth” be supported theologically? The Catholic Church has protected the “deposit of faith” that was passed down to us from the apostles for 2,000 years. Scripture warned us that false prophets would appear; which ironically Luther quoted to describe the Catholic clergy as the wolves! The burden of proof as to who is the “false prophet” falls on Luther by showing why he had the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. I’ve given the evidence as to why the Catholic Church has the authority. What is Luther’s foundation for speaking with authority?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

^ Amen!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

I shall leave you with a few quotes. Do you know which of the so called great reformers said them?….

“Either God must be unjust, or you, Jews, wicked and ungodly. You have been, about fifteen hundred years, a race rejected of God.”

Here’s another “hit and run” Luther quote from Malachi4U. The quote is a poor consolidation of a much longer passage from an older version of Luther’s Tabletalk. The passage is actually a description of Luther arguing with two rabbi’s, who converted to Christianity after being unable to respond to Luther’s argumentation.

Here is the quote, with the sections Malachi4U used:

Either God must be unjust, or you, Jews, wicked and ungodly; for ye have been in misery and fearful exile, a far longer time than ye were in the land of Canaan. Ye had not the Temple of Solomon more than three hundred years, while ye have been hunted up and down above fifteen hundred. At Babylon ye had more eminence than at Jerusalem, for Daniel was a greater and more powerful prince at Babylon than either David or Solomon at Jerusalem. The Babylonian captivity was unto you only a fatherly rod, but this last punishment was your utter extermination. You have been, above fifteen hundred years, a race rejected of God, without government, without laws, without prophets, without temple. This argument ye cannot solve; it strikes you to the ground like a thunderclap; ye can show no other reason for your condition than your sins. The two rabbis, struck to the heart, silenced, and convinced, forsook their errors, became converts, and the day following, in the presence of the whole university at Wittenberg, were baptized Christians.The Jews hope that we shall join them, because we teach and learn the Hebrew language, but their hope is futile. Tis they must accept of our religion, and of the crucified Christ, and overcome all their objections, especially that of the alteration of the Sabbath, which sorely annoys them, but twas ordered by the apostles, in honor of the Lord’s resurrection.

Source: biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/L/LUTHER/TABLE_TA/TABLE_45.HTM

It’s important to remember what Luther’s Tabletalk actually is. It is not a book written by Luther. Rather, these utterances are supposed things Luther said written down by his friends and students. Multiple versions of the Tabletalk have appeared in the last few hundreds of years. They differ from one another in content. The problem is, not everything that has been included in the Tabletalk over the years are authentic statements from Luther.

This passage is not in the current 55 volume English edition of Luther’s Works, which makes me a little suspicious as to its authenticity. The editors sifted through the Tabletalks looking for the most authentic utterances. On the other hand, if this description of the debate is accurate, it isn’t such a bad thing. Luther argues that the misery of the Jewish people comes from their rejection of Christ. Indeed, I have many friends who’s lives are miserable due to such a rejection.

So far I have been through four of the quotes given by Malachi4U. So far, none of the quotes I have looked at give me faith in his ability to cite Luther.

Again, my apologies to those of you who have asked me questions in this thread in the last few days. Time allowing (after my review of Malachi4U’s Luther research) I will respond to them.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

(The parts in italics are quotes from TertiumQuid’s response to my last posts above that were answered on the thread “The Name Lutheran”)

This is unnecessary quibbling*.*

The unnecessary quibbling is over the theology of Luther. He was not an authority chosen by the Holy Spirit to disseminate his word, he was a “false prophet” speaking “out of his head”. I see nothing in your response to my last posts above that you posted on the thread “The Name Lutheran” that disputes this. Jesus gave us **ONE **Church here on earth. It is either the Catholic Church or Luther’s Church:

**"The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822) **

Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but *one *spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant." (Piller of Fire, Pillar of Truth)

I noted that Luther was ordained a Doctor of Theology* via the Roman Catholic Church.** He was given the right to speak for God (in terms of teaching). He was also a minister, and was ordained by the Roman Catholic Church to speak for God (in the sense of preaching). When someone came to Luther for confession, and he pronounced “you are absolved”- who absolved them? Luther, the church, or God? *

He was given the right to speak for God- through the Catholic Church’s authority bestowed upon it by the Holy Spirit with “Apostolic Succession”. Luther has no authority on his own outside the Church. “Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, ‘He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me’ (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.”
Luther had no authority outside the Church as an ex-President has no authority outside the office of the presidency.

When Luther rejected the Church, he rejected the authority to administer Penance from the Holy Spirit. "Jesus gave his apostles power and authority to reconcile us to the Father. They received Jesus’ own power to forgive sins when he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’(John 20:22–23).

Paul notes that ‘all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . So, we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us’ (2 Cor. 5:18–20). Through confession to a priest, God’s minister, we have our sins forgiven, and we receive grace to help us resist future temptations." (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth)

*For Luther, the chief channel of bringing the Word to people was the office of the Pastor. God selects and calls specific individuals to lead His people in their gathering around the Word for their saving use of it. *Luther was certain that God had singled out certain individuals for certain “horizontal” tasks. They were called to be leaders of the congregation so that the Word of God might proceed in orderly fashion.

Orderly fashion? What about the 30K+ Churches who broke away from the Catholic Church reflects “order”? Again this is one man’s interpretation of God’s design and he has no established authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. He is again “speaking out of his own head”.

Of course, I grant that “wolves” will be among the church leaders- recall how Athanasius has to stand against a majority of them, while he held to the truth against packs of wolves.

St. Athanasius is among many who preserved the “deposit of faith” during the heretical rise of Arianism. Jesus told us he would protect his Church (his bride) until the Second Coming and he has. Luther was a “wolf” among the clergy.

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

Not sure why “Fundamentalists” have joined our discussion. Luther believed in one church that is visible and invisible, as do I.

Fundamentalists are just one more off-shoot of the off-shoot known as “Lutheran”. Jesus referred to His ONE Church as his bride. His bride is the Church on earth. What is that ONE Church? “The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).” (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth)

Luther lists the marks in order that people will be able to identify the church.

These are Luther’s marks “out of his head”. “If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth) catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Quibbling? You have not established Luther’s authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. You have not answered my statement that the idea of “universal truth” is in direct opposition to Jesus’ own design of authority in His Church. The only quibbling I see is in discussing the details of one man’s theology which came “out of his head”.