Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[halo3]

reteeks21
Regular Member Join Date: February 4, 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 838

Re: Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

---

By stating that Luther started a “new religion” you are implying that it’s Christian position is on par with other “Christian” sects such as Mormonism, i.e., heretical. Is that a fair statement?​

Luther did not want a new Church at first - He went too far and got full of himself.
-Any one who has ever been to a Catholic or Lutheren Mass knows this=

---

Joey Smith and the Mormons were con-men and created a false religion

 

[kalt]

I don’t know anyone who follows Luther. As Christians we are to follow Christ.

I agree, Luther brought about good change in the RC. It would have been better for both sides to be reconciled, however, the condition of the human heart made that impossible.

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.

These are all lies created by Luther’s opponents that continue to be repeated.

It’s like the old saying, “If you tell the same lie enough times, people will eventually come to believe it."

I’ve been telling people I have a twenty-four inch waste for years, and I think a few are starting to come around.

Ginger

36-24-36. What a winning hand.

I’ve read that Luther changed the teaching on salvation and that he added the work “alone”. Do I have him confused with someone else?

 

[Ginger2]

Luther didn’t add scripture, but he changed the interpretation and application.

No he didn’t. Catholics who opposed him distorted what Luther said to discredit him and make these false claims.

Here is one example:
“Be a sinner and sin boldly!” This snippet from Sin Boldly is used by Catholics to make Luther sound like he was encouraging people to sin - and sin big!

But as you can see from this next, slightly longer snippet, he was not:
“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For** he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect**, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. … Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”…

…"If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.

If you read the entire letter, you would see Luther was countering the false idea some held about confession, “….Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. …The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse.”

Luther was in fact telling his fellow Christians to fight to resist sin.

Ginger

 

[kalt]

reteeks21
Regular Member Join Date: February 4, 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 838

Re: Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

---

By stating that Luther started a “new religion” you are implying that it’s Christian position is on par with other “Christian” sects such as Mormonism, i.e., heretical. Is that a fair statement?​

Luther did not want a new Church at first - He went too far and got full of himself.
-Any one who has ever been to a Catholic or Lutheren Mass knows this=

---

Joey Smith and the Mormons were con-men and created a false religion

So why do Lutherans still belong to the Luther’s church (which is not the same as the Catholic Church), when they know that he went too far?

I didn’t say that Lutheranism is like Mormonism. It’s a Christian religion that is different from Catholicism. There are oodles of new Christian religions. It seems that there is a new store-front religion around here every year–sometimes more often.

 

[halo3]

So why do Lutherans still belong to the Luther’s church (which is not the same as the Catholic Church), when they know that he went too far?​

Why did 5 million join The Nazi Partry"
Why did Japan have 7 million troops in WWII"?

 

[Ginger2]

36-24-36. What a winning hand.

I’ve read that Luther changed the teaching on salvation and that he added the work “alone”. Do I have him confused with someone else?

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.

 

[Ockham]

No he didn’t. Catholics who opposed him distorted what Luther said to discredit him and make these false claims.

I haven’t read nor studied Luther simply because he is irrelevant to my faith journey. All anyone needs to know is that he broke away from the Church and started his own. This was against the commands of Jesus Christ, the guidance of St.Paul and all those who came after. Luther wrote some catchy hymns so I appreciate him for that. He was justified in taking issue with the sale of indulgences and thankfully that practice was stopped. It was an illegal practice, not dogmatic, so there was no need to condemn the Vatican and accuse the Church of having fallen away from Christ. To my knowledge there aren’t any bishops selling indulgences so you could say Luther made his point. Five hundred years is a long time to protest such an act. If Christians want to honestly follow the Bible then returning to the Church is the only way.

 

[kalt]

"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?

 

[bobregan]

Then where, Ginger2, did “sola scriptura” and “sola fida’” come from, if not Luther? Both at the time were against the 1500 year teachings of the Church, and isn’t these two things what really got Luther in to trouble with the pope at the time? They might not be “doctrines” per se, or maybe they are? I’m not sure. But they were diametrically opposite from the teaching of the Church.

Did Christ want only one visible Church that He started through Peter…or 30,0000 Protestant denominations today that some how over the last 500 years have all differed on matters of fath and morals from each other, but also differed from the Catholic Church?

Sure, we can all say it’s most important to say “I follow Jesus”, but in Christ’s foresight did he not establish ONE Church guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret and teach what He wants for us, 2000 years later? Maybe “I follow Jesus” means “I follow Jesus through the teachings of the one, True Church He started through Peter?”

 

[kalt]

I haven’t read nor studied Luther simply because he is irrelevant to my faith journey. All anyone needs to know is that he broke away from the Church and started his own. This was against the commands of Jesus Christ, the guidance of St.Paul and all those who came after. Luther wrote some catchy hymns so I appreciate him for that. He was justified in taking issue with the sale of indulgences and thankfully that practice was stopped. It was an illegal practice, not dogmatic, so there was no need to condemn the Vatican and accuse the Church of having fallen away from Christ. To my knowledge there aren’t any bishops selling indulgences so you could say Luther made his point. Five hundred years is a long time to protest such an act. If Christians want to honestly follow the Bible then returning to the Church is the only way.

I think that Luther was a brilliant man. And brave. Nuts to the end, but smart and brave.

So you’ll give up the church Jesus founded to follow a nutty smart guy?

You make a very good point. The legitimate complaints Luther had about the CC have long since been addressed. What’s the reason for being separate today?

Some don’t like to admit that Luther changed doctrine, but he did. He changed the Bible, for crying out loud!

 

[Ginger2]

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?

Luther’s Bible translation was a list of books identical to Jerome’s vulgate, including appending the deuteros.

Ginger

 

[bobregan]

Agreed…what are Protestants still “protesting” 500 years later? Shouldn’t the protest (over buying indulgences, for example) be over? It honestly looks like “protesting” against the Catholic Church gives one free reign and license to justify going against core beliefs of the Christian faith established by Christ if they don’t fit my own personal lifestyle or wants (abortion, artificial birth control, for example), and that my new church denomination is still “OK”, because this is how I personally want to interpret Scripture. This is the havoc reaked by “sola scriptura.”. If I was to protest against something in the United States (Roe v. Wade, for example), does that mean I should leave the United States? No.

 

[Ginger2]

Then where, Ginger2, did “sola scriptura” and “sola fida’” come from, if not Luther?

Catholics adhere to a definition of SF that means works are irrelevant in Christian living. Protestant agree that is a false doctrine.

Luther said this about faith: "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! "

Ginger

 

[Ockham]

Catholics adhere to a definition of SF that means works are irrelevant in Christian living. Protestant agree that is a false doctrine.

Luther said this about faith: "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! "

Ginger

?

 

[Halo4]

Luther’s Bible translation was a list of books identical to Jerome’s vulgate, including appending the deuteros.

Ginger

Approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed.
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

 

[Contarini]

Then where, Ginger2, did “sola scriptura” and “sola fida’” come from, if not Luther?

Luther claimed to have learned his doctrine of Scripture (the slogan “sola scriptura” is post-Reformation) from his professors at Erfurt.

Sola fide, in the sense of a forensic doctrine of justification whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who trust in God’s promise of forgiveness in Christ, is an innovation of Luther’s as far as I can tell. But sola scriptura is trickier.

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

?

ginger2, didn’t you mean to say that Catholics and Protestants (actually Lutherans) agree that works are RELEVANT??

 

[Halo4]

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society),

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon.

However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals.While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals.

 

[gcnuss]

But why would you follow the religion of someone who taught such awful things? He is the founder of that religion? So who are you (any of Luther’s followers) to pick and choose which things you will keep and which you will throw out?

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. He wrote many things that have little or nothing to do with our relationship with God. When it comes to theology, we pay much more attention to him. If we were to reject the teachings of any sinful human being, we would have no teachings at all whether from Lutherans, Catholics, or any other Christians. In this sinful world, we all have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Halo4]

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. He wrote many things that have little or nothing to do with our relationship with God. When it comes to theology, we pay much more attention to him. If we were to reject the teachings of any sinful human being, we would have no teachings at all whether from Lutherans, Catholics, or any other Christians. In this sinful world, we all have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

===========================
In this sinful world, we all have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
(Catholics call it Confession - Read James)

You fall under the Great 10 Suggestions