Martin Luther

[rr1213]

Yeah, let’s just see what Protestant influences achieved in America…a Constitution which hundreds of years ago guaranteed the rights of minority religions, primarily Catholics and Jews at that time, to worship their faith as they conscience dictates, a Constitution which explicitly forbid religious tests in order to hold Federal Office.

That was the Enlightenment not the Reformation. Nice try.

In 1789, the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant and overwhelmingly devout. You want to blame Protestant theology for the treatment of Native Americans but want to deny Protestant influence on the Constitution. It doesn’t work that way. Moreover, the influences of the Englightenment at the time were predominately postitive as well, notwithstanding the Catholic Church’s unwillingness to recognize the fact for another 200 years.

 

[rr1213]

Yeah, let’s just see what Protestant influences achieved in America…a Constitution which hundreds of years ago guaranteed the rights of minority religions, primarily Catholics and Jews at that time, to worship their faith as they conscience dictates, a Constitution which explicitly forbid religious tests in order to hold Federal Office. A nation which, despite its terrible treatment of Blacks and Native Americans, was nonetheless more free 230 years ago than most Catholic nations were just 70 years ago.

I guarantee you that if Catholics were as predominant in the United States in 1789 as Protestants actually were, this country would not have enacted a Constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

What? History too embarrassing for you? Grasping at straws now? Predictable.

Nice, resorting to ad hominum attacks already without addressing the substance of what I posted at all. The facts are that the Catholic Church has come to grips with democracy and free societies only recently and very reluctantly. See Syllabus of Errors:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

As a result, the only Catholic nation during the time frame of the American Constitution that even tried to put into place the guarantees of freedom set forth in the American Constitution was France and, as we know, they blew it big time.

Here’s a challenge for you if you’re so conversant with historical fact, identify for me a Catholic nation in the 1790s that was as free as the United States. Identify me a Catholic nation in the 1850s that was as free as the United States. Heck, identify me a Catholic nation ***in the 1850s ***that was as free as the United States in the 1790s.

 

[rr1213]

I have read them. The point is not what was written in the 95 Thesis. The point is what the 95 Thesis covered up. The destruction. The bloodshed. The forced conversions. The land theft. And all the long litany of nonsensical political ambitions subscribed to by Luther and his nationalist friends.

 

[Vaclav]

I wonder if Martin Luther could imagine the arguments he would inspire over four centuries later?

As a former Lutheran who converted to Catholicism, I might can help with some of this, or perhaps make it worse!

First, I think Luther’s view on the Jews should be taken into account. Remember that this view might startle us in 2007, but it was not so unique in the 16th century. Luther may have represented a more militant viewpoint than some, but “the Jewish Question” was considered a real issue in those times. We cannot forget that three successive Popes created Jewish ghettoes in Rome and surrounding Italian cities in the 16th Century as well.

That does not make their actions, or Luther’s suggestions right! Please don’t get me wrong. My point is just that Luther reflected the times (and accented them as well) in which he lived in regards to what was a very anti-Semitic time in Europe.

Second, Luther really did believe in the significance of and the important place of Our Lady. I don’t know where and why that became pushed away by later Lutherans. My former church was more of a “high church” community and we did say the Ave Maria around Christmas, but only then. My mom always hated that and considered that to be mariolatry.

Third, not all Lutherans agree on how important Luther’s personal writings are to the Lutheran faith. No Lutherans today would ever agree with Luther’s views on Judaism (OK, there may be some nutter out there that might, but those types can exist in any large group).

Fourth, it is ludicrous to claim that Protestants make a better nation than Catholics. I can point out numerous examples of each that were (or are) abysmal failures in some manner or another. Of course Nazi Germany is an example of how a nation of both Protestants and Catholics committed horrible atrocities on humanity - so can we end that silly argument?

Five, Luther was a dynamic person with a passion for what he believed. I don’t agree with his theology, but I do think he prepared the 95 Theses with good intentions.

On the whole I think Lutheranism was far less destructive a theology and philosophy than Calvinism. There remains a lot of possibilities to open dialogue with Lutherans and Anglo-Catholics in my humble opinion.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Ani Ibi;2284342:

Oh hogwash. Luther penned the 95 Theses in 1517 at the very beginning of his career as a Reformer. They covered up nothing but, instead, exposed the abuses of the Catholic Church in Germany and elsewhere with respect to the sale of indulgences in order to finance the reconstruction of St. Peters. All of the other stuff that you accuse Luther of, only some of which was true, came later after he was excomunicated by the Church in 1520.

They are all about indulgences. From the tone, they cannot have been the first such discussion of the subject, though they were the document that became the cause celebre.

On that subject, Luther was substantially but not entirely correct. The system had degenerated and turned into an abuse, and was in need of reform. However Luther was dealing with forces of which he was unaware - the rising power of the nation state and of the bourgeoise. So there is a kind of anivety in his complaints. His opinons were determined by the economic conditions in which he was in, which made expensive international churches and thing of the past.

 

[Angainor]

A question for our Lutheran friends:

Do modern Lutherans embrace the entirety of Luther’s thought and writings without apology or are there some doctrines (and diatribes) that you now distance yourself from?

That is easy. These are the doctrines Lutherans (modern or otherwise) embrace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Oh hogwash.

Not a hekkuva lot else left to say, huh? Really persuasive.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Nice, resorting to ad hominum attacks.

An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person rather than a criticism against what the person says. You haven’t said anything.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In 1789, the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant and overwhelmingly devout. You want to blame Protestant theology for the treatment of Native Americans…

And what is it that you are doing? It seems that you are overlooking parts of history inconvenient to the cause of Protestantism.

 

[rr1213]

Not a hekkuva lot else left to say, huh? Really persuasive.

Nah, that was just shorthand for my opinion of the matter. The rest of my post–the good stuff–was as follows:

Luther penned the 95 Theses in 1517 at the very beginning of his career as a Reformer. They covered up nothing but, instead, exposed the abuses of the Catholic Church in Germany and elsewhere with respect to the sale of indulgences in order to finance the reconstruction of St. Peters. All of the other stuff that you accuse Luther of, only some of which was true, came later after he was excomunicated by the Church in 1520.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/…inetyfive.html

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Yes, the corrupt nature of certain Church leaders at the time was, indeed, a contributing factor to the resulting schism

No one will deny that certain Chuch officials were out of line. However, the Church fixed that. Did Luther and the Reformers come out of the cold? Noooooo.

Schism had nothing – absolutely nothing to do with the misdeeds of certain Church officials. Schism had to do with the personal ambitions of nationalist landgrabbers with Luther at the helm all the way.

 

[rr1213]

An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person rather than a criticism against what the person says. You haven’t said anything.

I’ve said plenty…you’re just not reading it.

 

[Angainor]

Quotes from Martin Luther

On Doctrinal Divisions - the “Fruit” of Sola Scriptura

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.)

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)

On Receiving the Bible from the Catholic Church

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Commentary on St. John, ch. 16)

What are you trying to say? Do you disagree with Luther about these points?

On adding the word “alone” to the Bible

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word “alone” is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

Creative use of ellipses sigh.

If you are interested in the context, it can be found here.

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

 

[rr1213]

And what is it that you are doing? It seems that you are overlooking parts of history inconvenient to the cause of Protestantism.

I don’t think that my paragraph length post even hinted at being a comprehensive history of the United States or of Protestantism.

Nonethless, I’ll bite…

What “parts of history inconvenient to the cause of Protestantism” have I overlooked?

 

[rr1213]

Schism had nothing – absolutely nothing to do with the misdeeds of certain Church officials. Schism had to do with the personal ambitions of nationalist landgrabbers with Luther at the helm all the way.

Another historical misperception. The Reformation was successful for three main reasons: (i) widespread disgust with various corruptions within the Catholic Church hiearchy (which may, or may not, have been subsequently addressed by the counter-reformation), (ii) the appeal of the doctrinal reformations, or changes if you will, that were espoused by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, (iii) the desire of the Germanic Princes of the Holy Roman Empire to be out from under the rule of the Emperor, and (iv) the printing press. Yes, I know that’s four reasons…

 

[SPH1]

Yeah, let’s just see what Protestant influences achieved in America…a Constitution which hundreds of years ago guaranteed the rights of minority religions, primarily Catholics and Jews at that time, to worship their faith as they conscience dictates, a Constitution which explicitly forbid religious tests in order to hold Federal Office. A nation which, despite its terrible treatment of Blacks and Native Americans, was nonetheless more free 230 years ago than most Catholic nations were just 70 years ago.

I guarantee you that if Catholics were as predominant in the United States in 1789 as Protestants actually were, this country would not have enacted a Constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

Take a gander at the Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate. Obviously not all Protestants fit your bill.

(NOTE: Most USA Presbyterians have changed the WCF to eliminate or restate Chapter XXIII, as otherwise it would obviously go against the US Constitution.)

freechurch.org/resources/confessions/westminster.htm

CHAP. XXIII. - Of the Civil Magistrate.

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

 

[LutheranDK]

I disagree.

I don’t care if you agree with what’s true or not…

 

[LutheranDK]

A question for our Lutheran friends:

Do modern Lutherans embrace the entirety of Luther’s thought and writings without apology or are there some doctrines (and diatribes) that you now distance yourself from?

If the latter, what are these and why do you disavow them today?

Thanks in advance.

Thank you for that question

I think it should be clear by now that I, and the Lutheran churches of the world with me, am appalled by some of Luther’s ramblings about the Jewish people.

Luther was not infallable, he was a man, and man can err.

I do, however, believe that Luther made some essential rediscoveries of the teachings of Scripture, as I have explained earlier.
And I don’t see a problem in filtering out the ramblings of the old and bitter Luther, while accepting the truths the young monk rediscovered for the good of Christendom. Hopes this helps.

 

[rr1213]

Take a gander at the Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate. Obviously not all Protestants fit your bill.

(NOTE: Most USA Presbyterians have changed the WCF to eliminate or restate Chapter XXIII, as otherwise it would obviously go against the US Constitution.)

Good point. I understand the context in which the Westminster Confession was written, but I wouldn’t agree with the role of the magistrate as expressed in the language you quoted from the Confession either.

The beauty of the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is that it was hundreds of years ahead of its time. Although a devout people, and while there are always exceptions to any rule…sometimes gross exceptions…by and large the American people at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had determined that they were not going to let themselves be ruled by a theocracy…whether it be Anglican, Presybterian or Catholic. The other beauty is that they were just as determined that the government would not interfere with their (quite diverse) expressions of religious fath. Hence, the tension inherent in the protections of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.

 

[rr1213]

I think it should be clear by now that I, and the Lutheran churches of the world with me, am appalled by some of Luther’s ramblings about the Jewish people. Luther was not infallable, he was a man, and man can err.

It has always amused me how most Catholics can separate the office of the Pope, which has the ability to teach infallably ex cathedra in certain cases, with the man who holds that office who, at some times, was quite corrupt and sinful, yet can’t conceptualize distinguishing the worthwhile insights of Martin Luther from his distasteful opinions on other issues…and Lutherans don’t even hold that Martin Luther had the ability to speak infallably ex cathedra!