Lutheran View of Sacraments

[Tomster]

Hi Tomster: I have to agree with you. I was reading about Luther’s first translation of the NT and of all the glosses he put in the margins and also how many mistranslations there were, something like over 3500 errors. In the first edition or September of 1522 he in the margins his glosses were about how to self interpret Scriptures so that the common man could interpret it in the way that Luther wanted. later, it seems that many of the publishers and printers decided to leave out many of Luther’s comments and glosses. However, while the Bible’s of Luther were quite expensive, it helped to spread Luther’s reformation, yet, in the end people came to their own ideas of how to interpret Scripture that did not sit well for Luther. Luther also in his glosses made the Sacraments non void issue in that they were not real Sacraments but man made inventions.

Lutheranism has most definitely lost sight of the fact, due to Dr. Luther’s teachings, that the Church of Christ is the extension of Christ through time, the Incarnation, the Mystical Body of Christ. And, as we both know, there can only be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Body.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that Luther’s interpretations of Scripture was his way of trying to fine relief from his severe scrupulosity which I think very much influence his thinking. I also think that he was not well trained as a theologian and also the influence of the Humanists of the time who really did not like scholasticism and thought it antique; and out of date thinking… As for the Sacraments, it almost seems or appears that the main reason as to why he rejected them was because he felt that they did nothing for him in his continuous attempts to relieve his terrors from the scrupulosity he had, till he decided that in Romans he could make it into what he wants it to mean and so thereby relieve the terrors and fears of eternal damnation from an unjust God who had no mercy or compassion.

 

[Tomster]

Hi Tomster: Yes, I think that is correct. From all my research into Luther the man, one of the things that stand out is that Luther thought himself the only one who could interpret Scripture correctly and that the CC did not and had not for the previous 1500 years. it also seems that the more people disagreed with his interpretations and doctrines and teachings the more he reacted ion the most violent manor to those against him. Much of it seems to stem from both his early childhood upbringing and his severe scrupulosity.

I guess Jesus lied to us when He said that He would be with us until the end of time.

Ri-i-i-i-i-ght!

 

[Tomster]

It seems to me that Luther’s interpretations of Scripture was his way of trying to fine relief from his severe scrupulosity which I think very much influence his thinking. I also think that he was not well trained as a theologian and also the influence of the Humanists of the time who really did not like scholasticism and thought it antique; and out of date thinking… As for the Sacraments, it almost seems or appears that the main reason as to why he rejected them was because he felt that they did nothing for him in his continuous attempts to relieve his terrors from the scrupulosity he had, till he decided that in Romans he could make it into what he wants it to mean and so thereby relieve the terrors and fears of eternal damnation from an unjust God who had no mercy or compassion.

Yes, I have read that analysis from many historians.

As I have mentioned in a previous post on this thread, Lutherans of today are really caught up in the vertigo of primitive Lutheranism. The only remedy is for them to cross the Tiber to Rome.

It is interesting that they still consider themselves Catholic.

 

[spina1953]

I guess Jesus lied to us when He said that He would be with us until the end of time.

Ri-i-i-i-i-ght!

Hi Tomster: Yes! Jesus lied to us since we Catholic’s have been wrong all this time according to the Protestant way of thinking, because they have the real truth and have the real church and we do not. Problem with that is that most really do not know anything that the Cc teaches and only get their infor from disgruntled Catholic’s who left the Church or from those who are misinformed and from also those who are anti-Catholic. Sad really when one thinks about. Though I will say that for the most part here on CAF most Protestants are not that way, just some.

 

[spina1953]

Yes, I have read that analysis from many historians.

Hi Tomster: That seems to be the correct view from most accepted scholars and historians. There does however appears to be two Luther’s one of legend and the real one, which many hold that the legend is the real man and hero.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi Tomster: That seems to be the correct view from most accepted scholars and historians. There does however appears to be two Luther’s one of legend and the real one, which many hold that the legend is the real man and hero.

No - the real Luther who never (most likely) nailed anything to a church door, and who (probably) spent much of his time on the toilet due to his constipation is the ‘hero.’

It’s a demonstration that God’s grace can overcome the nastiest clay pot.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Toms,

Upright Protestants who have inherited the Lutheran patrimony may certainly be in possession of authentic Christian values, but the purity of these values will be compromised by them in the precise measure in which, whether in formulating them or in living them, they give way to the vertigo of the primitive Lutheran experience. And it will be safeguarded, contrariwise, in the measure in which they are freed from it by the inner power of the Holy Spirit, who breathes wheresoever He will.

Thanks for the excellent summary. I think that it is important that we explore the inconsistancies that you pointed out in the Lutheran position on the Sacraments. As you mentioned, we have seen that in Lutheran theology, the actual number of Sacraments is not all that important. Yet, I would suggest that they believe that the two that they have ‘retained’ actually ARE important to them (but not as important as they are to us). In other words, it would seem to me that to Lutherans, those two are, as you put it ‘essential’ – meaning actually important.

Possibly these two are actually important and the rest, the ‘lesser five’ are ‘optional’? I’m sure that I am misrepresenting the Lutheran position here, but that is because I cannot fathom thinking that the number of Sacraments is unimportant. It reminds me of the antilogemnia, which does ‘not compute’ for me either.

As we know, Luther originally taught a very radical version of the ‘priesthood of all believers’.

“**Such a view (about the priesthood of all believers) was fraught with far-reaching consequences for the theory of the Church, and Luther’s own view of the Church was derivative from his theory of the Sacraments. His deductions, however, were not clear-cut in this area, because his view of the Lord’s Supper pointed in one direction and his view of baptism in another. That is why he could be at once to a degree the Father of the congregationism of the Anabaptists and of the territorial church of the later Lutherans.” **Bainton, pg. 130

In fact, as we will learn, early in his Revolt against the Church, Luther’s thoughts on the Sacraments were extremely muddled, which of course does not inspire confidence that he was right in his doctrinal challenges of Church teaching.

God Bless You Toms, Topper