Martin Luther's CHARACTER?

[distracted]

How do you know that to be true?? Did he tell you himself? Of all the outlandish statements I ever heard on here, this is one that is an award winner for certain!

i read a book about Luther written by a priest. The author quoted Luther directly from his own wriitngs…

Also, how does any of us know anything to be true? None of us was there when the U.S. Constitution was written up either…

If i had a choice whether to believe a Catholic priest or a non-Catholic [whomever]… I guess u know which i would go with…

 

[Nella]

It’s one thing to stand up to corruption that admittedly was going on in those days (and always, since the Church is always filled w/ sinners…). It’s another thing to throw the baby out with the bathwater - disrespect popes and bishops, change scripture, etc… I frankly believe Luther was possessed…

An interesting, eye-opening book is The Facts About Luther…

I frankly believe that you are wrong.
Is there anything that says that Luther was a sexual abuser of children?? Now that would fuel your theory of posession don’t you think?

 

[bankerdavid]

You’re missing the point. It is a question of translation, not theology. In actuality, the English words “faith” and “alone” are not in the the Greek, Latin or German text either, are they? A good translation from one language to another language is seldom a word-for-word literal rendering…which would essentially end up as garbage. Ever use Babblefish to translate Chinese or something on the internet into English? Try it, you’ll see my point. Whether Luther was a good translator or not is a different question…and one that I am not competent to answer since I do not speak 16th Century German, let along ancient Greek or Latin.

While it is a question of translation, it is the basis for this branch of protestant theology. It gave birth to sola scriptura and sola fide.

 

[bankerdavid]

I frankly believe that you are wrong.
Is there anything that says that Luther was a sexual abuser of children?? Now that would fuel your theory of posession don’t you think?

No, he probably wasn’t a sexual abuser, though he did abdicate his vows of poverty and chastity.
And child abuse is not the purview of Catholic priests alone. It shows up in the same numbers per capita as in protestant fundamentalist preachers.

 

[distracted]

As alluded to elsewhere, Luther had psychological problems as a result of being physically abused as a child. That doesn’t excuse his behavior, but it does explain some things… Human psychological issues allways interfere w/ one’s spirituality/religion, which is why some people blame the Church for this, that and the other thing… and why a lot of people leave the Church…
It is hard to be a Christian, particularly hard to be a Catholic Christian… but then, Jesus said the road to eternal life is narrow and htere are few who find it… “Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven but he who does the will of the Father.”
I believe M. Luther did his own will… Whether he believed he was doing God’s will or not… is a different thing… But objectively speaking, he did not do God’s will in many ways… He just convinced himself (?) that he was, maybe… Maybe he is like so many ohters - he lied to himself until he believed his own lies…

 

[bankerdavid]

I agree. I don’t personally know a single Catholic that would even so much as admit that Luther could possibly be correct on anything. They have nothing but scorn for the man because he had the courage to stand up against the travesties of the church.

Luther wasn’t devil incarnate (thus debunking your second sentence, except that you don’t know me). In fact, I want to thank Luther personally for resurrecting a Church that was in need of it. He definitely helped bring about the Counter Reformation.

 

[Nella]

No, he probably wasn’t a sexual abuser, though he did abdicate his vows of poverty and chastity.
And child abuse is not the purview of Catholic priests alone. It shows up in the same numbers per capita as in protestant fundamentalist preachers.

apparently I hit a nerve. sorry. I think I would rather have Martin Luther giving me communion than a known pedophile priest and that goes double for my son.

 

[rr1213]

If i had a choice whether to believe a Catholic priest or a non-Catholic [whomever]… I guess u know which i would go with…

Now that’s an interesting assertion. Basically, you’re saying that you’d take the word of a Catholic over the word of a Protestant any day. You do know that your Church does not teach that priests are sinless, don’t you? A Catholic priest can be biased…or lie through his teeth… just as easily as anyone else.

 

[bankerdavid]

apparently I hit a nerve. sorry. I think I would rather have Martin Luther giving me communion than a known pedophile priest and that goes double for my son.

What you may not understand is that the priest does not give communion (known as Eucharist). Even a pedophile priest giving out the Eucharist doesn’t invalidate our partaking of Christ’s body and blood. It’s Christ giving himself to us.

I’m not even a cradle Catholic. But I know this much. The richness of our faith (I’m speaking of all Christians now) comes from Christ, through the Church He gave us, which is the Catholic Church.

 

[bankerdavid]

Now that’s an interesting assertion. Basically, you’re saying that you’d take the word of a Catholic over the word of a Protestant any day. You do know that your Church does not teach that priests are sinless, don’t you? A Catholic priest can be biased…or lie through his teeth… just as easily as anyone else.

An individual priest, you’re right, but a priest, backed up by the Church, the Magesterium, Tradition and Scripture, in matters of faith and morals, Him, I believe.

 

[rr1213]

An individual priest, you’re right, but a priest, backed up by the Church, the Magesterium, Tradition and Scripture, in matters of faith and morals, Him, I believe.

Yes, but Distracted was posting about a Catholic priest who wrote a book about Martin Luther…that’s not the same thing.

 

[mgrfin]

You have no evidence for this except your cynicism about Luther’s character. Was it also dishonest for the Douay-Rheims to translate the text in ways that no modern scholar (Catholic or Protestant) would support?

I certainly don’t have to. I disagree strongly with Luther’s doctrine of justification. I think most of it was unnecessary at best. As a Wesleyan, my understanding of justification is by and large closer to the Catholic position than to that of Luther.

Edwin

Now, you don’t like the Douay-Rheims. Interesting. It, however, translates Romans 3-28 correctly, and doesn’t steal from James Epistle to make Romans ‘more Catholic’.

Luther’s translation was erroneous and intentional, so as to put Paul into direct conflict with James 2:24, which reads:
“by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (“nicht durch den Glauben allein”).

The “alone” (allein) in James is in the Greek. It being so, Luther had to add it to Romans, so at least his argument later was that James was an ‘epistle of straw’, because it had no evangelical character.

It was not a translational issue for Romans 3:28. It was purely doctrinal for Martin, otherwise James won out.

These are old arguments defending Luther on Romans. They don’t hold water.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

apparently I hit a nerve. sorry. I think I would rather have Martin Luther giving me communion than a known pedophile priest and that goes double for my son.

Nella, you are back on the pedophile issue. You never give it a rest.

So you would rather have a man give you Tastee bread, than a priest, sinful or no, give you the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Interesting lengths you would go to.

peace
mgrfin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Have you ever read what Luther had to say about this issue?

On the presuppositions about man common to St.Paul & the Reformers, Luther was as much a sinner as anybody else - so pointing out his many, obvious, serious, & repulsive flaws, however sound as history, is beside the point ​

It’s like saying that St.Peter was disqualified by his cowardice, his denial, his blasphemy & cursing & perjury, his vacillation at Antioch, & his tempting of Christ - all of which the NT mentions - from being an Apostle: because his holiness as a Christian (& a wonderful example of repentance & humility & love to the rest of us) is grace-given, God-given: it’s not founded on his sins, but is despite them. His sins show that we sinners can be forgiven by the same Christ Who forgave him. If no Christians had committed the sins the Apostles committed, later Christians might think that their own commissions of those sins could not be forgiven, & might despair. Christ not commit them. So the sins of Saints help the rest of us.

The logic that disqualifies men from being servants of Christ because they are not saintly in their lives but very sinful in some ways, leads to despair; it knows nothing of grace; it appeals to our own rotten righteousness, & not to the Righteousness of Christ. It’s unrealistic, because no one, however holy, is holy in comparison with Christ. Compared to Him, we are all on a level with one another, are all guilty & damnable & dead in sins. If any of us were not equally guilty before God as others, none of us could be saved.

Besides - Luther is unlikely to mind being torn to shreds: he knew very well that he was a great sinner; as he says in his writings. So there is no need to defend him

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree. I don’t personally know a single Catholic that would even so much as admit that Luther could possibly be correct on anything. They have nothing but scorn for the man because he had the courage to stand up against the travesties of the church.

Not all Catholics would sooner cut their own throats than allow that Luther was not “the devil incarnate”.​

Luther was extremely flawed; as are we all - that doesn’t make him the son of satan. He was right in some ways - & not, in others. He wasn’t a plaster saint, but a flawed, sinful, damaged, unclean human being like the rest of us. And as a man is, so he acts. There is no sense in treating him as though he alone were right on all the issues that divided him from the Church he had belonged in, anymore than in treating him as “the man of sin”, or even as though he had nothing to say from which the CC could learn - there is a good deal that Catholics can learn from him: at any rate, the last two Popes have thought so, if their words are any guide.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

i read a book about Luther written by a priest. The author quoted Luther directly from his own wriitngs…

Also, how does any of us know anything to be true? None of us was there when the U.S. Constitution was written up either…

If i had a choice whether to believe a Catholic priest or a non-Catholic [whomever]… I guess u know which i would go with…

So please quote your source ​

 

[allofgrace]

apparently I hit a nerve. sorry. I think I would rather have Martin Luther giving me communion than a known pedophile priest and that goes double for my son.

This seems to me to translate to someone getting agitated by the truth about Luther and turning to back handed ad hominem attacks which is … ho hum … par for the course.

 

[St_Violet]

I agree. I don’t personally know a single Catholic that would even so much as admit that Luther could possibly be correct on anything. They have nothing but scorn for the man because he had the courage to stand up against the travesties of the church.

what do you think Luther was correct besides showing concern for the selling of indulgences which he used to promote his ideas?

 

[St_Violet]

apparently I hit a nerve. sorry. I think I would rather have Martin Luther giving me communion than a known pedophile priest and that goes double for my son.

the more I see you post in these forums, the more it is clear to me that you are very prejudice against the Catholic Faith. and it’s way out of line I have read an article saying that Pedophiles is not just a Catholic Problem, I have even read some that say that there are more pedophiles in Protestant communties simply because of their high numbers, the BTK killer was a baptist priest who enjoyed having his way with people after he killed them, I have yet to find anyone say the baptists pastors are serial killers, now I’m not trying to point the direction towards protestants, what I’m trying to say is that pedophiles can be anywhere. the only reason why the media constantly attacks Catholic priests is because people think a priest has a “holy” image.

the more I see you post, the more I believe you need to find Jesus, you will continue to be in my prayers.

 

[cazayoux]

It’s like saying that St.Peter was disqualified by his cowardice, his denial, his blasphemy & cursing & perjury, his vacillation at Antioch, & his tempting of Christ - all of which the NT mentions - from being an Apostle: because his holiness as a Christian (& a wonderful example of repentance & humility & love to the rest of us) is grace-given, God-given: it’s not founded on his sins, but is despite them. His sins show that we sinners can be forgiven by the same Christ Who forgave him. If no Christians had committed the sins the Apostles committed, later Christians might think that their own commissions of those sins could not be forgiven, & might despair. Christ not commit them. So the sins of Saints help the rest of us.

I agree.
Peter’s authority is based on Christ giving him the keys and asking him to feed/tend his sheep … in spite of his sins.

michel