Martin Luther vs. The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Rather than posting a link then running away, why not at least address the post.

Is there something inaccurate or misleading there?

If so, point it out and then we can address it.

My guess is that my post is accurate which is why you won’t address it.
Click to expand...
Folks have been telling you for days that you’re OP is inaccurate, and you don’t listen.

🤷 You’re no one to run away from, just someone who doesn’t listen.
 
sandusky said:
Folks have been telling you for days that you’re OP is inaccurate, and you don’t listen.

🤷 You’re no one to run away from, just someone who doesn’t listen.
Click to expand...
Not likely, given that I just posted it yesterday!

Telling me it is inaccurate is one thing, showing me is another.

Is the quote from Luther wrong?

Is it your belief that he didn’t say it, or that he didn’t believe it?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Not likely, given that I just posted it yesterday!

Telling me it is inaccurate is one thing, showing me is another.

Is the quote from Luther wrong?

Is it your belief that he didn’t say it, or that he didn’t believe it?
Click to expand...
🤷 Read the link, or continue acting the fool; it’s your choice.
 
sandusky said:
🤷 Read the link, or continue acting the fool; it’s your choice.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you make your point if you can?

Do you deny that Luther said this or do you deny that he believed it?

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Not likely, given that I just posted it yesterday!
Click to expand...
You’re right about this thread, forgive me.

I was including the errors in the OPs of the other threads you’ve started, in which the same group of people here, were correcting you in the other threads as well. :stretcher:
 
sandusky said:
You’re right about this thread, forgive me.

I was including the errors in the OPs of the other threads you’ve started, in which the same group of people here, were correcting you in the other threads as well. :stretcher:
Click to expand...
Correcting, or criticizing? There’s a difference.🙂

Now…

Do you deny that Luther said this or do you deny that he believed it?

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Why don’t you make your point if you can?

Do you deny that Luther said this or do you deny that he believed it?
Click to expand...
From the link provided:"One such misinterpreter of Luther was Father O’Hare. Indeed, Luther’s statement “sin boldly” recieves plenty of attention in his book, The Facts About Luther. Here is an excellent example of violating exactly what Montgomery sets out above. The “sin boldly” quote is an obscure saying of Luther’s from a fragment of a letter. The letter has no address, salutation, or signature. In other words, it has no beginning or ending, thus lacking a complete context. I strongly doubt anyone besides Melanchthon was aware of this remark until many years (if not a hundred or two or three) after Luther’s death. The letter was originally part of a private collection that was published, I believe in the 1800’s. After being published, Catholic scholars (and some liberal protestant scholars) with a strong bent against Luther jumped all over it. Because Roman Catholic authors cited it out of context and blew it out proportion, common laymen (both Protestant and Catholic) were given a faulty understanding of Luther’s theology of justification by faith alone. Thus, I blame anti-Luther writings (pre-Joseph Lortz) for causing the confusion over this quote."If you’re going to disparage someone, at least be accurate in your disparagement.
 
sandusky said:
From the link provided:"One such misinterpreter of Luther was Father O’Hare. Indeed, Luther’s statement “sin boldly” recieves plenty of attention in his book, The Facts About Luther. Here is an excellent example of violating exactly what Montgomery sets out above. The “sin boldly” quote is an obscure saying of Luther’s from a fragment of a letter. The letter has no address, salutation, or signature. In other words, it has no beginning or ending, thus lacking a complete context. I strongly doubt anyone besides Melanchthon was aware of this remark until many years (if not a hundred or two or three) after Luther’s death. The letter was originally part of a private collection that was published, I believe in the 1800’s. After being published, Catholic scholars (and some liberal protestant scholars) with a strong bent against Luther jumped all over it. Because Roman Catholic authors cited it out of context and blew it out proportion, common laymen (both Protestant and Catholic) were given a faulty understanding of Luther’s theology of justification by faith alone. Thus, I blame anti-Luther writings (pre-Joseph Lortz) for causing the confusion over this quote."If you’re going to disparage someone, at least be accurate in your disparagement.
Click to expand...
Y
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
You are either a liar, OR, you have made an error.

The post you referenced has NOTHING to do with my original post. It is a response to a point made by another poster.
Click to expand...
What I posted above is from the link I’ve provided in response to your “sin boldly,” statements in your OP.
 
sandusky said:
What I posted above is from the link I’ve provided in response to your “sin boldly,” statements in your OP.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I thought you were referring to a different quote.

However, my question still stands.

Do you deny that Luther said this, do you deny that he believed it, or do you accept that he said and believed it?

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
 
The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part 1)

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part 2)

From the Roman Catholic Persective of Martin Luther (Part 1):“It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come round to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther’s person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists.”

Atkinson, James. Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: WB Eerdman’s Publishing co., 1983), 3.Live and learn. :tiphat:
 
JonNC said:
Oh, and BTW, here is something Luther did teach, in his Small Catechism:

Two questions (rhetorical) for the OP.
  1. Is this a good teaching, or should it be rejected because Luther :eek: said it?
  2. Does the intent of your thread live up to it, or is it irrelevant because Luther :eek: said it?
Click to expand...
Luther’s good teachings conform to the Church he slandered. I’m not sure why he would get credit for this.

If you want me to admit that Luther continued to believe many of the same things after the reformation as before he rejected the Church then I strongly agree.

Luther did much damage to Christianity. I think it is fair to point out his rationale and motivations.
 
sandusky said:
The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part 1)

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part 2)

From the Roman Catholic Persective of Martin Luther (Part 1):“It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come round to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther’s person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists.”

Atkinson, James. Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: WB Eerdman’s Publishing co., 1983), 3.Live and learn. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Is my criticism accurate, or scurrilous?

You have yet to comment.

I believe it is accurate.
 
CWBetts said:
I will be checking my sources later this week, and by my estimation, if I am wrong, then I have conveyed information I held to be true, a venial sin, and an error I will correct. One piece of advice: before you go around calling people liars ans whatnot, remeber what our Lord said: Let who among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Click to expand...
But I am not casting stones, I am only too aware of my weaknesses. I take no pleasure in your dishonesty and would rather you repent than burn.
 
A quote from sandusky’s links,

“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’”

If you will CHESTERTONRULES, try to set aside you feelings about Luther for the moment, muster up all the charity you can, and try to honestly answer the question, “What was the main point Luther was trying to get across with this statement?” here’s the full statement for a little more context,

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

As a warm-up, perhaps consider Luke 14:23 and reflect on whether the literal statement made by Jesus in that verse was the point He was trying to get across.
 
Sandusky,

This is how it works:
  1. Luther is dead.
  2. Luther is hated.
  3. Luther has been both dead and hated for a long enough time that a vast amount of slander and libel about him to have accumulated.
  4. Many Catholics are more interested in indulging in *odium theologicum *than in dealing justly with him.
This is very immature. The inability to disagree with someone without misrepresenting, demonizing and torturing their words is the sign of a rather puerile approach to debate,

As with much ideological bigotry, it stems, in part, from a fear that ones adversary may somehow trick him into an error or (heaven forbid) agreement. This fear is, of course, a testament to their lack of faith, or rather the unworthiness of the objects, doctrines and ideas in which they have placed their faith.
 
  1. The Catholic Church is very old.
  2. The Catholic Church is hated.
  3. Throughout history, a great variety of people using different methods have tried to destroy the Church founded by Jesus Christ. (some Emperors, some disenfranchised German monks)
  4. The Church still stands, despite the efforts of these evil men and women.I do mean EVIL. In some in the case of Nero, it is obvious. But the evil of the “Reformers” is much more subtle. The first step was to try to convince Christians that there is no authority beyond themselves. Removal of the Pope and the Magesterium simply says “I am my own Pope. I can Interperet the Holy Scriptures on my own, and no one can tell me that I am wrong.”
  5. Catholics don’t hate Martin Luther. They hate that he tried to destroy the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top