Z
Zenkai
Guest
You think he was working for satan!?
Luther was just trying to do what he thought was right. He thought the Church had become corrupt and he wanted to fix it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Luther was just trying to do what he thought was right. He thought the Church had become corrupt and he wanted to fix it.
T
thistle
Guest
The Church cannot be corrupt but there were some corrupt bishops and priests. That is different from the Church being corrupt. He should have had faith and trusted in God and stayed to help fix things. Leaving was his choice. The Church did not throw him out. After he left the corrupt practices were “fixed” by those who had faith and trust in God.You think he was working for satan!?
Luther was just trying to do what he thought was right. He thought the Church had become corrupt and he wanted to fix it.
As I said in an earlier post that was not his main reason reason for leaving. He rejected teachings of the Church and made up his own doctrines (some of which I mentioned in an earlier thread).
As for working for Satan what can I say? God wants the faithful to be united but Satan wants the faithful to be divided. What did Luther do? He divided the faithful.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
He thought some of the teachings were wrong and unbiblical, that’s why he rejected them.The Church cannot be corrupt but there were some corrupt bishops and priests. That is different from the Church being corrupt. He should have had faith and trusted in God and stayed to help fix things. Leaving was his choice. The Church did not throw him out. After he left the corrupt practices were “fixed” by those who had faith and trust in God.
As I said in an earlier post that was not his main reason reason for leaving. He rejected teachings of the Church and made up his own doctrines (some of which I mentioned in an earlier thread).
As for working for Satan what can I say? God wants the faithful to be united but Satan wants the faithful to be divided. What did Luther do? He divided the faithful.
T
thistle
Guest
He said we do not have to obey the 10 Commandments. That not some minor detail.He thought some of the teachings were wrong and unbiblical, that’s why he rejected them.
What is wrong and unbiblical about the 10 Commandments. Jesus said we have to obey them.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
When did he say that? If he did say that, perhaps he got that idea because Christians aren’t under the Law of Moses.He said we do not have to obey the 10 Commandments. That not some minor detail.
T
thistle
Guest
We are under the moral laws, not the ritual laws.When did he say that? If he did say that, perhaps he got that idea because Christians aren’t under the Law of Moses.
This is what Luther said about the 10 Commandments:
“Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364.)
Code:
“Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.” -
Code:
“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (De Wette 4, 188).
“It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.” (Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126)
“If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310).
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Ok, but when did Luther say to get rid of the 10 Commandments? Perhaps he meant that they weren’t necessary for Salvation.We are under the moral laws, not the ritual laws.
T
thistle
Guest
See post #46.Ok, but when did Luther say to get rid of the 10 Commandments? Perhaps he meant that they weren’t necessary for Salvation.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Those seem to be taken out of context. Here, I googled one and this is what one of those quotes says in context: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/luther-moses-is-executioner-let-us-send.htmlSee post #46.
T
thistle
Guest
Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won’t get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther.Those seem to be taken out of context. Here, I googled one and this is what one of those quotes says in context: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/luther-moses-is-executioner-let-us-send.html
Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said:
godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm
Z
Zenkai
Guest
I didn’t memorize every word the man said! Did you even read the link? It shows that quote in-context.Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won’t get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther.
Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said:
godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm
T
thistle
Guest
Of course I read it. It doesn’t change anything.I didn’t memorize every word the man said! Did you even read the link? It shows that quote in-context.
By the way we risk getting the thread closed as it is about Luther’s New Testament which would not be fair to the OP.
If you want to start a new one on the Old Testament feel free.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Alright, but it does change everything. That quote, when read in-context, is far different from what it says out of context.Of course I read it. It doesn’t change anything.
By the way we risk getting the thread closed as it is about Luther’s New Testament which would not be fair to the OP.
If you want to start a new one on the Old Testament feel free.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
You are SERIOUSLY misinformed about Martin Luther and about his biblical theology. First of all, the Ten Commandments and Luther’s exhortations to obey them constitute a huge part of his small catechism–something he encouraged all people to study and follow.He said we do not have to obey the 10 Commandments. That not some minor detail.
What is wrong and unbiblical about the 10 Commandments. Jesus said we have to obey them.
Luther never removed books from the New Testament nor did he want to nor did he “try to” as is sometimes claimed here at CAF. What Luther DID think (which you can feel free agree with or not at your pleasure) is that not all parts of the Bible are of equal importance. Luther found the gospels and the writings of Paul to be of utmost importance relative to the salvation of humanity. He found other books to be lesser “bearers of Christ.” For Luther the Bible is only valuable to the extent that it brings Christ to us–salvation is not about a book. The Bible is simply the “manger” if you will (one of Luther’s analogies), for Jesus. You may not like his systematic ranking of the value of biblical materials, but that was his system. It’s not the same as removing books from the Bible.
Regarding the books you mention, Luther found them to be of marginal usefulness in “bearing Christ”; sort of the bottom of the barrel. But in deference to the tradition of the church he did not remove them, nor did he ever claim that they should not be part of the Bible. He translated them from Greek into German. He included them in his Bible. Period.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Oh my.Its not out of context. You are debating about Luther but having to google. I thought you had read his writings. If you have not then how could you say I was giving false information. I think we won’t get far if you have to google every time I make a comment about Luther.
Let me help you google. Here is everything Luther wrote or said:
godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm
You think the quotes you posted in #46 are not out of context? Why don’t you go over to your URL “Martin Luther's Writings: Sermons, Commentary and Other Works” and find the context of those quotes? Let me help you out: your URL does not contain “everything Luther wrote or said.” In fact, it only contains a very small sampling. I would be surprised if you could actually locate any of the quotes you used in #46 at that link.
The ironic part is it’s highly improbable that you actually took those quotes from the sources you list:
Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364.)
D. Martini Lutheri Exegetica Opera Latina, published by Elsperger (Erlangen, Heyder, 1829-84), Vol. 18 pg. 146
De Wette 4, 188
Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126
If you actually got your quotes from these sources, this would mean you know French, Latin and German, and then translated your quotes into English from books that have been out of print for years. I don’t believe that for a second. No, you used Google and found some version of the slanderous webpage Luther, Exposing the Myth. So before you chastise someone for using Google, I suggest you start with yourself.Comm. ad Galat, p.310
Zenkai probably didn’t realize that I was the author of the link posted in #49, but I suspect you did. I’ll gladly defend any of the research that went into the content of these links:
1. “Their only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself”
2. “Thou shalt not covet,’ is a commandment which proves us all to be sinners; since it is not in man’s power not to covet, and the same is the drift of all the commandments, for they are all equally impossible to us.”
3. “Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.”
4. "We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (deWette 4, 188).
5. “It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.”
6. “If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310).
My links are specifically for people like “Thistle”. It’s one thing to disagree with Luther, it’s quite another to deliberately misrepresent what he said.
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
For the sake of argument, let’s grant hypothetically that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decreed the contents of the Bible. That is, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were “canon.” Once the Council declares something, all discussion is over. No longer can anyone question any book. The Church meeting in a Holy Spirit led Council put forth the absolute truth on the canon, binding the entire Church. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has stated,Luther never removed books from the New Testament nor did he want to nor did he “try to” as is sometimes claimed here at CAF.
Let us remember that throughout Church history, many Christians did not hold the Dueterocanonicals to be sacred Scripture. In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, and the great Catholic scholar Cajetan expressed doubts on some of the New Testament books as well. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the council of Trent. The liberty these men had was simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church. If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther, and a host of others previous to them had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. In the case of Luther, Cajetan, and Erasmus, theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it. to read more about the views of Erasmus and Cajetan (contemporaries of Luther), see my paper, Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture.“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”
When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. I can show his overall opinion softened later in life by the exclusion of many negative comments in his revised prefaces. Of the four books, it is possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Even while criticizing James and Jude, he positively quoted from them throughout his career. In the case of Jude he did a complete series of lectures. In the case of James, he occasionally preached from the book. Add up the chapters Luther questioned in James and Jude, and the amount is quite small.
I suggest Catholics follow the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church: Catholic theologians are granted the freedom to hold opinions on matters not settled dogmatically. If they do, well, I’ll at least respect them for being a consistent Roman Catholics. If they still maintain criticism of Luther, perhaps they can explain on what basis they do so, for it is certainly not being consistent with the criterion put forth by the Roman Catholic Church and her infallible pronouncements.
James Swan
R
rdscheirer
Guest
Around AD 60 there was a council of Rabbis who took to themselves the nature of the true Hebrew Cannon. They did this to relegate the new faith to the dustbin of history. They went back to the original books in Hebrew(see M. Luther) and ignored the books written in Greek because those supported the Catholic Church .
How can you stop praying for the dead as is supported in Macabbees- doesn’t every Christian pray for their deceased grandparents, parents and siblings to be with God in Heaven
How can you stop praying for the dead as is supported in Macabbees- doesn’t every Christian pray for their deceased grandparents, parents and siblings to be with God in Heaven
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
This is false information, as has been pointed out in many threads in this forum in the past. The idea of a “council” (which really has no place in rabbinic Judaism in any event) was a speculative theory of Heinrich Graetz, promulgated in the late 19th century, and one which has been thoroughly discredited. There is virtually no supporting evidence for his theory.Around AD 60 there was a council of Rabbis who took to themselves the nature of the true Hebrew Cannon. They did this to relegate the new faith to the dustbin of history. They went back to the original books in Hebrew(see M. Luther) and ignored the books written in Greek because those supported the Catholic Church.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
The thing that strikes me is that in spite of the repeated claims and yes some of the bombastic things Luther said, Luther never published a truncated version of the Bible. He did move the “Seven Books” and call them apocryphal but he never excluded them.
That is just not true.
God Bless
That is just not true.
God Bless
S
Speedypizza
Guest
Among other odd things like having feces throwing contests with Satan, Martin Luther was also an Anti-Semite.
weirdcrap.com/recreational/luther.html
weirdcrap.com/recreational/luther.html
- Status
- Not open for further replies.