Martin Luther?

[hengcymatthew]

rpp>>False. Those works are a result of faith. If you think you can do good works to merit your salvation, I want to kindly say that is not true my friend. Filthy rags, is what the Lord thinks of our “good works” in an attempt to merit salvation. Actually, I must believe all that the Bible teaches. The Church can go astray and the Bible predicts it; the Word of the Lord abides forever and never changes.

I think you shouldn’t make sweeping statements, the Catholic church belives in faith AND works… and not just works alone. Please refer to article
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.HTM

 

[Sebastianos]

What about the Orthodox Church?

The Orthodox Patriarch Jeremias II was horrified when he learned what Luther teached. The Lutherans tried to get contact with the Orthodox in hopes of getting allies and for sympathy, but the Orthodox refused it strictly.

Jeremias’s correspondence with the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen

Jeremias played a very significant part in the relations of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the other Christian Churches. In the patriarchy of this enlightened ecclesiastical lead¬er, the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen presented official proposals for a union of the Orthodox and Protestant Churches. The first letter was delivered to the Patriarch by Stephen Gerlach, an eminent Lutheran scholar, who was also appointed chaplain of the German Embassy to the Sublime Porte. This letter was signed by Martin Crusius, a professor of Greek and Latin at Tubingen, and by Jacob Andreae, Chancellor of the University of Tubingen. The purpose of the text was to ascertain the inclinations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – of which little had been known until then – before proceeding to the second stage, which involved the union of the two Churches…

… In the meantime, Crusius and Andrew had sent the «Confession of Augsburg» translated into Greek by Philip Melanchthon, with the request that the Orthodox comment on the doctrines contained in the articles, stating whether they agreed or disagreed. Gerlach delivered the «Confession of Augsburg» to the Patriarch on 24 May 1575, whilst the Holy Synod was in session.

…In this historical text, Jeremias, on the basis of the two sources of true faith, the Holy Bible and the Sacred Tradition, indicates the points on which Lutheran and Orthodox doctrines agree and those on which they disagree, expounding the Orthodox views on each question of dogma.

The divines of Tubingen replied on 18 June 1577, attempting to justify their novel doctrines. The Patriarch was on a pastoral tour of Greece, when the reply reached him in Thessaly on 4 March 1578. When he had the opportunity, Jeremias composed, again with the help of his collaborators, a reply that was despatched from Constantinople. «In addition to the zeal in favour of Orthodoxy, this wise pastor’s wide knowledge and correct judgement shine throughout this second statement» (C. Sathas).

In this letter the Patriarch Jeremias, in a friendly but clear manner, answered the Lutheran arguments and in a fatherly way suggested adherence to the Sacred Tradition. After long discussions on Jeremias’s letter, the Lutheran divines sent their reply on 24 June 1580, at the time when Jeremias was starting his second patriarchy. The Patriarch realising that no common ground for an understanding could be found, refuted the Dual Procession of the Holy Spirit arid the Lutheran views on Free Will, and put a friendly end to the correspondence.

The «Comments on the Confession of Augsburg» and the «Replies» to the Lutheran divines gave the Protestants the opportunity to become acquainted with the Orthodox Church in a most responsible manner. They also gave the Ecumenical Patriarchate the possibility to make its God-inspired mission and spiritual presence known to a wider part of the world, through the enlightened personality of the Patriarch Jeremias.

Meanwhile, the Church of Rome followed closely the exchange of letters on questions of dogma between the Protestants and the Orthodox, fearing a union that could turn against the Papacy. With the help of envoyees and the Jesuits, Rome tried to influence matters within the Eastern Church. It was to this effect, but also to discuss and convince the Orthodox Church to accept the proposed correction of the Julian Calendar, that Pope Gregory XIII sent a mission to Constantinople. On 20 November 1583, Jeremias issued a Tomus on the question of the calendar, in which the principal idea was that already expounded to the Venetian mediators: «Our Church upholds what has been handed down to us, the Western Church can do as she wills and wishes».

ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en&id=187
see also:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

 

[rpp]

rpp>>**I’m not doubting your integrity here **

At this poijt then, I will add you to my ignore list., That is a patently rude and mean sataqtement. I am stating history. You makje personal attacks.

Since you will be on my ignore list, I will not see your response.

 

[CthlcTeen]

P.S. He didn’t start his own man-made religion. He made Christianity truly accessible to the people and he preached the Gospel. Again, God bless Martin Luther.

Sorry but this parts confusing. Did he start his own church or not? Didnt he change alot of the teachings in Catholicism? If he did, isnt that like starting your own church because youre taking out what you dont want to believe?

 

[leonie]

Sorry but this parts confusing. Did he start his own church or not? Didnt he change alot of the teachings in Catholicism? If he did, isnt that like starting your own church because youre taking out what you dont want to believe?

Not only did he change doctrine, he changed the Bible.

 

[StCsDavid]

jmcrae>>Martin Luther promulgated the heresy of “faith alone” which is the idea that we don’t have to be obedient to the Commandments or follow the precepts of the Church: all we have to do is make an intellectual decision that Jesus is God, and there is nothing further required of us.

**I have to call you out on this.

Faith alone is not a heresy. There is plenty on another thread which explained what Protestants mean by faith alone. Just as we Protestants have to find out what you guys actually mean about something, so should you find out what we actually mean. It’s not a heresy and if it’s going to be a problem for me to say something in the Catholic teaching is a heresy, well then, it’s going to be a problem with me if you claim that Faith Alone is a heresy. It is frustrating to see you claim that when it seems like all day long yesterday we hammered it out that it is not the case. Please know what you’re talking about just as I have to. You don’t get a free ride being a Catholic.

There is nothing about just making an intellectual decision that Jesus is God and that nothing further is required of us. Please tell me, when do you know if you’ve done enough that is required of you? **

Just curious…if faith alone is all we need, based on what is written in the bible how do you explain:
KJV
James 2:
24] Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25] Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It appears that faith alone isn’t enough. Clearly we need works, too.

 

[thistle]

Not only did he change doctrine, he changed the Bible.

He took out books of the bible which did not conform to HIS way of thinking. He even wanted the Book of James taken out of the NT because James contradicted Luther’s own silly faith alone idea.

 

[lak611]

He took out books of the bible which did not conform to HIS way of thinking. He even wanted the Book of James taken out of the NT because James contradicted Luther’s own silly faith alone idea.

Do you know why Luther left James in the Bible? Did somebody else tell him all the books in the New Testament had to stay? Who was it, since he did not listen to the Pope?

 

[thistle]

Do you know why Luther left James in the Bible? Did somebody else tell him all the books in the New Testament had to stay? Who was it, since he did not listen to the Pope?

My understanding is (but I don’t have my source at hand) is that James and another book were taken out by Luther but subsequently were put back in by other Protestants.

 

[lak611]

My understanding is (but I don’t have my source at hand) is that James and another book were taken out by Luther but subsequently were put back in by other Protestants.

Please let me know who these other Protestants were if you find out.

 

[thistle]

Please let me know who these other Protestants were if you find out.

I have a book about Luther but the chapter on the bible is too long for me to type out about the books taken out.
Anyway below is an extract about Luther from the Wikipedia online. It was actually the Lutherans who put them back.

"Martin Luther rejected the books that do not appear in the Jewish Tanakh, partly because of the stress the Reformers laid on translating from the original text, and partly because some passages contradicted his views, especially where 2 Maccabees speaks, by implication, of purgatory: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” (12:46).

Luther also considered the Epistle of James apocryphal, doubting authorship by any of the several New Testament figures named James, and also because the epistle contains a statement that seemingly contradicts Luther’s teachings (drawn from other passages in the New Testament, eg Eph. 2:8-9) of Salvation by faith alone: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). His edition of the Bible relegated this and three other books (Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation, to an appendix. Later Lutherans included these books with the Protestant Canon in their New Testament, but placed them after those books. Thus, the books of the Lutheran New Testament (at least in German) are ordered somewhat differently than other Protestant Bibles."

 

[lak611]

Later Lutherans included these books with the Protestant Canon in their New Testament, but placed them after those books. Thus, the books of the Lutheran New Testament (at least in German) are ordered somewhat differently than other Protestant Bibles."

Does this mean that modern Lutheran Bibles in the German language still have a different order of the New Testament?

 

[thistle]

Does this mean that modern Lutheran Bibles in the German language still have a different order of the New Testament?

That I don’t know. Sorry.

 

[lak611]

That I don’t know. Sorry.

Maybe Wikipedia is wrong. I found this: "Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.

Luther chose to place in the Apocrypha, an inter-testamental section of his bible, those portions of the Old Testament found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. These were included in his earliest translation, but were later set aside as “good to read” but not as the inspired Word of God. The setting aside (or simple exclusion) of these texts in/from Bibles was eventually adopted by nearly all Protestants."

Here’s the link to the Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible. It seems like Wikipedia is saying two contrary things. The article you found said Luther took the books out and later Lutherans put them back, but the article I found said Luther did not take them out. Maybe I’ll have to look for a better source than Wikipedia.

 

[TheGarg]

He didn’t have much choice when the Church chased him out and wanted his head now did he? All for preaching the Gospel. God bless Martin Luther.

P.S. He didn’t start his own man-made religion. He made Christianity truly accessible to the people and he preached the Gospel. Again, God bless Martin Luther.

They certainly did not chase him out, It was his heresy that got him in trouble. I think you need to read some of the horrible books that martin Luther wrote, before you go praising him. In my eyes he is a dispicable man, a hater and troublemaker.

Here is one of his books you can google : The Jews and thier Lies

Go ahead, read it…but be warned, If you love this lunatic, becuase you are in for some some disappointment. Doesn’t sound like someone i would even want to associate with, but Hitler found his Ideas attractive.

Peace of the Lord be with you all

 

[Sebastianos]

Church never expells or chases anyone away.

Formal excommunication is just publicly saying that someone has departed from the true faith all by themselves.

 

[thistle]

They certainly did not chase him out, It was his heresy that got him in trouble. I think you need to read some of the horrible books that martin Luther wrote, before you go praising him. In my eyes he is a dispicable man, a hater and troublemaker.

Here is one of his books you can google : The Jews and thier Lies

Go ahead, read it…but be warned, If you love this lunatic, becuase you are in for some some disappointment. Doesn’t sound like someone i would even want to associate with, but Hitler found his Ideas attractive.

Peace of the Lord be with you all

I read the book you gave us the link to. Wow! What a bigot and racist Luther was. I can only guess that those on this forum who try to extol the virtues of Luther have only read about him (from Protestant writers) and have not actually read anything Luther wrote. If they read this book it will be a real eye opener for them.
If Luther had had the capability the holocaust would likely have happened 500 years ago!! From his own mouth you can see Luther was as antisemitic as Hitler.
Before any Luther supporters jump in quickly to verbally beat me up please first read the book Luther wrote that TheGarg gave us the link to and you will see for yourselves. Then you can come back with your comments.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hey hoosier, please be careful there.

I will be careful. However, I expect that Catholics would be careful to. If you got to me very well you would know that I detest double standards and I will not tolerate having them forced upon me.

Catholics don’t believe in their good works to get to Heaven that is a common slander and I am pretty sure we talked about this before. We just adamantly deny that works are not necessary for a real faith.

Works are necessary for real faith. However, that does not change the fact that salvation is by faith alone. To deny this is to affirm that you are saved by works. Let’s stop the semantics my friend. Now, what about the slander against Protestants that goes on? I have NEVER believed that I am saved by an intellectual assent. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, KNOWS that there are different levels of faith and intellectual assent is not good enough to obtain salvation.

We should start a thread on free will as it seems you are denying free will, but maybe I have misunderstood you.

**I do not deny free will. However, the Bible does say that it is God who works in us to will and to work (Philippians 2:13). It is not ourselves. Also, I do not see free will the same as you may see it. We have free will; we have the free will to act according to our nature. And what is our nature before we get saved? What is our nature after we get saved? **

Martin Luther might have had some good intentions and certainly did do some good things but I invite you to read his writings. He is extremely vulgar, espouses some horribly sinful behavior and boasts about himself. I would certainly hope God blessed him to repent before he died as he certainly behaved in a scandalous way that in no way would be an example for a Christian to live.

So in other words, he was no different than you or I or any other Christian? Being vulgar, etc. does not disprove one’s doctrine. Truth is truth, whether I’m a nice guy or not.

We should choose Jesus first and then do everything we can to faithfully follow Him.
**
Exactly. Although…it bothers me that you think I don’t. **

In Christ
Scylla

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy

False. Those works are a result of faith. If you think you can do good works to merit your salvation, I want to kindly say that is not true my friend. Filthy rags, is what the Lord thinks of our “good works” in an attempt to merit salvation. Actually, I must believe all that the Bible teaches. The Church can go astray and the Bible predicts it; the Word of the Lord abides forever and never changes.

jmcrae>>If you believe all that the Bible teaches, then please read Matthew 25:31-46, and Matthew chapters 5-7 and believe that Christ meant what He said - that those who do not do His commandments cannot be saved - that those who say Lord, Lord without obeying the commandments that He gave to His Church must be consigned to the fires of Hell at the day of judgement.

**So you deny what I said above? Scripture would disagree with you. How many times do I have to explain this? The passages you are using are talking about people who did not have saving faith. Simple as that. Also, I find it odd that you stick to only the Gospels instead of Paul’s writings where he teaches that it is solely by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast. Why is that? Yet, you Catholics take a seriously out of context verse from Corinthians to “teach” purgatory? **

Quote:
What do you mean Sola Fide denies the Church? Are you trying to say that the Church saves you?

The Church is Christ’s body on earth, and speaks to us with His authority, which was given to the Apostles and passed down to their successors, who are the Pope and the Bishops who are in communion with him. “Faith alone” denies that the successors of the Apostles have this authority. (In addition to denying at least half the New Testament, which calls us to obedience and to works of mercy in addition to our faith.)

**The Church does not save you though. THAT…is heresy. You are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. At that moment, He places you INTO the Church and seals you with His Holy Spirit (His guarantee to you that you have eternal life). Again, the Church does not save you and I urge you to rethink your position on the matter. It is of eternal importance.

Faith alone does not deny anything. I don’t know where you are coming up with this stuff. Again, I’ve already explained about faith and works (to which some Catholics and I have agreed upon). With all due respect, this is the last time I will explain it. **

 

[hoosierdaddy]

No Catholic is saying that those weren’t horrible and violent times.

Of course Catholics killed non-catholics and non-catholics killed Catholics. It is a shame that people do horrible things, but that proves nothing about Luthers faithfulness to God.

In Christ
Scylla

It proves nothing about his “lack of” faith either.