Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Contarini]

No. The Church never considered them inspired until Trent.

If you mean: “an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope never formally declared them to be on the same level as the rest of Scripture until Trent,” you are correct. Since you’re a Protestant, that would be an odd definition of “the Church.” Furthermore, one can argue over just what “inspired” means. There was certainly some question among theologians as to whether they were on the same level as the rest of Scripture. But from the fourth century on there was no serious question, at least in the West, as to whether they belonged in the canon. They were used liturgically and commonly treated as Scripture, and certainly Augustine believed them to be fully inspired. So your statement is rather misleading at best.

Edwin

 

[LutheranDK]

still wating for our debate in one of the three languages! still waiting! I am verry eager so please dont let me wait long!

Still waiting for you to take that debate to PM where the vulgus indoctum can’t derail it (as it WILL - I say this based on experience…). Please don’t make me wait long!

 

[jake23]

I just realized somthing! you are from Denmark? my wife is from Sweden! You are Lutheran only because you where born in to it as every other scandonavian! typical! you defend a beliefs not because you find it as truth but because it was merely what you where born into! cant wait for our discussion!

 

[jake23]

Still waiting for you to take that debate to PM where the vulgus indoctum can’t derail it (as it WILL - I say this based on experience…). Please don’t make me wait long!

Seriousely there is no reason for them to derail it! quit making excuses and begin!

 

[LutheranDK]

So again, let me throw these things out there. I am Catholic, and trying to be ecumenical, I am interested in a Protestant perspective:

Luther loved Mary and believed she had a special place in Christ’s life and has a special place in all of our lives…what do you think?

I see Mary as a great rolemodel of trust in God’s plans, even when they seem as though they might be the end of you (Mary risked stoning for becoming pregnant out of wedlock). And that she is the Theotokos is beyond doubt; to deny that would be to deny the divinity of Christ!
But do I believe that she was (and please note my use of past tense) sinless, ever-virgin, etc, and taken up into Heaven without dying?
No. Even if Luther believed this (he did come from an RC background), I see no reason to. Luther was not right on everything he ever said or did.

Luther did not think the Eucharist was “symbolic”, but was truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity…what do ya think?

I agree, as does CA (Confessio Augustana - the Augsburg Confession). Holy Communion is not merely a “symbol”. It is the Body and Blood of Christ.

God bless you too

 

[LutheranDK]

Seriousely there is no reason for them to derail it! quit making excuses and begin!

Plenty of reasons - first of all to ensure that you’d come out on top. I’ve seen it happen countless times, and won’t do it again. Ball’s in your court. Or are you unwilling to debate where you don’t have a choir of howlers to back you up?

 

[bobregan]

To LutheranDK:

Can we lose our salvation? And how would we lose our salvation?

In Matt: 25, Christ talks about separating the sheeps and goats. What is the determining factor? We did not see Him in the poor, the thirsty, the imprisoned, etc. In other words, we did not help these people, and good works for these type of people are also obligatory. I agree, through faith we want to do good works. But here Christ does make good works as part of our salvation.

 

[GKC]

I just realized somthing! you are from Denmark? my wife is from Sweden! You are Lutheran only because you where born in to it as every other scandonavian! typical! you defend a beliefs not because you find it as truth but because it was merely what you where born into! cant wait for our discussion!

This comment reminds me of an exchange between Arnold Lunn, a convert and RC apologist whose works I collect, and an agonostic philosopher, C. E. M. Joad, whom he was debating. Joad said the same thing, that Lunn only was a Christian, and supported Christianity, by the accident of where he was born. If Lunn had been born in India, OTOH, Joad said that he naturally would be a Hindu, and a supporter of Hinduism. An incautious thing to say, to a man born in the late Victorian empire. Lunn replied that, in fact, he had been born in India.

Not necessarily because of that exchange, Joad later became a Christian.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Please note that is not what was said! What was said is, that both RCs and most confessional “protestants” agree that SF as the RC church seems to see it is false, i.e. that SF means “Because we’re saved by faith, we don’t have to do anything and can just sit on our behinds, not caring at all about making a difference, nor does it matter how we live our lives”.

THAT’S false doctrine. Works are indeed “neccessary”, but the order of things is VERY, VERY crucial to get right:

We are saved by faith, and our salvation is God’s work from start to finish (cf. Augustine). However; true faith, saving faith, results in good works, and it most certainly ALSO results in a change in how we live our lives.

If we can agree on this above definition, THEN we are in agreement. But I suspect that is not the case unfortunately

When the CC says we are saved by faith (we assume that it is a true faith) and works, we do not subject faith to works, we understand that faith comes first, and that upon that foundation of faith, works must be requisite in order for it to be a saving faith, or a living faith. Those works which we accomplish come from the graces granted to us by faith, but not all choose to cooperate with faith, and so your faith is dead. Hence, the reason that Faith and Works (see how faith comes first) is important to salvation. The Church has always expressed Faith and Works in this manner, there was no reason for Luther to have departed from this.

 

[jake23]

Plenty of reasons - first of all to ensure that you’d come out on top. I’ve seen it happen countless times, and won’t do it again. Ball’s in your court. Or are you unwilling to debate where you don’t have a choir of howlers to back you up?

Wow its like talking to an stuborn mule! waiting for you! Itold you to start the debate with your choosing of any of the three languages! You are making yourself look foolish as I can see by avoiding this! you are obviousely a protestant and ignorance is a qualification of the belief!

 

[LutheranDK]

To LutheranDK:

Can we lose our salvation? And how would we lose our salvation?

In Matt: 25, Christ talks about separating the sheeps and goats. What is the determining factor? We did not see Him in the poor, the thirsty, the imprisoned, etc. In other words, we did not help these people, and good works for these type of people are also obligatory. I agree, through faith we want to do good works. But here Christ does make good works as part of our salvation.

Can we lose our salvation? Of course we can! I don’t subscribe to OSAS, and I quite honestly find that position unbiblical, and that it leads to EXACTLY the opposite of what it intends to (i.e. give people certainty of salvation)

Now “how” is the interesting question. And my answer is: By apostacy. By falling away from the faith and dying in that state.
We do not disagree on good works being neccessary. What we seem to disagree on, is the exact meaning of our good works. Are they neccessary to MERIT salvation, or BECAUSE we are saved? Christ’s parable can also be understood as saying that these people did not have saving faith, true faith, because it did not show in how they lived their lives, while the others DID have saving faith, which reflected in how they lived their lives.

I agree, the difference is subtle, but it’s there, and it’s essential

 

[LutheranDK]

Wow its like talking to an stuborn mule! waiting for you! Itold you to start the debate with your choosing of any of the three languages! You are making yourself look foolish as I can see by avoiding this! you are obviousely a protestant and ignorance is a qualification of the belief!

LOL - whatever mate. You obviously don’t want to go into a debate which you can’t push over on the vulgus, and therefore I’m not going to waste more time on you. Think what you will - and see if I care. I should know the “talking to a stubborn mule”-feeling. I’ve been having it in 90% of the debates in here - having to deal with circular reasonings, non-sequiturs, and other obnoxious fallacies from day one.

You only want to take a debate from the Greek text in plenum where you can impress the vulgus? Fine by me. But it’s not going to be on my expense. You have a nice day, and quit wasting my time, 'aight?

 

[josie_L]

Can we lose our salvation? Of course we can! I don’t subscribe to OSAS, and I quite honestly find that position unbiblical, and that it leads to EXACTLY the opposite of what it intends to (i.e. give people certainty of salvation)

Now “how” is the interesting question. And my answer is: By apostacy. By falling away from the faith and dying in that state.
We do not disagree on good works being neccessary. What we seem to disagree on, is the exact meaning of our good works. Are they neccessary to MERIT salvation, or BECAUSE we are saved? Christ’s parable can also be understood as saying that these people did not have saving faith, true faith, because it did not show in how they lived their lives, while the others DID have saving faith, which reflected in how they lived their lives.

I agree, the difference is subtle, but it’s there, and it’s essential

The Bible never mentions this (literal) distinction you make between saving/living faith and/or faith. It does however mention that you are saved by faith and works (by expressing that you are saved by faith and works it is redundant to state a living faith and works, it is understood by the audience that a living faith is faith and works) as per James. It does not need to get more complicated then that.

 

[LutheranDK]

The Bible never mentions this (literal) distinction you make between saving/living faith and/or faith.

Well, there are certain words the Bible does not use, but which all Christians believe nonetheless, because although the words/phrase may not be in the Bible, the CASE those words cover are.
This is one such case.

It does however mention that you are saved by faith and works

And my claim is that this position is an inaccurate representation of the Bible’s message. It mentions that you are saved by faith WHICH RESULTS in works. The works do not have salvific value; they are the result, the fruits of saving faith. Again: The difference is subtle, but OH so important.

(by expressing that you are saved by faith and works it is redundant to state a living faith and works, it is understood by the audience that a living faith is faith and works) as per James.

The problem with this view is that James isn’t the only one who has something to say on the subject. Paul does too, and we need to look at both contexts.

• James was speaking into a context of libertarianism: “I don’t have to do squat…it’s all about what I believe” - in essense he was talking to people who held the view that most RCs tend to believe SF is all about.
• Paul spoke into several contexts, among others into a context of legalism.

Now, if we lose sight of the contexts, one of two things is going to happen:

1: Either we adopt one view as an absolute (i.e “We don’t have to do anything” or “Salvation by faith and works”) and reject the other as either libertarianism or legalism.
(this is the option Christians choose)

2: We reject the Bible as self-contradictory
(the option infidels and Richard Dawkins-types choose)

Both are wrong. The answer is salvation by faith, which results in works. The faith that does not result in works is not true (=saving) faith.

It does not need to get more complicated then that.

If that was so simple, it wouldn’t have been debated so heavily among the patristic writers, nor amongst the later scholastics.

 

[JonNC]

I think it’s common knowledge that Luther was mentally ill. Mentally stable people don’t say the things he did. And they don’t see things that aren’t there. He was obviously a malcontent, too.

If you think that’s something that shouldn’t be discussed, I’m left wondering why. Is it something that you would rather sweep under the rug? Ignore? Deny?

You belong to a religion (a Christian religion/sect) that was founded by this man. If you are uncomfortable talking about his mental state, why do you follow his religion (sect), and doctrine?

FWIW, the title of this forum is “Non-Catholic Religions”.

I haven’t seen this medical diagnosis. If by malcontent, you mean he was not content with the errors that were being pushed by some in the Church, then we can agree.

The Christian Faith is the religion I belong to, and since I (you, all of us) have no diagnosis, I have no reason to be comfortable or not with his mental state. His is, after all, dead since 1546. And even if he had a “mental state”, it is irrelevant.

Jon

 

[LutheranDK]

I haven’t seen this medical diagnosis. If by malcontent, you mean he was not content with the errors that were being pushed by some in the Church, then we can agree.

The Christian Faith is the religion I belong to, and since I (you, all of us) have no diagnosis, I have no reason to be comfortable or not with his mental state. His is, after all, dead since 1546. And even if he had a “mental state”, it is irrelevant.

Jon

God Bless you Jon. Sometimes I think you’re a better forum-debater than I am! I would probably have sunk to this guy’s level. You pwn him instead. Nice going

 

[bobregan]

I don’t know, LutheranDK…between your thoughts on the Eucharist and works, you’re gettin’ reeeeeeeal close to doing that backstroke across the Tiber!

 

[LutheranDK]

I don’t know, LutheranDK…between your thoughts on the Eucharist and works, you’re gettin’ reeeeeeeal close to doing that backstroke across the Tiber!

Well, some of my friends call me “Crypto-Catholic”, but I swam the Elbe in 2003 and I’m not a good enough swimmer to want to try another river

But I’m gonna take it as a compliment - thanks

Besides - those views are the official Lutheran views, so we have more in common than most people (on both sides!) think.

PS: WOOT! This was my post #1000 :extrahappy::egyptian:

 

[bobregan]

Well said, LutheranDK. God Bless.

 

[kalt]

I haven’t seen this medical diagnosis. If by malcontent, you mean he was not content with the errors that were being pushed by some in the Church, then we can agree.

The Christian Faith is the religion I belong to, and since I (you, all of us) have no diagnosis, I have no reason to be comfortable or not with his mental state. His is, after all, dead since 1546. And even if he had a “mental state”, it is irrelevant.

Jon

Everyone has a “mental state” (state of mind). Some of us have a more well-balanced than others.

Luther suffered with hallucinations his whole adult llife. It may be that drugs brought on the hallucinations, I suppose. But I’m not sure that drug-induced mental illness is preferable to organic mental illness. I think we can agree that well-balanced people don’t see things that aren’t there.

Luther wasn’t just unhappy with the Church’s errors. He was unhappy with the Church itself. He disliked the hierarchy, among other things that weren’t wrong. He was just not content with the Church–a malcontent.

His mental illness is relevant. Lutherans have chosen to follow this man’s thinking. How could his mental state (whether he was balanced or not) not be of utmost importance?!

“Mental state”, doesn’t mean mentally ill, btw.