Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter VARC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please explain to me, from the perspective of divine providence, why God would choose a man who espoused such wicked views to reform His Church for the salvation of the world. Usually He sends saintly men like Elijah and St. John the Baptist to save His people when they stray from righteousness. I am happy to debate Luther’s theological opinions, but I do not think this individual point is something to be brushed aside. It is completely inconsistent with how God relates to the world.
To the extent that Luther, in his later years, expressed anti-jewish (different from anti-semitic) opinions is both an example of his sinfullness, and a reflection of the Church and culture of his time.

We can condemn Washington, for example, to modern day standards of civil rights for owning slaves in the 1700’s, but that won’t explain the fact that during his time and in his culture, owning slaves was, sadly commonplace.

For Luther, Ecke, and many of their contemporaries, anti-jewish sentiment was overt and expressed. To our current moral standards, it sounds unChristian at best, and in fact it is. But they did not live in the 21st century.

Jon
 
To the extent that Luther, in his later years, expressed anti-jewish (different from anti-semitic) opinions is both an example of his sinfullness, and a reflection of the Church and culture of his time.

We can condemn Washington, for example, to modern day standards of civil rights for owning slaves in the 1700’s, but that won’t explain the fact that during his time and in his culture, owning slaves was, sadly commonplace.
I believe neither Martin Luther nor George Washington were agents of God. Since divine revelation isn’t limited to one’s culture, I do not understand why you think God would want the Protestant Reformation to be initiated by somebody who himself espoused such unbelievably evil views.

Do you believe that (a) the Reformation was not an act of divine providence, but Luther is still to be accepted, (b) Martin Luther was an agent of God but nonetheless his viciously wicked beliefs regarding Jews and Catholics are irrelevant, (c) God lowered his standards as to what people He would recruit to carry out His will, or some other option I do not list here?
 
Please explain to me, from the perspective of divine providence, why God would choose a man who espoused such wicked views to reform His Church for the salvation of the world. Usually He sends saintly men like Elijah and St. John the Baptist to save His people when they stray from righteousness. I am happy to debate Luther’s theological opinions, but I do not think this individual point is something to be brushed aside. It is completely inconsistent with how God relates to the world.
Because King David was such a nice guy, right? You do remember that Peter denied Christ 3 times? Abraham had a concubine, Jacob stole his brother’s birthright, etc. Yeah, God definitely never sends sinners to His people. :rolleyes:
 
Because King David was such a nice guy, right? You do remember that Peter denied Christ 3 times? Abraham had a concubine, Jacob stole his brother’s birthright, etc. Yeah, God definitely never sends sinners to His people. :rolleyes:
I never said saints were not sinners. Are you comparing Martin Luther to David and St. Peter? Do you honestly think this comparison stands up?
 
I believe neither Martin Luther nor George Washington were agents of God. Since divine revelation isn’t limited to one’s culture, I do not understand why you think God would want the Protestant Reformation to be initiated by somebody who himself espoused such unbelievably evil views.
I could ask the same question: why would God want His one True Church to be defended by a man like Johannes Ecke, who at one time criticized Luther for being, of all things, a judaizer?
Why would God allow His one True Church to be represented by such a greedy man as John Tetzel?
And the answer to all three questions is here on earth, within the Catholic Church and the Church Catholic, all have sined and fall short of the glory of God. I do not question the faith of Ecke or Tetzel. I think we tread on dangerous ground when we question how God uses or used individuals in his plans, even more dangerous ground when we question their faith or relationship with God.

Jon
 
I never said saints were not sinners. Are you comparing Martin Luther to David and St. Peter? Do you honestly think this comparison stands up?
You compared him to Elijah and John the Baptist in your quote…
 
You compared him to Elijah and John the Baptist in your quote…
The comparison being that they are nothing alike. Elijah and St. John both were clearly agents of God. They did not advocate everything short of extermination of Jews they found unfaithful.
 
Your argument was that God wouldn’t use such a ‘bad’ guy to help guide his people, and I was simply demonstrating that He has used ‘bad’ guys in the past. I’m not saying Luther should be on the same plane as Peter or David or any of them, but rather I’m refuting your claim that Luther was too mean to have been God’s instrument.
 
Your argument was that God wouldn’t use such a ‘bad’ guy to help guide his people, and I was simply demonstrating that He has used ‘bad’ guys in the past. I’m not saying Luther should be on the same plane as Peter or David or any of them, but rather I’m refuting your claim that Luther was too mean to have been God’s instrument.
Do you really think God’s instrument would’ve called for the enslavement and torture of all Jews, which was quite contrary to his earlier messages of peace, love and forgiveness?
 
To the extent that Luther, in his later years, expressed anti-jewish (different from anti-semitic) opinions is both an example of his sinfullness, and a reflection of the Church and culture of his time.

We can condemn Washington, for example, to modern day standards of civil rights for owning slaves in the 1700’s, but that won’t explain the fact that during his time and in his culture, owning slaves was, sadly commonplace.

For Luther, Ecke, and many of their contemporaries, anti-jewish sentiment was overt and expressed. To our current moral standards, it sounds unChristian at best, and in fact it is. But they did not live in the 21st century.

Jon
I agree Jon but I’m still not sure it was all that pervasive (anti-judaism).
 
I will first of all admit that I did not plough through all of the posts. I read the first and last page, so some of the issues may have already been addressed.

The cheap shot at Luther regarding Katheren von Borah was out of ignorance I think. Luther did not “chase” after Katheren, rather it was her initiative and challenge to Luther that led to his marriage. Luther was quite scandalized by the concubinage that was common among the clergy at the time and felt that it could be best addressed by marriage as stated by St. Paul, “…better to marry than to burn.” Luther felt himself to be too old and ugly to be married but Katheren had other ideas.

There was a general misunderstanding about indulgences in the early 16th century. This has been addressed by the conferences at Trent and especially Vatican I and II. There was misuse and fund raising was not the worst of them.

There are few theologians who will defend the crotchety old man Luther in his assessment of Jews. One Luther scholar I knew said that Luther wrote nothing worthwhile after his 40th birthday.

We should also keep in mind that Luther’s house was open as a student residence as well as being a family home. He was quite generous and not a wealthy man. He was a pastor who was afraid that his flock was being misled regarding the “get out of jail card” idea of indulgences. It was not church policy or teaching, but popular piety had gotten the indulgence question out of hand.

The church door was the public bulletin board of the medieval town, equivalent to the message board at the market. It was a University town and Prof. Luther was challenging all comers to a debate in good academic style.
 
Originally posted by Josie L
I agree Jon but I’m still not sure it was all that pervasive (anti-judaism).
Thanks, Josie. Certainly it was somewhere between “Luther brought in anti-semitism”, and “all of medieval Germany was anti-semitic”.
I will first of all admit that I did not plough through all of the posts. I read the first and last page, so some of the issues may have already been addressed.

The cheap shot at Luther regarding Katheren von Borah was out of ignorance I think. Luther did not “chase” after Katheren, rather it was her initiative and challenge to Luther that led to his marriage. Luther was quite scandalized by the concubinage that was common among the clergy at the time and felt that it could be best addressed by marriage as stated by St. Paul, “…better to marry than to burn.” Luther felt himself to be too old and ugly to be married but Katheren had other ideas.

There was a general misunderstanding about indulgences in the early 16th century. This has been addressed by the conferences at Trent and especially Vatican I and II. There was misuse and fund raising was not the worst of them.

There are few theologians who will defend the crotchety old man Luther in his assessment of Jews. One Luther scholar I knew said that Luther wrote nothing worthwhile after his 40th birthday.

We should also keep in mind that Luther’s house was open as a student residence as well as being a family home. He was quite generous and not a wealthy man. He was a pastor who was afraid that his flock was being misled regarding the “get out of jail card” idea of indulgences. It was not church policy or teaching, but popular piety had gotten the indulgence question out of hand.

The church door was the public bulletin board of the medieval town, equivalent to the message board at the market. It was a University town and Prof. Luther was challenging all comers to a debate in good academic style.
Thanks for your level assessment.

Jon
 
This person’s attempt to discredit Martin Luther with this post. I’m responding to his post.
And that person was responding to another poster who wrote this:

"Well you got their talking points down pretty good. Joseph Goebbels could do no better."

Which 2ndAdam is just another way of slandering the Catholic Church/Catholics (which I might add this particular poster is very good at).

Note: The person who said this is the OP.
 
is how this thread IMMEDIATELY strayed from its topic, and became an ad hominem “Luther ate babies for breakfast!”-rant…

Would it kill anyone to just relate to the OP, and not try to derail?
 
And that person was responding to another poster who wrote this:

"Well you got their talking points down pretty good. Joseph Goebbels could do no better."

Which 2ndAdam is just another way of slandering the Catholic Church/Catholics (which I might add this particular poster is very good at).

Note: The person who said this is the OP.
ECT 1, ECT II, and a new EC III is the answer.
 
is how this thread IMMEDIATELY strayed from its topic, and became an ad hominem “Luther ate babies for breakfast!”-rant…

Would it kill anyone to just relate to the OP, and not try to derail?
Not just Luther but the Catholic Church as well.
 
The Catholic Church as well as the Lutheran Church in Germany should give an account to their influence or lack of influence during the rise of Hitler. Please look at this link since a Catholic has tied Hitler together with Martin Luther.

liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith.html

So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,
his Roman Catholic Church
never questioned his Catholicism
  • at least not in public - which is
    where it mattered politically.
A posed picture which Hitler himself used often
to show what a good “practicing Catholic” he was.

(see link)
Since your link didn’t provide any scholarly evidence for its article, here is what I have scrounged up:

CATHOLIC RESISTANCE IN THE THIRD REICH

DONALD J. DIETRICH

University of Wisconsin — Stevens Point

Scholars such as Guenter Lewy have established that the institutional Catholic Church capitulated to Nazism and traded moral leadership for institutional survival. The following study suggests that Catholic priests and laity resisted Nazism, for example, both by opposing racist antisemitism as morally wrong and by using such an approach as a vehicle for confronting totalitarianism. Ultimately, the regime’s documents themselves indicate that neither the Nazi state nor the Catholic Church were the monoliths that earlier scholarship portrayed.

hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co…stract/3/2/171

Here’s another book on google I found entitled “American Intelligence and the German Resistance to Hitler: A Documentary History” that tells of the resistance of Christian Churches against Nazism.

books.google.ca/books?id=xoTW…hitler&f=false

**The Catholic Resistance Circle in Berlin and German Catholic Bishops during the Holocaust **

Michael Phayer

Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin

A Catholic resistance group formed in Berlin after the violence of the “Night of Broken Glass” was perpetrated against Jews during the second week of November 1938. The Berlin circle helped Jews escape from Germany and assisted those who remained up to the time of their “transportation” and even afterwards.

This circle is especially notable because it attempted to influence the entire Catholic church to react and protest Nazi antisemitism. Through its contacts with Nazi bureaucrats and with other German resisters, the Berlin Catholics obtained accurate information on the Holocaust.

In the end, the Berlin circle succeeded in helping many Jews but failed to overcome opposition within the Catholic church against a public church protest regarding antisemitism.

hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co…stract/7/2/216

Take note that the last line of the abstract refers only opposition towards a “public” protest regarding anti-semitism. And also understand that thousands (over 3000 I believe) of priests and pastors were jailed, not including other religious, like St. Edith Stein who with her sister were gassed because the Catholic Church had the temerity to publicly defy Nazi rule in the Netherlands.

“However, Stein was not safe in the Netherlands—the Dutch Bishops’ Conference had a public statement read in all the churches of the country on July 20, 1942, condemning Nazi racism. In a retaliatory response on July 26, 1942, the Reichskomissar of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, who had previously been spared. Stein and her sister Rosa, also a convert, were captured and shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they were gassed on August 9, 1942.[4]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top