Martin Luther's CHARACTER?

  • Thread starter Thread starter donnyblake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
A dangerous amount of prooftexting there!!!
One could build a whole belief system around these one sentence clips, and yet compared with the whole of scripture the story would be like what you get after playing the telephone game…It would miss the mark greatly. You go ahead and take a sentence or two at a time i’ll take instructional letters as a whole like Ephesian’s.
Click to expand...
boo no substance. Don’t bother posting unless you have something useful to add.
 
Take ALL of Ephesians then. ALL of it. Paul’s teaching wasn’t in contradiction to James, but in ACCORD with him if you truly read ALL of Ephesians. Please stop being a cafeteria Bible reader. Thank you.
 
Martin Luther’s character proves his movement was not of God. Whenever God decided to make major changes to His religion, He always raised up someone with a great deal of miracles and personal holiness so that everyone would know they were from Him. We see this concerning Moses who gave the Israelites the law and especially in Christ and His Apostles. Luther produced no miracles, used foul language, didn’t honor those in charge, broke vows, encouraged others to break vows, and incited violent change.
 
Genesis315 said:
Martin Luther’s character proves his movement was not of God. Whenever God decided to make major changes to His religion, He always raised up someone with a great deal of miracles and personal holiness so that everyone would know they were from Him. We see this concerning Moses who gave the Israelites the law and especially in Christ and His Apostles. Luther produced no miracles, used foul language, didn’t honor those in charge, broke vows, encouraged others to break vows, and incited violent change.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. David is a GREAT example of this principle. And Peter, of course, was known to have denied Christ a few times. People are human, and remain human, even when used by God.
 
bengal_fan said:
actually James says that and Augustine is merely quoting. the point is that faith results in works… not the two hand in hand together. if we have faith, there WILL BE works, but works in and of themselves do nothing for us. faith, in and of itself, is an impossibility… that is the point. you cannot have faith without works.
Click to expand...
Absolutely Just like you can’t have water without 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Faith ALONE is dead faith - it saves no one! Bury it - it stinketh. To be a LIVING, SAVING FAITH it must be accompanied by works.

The real crux of the matter comes in what Luther taught about works - that works are sin. He taught that where you see the Bible seem to teach works you must understand the opposite - yes, he literally taught that. Read his letter to Melancthon called “Sin Boldly” …
 
donnyblake said:
Take ALL of Ephesians then. ALL of it. Paul’s teaching wasn’t in contradiction to James, but in ACCORD with him if you truly read ALL of Ephesians. Please stop being a cafeteria Bible reader. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Whats with the accusations??? I’ve read Pauls letter numerous times (all of them) and understand it well, it is actually you trying to force a definition af James 2 that even some Catholic theologians will argue the proper meanings.
 
Nella said:
Don’t just pick and choose verses. Read the entire Letter of Paul to the Ephesians and then give me your schpeel on how works can save you.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, the Catholic Church has NEVER, EVER taught works righteousness as those who malign the Church state that it teaches. Works don’t save a person but neither wll a DEAD FAITH!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Whats with the accusations??? I’ve read Pauls letter numerous times (all of them) and understand it well, it is actually you trying to force a definition af James 2 that even some Catholic theologians will argue the proper meanings.
Click to expand...
Catholic theologians do not a Magisterium make! There are CATHOLIC theologians and there are Catholic THEOLOGIANS. Your statement above is about as profound as “Congratulations, you’ve just won a year’s supply!”
 
allofgrace said:
Absolutely Just like you can’t have water without 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Faith ALONE is dead faith - it saves no one! Bury it - it stinketh. To be a LIVING, SAVING FAITH it must be accompanied by works…
Click to expand...
so can we just call “faith” without works belief then? isn’t that sort of how James makes the distinction? “You believe there is one God… GOOD! even the demons believe that and tremble.” can we just all agree that faith (the saving faith that most protestants teach) is always accompanied by works? the faith is the active agent though. the faith is what makes the works. the faith is what imparts the grace. faith is what saves us. not belief. faith and we know that faith because it produces works.
allofgrace said:
The real crux of the matter comes in what Luther taught about works - that works are sin. He taught that where you see the Bible seem to teach works you must understand the opposite - yes, he literally taught that. Read his letter to Melancthon called “Sin Boldly” …
Click to expand...
in places Luther taught that. in others he doesn’t. i am not Lutheran. i have studied the reformation extensively and believe that both sides are at fault and continue to be at fault today. i believe the twisting of sola scriptura (away from it’s orginal intention) by many fundamentalists (evangelical exclusionists) has forever separated parts of Christianity. but we have to understand that there was separation before Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. i believe Rome made many mistakes in how to deal with the men and women who were trying to reform things that needed reforming and didn’t take the time to realize some of the arguments were merely semantics. many were political and had nothing to do with the body of Christ. some were legitimate disagreements but could have been worked out without ripping the body apart (again, it had already been torn when east left west).
 
Hey, y’all, can we quit bashing Luther and each other for a minute and back up a step?

I think this whole scrum, over whether “faith alone” is the proper translation of that particular sentence in Romans, misses the point. As far as salvation is concerned, the main difference I think we have with many of our Protestant brothers and sisters is the idea of “once saved, always saved.” Even if we are justified by faith “alone”, Jesus Himself makes it crystal clear throughout the Gospels that salvation can be lost if we ignore His commandments to love God and love our neighbor, and to live a moral life. Go back and read the Sermon on the Mount a couple of times, not to mention the next couple of chapters of Matthew. Paul and the other Epistle writers also make this clear. I don’t see how even an adherent to “sola Scriptura” can credibly deny the meaning of these admonitions, although many seem to do so. And a little charity toward each other in this forum might be a good start.

As for Romans 3, “Works of the law” is a different concept entirely from “works of charity.” Is it perhaps possible this is what prompted the other Catholic writers some of you have cited to agree in principle with Luther’s translation, albeit hundreds of years before Luther was born? “Works of the law” was, I believe, a reference to the Pharisees and their sometimes mindless adherence to certain ritualistic proscriptions, which Jesus spoke against so often in the Gospels. And isn’t it true that Luther never suggested a person could live a life of sin and still enter into Heaven without repentance? And, there’s always the letter of James…“faith without works is dead.” I don’t think he meant “works of the law.” Don’t we have to take the Scriptures as a whole?
 
fmagill said:
Hey, y’all, can we quit bashing Luther and each other for a minute and back up a step?

I think this whole scrum, over whether “faith alone” is the proper translation of that particular sentence in Romans, misses the point. As far as salvation is concerned, the main difference I think we have with many of our Protestant brothers and sisters is the idea of “once saved, always saved.” Even if we are justified by faith “alone”, Jesus Himself makes it crystal clear throughout the Gospels that salvation can be lost if we ignore His commandments to love God and love our neighbor, and to live a moral life. Go back and read the Sermon on the Mount a couple of times, not to mention the next couple of chapters of Matthew. Paul and the other Epistle writers also make this clear. I don’t see how even an adherent to “sola Scriptura” can credibly deny the meaning of these admonitions, although many seem to do so. And a little charity toward each other in this forum might be a good start.
Click to expand...
i do not adhere to once saved always saved, but i also don’t think we can lose the salvation God gives us. i think we can choose to give it up. there is a difference here. i don’t think God dangles our salvation over our heads and as soon as we do something “worthy” of getting it taken away, he rips it from us until we jump through the hoops of getting it back. i believe God holds firmly to us but He will not hold some one unwilling to be held by Him. if at one point in my life, i ask Him to hold me secure for eternity… He will do so unless i ask Him to let go. He will always respect our free will to choose Him or not.
 
HailMary said:
Yes, Luther had that problem of changing things as old as the bible and the teachings of the Church and he invented this heresy of Sola Fide because he could not feel forgiveness after the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying, and I partially agree with you, that Luther had this overly scrupulous conscience, and, like the small child was fearful of walking on the cracks on the sidewalk, as it were.

My problem with him changing things around, since it would seem he had deep psychological problems, how did that make him feel better?

To say to himself that God justified him (made him holy, gave him sanctifying grace) by faith, how did he believe this - how did he overcome and calm his conscience psychologically. Did he cure his mind problems on his own?

Any suggestions? It is not a trick question. I am looking for answers to it.

peace
mgrfin
 
mgrfin said:
My problem with him changing things around, since it would seem he had deep psychological problems, how did that make him feel better?
Click to expand...
Luther did not feel forgiven after Confession. This, of course, is not a fruit (although sometimes it can be) of confession, and its not necessary to “feel good” to have been forgiven. The emotions Luther felt was him not forgiving himself which sometimes is hard to for anyone. But apparently in his case, it was extreme.

How did it make him feel better?
Don’t ask me; he only lied to himself (and to all his followers)
 
donnyblake said:
Thanks for the further fuel for our fire:

Leaving aside the thorny theological issue of sola scriptura, we can agree on the following: a) Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of 3:28, and b) this word does NOT appear in the original text, as far as can be determined from the extant manuscripts.
Click to expand...
We have been over and over this: Luther did not say “alone,” he said “allein.” German, not English. Obviously neither “alone” nor “allein” appears in the Greek text, because it is Greek, not German or English.

Your failure to take into account this obvious fact makes your entire argument nonsense. Reword your accusation to acknowledge that we are talking about a Greek-to-German translation (and not the “addition” of an English word to an English text), and you will find that Luther’s explanation makes a lot more sense.
That Luther chose to insert this word suggests that he is substituting HIS judgment for Paul’s. Luther says, as you reference, “The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it.” If this was St. Paul’s meaning, why would he himself not have inserted the word “alone”???
Click to expand...
Because he wasn’t writing in English–nor was Luther. He didn’t use “allein” because he wasn’t writing in German either.

Now, why didn’t he use the adjective μονης or the adverb μονως? Because, according to Luther, that wasn’t necessary in Greek, but it was in German. You want to criticize Luther, you have to address the actual argument Luther makes. You have to be somewhat familiar with the semantic range of the Greek word you think Paul would have used if he’d meant what Luther said, and the German word Luther used to translate what Paul actually did say.

Edwin
 
HailMary said:
Luther did not feel forgiven after Confession. This, of course, is not a fruit (although sometimes it can be) of confession, and its not necessary to “feel good” to have been forgiven. The emotions Luther felt was him not forgiving himself which sometimes is hard to for anyone. But apparently in his case, it was extreme.

How did it make him feel better?
Don’t ask me; he only lied to himself (and to all his followers)
Click to expand...
Luther was Bipolar II with psychotic episodes, anxiety disorder, etc. He had a spiritual and mental illness that the Church (and psychology) call scrupulosity with slightly different definitions. Luther was, as you say, not able to FEEL forgiven. His spiritual adviser Staupitz tried to help him. Luther told Staupitz that God hated him and Staupitz said, “Martin, Martin, it is not God who hates you but it is you who hate God.”

Luther wrote about that stating several times in his writings that that he did hate God and sometimes that he couldn’t stand to look at Jesus. He said that try as he might, he could not love God. He set out to interpret his way to a gospel whereby a person could only BELIEVE in Christ and nothing else and be saved. He did it and as always, his followers took that and ran with it until now we have people teaching that all you have to do is to pray the “Sinner’s Prayer” and nothing else and you are saved. The Baptists have taken it and done a perversion of Luther’s “by faith ALONE” and Calvins double predestination that says that you are “ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED.”

Blessed Inquisition, where are you now that we need you?
 
Contarini said:
We have been over and over this: Luther did not say “alone,” he said “allein.” German, not English. Obviously neither “alone” nor “allein” appears in the Greek text, because it is Greek, not German or English.

Your failure to take into account this obvious fact makes your entire argument nonsense. Reword your accusation to acknowledge that we are talking about a Greek-to-German translation (and not the “addition” of an English word to an English text), and you will find that Luther’s explanation makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
No cigar! When my grandmother spoke English she spoke it with der gross Cherman accent; my mother did not speak English until she went to school. I grew up in the home of my grandmother Rosena Meitzler Schumacher with my mother. I know what allien means - it means ALONE. It makes no difference whether he added SOLA, ALONE, ALLIEN, etc. HE ADDED THE WORD ALONE where it was not and he states that he did it. The fact remains that it had to be there in order to make it say what Luther wanted it to say - BY FAITH ALONE. The fact remains that SOLA FIDE is one of the kingpins of the Protestant movement and Luther himself said that without that the movement would fall. He did it dishonestly and he stated that he did but Protestants will twist and turn any dido to get their heads into the sand. Many don’t THINK deeply and are fooled by all the hubbub but anyone who KNOWS LUTHER knows better. He went so far as to throw outbooks of the Bible to protect what he called “my evangel.” His delusions of grandeur moved him to say that NO ONE, not even the angels in heaven could judge “my evangel” and that anyone who did not accept “my evangel” could not be saved.

It was a hard blow to me when I found out these things as a deeply involved Protestant; it shook my faith but I put on my big girl panties and dealt with it. I didn’t put down all the books I dug deeper into it and could no longer in good conscience remain a Protestant. Yet it would be another decade before I would consider the Catholic Church.

Many stay in denial. It’s their perogative.
 
rr1213 said:
Well, then, you probably also read Luther’s explanation of his translation. In essence, it had to do with the proper rendering of the Latin and/or Greek into 16th Century German…and he had no confidence that the Catholic translators were capable of properly doing so. Luther wrote, and probably spoke, in a manner which we would consider to be very bombastic today but which was acceptable as a means of written advocacy in his time. This style, especially the common use of insults, is off-putting when we read it today, but it does not mean that Luther was without good reason to translate as he translated. Look below at some of his explanation from his letter which you did not quote:
Code: 
   "I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in
   either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me
   that - it is fact!  The letters s-o-l-a are not there.  And these
   knotheads 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 accurate, it belongs there.
   I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
   translation - not Latin or Greek.  But it is the nature of our
   language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
   the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word
   "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein).  For example, we say "the farmer
   brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no
   money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet
   drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?"  There are a
   vast number of such everyday cases.

   In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.  It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
   brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do
   not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer
   brings allein grain and kein money."  Here the word "allein" helps
   the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete
   German expression.

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
   of their speech, and do our translating accordingly.  Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

   For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
   am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
   literally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heart
   the mouth speaks."  Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
   German could understand something like that?  What is this
   "abundance of the heart?"  No German can say that; unless, of
   course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
   magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
   correct, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any more
   than "abundance of the house, "abundance of the stove" or
   "abundance of the bench" is German.  But the mother in the home
   and the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the
   mouth."  That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
   kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
   successfully.  The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
   proper German."
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
Click to expand...
To this theological dunderhead, this sounds like the Church is right in preserving the Latin. Seems like things get lost (or changed) in the translation?

(In case there is any confusion, it is myself whom I am calling a dunderhead 🙂 )
 
Philothea53 said:
To this theological dunderhead, this sounds like the Church is right in preserving the Latin. Seems like things get lost (or changed) in the translation?
Click to expand...
Luther DELIBERATELY changed it to say what he wanted it to say. His spiritual descendants are still doing that.

Luther DELIBERATELY threw out whole books of the Bible in order to make the Bible say what he wanted it to say.

The more one reads of Luther, the more one distrusts him. If Martin Luther was a man of God them I’m the Blessed Virgin Mary. What he foisted on the world was, I believe, the beginning of the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top