Polish film on the influence of Martin Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter otrrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MagdalenaRita said:
As a protestant I read a biography of Martin Luther and though he was against the destruction of the images of saints and crucifixes, those who followed him or who were influenced by his preaching or what he said, did destroy them.
Click to expand...
Karlstadt attempted to destroy images in Wittenberg while Luther was in hiding from the imperial authorities, but when Luther learned of what Karlstadt was doing he put a stop to it. But yes there were those influenced by Luther who went beyond what Luther himself taught.

Iconoclasm was not a Lutheran thing. That was something you saw more with the Swiss/Dutch Reformed churches and the English Reformation (especially in the reign of Edward VI).
 
Last edited:
AlbertDerGrosse said:
. A preliminary search yields this . It appears to be a Lutheran apologetics blog, though the exact page there isn’t very apologetic. It’s actually kind of dry and historical. The writer seems to just dump a bunch of information of what he found in trying to track down this idea that Luther killed a man in a duel and escaped punishment through vows without any editorializing.
Click to expand...
Guilty. That link was written ten years ago, and that was the information available at the time. If you scroll to the bottom, see Addendum #2. Some of the editors of Luther’s Works saw the same entry and left a comment explaining that the theory Luther was a murderer is a myth.
 
ltwin said:
40.png
MagdalenaRita:
As a protestant I read a biography of Martin Luther and though he was against the destruction of the images of saints and crucifixes, those who followed him or who were influenced by his preaching or what he said, did destroy them.
Click to expand...
Karlstadt attempted to destroy images in Wittenberg while Luther was in hiding from the imperial authorities, but when Luther learned of what Karlstadt was doing he put a stop to it. But yes there were those influenced by Luther who went beyond what Luther himself taught.

Iconoclasm was not a Lutheran thing. That was something you saw more with the Swiss/Dutch Reformed churches and the English Reformation (especially in the reign of Edward VI).
Click to expand...
It was a very big deal in Calvinist sects. You can still see it today in the simplicity of many Protestant churches, down to the point that some are little more than a meeting hall. While there’s obviously a big divide between Lutheranism and Catholicism, in some ways it’s not that different than the divide between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. But once you head down the Calvinist road, then you really see where the divide became a vast gulf.
 
The divide between Lutheran and Catholic is wider than Catholic and Orthodoxy. The divide between Lutheran and Calvinism is at least as wide as the former
 
JonNC said:
The divide between Lutheran and Catholic is wider than Catholic and Orthodoxy. The divide between Lutheran and Calvinism is at least as wide as the former
Click to expand...
There were some attempts early on in the Reformation to bridge the gulf between Luther and Rome. Luther himself was an intransigent figure, but he was also something of a hostage to his own success. The Northern European princes that adopted his theology did so as much for political calculation as out of any genuine sense of spiritual awakening. As well, France was playing a pretty dirty game, hoping to gain advantage by having the Holy Roman Empire torn apart.

There’s some theological gibberish in Luther’s writings, to be sure, but a lot of it was simply restating, with all the charm a mid-millennium German of Luther’s background could muster, observations and interpretations that St. Augustine had written about a thousand years before. I think it’s credible to say that Luther’s theology is simply Augustine On Steroids. And yet within that there could have been a healing of the rift. Augustine is among the most revered of Christian thinkers, probably second only to St. Paul himself as Christianity’s great theologian. There could have been ways to reform the Church based upon Augustinian unity.

But the two great streams of Western Christianity were dominated by two extraordinarily talented but arrogant figures; Martin Luther and Pope Leo X, and while Leo X was as affable as Luther was stern, both men simply lacked the will to forestall the damage they were about to unleash on Europe.
 
Last edited:
The divide between some Anglicans and some other Anglicans is inevitable.
 
niceatheist said:
There were some attempts early on in the Reformation to bridge the gulf between Luther and Rome. Luther himself was an intransigent figure, but he was also something of a hostage to his own success. The Northern European princes that adopted his theology did so as much for political calculation as out of any genuine sense of spiritual awakening. As well, France was playing a pretty dirty game, hoping to gain advantage by having the Holy Roman Empire torn apart.
Click to expand...
There were contacts between The Lutherans and the EO, which went just as far as between Rome and the EO.
niceatheist said:
There’s some theological gibberish in Luther’s writings, to be sure, but a lot of it was simply restating, with all the charm a mid-millennium German of Luther’s background could muster, observations and interpretations that St. Augustine had written about a thousand years before. I think it’s credible to say that Luther’s theology is simply Augustine On Steroids. And yet within that there could have been a healing of the rift. Augustine is among the most revered of Christian thinkers, probably second only to St. Paul himself as Christianity’s great theologian. There could have been ways to reform the Church based upon Augustinian unity.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t argue with this. The issue was more related to Aquinas, about which Luther has little good training.
niceatheist said:
But the two great streams of Western Christianity were dominated by two extraordinarily talented but arrogant figures; Martin Luther and Pope Leo X, and while Leo X was as affable as Luther was stern, both men simply lacked the will to forestall the damage they were about to unleash on Europe.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
I can understand why many Catholics are upset with Martin Luther. But making up things about the man accomplishes what exactly?

Red meat for the most anti-Protestant Catholics? I can see that.

Convince Protestants to join the Catholic Church? Good luck with that. That and this bizarre idea Protestants worship Luther. It might be a surprise to some but many Protestants can be critical of Luther’s character and some of his writings while agreeing on others. We’re not blind to his Rush Limbaugh-like scathing comments and anti-Semitism. As others and I have mentioned, we don’t treat Luther like a Pope making pronouncements ex cathedra. If the goal is to convince Protestants to cross the Tiber, try to know what Protestants actually believe.

Frankly, making up things about Luther hurts the Catholic Church’s credibility for those of us on the other side of the Tiber. It’s the same thing when some Protestants say crazy things about the Catholic Church for Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I would also like to add that this film is spiritually edifying for no one- neither Catholic nor Protestant.
 
What a load of garbage that’s not true. I’m a Luther fan he was only pointing out some of the errors of the Church in fact he never wanted to breakaway from the Church just correct the mistakes. Indulgences for example preying on the poor for their money for a place in heaven. If you want to criticize someone look into reliable sources not biased ones.
 
Well, in summary Luther is wrong and he is a heretic. He caused damaged and led many people astray and is responsible for the damnation of them. He is liar and revolted against the truth.
 
Wrong for pointing out the sins of the Church at that time? Plenty of wrongs since I might add…
 
Last edited:
No, he is wrong for using that as an excuse to change the doctrine and do whatever he wanted. It was a matter of power as well because he received support from Lords who wanted a piece of cake from the Church’s wealth. It is pure ambition that torn everything apart. The work of the Devil.
 
You do know even the Church at least tacitly admitted there had been failings on its side. Demonizing Luther without acknowledging that he was hardly the first to criticize the Church
 
Yes, you are right. The Church has had dark times; nonetheless, Luther is still the bad guy. His intentions were not to improve the political situation of the Church, he took advantage of it. That’s the point of not recognizing any good deed from him.
 
Maybe you should do some more research on Luther? Just saying.the devil made him do it is rather silly…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top