Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Rainman2]

Golly … this whole Christianity thing just flew over your head huh?

Thank you orange_man. Glad to see that you are sticking to the subject.

 

[Ginger2]

Isn’t it enough that he did something with no authority? Isn’t the rest just gravy?

And again, can you say that his sins shaped his theology? We can with some heretics and founders of other religions. If we can, then it is a good topic to discuss

Luther didn’t set out to start a new religion. He set out to put an end to the abuse that was within the church.

To his disappointment, Luther discovered the abuses went all the way to the top.

In protest (hence the term “Protestant”) many Christians left the church, but since their desire was not to leave the true faith, they were forced to form a new church, not a new religion.

It is pride on both sides that prevented the reuniting of God’s children at first, and later, a disdain that spawn from such false pride.

Ginger

 

[Contarini]

Luther didn’t set out to start a new religion. He set out to put an end to the abuse that was within the church.

To his disappointment, Luther discovered the abuses went all the way to the top.

Nonsense. Luther said very clearly that his primary purpose was not to put an end to abuses but to restore the Gospel.

Of course he didn’t set out to start a new religion. But by 1521 if not before he had concluded that the Pope was the head of a false counterfeit religion that was not true Christianity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Jesus asked that we follow Him, ALL of His teachings. He didn’t say pick and choose any of those teachings that agree with your beliefs or that you feel comfortable with and follow them. Any teachings other than what Jesus taught are new teachings, a complete breakaway from Jesus, therefore, a new religion.

Well, then you should join one of the primitivist Protestant groups that reject all “human authority” and base themselves on an allegedly literal reading of the New Testament. This is a hopeless project, but it’s the project that your statement above commits you to.
Probably you will have to give up the Trinity if you really want to be consistent and thoroughgoing about it.

If you seriously believe that Jesus explicitly taught all contemporary Catholic doctrines and enjoined all contemporary Catholic practices (all those that the contemporary Catholic Church enjoins, that is), then you have no understanding of history whatsoever.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

Nonsense. Luther said very clearly that his primary purpose was not to put an end to abuses but to restore the Gospel.

Of course he didn’t set out to start a new religion. But by 1521 if not before he had concluded that the Pope was the head of a false counterfeit religion that was not true Christianity.

Edwin

The abuses were a distortion of the Gospel, Edwin.

By restoring the true Gospel, he would be putting an end to the abuses.

If my church began to move in a direction counter to the Gospel of Christ, the first thing I would do is bring it to the attention of the Higher Archy of the church. If I then found out they were part of the conspiracy, I would make known to the congregation what was happening.

That is what Luther did.

 

[Ockham]

Ginger, Luther may not have intended to start a new religion, but that’s what happened. The ‘true faith’ is the religion Christ founded and Luther was a part of. I agree that ego and pride have dug people’s position on this separation and that’s truly sad. The Catholic Church of today is not the same as the Middle Ages. The sale of indulgences is over, it’s time for all of Christ’s children to come home.

 

[Graubo3]

If my church began to move in a direction counter to the Gospel of Christ, the first thing I would do is bring it to the attention of the Higher Archy of the church.

Ginger2,

Out of complete curiosity, please tell me that what I have bolded in your post is a typo. Thank you.

Peace, Graubo

 

[Ginger2]

The sale of indulgences is over, it’s time for all of Christ’s children to come home.

Praise God for that! But, Luther was condemned for exposing this sin. He did not start a new religion, but doubt was cast on the RC causing the people to re-examine church teachings.

If the abuse of claiming a false doctrine went all the way to the top, what other false doctrines might have oozed in over the many years of mortal men being looked upon as infallible teachers?

Think about it. The man whom the RC has proclaimed a heretic is the one man who is ultimately responsible for cleansing the Church of a false doctrine, a heresy.

If the Church had listened to Luther, and corrected this heresy, Luther would be a nobody. Luther would have continued to place his trust in the RC and the split would never have happened.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2,

Out of complete curiosity, please tell me that what I have bolded in your post is a typo. Thank you.

Peace, Graubo

lol That’s what I get for trying to do two things at once!

Maybe it was a God thing. Comic relief to keep us behaving civil toward one another.

Afterall, Archy Bunker really wasn’t tall enough to be referred to as “higher”

 

[Contarini]

The abuses were a distortion of the Gospel, Edwin.

By restoring the true Gospel, he would be putting an end to the abuses.

I don’t think Luther was so naive as to think this. He knew (or at least figured out once he had a few years’ experience with the “new” church) that abuses will always be with us because we are sinners. In his later years he was particularly insistent on this, because he realized that the moral problems of Western Christendom really hadn’t been helped by his “Reformation.”

If my church began to move in a direction counter to the Gospel of Christ, the first thing I would do is bring it to the attention of the Higher Archy of the church. If I then found out they were part of the conspiracy, I would make known to the congregation what was happening.

That is what Luther did.

Well no. He was criticizing wholesale a number of theological trends going back centuries–indeed, at times he admitted that many of the things he had problems with were found in the early Church. The Church wasn’t “beginning to move in a direction counter to the Gospel.” Luther was developing an interpretation of the Gospel at odds with much of the Church’s tradition for centuries. That’s a completely different situation.

I grant you that (especially early on) he thought many particular abuses of late medieval Catholicism (indulgences are the most obvious example, but not the only one by any means) stemmed from the corruption of the Gospel. But the fact remains that he thought the doctrinal issues were primary, and that he recognized that the Fathers would have had a lot of problems with many of his doctrinal ideas.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

Praise God for that! But, Luther was condemned for exposing this sin. He did not start a new religion, but doubt was cast on the RC causing the people to re-examine church teachings.

If the abuse of claiming a false doctrine went all the way to the top, what other false doctrines might have oozed in over the many years of mortal men being looked upon as infallible teachers?

Think about it. The man whom the RC has proclaimed a heretic is the one man who is ultimately responsible for cleansing the Church of a false doctrine, a heresy.

If the Church had listened to Luther, and corrected this heresy, Luther would be a nobody. Luther would have continued to place his trust in the RC and the split would never have happened.

Ginger

You are slightly off base. The Church DID listen to Luther on some of the things. It was the other things that they split on. Once Luther said that the pope overstepped his authority on indulgences, that Purgatory was against the Gospel (indulgences as well), and introduced the five solas that there were issues. Granted most of that happened after he was at odds with the Church, but it still happened.

 

[Ginger2]

Once I type cannon (boom) instead of canon.

 

[Contarini]

Praise God for that! But, Luther was condemned for exposing this sin.

No. His opposition to indulgences was rooted in his theology of grace, which denied (for instance) that the concept of trying to avoid purgatory made any sense at all in the first place.

If the abuse of claiming a false doctrine went all the way to the top, what other false doctrines might have oozed in over the many years of mortal men being looked upon as infallible teachers?

Luther started out with a radical critique of late medieval scholasticism. His attack on indulgences was an outgrowth of that. He didn’t start to question scholastic doctrine because it had led to indulgences. He denounced indulgences because he saw them stemming from what he had already identified as doctrinal problems in late medieval theology. Certainly the hierarchy’s defensive reaction to his attack on indulgences provoked more radical critiques.

Think about it. The man whom the RC has proclaimed a heretic is the one man who is ultimately responsible for cleansing the Church of a false doctrine, a heresy.

Do you understand Cardinal Cajetan’s doctrine of indulgences? (I don’t claim to–there is a long German book on the subject which I have not read, though I have read a review of it and some shorter works on Cajetan.) Was it heretical? If you don’t actually know this, you can’t go around making the claim you make above.

Did Luther help spur the Church to reform? Sure, but by the same token he provoked many of the doctrinal imbalances and disciplinary tyrannies of Trent and post-Tridentine Catholicism.

I’d much rather take medieval Catholicism with all its “corruption” than any of the “reformed” versions of Christianity, Catholic or Protestant.

Edwin

 

[Graubo3]

lol That’s what I get for trying to do two things at once!

Maybe it was a God thing. Comic relief to keep us behaving civil toward one another.

Afterall, Archy Bunker really wasn’t tall enough to be referred to as “higher”

Ginger2,

I figured as much, but in today’s world, you just never know. It go me thinking about Jughead (those Archies). God bless.

Peace, Graubo

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

Ginger, Luther may not have intended to start a new religion, but that’s what happened. The ‘true faith’ is the religion Christ founded and Luther was a part of. I agree that ego and pride have dug people’s position on this separation and that’s truly sad. The Catholic Church of today is not the same as the Middle Ages. The sale of indulgences is over, it’s time for all of Christ’s children to come home.

too true.it is home time!!

 

[Ginger2]

You are slightly off base. The Church DID listen to Luther on some of the things. It was the other things that they split on. Once Luther said that the pope overstepped his authority on indulgences, …

There’s the pride of the RC. Don’t question the authority of the Pope as we teach he is infallible and therefore, we cannot acknowledge the Pope erred in any way. Instead “we must put down the heresy while maintaining the Pope’s perfection”. “If we should discover an anti pope has sat in Peter’s chair, we must distroy all his writings so they cannot be used to discredit the Pope’s authority.”

You see why it is so hard for Protestants to regain any trust in the Catholic Church?

You come up with new doctrines that the oldest evidence refutes, but claim it is true because some pope said it is.

The Catholic theory says the keys are passed from Pope to Pope until Jesus returns. Yet the Catholic Church has had several anti-popes - one for as long as eighteen years.

If the Pope truly descends from the lineage of Peter, how on Earth does the RC end up with anti-popes in the first place?

Is it wise to follow a religion that commands you obey a pope fully knowing that he might in the future be revealed an anti pope?

Ginger

 

[Rainman2]

There’s the pride of the RC. Don’t question the authority of the Pope as we teach he is infallible and therefore, we cannot acknowledge the Pope erred in any way. Instead “we must put down the heresy while maintaining the Pope’s perfection”. “If we should discover an anti pope has sat in Peter’s chair, we must distroy all his writings so they cannot be used to discredit the Pope’s authority.”

You see why it is so hard for Protestants to regain any trust in the Catholic Church?

You come up with new doctrines that the oldest evidence refutes, but claim it is true because some pope said it is.

The Catholic theory says the keys are passed from Pope to Pope until Jesus returns. Yet the Catholic Church has had several anti-popes - one for as long as eighteen years.

If the Pope truly descends from the lineage of Peter, how on Earth does the RC end up with anti-popes in the first place?

Is it wise to follow a religion that commands you obey a pope fully knowing that he might in the future be revealed an anti pope?

Ginger

Please enlighten an ignorant Catholic. Who was/were the anti-Popes and why?

 

[theladyiscrazy]

Actually Catholics don’t say the Pope is infallible in all things. Check out the catechism on when the Pope is considered infallible. There are guidelines. Yes, we do pay attention when he speaks since He is a representative of Christ here on earth.

Even during times of bad popes, NONE of them made a change to dogma or sacred Church teachings. Even during bad periods, the Truth still remained. That is why we state the keys continually pass along. God has not allowed the truth that was taught when His church began to change in over 2000 years. What other denomination can state that? None, if there is a bad period, they typically close their doors and go and restart somewhere else. Or in one case, they just say anything taught prior to 1970 something is no longer valid.

 

[ralphinal]

There’s the pride of the RC. Don’t question the authority of the Pope as we teach he is infallible and therefore, we cannot acknowledge the Pope erred in any way. Instead “we must put down the heresy while maintaining the Pope’s perfection”. “If we should discover an anti pope has sat in Peter’s chair, we must distroy all his writings so they cannot be used to discredit the Pope’s authority.”

And that is the great error of so many Protestants: seeing faith the in Word of God (Jesus and the Scriptures) as being pride…

You see why it is so hard for Protestants to regain any trust in the Catholic Church?

You come up with new doctrines that the oldest evidence refutes, but claim it is true because some pope said it is.

The Oldest evidence does not refute purgatory. The Jews prayed for the Dead even before the Incarnation

The Catholic theory says the keys are passed from Pope to Pope until Jesus returns. Yet the Catholic Church has had several anti-popes - one for as long as eighteen years.

If the Pope truly descends from the lineage of Peter, how on Earth does the RC end up with anti-popes in the first place?

If you are talking about falsely elected popes who served at times with the true pope, I see no issue

Is it wise to follow a religion that commands you obey a pope fully knowing that he might in the future be revealed an anti pope?

Ginger

The only anti-popes that I know of were part of schismatic eras. If there is no division, there is anti-pope

 

[josie_L]

For the very simple reason that neither Lutherans nor any other Protestants believe themselves to be part of a new religion. You are “begging the question,” assuming the very thing you are allegedly proving.

The question at issue in any attack by Catholics on Protestantism is whether Protestantism is a continuation of historic Christianity or something new.

Your argument runs like this:

1. Protestantism is a break with historic Christianity because its most significant early theologian held some horrifying views which were in line with previous expressions of Christianity.
2. This is not illogical because Protestantism was a break with historic Christianity, and so the “founder” of Protestantism must be held accountable for even those evil views which he inherited from late medieval Christianity.

Edwin

Why can’t we state that Luther created a new theology which started a new form of Christianity, and then question that theology by testing the essence of the man himself?

Can you rely on Luther’s judgement (in removing books from the Bible) and interpretation of the Bible, do you put that much power in the hands of ONE man (greater than any pope had and/or ever used), while ignoring his wickedness? I hope the answer to that question would be no.

It is not just his anti-semitism which we refer to but who he was has a whole.

P.S. And please, for those who will state that we are all sinners, I am well aware of that fact, but you and I have yet to create the untold misery Luther’s legacy has left on history.