Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter FindingTruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question to any Protestant is, did Christ in His infinite genius want only one visible Church, protected by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16), to be able to correctly interpret through the ages what He had taught and said about faith and morals during His three year ministry here on earth? Or did He envision thousands of churches claiming to be in His name, but teaching different and conflicting interpretations of His words and teachings?

As a Catholic, I find great comfort in the fact that the Catholic Church can be traced back to Christ and His conversation with Peter in Matthew 16.

We are asked to “through faith believe, and then understand” His teachings. Not to “disagree, refute, and justify leaving the Catholic Church.” In John 6, many found Christ’s sayings “hard”, and stopped following Him. Peter in John 6, did not fully understand yet what Christ was saying, but had Faith in Him and believed, even though what Jesus was saying was “hard.”
 
gcnuss said:
I’m not sure how to respond to you except to say that we Lutherans are not under any obligation to adhere to or to accept every word that Luther wrote.
Click to expand...
True. You are however obligated to follow the words of Jesus Christ in the Church he created for us. And if some German bishops start selling indulgences or raffling off blessings you’d be expected to speak up.
 
(Edited)

The question was about Luther. Luther didn’t remove those books, he appended them just as Jerome did.

Jerome stated right in the vulgate these seven books were not divinely inspired, but good for edification.

**Luther did what Jerome had done **- he separated the deuteros from inspired books and stated they were not divinely inspired.

“As** the Church** reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

When Protestants removed the deuteros - centuries later - it was for economic reasons.

Since the cost of printing was so high, it was logical to removed books that were not considered inspired to save money.
 
bobregan said:
My question to any Protestant is, did Christ in His infinite genius want only one visible Church, protected by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16), to be able to correctly interpret through the ages what He had taught and said about faith and morals during His three year ministry here on earth? Or did He envision thousands of churches claiming to be in His name, but teaching different and conflicting interpretations of His words and teachings?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that Christ established one church, though it is fully one only in its timeless, invisible form. As far as the visible church is concerned, Christ prayed that his followers would be one but that unity has never been fully realized. As to correct interpretation of Christ’s teachings on faith and morals, earthly unity is not a prerequisite for that to occur although it probably is advantageous.
 
gcnuss said:
I have no doubt that Christ established one church, though it is fully one only in its timeless, invisible form. As far as the visible church is concerned, Christ prayed that his followers would be one but that unity has never been fully realized. As to correct interpretation of Christ’s teachings on faith and morals, earthly unity is not a prerequisite for that to occur although it probably is advantageous.
Click to expand...
Peter was invisible when Christ handed him the keys to heaven?

The Church was unified at one time. The sad fact that some lambs have strayed doesn’t mean the flock has disbanded.
 
Pastor, you state: "As to correct interpretation of Christ’s teachings on faith and morals, earthly unity is not a prerequisite for that to occur although it probably is advantageous. "

All due respect, but this sounds that Christ’s Truth is subjective and not objective, and very morally relativistic. Let’s take a moral issue such as abortion. The Catholic Church (and interestingly, in the Didache it broaches this subject directly) states that abortion is always intrinsically evil and therefore, immoral and a sin. Some Protestant denominations say that abortion is sometimes OK, especially in cases of rape and incest. Would Jesus look at the Catholic and say “you’re right.”, and then look at the Protestant say, “It’s OK…you’re right too.” ? How? It sounds once again that it is subjective, and whatever personal interpretation I have of Jesus’ teaching is OK…Jesus loves me and will agree with whatever I believe and interpret His teachings to be.

If “earthly unity” is not a prerequisite, then is there a “Divine/heavenly unity” on faith and morals?
 
Ockham said:
Peter was invisible when Christ handed him the keys to heaven?

The Church was unified at one time. The sad fact that some lambs have strayed doesn’t mean the flock has disbanded.
Click to expand...
I never said the flock has disbanded. I merely was saying that the church is not bound by time and space. There is a visible aspect of the church but that is not the whole thing by any stretch of the imagination. There is one holy catholic and apostolic church that continues regardless of the follies of those of us on earth.

As far as the keys to heaven are concerned, John 20:22-23 indicates that Jesus passed on the keys to the assembled disciples (ten of them, I surmise, since Judas was no more and Thomas apparently missed out).
 
bobregan said:
ginger2, didn’t you mean to say that Catholics and Protestants (actually Lutherans) agree that works are RELEVANT??
Click to expand...
Yes.
As defined by Catholics, SF is a false doctrine. Protestants agree with that.

Luther also agreed as is seen in his statement, “Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!”

This is how we are saved:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves,** it is the gift of God–not by works**, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9).

That is so plain, I can’t understand why C’s & P’s continue to argue over it. 🤷
 
Ginger2,

If Protestants and Catholics agree that SF is a false doctrine, then a HUGE hurdle has been overcome!! This makes us much closer to unity, don’t you agree?

What’s left then, that you think divides us?
 
Ockham said:
Peter was invisible when Christ handed him the keys to heaven?

The Church was unified at one time. The sad fact that some lambs have strayed doesn’t mean the flock has disbanded.
Click to expand...
The Church has never been 100% united after Eve was created - The Sad fact is the followers will not accept any Authortity incuding Jesus as thier Masters
 
Ginger2 said:
Luther’s Bible translation was a list of books identical to Jerome’s vulgate, including appending the deuteros.

Ginger
Click to expand...
That isn’t the version that Jesus used or that the Catholic Church used.
 
Ginger2 said:
The question was about Luther. Luther didn’t remove those books, he appended them just as Jerome did.

Jerome stated right in the vulgate these seven books were not divinely inspired, but good for edification.

**Luther did what Jerome had done **- he separated the deuteros from inspired books and stated they were not divinely inspired.

“As** the Church** reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

When Protestants removed the deuteros - centuries later - it was for economic reasons.

Since the cost of printing was so high, it was logical to removed books that were not considered inspired to save money.
Click to expand...
Then you agree that the Bible was changed. The Catholic Church has constantly held those books and portions of books that Luther removed from the canon, as inspired.

Those books and protions of books were removed from the Bible. Is the Bible the inspired word of God, or is it the inspired word of God plus some other stuff that we think is really good for us?

It is not the same Bible.

There was a debate about certain books in the Jewish communities. Some books weren’t found in the original, so they were removed from their cannon. However, Jesus and his followers used the full cannon.

Since that time, fragments of some of the disputed books have been found in the original.

I choose to use the version that Jesus accepted.
 
reteeks21 said:
I didn’t think Jesus had a Bible?
Click to expand...
He and all the Jews had the OT scriptures. The post you’ve quoted was a repsonse to a response to this post.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Originally Posted by Ginger2
As for Luther changing the Christian faith, that is a fallacy. Luther kept all the same books, in the same order and category as Jerome’s Vulgate. Luther did not add words to Scriptures. Luther did not create new doctrines.
"

Luther didn’t promote the version of the OT that Christ and his followers used, did he? Didn’t he drop parts of the OT that supported things like Purgatory? "
 
kalt said:
Then you agree that the Bible was changed. The Catholic Church has constantly held those books and portions of books that Luther removed from the canon, as inspired.

Those books and protions of books were removed from the Bible. Is the Bible the inspired word of God, or is it the inspired word of God plus some other stuff that we think is really good for us?

It is not the same Bible.

There was a debate about certain books in the Jewish communities. Some books weren’t found in the original, so they were removed from their cannon. However, Jesus and his followers used the full cannon.

Since that time, fragments of some of the disputed books have been found in the original.

I choose to use the version that Jesus accepted.
Click to expand...
The Samaritans have the smallest Bible in the modern world-- only five books (the Pentateuch).
 
Ginger2 said:
No. That is the charge, but it is not true.

Here is Luther’s answer to the charge:
“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. …

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.

… So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: “Ut quid perditio haec?” and in Mark 14: “Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?” Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate it: “Why has this loss of salve occurred?” But what kind of German is this? What German says “loss of salve occurred”? And if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is lost and must be looked for and found again; … But a German would say “Ut quid, etc…” as “Why this waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” … these are good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used it better." - Martin Luther

Following this reasoning, the word “only” is appropriate in the German, but would not be appropriate in English translations - which it is not.

Since Protestant Bibles do not use the word “alone” in the English translations of Protestant Bibles, it stands as prove, Luther did not add a word to change the meaning of Scriptures or to create a new doctrine.
Click to expand...
Fait and works - the two things.

“But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied,”

"For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; "

So this is supposed to mean that he brings grain and money?

Which is affirmed and which is denied?
 
kalt said:
Fait and works - the two things.

“But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied,”

"For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; "

So this is supposed to mean that he brings grain and money?

Which is affirmed and which is denied?
Click to expand...
Faith and works - have a symbiotic relationship

(i,e - You must believe the ground is going to be there - next time you put your foot down)
 
kalt said:
Fait and works - the two things.

“But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied,”

"For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; "

So this is supposed to mean that he brings grain and money?

Which is affirmed and which is denied?
Click to expand...
In the context of Romans 3, Paul (not Luther) is clearly denying that “works of the law” save us.

Luther understood “works of the law” to be good works in general, it’s true. But he “denied” them not in the sense of saying they were valueless, but of claiming that they do not contribute to our relationship with God. Rather, they follow from that relationship.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top