Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[kalt]

A lot of that is applicable to Jesus too. He was “merely a man” in the opinion most of his contemporaries, so far as the evidence goes. As for “changing the Bible” - what Luther did was trivial in comparison with adding 27 new books; Jesus had got by very well with the usual 39 (give or take a few); so by what right did anyone add more ? A bunch of fishermen & morally dubious types (who had not even stood by their own leader in his hour of need !) were in no position to do anything of the sort. Any “malcontent” can claim to be led by God - so their claiming this is worth precisely zero. Other writings - such as 1 Enoch, which an Apostle quotes - claim to be inspired.​

Historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Luther is not much to look at; historically, if one denies the possibility that God worked through him, Jesus is just another Jewish fanatic who came to a sticky end. If God can work through deeply sinful people, He can work through Luther; the only question is, whether & in what way He did so. Is God the sort of God Who might work through a Luther, given the known facts of his life ? A difference in theology seems to be at the root of the disagreement about him.

At last, someone compares Luther to Jesus, and shows that Luther comes up short on all counts. Though some thought Jesus was a nutty malcontent, he was God. Even Luther’s believers don’t believe that he was God.

You see, God didn’t work through Jesus. Jesus was God.

All Lutherans believe this, so what others think of Jesus (God or not) is irrelevant.

God has worked through deeply sinful people many times. Do Lutherans claim that he was one of them? That he spoke infallibly when he changed the Bible?

I’ve never heard a Lutheran or any Protestant make that claim for Luther (infallibility when deciding canon or doctrine).

 

[kalt]

It’s been discussed a billion (British measurement BTW) times. Some forms of OSAS may well be indefensible - that’s not a reason to assume the Reformed version or counterpart of it, AKA the preservation of the Saints, also is. BTW, St. Augustine was extremely influential on Calvin’s understanding of grace & salvation - most Catholic complaints against Calvin’s positions on this issue are also complaints against Augustine. They might both be wrong - but they were not soft in the head. If critics of Calvin’s doctrine ignore his teaching on man’s responsibility to God, & treat what he says as though it were meant as an excuse for moral licence, that is no fault of Calvin’s.​

Will you post this version of OSAS?

 

[kalt]

The paradigm of determining absolute truth, as I understand Roman Catholicism is infallible pronouncment, so until an absolute infallible pronouncement is put forth by either council or pope, the Roman Catholic statements concerning Luther, or implying Luther’s teaching, have enough lack of definitness to allow Roman Catholics to view Luther however they want to, or at least to able to view him according to what’s been stated already with qualifications.

James Swan

Luther’s doctrine was replied to in a council. It’s already been done.

We, though, are free to think about the man as we see fit. Ex-cathedra statements are of faith and morals.

Believe it or not, we’re free to make up our own minds about people like Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, and Peppermint Pattie.

You might think it outrageous, but we can decide for ourselves what we think of algebra.

Imagine that.

 

[bobregan]

Hahn, Grodi, Neuhaus, and, most recently, Beckwith are high-profile converts. I would add Avery Dulles to that list. Yet, there are many more equally learned Protestant clergy and theologians who have not discerned that the Catholic Church has the authority that it claims to have. Many have engaged, and continue to engage, in ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church without reaching the conclusions that Hahn, Grodi, et al. have reached. Why would one put more credence in a few well-publicized converts than in the more anonymous majority who have not converted?

Maybe though, Pastor Gary, they have come to the same conclusions as
Hahn, Grodi, et al, but for other reasons just don’t want to take that swim across the Tiber.

It’s just that Hahn (who was vehemently anti-Catholic as a Presbyterian and Evangelical) and Beckwith are intriguing to me.

God Bless. Happy St. Patrick’s:irish3:

 

[Contarini]

It’s gone midnight here in Northern Ireland, so I’m very tired.

I have come to the conclusion that Forums are not a place to spread the Gospel, because there is too much debating going on and a Christian is not supposed to debate.

But a Christian can damn people to hell? Very odd idea of Christian love you have there.

If you think that those who differ with you are going to hell, you ought to be trying to show us how we are wrong.

Your unwillingness to debate is an unwillingness to think.

I agree that intellect does not save us, but that’s a poor excuse for failing to use your intellect as well as you can.

Here’s a Scriptural passage for you to ponder: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment.” (Matt. 22:38)

Are you obeying this commandment?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hahn, Grodi, Neuhaus, and, most recently, Beckwith are high-profile converts. I would add Avery Dulles to that list.

Hahn and Grodi were not particularly high-profile converts. They were Presbyterian pastors, but that’s not a terribly high-profile position! Neuhaus and Beckwith both were prominent, well-known people before their conversions. Dulles was high-profile at the time of his conversion purely because of his family connections, but of course he became very famous in his own right afterwards.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Wrong, You guys claim Protestant churches teach OSAS means you can blatantly continue in sin after accepting Jesus.

I said show me the documentation to prove your assertion as I have never been taught that by any church I have attended.

Ginger

Here’s the Calvinist take:

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual.

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

 

[bobregan]

Hahn and Grodi were not particularly high-profile converts. They were Presbyterian pastors, but that’s not a terribly high-profile position! Neuhaus and Beckwith both were prominent, well-known people before their conversions. Dulles was high-profile at the time of his conversion purely because of his family connections, but of course he became very famous in his own right afterwards.

Edwin

Louis Bouyer comes to mind also. Very prominent and important ecumenically at Vatican II.

 

[Ginger2]

Here’s the Calvinist take:

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual.

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

This is the individual teaching of Calvin, then?

First, what church denomination(s) are Calvinists? And can you provide a link to this document?

Thanks

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

tqualey;4950389:

Hi, Ginger2,

All true Christians believe in the same basic doctrines which are found in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the Apostle’s Creed

:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary, Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name [was] Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release [him].
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. …24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
and was buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
He descended into hell. Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Etc.,…

Thank you for asking.

Etc.!!! Now that 's funny.

You missed:

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
** the holy catholic church;**
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

 

[gcnuss]

Maybe though, Pastor Gary, they have come to the same conclusions as Hahn, Grodi, et al, but for other reasons just don’t want to take that swim across the Tiber.

It’s just that Hahn (who was vehemently anti-Catholic as a Presbyterian and Evangelical) and Beckwith are intriguing to me.

I, too, am interested in the stories of converts, seeking to understand just what led them to – and, in a few cases, out of – the Catholic Church. As a Lutheran, the book There We Stood, Here We Stand is very interesting. You might find it interesting as well – eleven stories of very ordinary Lutherans who converted, including a couple of female pastors for whom conversion meant giving up their calls to ordained ministry.

 

[Contarini]

Wrong, You guys claim Protestant churches teach OSAS means you can blatantly continue in sin after accepting Jesus.

I said show me the documentation to prove your assertion as I have never been taught that by any church I have attended.

But clearly you haven’t attended every Protestant church out there. How many Southern Baptist churches have you attended? This is where you usually find the more extreme versions of OSAS.

As I have pointed out already, most people who believe in OSAS would say that regeneration changes a person so that they won’t want to “blatantly continue in sin.” However, most of them would also say that a believer doesn’t need to worry about being caught at the “wrong moment” by death–so in that sense repentance is not necessary for forgiveness (i.e., a believer would eventually repent, but might die before they got the chance and would still go to heaven).

Here’s the test case: Calvinists and others who believe in OSAS (unless they simply deny that Christian soteriological concepts can apply to OT characters) are required to say that David remained a believer throughout the period when he was sinning with Bathsheba and plotting the murder of her husband, etc. The fact that he was a believer accounts for the fact that he did repent when finally confronted by Nathan. But this was quite a long period of time in which to live in deliberate, serious, unrepentant sin. Yet traditionally Calvinists would say that David was in a saving relationship with God throughout this period.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hahn and Grodi were not particularly high-profile converts. They were Presbyterian pastors, but that’s not a terribly high-profile position! Neuhaus and Beckwith both were prominent, well-known people before their conversions. Dulles was high-profile at the time of his conversion purely because of his family connections, but of course he became very famous in his own right afterwards.

Edwin

Other high profile converts:

Tony Blair, Jeb Bush, Laura Ingraham, Robert Novak, Newt Gingrich, and Sam Brownback.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe though, Pastor Gary, they have come to the same conclusions as
Hahn, Grodi, et al, but for other reasons just don’t want to take that swim across the Tiber.

But you have absolutely no reason to think this except your ideological prejudice leading you to assume (without evidence) that any intelligent and reasonable person must recognize that Catholicism is true.

I know many learned church historians (to focus on my particular field and the one often cited by Catholics as leading people to Catholicism, as per the infamous quote from Newman) who show no inclination to convert to Catholicism. Their study of church history has confirmed their Protestantism, not challenged it. Any reasonable Catholic apologetics must take this into account.

Note that I am not one of these people. While the study of church history does make it hard to convert to anything (because as my advisor put it, “we know where the bodies are buried”), it has certainly caused me to think that the Reformation was one of the great disasters of human history and that if I had to be firmly one thing or the other on the basis of personal conviction I’d pick Catholicism over Protestantism in a heartbeat.

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

Hahn and Grodi were not particularly high-profile converts. They were Presbyterian pastors, but that’s not a terribly high-profile position! Neuhaus and Beckwith both were prominent, well-known people before their conversions. Dulles was high-profile at the time of his conversion purely because of his family connections, but of course he became very famous in his own right afterwards.

Edwin

Ouch, Edwin! My Presbyterian Pastor friends might not agree with you on this!

In today’s secular, materialistic society, I find that I’m far more comfortable and want to hang out with strong-in-their-faith Protestants or Catholics. I don’t have much in common these days with friends that have drifted off deep in to the secular world.

 

[bobregan]

But you have absolutely no reason to think this except your ideological prejudice leading you to assume (without evidence) that any intelligent and reasonable person must recognize that Catholicism is true.

I know many learned church historians (to focus on my particular field and the one often cited by Catholics as leading people to Catholicism, as per the infamous quote from Newman) who show no inclination to convert to Catholicism. Their study of church history has confirmed their Protestantism, not challenged it. Any reasonable Catholic apologetics must take this into account.

Note that I am not one of these people. While the study of church history does make it hard to convert to anything (because as my advisor put it, “we know where the bodies are buried”), it has certainly caused me to think that the Reformation was one of the great disasters of human history and that if I had to be firmly one thing or the other on the basis of personal conviction I’d pick Catholicism over Protestantism in a heartbeat.

Edwin

Excellent points, Edwin.

And I have not studied this subject as much as I should, and was in a way thinking out loud. But can the Catholic claim that it can be historically proven that there is a lineage from the current Pope Benedict back to Peter? Catholic historians/theologians will answer that with a definitive “yes”. They must have convincing facts, also stating that this has always been the belief in the Catholic Church. Did Linus come after Peter? Did Cletus come after Linus? Did Clement come after Cletus? All the way down to today where Benedict follows John Paul?

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2;4951470:

Etc.!!! Now that 's funny.

You missed:

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
** the holy catholic church;**

the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Surely you are not you suggesting the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life-everlasting cannot be supported Scripturally?

The basic doctrines of the Christian faith are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed, and supported in the Holy Scriptures. To truly be Christian means you believe in all these doctrines.

Now as for the “holy catholic church”…that phrase was not originally in the Creed we believe the Apostles gave us, but was added at a later time.

 

[Contarini]

External evidence that Peter was founder of Catholic Church:

Scott Hahn

Marcus Grodi

Richard John Neuhaus

Francis Beckwith (former head of US Evangelical Theological Society)

And all other Protestant clergy, theologians, laity that once they have thoroughly researched the history and facts of early Christianity and the Apostles and found that the Catholic Church today is the one true Church and is the same Church started by Peter 2000 years ago, and then convert to Catholicism.

The problem is that lots of learned people look at the evidence and come up with very different conclusions. You can pick your examples to suit your case, but it doesn’t prove anything to someone not already convinced.

There can be no evidence of Peter being the first leader (pope) of the Catholic Church from a Protestant perspective. How? If a Protestant theologian is to come out and state this, it basically nullifies his own Protestant church.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps I should start with the concept of Peter being the “first pope,” though. Absolutely no serious scholar or theologian of any Christian tradition, Catholic or Protestant, thinks that Peter was the “first pope of the Catholic Church” in the sense that he had all the characteristics of the modern papal office or that the Church he led held to all the beliefs and practices of modern Catholicism. In fact, most scholars (again this includes Catholic scholars) think that there was no single bishop at Rome before the late 2nd century. Not only wasn’t Peter the “pope” in any modern sense, but there was no “pope” (in the sense of a single monarchical bishop of Rome) until about a hundred years after his time.

You can easily check this by looking at any serious scholarly source on early Christianity.

But more to the point of your argument, Protestants generally don’t think church government is an essential matter of the faith. So the question of what sort of leadership office Peter held and how it functioned is not, for most Protestants, of the vital importance that it is for Catholics. They just don’t have as much at stake as you think.

And like the above mentioned when confronted with the truth, have no choice but to become Catholic.Many Protestant theologians/writers (Oscar Cullman, A. Harnack, for example) are getting close and stating that in Matt: 16 the “rock” mentioned is Peter.

Again, you don’t have a clue as to how these theologians actually thought. This didn’t bring them “close to Catholicism” at all. At most, it would lead them to think, “Oh no! Catholicism was already beginning to develop in the Gospel of Matthew! But thank God for Paul who remained uncontaminated (in his authentic letters)!” These guys didn’t believe in Biblical infallibility (Harnack for sure didn’t but I’m pretty sure Cullmann didn’t either), so they could recognize proto-Catholic elements in Matthew without feeling their Protestant faith to be in the least threatened.

I’m guessing that they stop there because the next logical question is to ask if Peter was the head of the Church. And the answer they might be afraid to discover (as many others have) is “Yes.”

More likely they would say that Matthew saw Peter as the head of the Church (though not necessarily with any implications for the church at Rome). But they wouldn’t feel obligated necessarily to agree with Matthew (Harnack certainly didn’t–he thought the infancy narratives were mythological additions to the Gospel, for instance).

Beckwith (and I believe I’m spelling his name correctly) was the President of the Us Evangelical Theological Society made up of 1200 Protestant theologians. He researched the Fathers and the early Church, and announce a couple years ago at their national conference that he was stepping down as President of the organization because he was converting to Catholicism.

His “research” wasn’t very thorough (I don’t say that as a criticism–I think it was thorough enough given his other reasons for returning to the fold–but only to refute your use of him as an example of Protestants who go deeply into church history and become Catholic, since it doesn’t seem that Beckwith got very deep into the historical issues). Mostly he satisfied himself that some of his former objections to Trent didn’t necessarily hold water and that Trent’s soteriology was patristically and Biblically defensible, as far as I can tell. His reversion was motivated largely by respect for Catholic moral teaching and philosophy, as far as I can tell. And the fact that it was a “reversion” is significant. Beckwith has explicitly said that one of his reasons for returning to Catholicism was the desire to “honor his father and mother” (I’m not sure how much he means that personally, and how much he’s talking about his heritage in general).

 

[Contarini]

In the USA here there are many interesting developments happening at Protestant/Baptist seminaries.

What does “Protestant/Baptist” mean? Are you saying that Baptists aren’t Protestants, or that all Protestants are Baptists?

The schools know they must teach on Church history prior to 1500. When the Protestant Professors they charge with the task of looking at the early Church, the Church Fathers, etc. research the history, they are finding that the Catholic Church is the only Church sitting on the shoulders of Peter.

It’s not that simple. I teach church history online as an adjunct for a Protestant seminary, and I have both studied and taught (as a teaching assistant) church history at one of the major Protestant seminaries in the country (Duke Divinity School). It’s certainly true that a serious study of church history will (if not prevented by heavy bias and hard work maintaining that bias) lead people to question many traditional Protestant notions, and often this leads to a more respectful view of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Sometimes it leads to conversion to one or the other. But sometimes it leads to the view that the story of church history is a sad mess and that we should all stop being so dogmatic. That’s how many of my online students react. None of them have shown any signs of converting to Catholicism. One (particularly after going on to study with my wife, who teaches the second half of church history and is more willing to proselytize for her views than I am) may eventually convert to Orthodoxy (your failure to mention Orthodoxy is one huge hole in your account).

They are put in an uncomfortable position then if they are to teach this to their seminarians. There have been several instances where these Protestant Professors, after their research in to the early Church, have then converted to Catholicism. They have told their seminary presidents that they would still like to teach on this subjects, but only as a Catholic.

I’m sure there are cases where this has happened. But one is only going to become Catholic on the basis of one’s study of church history if one brings certain presuppositions and interests to the study. Other people can look at the same evidence and say 'Wow! I’m glad I’m a Protestant and don’t have to take full responsibility for all the horrid things the Church has done." Or they may abandon orthodox Christianity altogether. Or they may go for some kind of “emerging” Christianity.

You also fail to engage with the fact that the study of history can be very troubling for Catholics as well. The lack of evidence for a monarchical episcopate in Rome until the late second century is just one example. Of course, if your source is Catholic Answers you won’t hear about this and other historical problems!

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

But clearly you haven’t attended every Protestant church out there. How many Southern Baptist churches have you attended? This is where you usually find the more extreme versions of OSAS.

“But clearly you haven’t” provided a link to the official teaching of a legitimate Protestant church that teaches it.

Protestants don’t follow men, not Luther, not Calvin… we follow Jesus. Besides, how do I know that quote wasn’t taken out of content as I have seen done to Luther? Where’s the link I asked for?