Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

[Guyonthestreet]

Clearly Luther did not know or understand that this was beyond the Pope’s abiliities.

From what Ive read and understand, Luther was a very clever man, well schooled in the ways of the church.

Surely he would have known this. That the Pope cannot and does not release souls from Purgatory. That is the preserve of God the Father.

Perhaps what he was doing was playing up to a common misunderstanding of the time? Perhaps people, some people, catholics, did believe that the Pope could release souls from Purgatory, if they paid for the privilage.

And Luther was highlighting this abuse - the fact that the Pope couldnt release souls from purgatory, but was quite happy to let the commoner live with the misunderstanding he could, in order to claim cash for indulgences.

Luthers approach was to get the debate going, perhaps, to expose the common misunderstandings and expose those ruthless enough to exploit these commoners lack of true church understanding.

 

[EphelDuath]

From what Ive read and understand, Luther was a very clever man, well schooled in the ways of the church. Surely he would have known this.

There were plenty of “very clever” men that were “well-schooled in the ways of the Church” that said that Luther’s attacks were of the strawman fallacy. What is so hard to believe about the idea that he was simply wrong? He added words to the Bible that didn’t exist in any of the manuscripts to support his beliefs, and he considered the Epistle of James, Book of Revelation and the deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha because he couldn’t reconcile his personal beliefs with them. It’s rather obvious to me that Luther himself was well aware that his doctrines were unchristian.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

What is so hard to believe about the idea that he was simply wrong? He added words to the Bible that didn’t exist in any of the manuscripts to support his beliefs, and he considered the Epistle of James, Book of Revelation and the deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha because he couldn’t reconcile his personal beliefs with them. It’s rather obvious to me that Luther himself was well aware that his doctrines were unchristian.

Im neither lutheran or catholic or any other denomination for that matter.

I have no problem with believing he may have been wrong on some issues.

I have a problem with catholics who vilify him without also expounding on the abuses of their own church at the time that lead people like Luther and others to seriously question if the church they belonged to could possibly still be the church that Christ founded.

It presents a skewered picture - like everything was just fine and dandy with rome and catholicism until that pesky german started throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

[josie_L]

From what Ive read and understand, Luther was a very clever man, well schooled in the ways of the church.

Surely he would have known this. That the Pope cannot and does not release souls from Purgatory. That is the preserve of God the Father.

Perhaps what he was doing was playing up to a common misunderstanding of the time? Perhaps people, some people, catholics, did believe that the Pope could release souls from Purgatory, if they paid for the privilage.

And Luther was highlighting this abuse - the fact that the Pope couldnt release souls from purgatory, but was quite happy to let the commoner live with the misunderstanding he could, in order to claim cash for indulgences.

Luthers approach was to get the debate going, perhaps, to expose the common misunderstandings and expose those ruthless enough to exploit these commoners lack of true church understanding.

No it was not to debate (for the purpose of elucidating) as he already had the privilege of doing that with Father Eck in 1518 wherein he proceeded to deny the infallibility of ecumenical councils. In other words Luther had the audacity to deny that which was already confirmed as truth. It would be quite a feat to believe he was right and we were wrong.

 

[EphelDuath]

I have a problem with catholics who vilify him without also expounding on the abuses of their own church at the time that lead people like Luther and others to seriously question if the church they belonged to could possibly still be the church that Christ founded.

It presents a skewered picture - like everything was just fine and dandy with rome and catholicism until that pesky german started throwing his toys out of the pram.

Nobody is denying that Catholics are sinners. But the fact is that Jesus said that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against his Church (Matthew 16:18-19), which would certainly be the case if Lutheranism were true, since then His Church would’ve been steeped in heresy for 1,500 years.

 

[JonNC]

There were plenty of “very clever” men that were “well-schooled in the ways of the Church” that said that Luther’s attacks were of the strawman fallacy. What is so hard to believe about the idea that he was simply wrong? He added words to the Bible that didn’t exist in any of the manuscripts to support his beliefs, and he considered the Epistle of James, Book of Revelation and the deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha because he couldn’t reconcile his personal beliefs with them. It’s rather obvious to me that Luther himself was well aware that his doctrines were unchristian.

It is rather obvious to you? Based on what? You have made a charge here, that Luther himself considered his own beliefs unchristian. That is a serious charge for which I expect you would have docuimentation that Luther said this, or indicated he believed it.
Otherwise, your words seem in violation of the 8th commandment.

What is your source to say he considered the books of James and Revelation apocryphal, since from his very first NT translation, he placed them in the canon?
In addition, where did Luther* say *he questioned any of these books because they didn’t agree with is beliefs? Again, you have ascribed a motive which needs documentation.
Do you also believe Cardinal Cajetan, who held very similar views to Luther’s regarding the canon, had unchristian beliefs? What about St. Jerome?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Nobody is denying that Catholics are sinners. But the fact is that Jesus said that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against his Church (Matthew 16:18-19), which would certainly be the case if Lutheranism were true, since then His Church would’ve been steeped in heresy for 1,500 years.

Would it change your mind about this were I to tell you that Lutherans do not believe the CC was steeped in error for 1,500 years? Do you know that Lutherans generally accept the teachings of the early councils, and that the three ecumenical creeds are listed first in the Lutheran Confessions?

Jon

 

[josie_L]

Im neither lutheran or catholic or any other denomination for that matter.

I have no problem with believing he may have been wrong on some issues.

I have a problem with catholics who vilify him without also expounding on the abuses of their own church at the time that lead people like Luther and others to seriously question if the church they belonged to could possibly still be the church that Christ founded.

It presents a skewered picture - like everything was just fine and dandy with rome and catholicism until that pesky german started throwing his toys out of the pram.

I “vilify” him simply because he allowed his pride to overrule truth (I don’t like Calvin and the other reformers that much either) as he would not let go of his heretical views (which he held long before Tetzel came along) despite having been debated. If his true aim was only to fix abuses within the Church then why hold to contrary opinions that openly defied Church teachings?

p.s. You only have to read the lives of the saints to see how each were reforming the Church from within to know that Luther had strayed.

 

[EphelDuath]

It is rather obvious to you? Based on what? You have made a charge here, that Luther himself considered his own beliefs unchristian. That is a serious charge for which I expect you would have docuimentation that Luther said this, or indicated he believed it.
Otherwise, your words seem in violation of the 8th commandment.

I supported my beliefs in my own post. He rejected books of the Bible and changed words in the Bible for no reason than to fit his own beliefs. (The reason I say “obvious” rather than “absolutely certain” is because there’s always the possibility that he was mentally unfit and believed God was telling him to do these things. Therefore, I do not pass judgment on him, because I don’t know his heart; however I can say with certainty that what he said was indeed wrong.)

What is your source to say he considered the books of James and Revelation apocryphal, since from his very first NT translation, he placed them in the canon?

“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and that teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it.”

Works of Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition, trans. C.M. Jacobs, vol. 6: Preface to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 439-444.

He did not remove any books of the Bible from his personal translation, but he did move them to the “apocryphal” section to indicate that he did not think they were divinely inspired.

In addition, where did Luther* say *he questioned any of these books because they didn’t agree with is beliefs? Again, you have ascribed a motive which needs documentation.

As I said above, I cannot know his heart. However, it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that a man of his intelligence was genuinely mentally ill.

Do you also believe Cardinal Cajetan, who held very similar views to Luther’s regarding the canon, had unchristian beliefs? What about St. Jerome?

I cannot say about Cardinal Cajetan, but St. Jerome said that even though he personally had a different opinion, that what was right was to follow the infallible authority of the Church, which he did. Though this is beside the point, since he was participating in a debate about the canon; he wasn’t rejecting Christ’s Church because his beliefs were not in conformity with Christ’s.

 

[EphelDuath]

Would it change your mind about this were I to tell you that Lutherans do not believe the CC was steeped in error for 1,500 years? Do you know that Lutherans generally accept the teachings of the early councils, and that the three ecumenical creeds are listed first in the Lutheran Confessions?

One, this is irrelevant because you still believe Christ’s church fell into apostasy at some point, a direct contradiction of Matthew 16:18-19.

Two, it is interesting how you say Lutherans accept some of the ecumenical councils and reject some. What is the criteria for this? Because some councils conflict with Lutheran beliefs, but some do not?

 

[JonNC]

One, this is irrelevant because you still believe Christ’s church fell into apostasy at some point, a direct contradiction of Matthew 16:18-19.

Two, it is interesting how you say Lutherans accept some of the ecumenical councils and reject some. What is the criteria for this? Because some councils conflict with Lutheran beliefs, but some do not?

One, it is relevent because you said which would certainly be the case if Lutheranism were true, since then His Church would’ve been steeped in heresy for 1,500 years.
No, we believe that some leaders of the church catholic fell into error. That there is error mixed with truth is what we believe. The Catholic Church is a Christian Church. In addition, it is presumptuous to say the Matthew 16 rerlates to Rome. The undivided Church was/is more than just Rome.

I did not say some. I said that we approve generally the early councils.

Jon

 

[EphelDuath]

One, it is relevent because you said which would certainly be the case if Lutheranism were true, since then His Church would’ve been steeped in heresy for 1,500 years.

The year given is not of significance. Christ said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it; he didn’t specify that this protection is only in a certain time frame.

No, we believe that some leaders of the church catholic fell into error. That there is error mixed with truth is what we believe.

Can Christ teach error? No. Therefore, God is capable of preventing His Church from teaching error, which was the point of Matthew 16:18-19.

The Catholic Church is a Christian Church. In addition, it is presumptuous to say the Matthew 16 rerlates to Rome. The undivided Church was/is more than just Rome.

The Church is built upon St. Simon Peter, whose successors are the Popes. Lutherans deny the authority and resist the jurisdiction of the Papacy, and therefore do not benefit from Christ’s protection from error.

This is easily demonstrable: not all Christians can agree whether or not, say, abortion is an evil. Therefore, some are therefore (unwittingly) preaching an evil, whereas the others are not. How can you say that “the gates of Hell” have not prevailed against this alleged “unified Church,” in this case? The doctrine of Sola scriptura is the source of thousands of heresies. Rather, if you consult sacred tradition as St. Paul tells us (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and to obey the Church, the “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), then you cannot be in error, for the Church has always taught the same thing on this issue: namely, that abortion is a grave evil. As you can see, the Church therefore is protected from error, whereas the gates of Hell prevail against your alleged “unified church” that can agree on nothing.

To summarize my argument: if you believe that Matthew 16:18-19 refers to some alleged “undivided church,” then the question arises how the Church can be a “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) when none of its members can even agree on what the truth is, due to the nature of Sola scriptura leading all of its adherents to wildly different beliefs.

I did not say some. I said that we approve generally the early councils.

I repeat my question about your criteria for doing so.

 

[JonNC]

EphelDuath;5913350]I supported my beliefs in my own post. He rejected books of the Bible and changed words in the Bible for no reason than to fit his own beliefs.

You did not support anything. You have made charges without documentation. He “added” the word “allein” in the German because it was necessary for a translation into German. “Alone”, on the other hand, is not needed in English, so it is not there.
And he did not “reject” books. He was practicing theology regarding the canon in the same way it had been practice since Jerome. The D-C’s, by therir very name, had been in question for centuries.

(The reason I say “obvious” rather than “absolutely certain” is because there’s always the possibility that he was mentally unfit and believed God was telling him to do these things. Therefore, I do not pass judgment on him, because I don’t know his heart; however I can say with certainty that what he said was indeed wrong.)

You parse words here. Here is your quote: *"It’s rather obvious to me that **Luther himself was well aware *that his doctrines were unchristian." That Luther himself knew, a charge that he *intentionally * set out to mislead. Unless , of course, he was mentally unift.
That you believe he was wrong - about what, you don’t say - we can have a Christianly discussion about, and you will notice I have said nothing about Catholic beliefs here, only your charges.

“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and that teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it.”

Indeed, you claim this to be an admission on his part that he did not consider James canon?
]“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”
and
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle…";

You must have missed these quotes.

He did not remove any books of the Bible from his personal translation, but he did move them to the “apocryphal” section to indicate that he did not think they were divinely inspired.

This is not true of James or Revelation.

As I said above, I cannot know his heart. However, it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that a man of his intelligence was genuinely mentally ill.

Does it also seems unlikely to you that he held honest, thoughtful, theologically based beliefs that The Catholic Church happens to disagree with?
Amazing. Compared to your accusations that he was either intentionally deceiving, or mentally deranged, being called a heretic seems almost complimentary.

When I see posts like yours, I sometimes I wonder,but for only brief moments, why I challenge Protestants on here who claim or imply Catholics are not Christian. Your position is equally uncharitable to theirs.

Jon

 

[bookgirl32]

I have a problem with catholics who vilify him without also expounding on the abuses of their own church at the time that lead people like Luther and others to seriously question if the church they belonged to could possibly still be the church that Christ founded.

I’m not denying any abuses that were happening at the time of Martin Luther, nor that they had impact on the actions of Luther and others. But it’s also necessary to note that the actual issues resulting in Luther’s separation from the Church were not the abuses, however much they may have bothered him. The issues are what JonNC and Ephel are talking about in their posts. These were not abuses, these very different understandings of Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=EphelDuath;5913488]
To summarize my argument: if you believe that Matthew 16:18-19 refers to some alleged "undivided church," then the question arises how the Church can be a “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) when none of its members can even agree on what the truth is, due to the nature of Sola scriptura leading all of its adherents to wildly different beliefs.

“alleged undivided church” There was a schism in 1054.

Hmm, didn’t know the Orthodox believed in sola scriptura, and btw, not all Protestants do, either. But I’ll bet they’d have trouble with your triumphalism, as well.

Jon

 

[EphelDuath]

And he did not “reject” books. He was practicing theology regarding the canon in the same way it had been practice since Jerome. The D-C’s, by therir very name, had been in question for centuries.

I have already supported my claims. It is your prerogative to demonstrate that my source is faulty.

You parse words here. Here is your quote: *“It’s rather obvious to me that **Luther himself was well aware ***that his doctrines were unchristian.” That Luther himself knew, a charge that he *intentionally * set out to mislead. Unless , of course, he was mentally unift.

There are three options here: he thought that God intended him to alter the scriptures (mental illness), he knew his own beliefs were wrong, or he thought there was no special significance to scripture; though the last contradicts his doctrine of Sola scripture.

That you believe he was wrong - about what, you don’t say - we can have a Christianly discussion about, and you will notice I have said nothing about Catholic beliefs here, only your charges.

His most grievous error was Sola scriptura, since that is the source of all of his other errors. Thus, that is the one I will focus on, because when I have demonstrated that Sola scriptura is false, all of his other beliefs must come in line with the Church’s or be undeniably absurd.

Indeed, you claim this to be an admission on his part that he did not consider James canon?

For the third time, I made no remark suggesting that he removed these books from the Bible. He considered them apocryphal and thus moved them to a section of a Bible that indicates he did not believe them to be inspired.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle…"

I don’t know how much more clear Luther has to be for you to understand!

Does it also seems unlikely to you that he held honest, thoughtful, theologically based beliefs that The Catholic Church happens to disagree with?

If he did so, then he should’ve been able to demonstrate this through the scriptures. He could not, and thus rejected the scriptures that did not fit his own beliefs.

When I see posts like yours, I sometimes I wonder,but for only brief moments, why I challenge Protestants on here who claim or imply Catholics are not Christian. Your position is equally uncharitable to theirs.

I have already said that I cannot judge Luther because I cannot know his heart. I also cannot judge Protestants because I don’t know their hearts either. It seems rather obvious to me that Luther knew his own beliefs were wrong, but I cannot say the same about you or others; I assume good intent, and thus will argue until one of us concedes that we are wrong, or until the good faith assumption proves to be unjustified.

Further, I am not arguing that Lutherans or other Protestants aren’t Christians, and I don’t know why you would assume as such. I believe they are in error, and I am out to correct them; just as you believe that I am in error, and are out to correct me. Please point out where I am being uncharitable, and I will try my best to correct myself, God willing.

God bless.

 

[EphelDuath]

“alleged undivided church” There was a schism in 1054.

The schism was not over doctrine but diplomatic frustrations. The Eastern Orthodox as a whole (not counting varying differences between themselves) believe nothing inherently contrary to the Catholic Church as far as I know. I have heard varying beliefs about Papal authority from Eastern Orthodox Christians: some reject it outright, and thus are prone to the same error that Protestants are; some accept it to some degree.

Though this point is moot, since just because some leave the Church does not mean that the Church is not undivided. Otherwise it is logically inevitable that the Church ceased to be undivided the moment Judas betrayed Christ.

Either way, you did not respond to any of my arguments. Explain how “the Church” can refer to all of Christendom if Christians cannot agree on the truth despite the Church being a pillar of truth.

 

[JonNC]

=EphelDuath;5913557]I have already supported my claims. It is your prerogative to demonstrate that my source is faulty.

You haven’t named a source.

There are three options here: he thought that God intended him to alter the scriptures (mental illness), he knew his own beliefs were wrong, or he thought there was no special significance to scripture; though the last contradicts his doctrine of Sola scripture.

Amazing.

For the third time, I made no remark suggesting that he removed these books from the Bible. He considered them apocryphal and thus moved them to a section of a Bible that indicates he did not believe them to be inspired.

You just did. Again, he did not remove James and Revelation from the canon, and he did not deny their canonicity.

I have already said that I cannot judge Luther because I cannot know his heart.

It seems rather obvious to me that Luther knew his own beliefs were wrong,

You say you cannot judge Luther, and then you do.

Further, I am not arguing that Lutherans or other Protestants aren’t Christians, and I don’t know why you would assume as such.

Because Lutherans, in many but not all ways, hold to his “unchristian doctrines”.

I believe they are in error, and I am out to correct them; just as you believe that I am in error, and are out to correct me.

I am ot out to correct your faith beliefs, only correct your false charges about Luther.

Please point out where I am being uncharitable, and I will try my best to correct myself,

In regards Luther, I will post here his commentary on the 8th Commandment, to which I have probably not adhered to here with you, and therefore apologize to you.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?–Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

Jon

 

[EphelDuath]

You haven’t named a source.

I will repeat it, in case you missed it.

“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and that teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it.”

Works of Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition, trans. C.M. Jacobs, vol. 6: Preface to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 439-444.

Amazing.

If I am wrong, correct me.

You just did. Again, he did not remove James and Revelation from the canon, and he did not deny their canonicity.

See above. I do not deny that he did not remove them from the canon. But he did think them to be uninspired (or at least say as much), as seen from the quote I provided, as well as the one you provided of Luther saying he did not believe the Epistle of St. James were written by an apostle.

You say you cannot judge Luther, and then you do.

Where?

Because Lutherans, in many but not all ways, hold to his “unchristian doctrines”.

Just as you think that the Catholic Church teaches “error mixed with truth,” I believe Protestants adhere to “error mixed with truth.” Errors cannot come from God and therefore are unchristian. This does not mean that Protestants are unchristian themselves, because if they are not aware of the nature of the error, then they could be trying to serve God the best they can, but simply mistaken.

The case for Luther himself makes it seem highly unlikely that he were “simply mistaken.” I cannot know his heart, though, and thus do not judge him for what he has done.

I am ot out to correct your faith beliefs, only correct your false charges about Luther.

Then do so, and simultaneously correct my faith beliefs.

In regards Luther, I will post here his commentary on the 8th Commandment, to which I have probably not adhered to here with you, and therefore apologize to you.

Thank you for your apology. I only want both of us to be faithful Christians that bring glory to God, so I apologize myself if at any time, I have been uncharitable myself.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

=EphelDuath;5913628]I will repeat it, in case you missed it.

“In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and that teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it.”

This does not say Luther denied their canonicity. It only states what many believed before Luther, that there is dispute amongst scholars as to whather or not James was the actual author. And I quoted two quotes - there are more -about Luther’s position on James. And on Revelation, he periodically preached from it until his death.

Just as you think that the Catholic Church teaches “error mixed with truth,” I believe Protestants adhere to “error mixed with truth.” Errors cannot come from God and therefore are unchristian. This does not mean that Protestants are unchristian themselves, because if they are not aware of the nature of the error, then they could be trying to serve God the best they can, but simply mistaken

.
But, regardless of the circumstance of the 1500’s, you cannot find the compassion to make such a statement about Luther? To you, he was either of Satan (intentionally misleading), or mentally ill?

The case for Luther himself makes it seem highly unlikely that he were “simply mistaken.” I cannot know his heart, though, and thus do not judge him for what he has done.

I, as you guessed, passionately disagree with your position, as your words appear to do just that, at least from this side of our separation. But that said, I will attempt to not take it that way.

Then do so, and simultaneously correct my faith beliefs.

The first, I have stated my case. In the second, I do not proselytize. I believe that the Holy Spirit brings salvation granting Grace through the Catholic Church, just as your Church believes He does through mine.

I only want both of us to be faithful Christians that bring glory to God,

On this we can wholeheartedly agree. I pray our next encounter here finds even more we can agree on.

so I apologize myself if at any time, I have been uncharitable myself.

Accepted.

His Peace,
Jon