Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Contarini]

Also, your comment that “the retraction tha Berengarius was forced to sign” on his profession of faith, is a little on the extreme side.

Fair enough. I wondered about my use of the word at the time. I was mostly trying to convey the fact that this was a complete reversal of what Berengarius had been teaching. I wasn’t trying to make some polemical point. I am not a champion of Berengarius myself.

In your opinion, can it be argued that the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist was always there, but until the teaching is challenged, then do we then have greater scholarship and teaching clarity on the subject?

I think that that general line of approach is somewhat of a cop-out. And I would say this about doctrines such as the Trinity as well. In other words, I see doctrinal development as involving more real “change” than conservative Catholics are willing to acknowledge.

I would say that there are basic principles that remain continuous, and that defending those principles leads the Church into clearer insights. Often these principles are actually worship practices. In the case of the Eucharist, I think that the key principle to be upheld is that one can legitimately offer worship [in the strict sense of “latria,” though obviously the latria/doulia distinction is itself a development] to Christ as sacramentally present in the Eucharist.

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

Fair enough. I wondered about my use of the word at the time. I was mostly trying to convey the fact that this was a complete reversal of what Berengarius had been teaching. I wasn’t trying to make some polemical point. I am not a champion of Berengarius myself.

I think that that general line of approach is somewhat of a cop-out. And I would say this about doctrines such as the Trinity as well. In other words, I see doctrinal development as involving more real “change” than conservative Catholics are willing to acknowledge.

I would say that there are basic principles that remain continuous, and that defending those principles leads the Church into clearer insights. Often these principles are actually worship practices. In the case of the Eucharist, I think that the key principle to be upheld is that one can legitimately offer worship [in the strict sense of “latria,” though obviously the latria/doulia distinction is itself a development] to Christ as sacramentally present in the Eucharist.

Edwin

Thanks, Edwin.

But…"see doctrinal development as involving more real “change” ", by “real change” are you implying a further development and growth over time along the same original doctrinal premise? You probably know the analogy of development of doctrine as the peeling away of layers of the head of lettuce…the more doctrine develops the more layers you peel away, if this makes sense? You’re not tossing out the original doctrinal head of lettuce you’ve been peeling away at to start a new head of luttuce, as “real change?”

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

Thank you for the reminder on he Adoe Te Devote.

I had really forgotten about this hymn … then I could not recall the words… I think I carry my driver’s license primarily as a reality check… Anyway… just in case some on the list are a bit on the forgetful side, too, here is an English translation of this lovely prayer.

God Bless

I devoutly adore you, O hidden God,
Truly hidden beneath these appearances.
My whole heart submits to you,
And in contemplating you,
It surrenders itself completely.

Sight, touch, taste are all deceived
In their judgment of you,
But hearing suffices firmly to believe.
I believe all that the Son of God has spoken;
There is nothing truer than this word of truth.

On the cross only the divinity was hidden,
But here the humanity is also hidden.
I believe and confess both,
And ask for what the repentant thief asked.

I do not see the wounds as Thomas did,
But I confess that you are my God.
Make me believe more and more in you,
Hope in you, and love you.
O memorial of our Lord’s death!

Living bread that gives life to man,
Grant my soul to live on you,
And always to savor your sweetness.

Lord Jesus, Good Pelican,
wash me clean with your blood,
One drop of which can free
the entire world of all its sins.

Jesus, whom now I see hidden,
I ask you to fulfill what I so desire:
That on seeing you face to face,
I may be happy in seeing your glory. Amen

It’s a good straight-forward translation, but, for example, for

*Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur,
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.*

I think that the words in the Anglican Hymnal get it better, as to the sense:

Taste, and touch, and vision, to discern Thee fail;
Faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil.

A beautiful hymn.

GKC

 

[orange_man]

Hi, Orange_man

No disrepects, but I think the absurd statement lies with the way you have mis-constructed Christ’s own Words in John 6…

"…Jesus then states (in so many words) I don’t literally mean eat my flesh silly, I’m not a cannibal after all? The words I say to you are spirit and life … the flesh counts for nothing."

This is truly NOT what Christ said. He instructes all who are listening that He is: “The Bread of Life” that we are to “Eat this Bread”, that His Flesh is “Real Food” and His Blood is “Real Drink” and unless this is done - they have no life. Your interpretation totally voids out Christ’s statements - and - ignores the words Christ spoke at the Last Supper.

Christ did say all of these things … then qualified His statement by saying:

*On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” (John 6:60-65).*

First this bread of life discourse is prefigured by the manna from heaven given to the Jews to sustain them while in the desert during the Exodus from Egypt. If you notice, not only does Christ qualify His earlier statements (by explaining the words He spoke are spirit & the flesh counts for nothing) but then He further explains that by faith we receive the bread of life, or manna from heaven, which gives us eternal life.

The distinction is God provided for the temporal needs of food and water during the Exodus, while through faith in Christ we are given the real bread from heaven for eternal life, the Holy Spirit. Christ is the real bread from heaven promised by God (a typology we can trace back to Genesis 3:15, and more profoundly through to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

The Synoptics are really quite clear about the words of Consecration spoken by Christ concerning the Bread and Wine that He gave to His Apostles. I just can not even imagine Christ saying, on the night on which His Passion would begin - on His last night with His Apostles, “Here is another silly statement where I tell you this is My Body, but it is just another mind game for you to guess the meaning.” Just like you asked about our repulsion is someone told us to eat their flesh - don’t you think Christ would want to be crystal clear with the Apostles before He died? Christ was True Man - and He knew He would be dead in less then 24 hours. Whatever He was going to do (pre-Resurrection) would have to be done on That Night.

First, Christ broke bread and said this is my body. OK, was it truly His physical body (given the fact that He was sitting right there in front of His apostles breaking the bread)? Obviously not. Therefore, there must be another meaning to those words.

So it seems to me the RCC (and EOC) position is a huge exercise in missing the point.

In my study of Scripture, one of biggest lessons I learned was that the people described in the Bible are real. They are human beings with real faults and real virtures. Some have real character - most, are “real characters”! But, they act in a believable manner - in a manner that we can relate to today. John 6 shows two major groups of people responding to Christ’s statements about actually being required to eat His Flesh if they are to live: those who walked and those who stayed. Those who walked could not leave their ‘fleshy’ ideas behind and chose to leave the Author of Life. Those who stayed did so by an act of Faith. Peter was inspired with his question about where would they go, since Christ had the words of eternal life. Maybe others were inspired, too. But, the issue is that John 6 represents a real crisis or watershet event - you either put your Faith in Christ’s words or you don’t. There is no midddle ground or area for compromise or diplomatic ambiguity.

Indeed & one should put their faith in a proper understanding of Christ’s words, not a gross misconstruction of them. It is clear that Christ’s words were of spirit and life. When Christ said the flesh counts for nothing there were two aspects to that statement. First, He was responding directly to His disciples (as the context clearly reveals). He addressed their shock at His words, explaining their true meaning (spiritual). The second, is the common theme we see in scripture, the flesh never counts for anything (indeed the flesh is always opposed to the spirit). Only through an indwelling of the Spirit are we conformed into the image of Christ (and again we receive the Spirit through faith). However, as Christ states, only those the Father gave to Him can or will come to Him (i.e. the elect).

 

[gcnuss]

Count me in with those who love Adoro te devote. In our hymnal, we have an abbreviated version – only four verses.

Thee we adore, O hidden Savior thee,
Who in thy Sacrament art pleased to be;
Both flesh and spirit in thy presence fail,
Yet here thy presence we devoutly hail.

O blest memorial of our dying Lord,
Who living bread to us shall here afford:
Oh, may our souls forever feed on thee,
And thou, O Christ, forever precious be.

Fountain of goodness, Jesus, Lord and God:
Cleanse us, unclean, with thy most cleansing blood;
Increase our faith and love, that we may know
The hope and peace which from thy presence flow.

O Christ, who now beneath a veil we see:
May what we thirst for soon our portion be,
To gaze on thee unveiled, and see thy face,
The vision of thy glory, and thy grace.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks, Edwin.

But…"see doctrinal development as involving more real “change” ", by “real change” are you implying a further development and growth over time along the same original doctrinal premise? You probably know the analogy of development of doctrine as the peeling away of layers of the head of lettuce…the more doctrine develops the more layers you peel away, if this makes sense? You’re not tossing out the original doctrinal head of lettuce you’ve been peeling away at to start a new head of luttuce, as “real change?”

I think that analogy works for some aspects of doctrinal development, but I don’t think it’s adequate. The more common acorn/oak analogy works better, I think. There is real continuity, but there is also huge change.

I disagree with Newman’s account because I don’t think there are “laws” that one can lay down in an abstract way to determine what is a true development. I think it makes no sense to distinguish between true and false developments in any tradition other than one’s own. (In other words, Christians have no way of discerning whether Sufism or Wahhabism is a truer development of Islam, and Newman had no business saying that Unitarianism wasn’t really a “corruption” of Calvinism.) A true development is one that a community discerns as a legitimate application and extrapolation of what it has previously believed. It’s not something that is subject to objective “laws,” although obviously one can point out clear aspects of continuity or discontinuity (if Gary Macy is right, the early scholastics explicitly denied that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is the sort of thing that can be received without faith; that’s a clear point of discontinuity with later Catholic–and Lutheran–teaching).

Edwin

 

[orange_man]

I would add that the Presbyterian position remains … only the faithful can receive the true body of Christ in the Eucharist. We also believe one must partake in the Eucharist in a worthy manner. However, we depart from Catholics and Lutherans in that we do not beleive the bread physically (and objectively) transforms into flesh (I understand you make a distinction by saying its appearance remains bread but its substance transforms into flesh, however, this concept necessitates a belief that anyone who partakes in the Eucharist, whether faithful or not, consumes the body of Christ, which clearly abrogates Christ’s words in John 6).

The “real presence” is pneumatic, or spiritual, but no less real than an objective physical presence, in fact we believe it’s more real because as Christ said He is the real manna from heaven, the bread that gives eternal life not just bread that sustains our temporal lives (and we only receive the body of Christ subjectively, in other words by faith). The reprobate gain no benefit from participating in the Eucharist … unless they’re hungry (i.e. it is not the body of Christ for the unfaithful, it’s just bread)

 

[bobregan]

I would add that the Presbyterian position remains … only the faithful can receive the true body of Christ in the Eucharist. We also believe one must partake in the Eucharist in a worthy manner. However, we depart from Catholics and Lutherans in that we do not beleive the bread physically (and objectively) transforms into flesh (I understand you make a distinction by saying its appearance remains bread but its substance transforms into flesh, however, this concept necessitates a belief that anyone who partakes in the Eucharist, whether faithful or not, consumes the body of Christ, which clearly abrogates Christ’s words in John 6).

The “real presence” is pneumatic, or spiritual, but no less real than an objective physical presence, in fact we believe it’s more real because as Christ said He is the real manna from heaven, the bread that gives eternal life not just bread that sustains our temporal lives (and we only receive the body of Christ subjectively, in other words by faith). The reprobate gain no benefit from participating in the Eucharist … unless they’re hungry (i.e. it is not the body of Christ for the unfaithful, it’s just bread)

And to take this in a different direction, in an almost “feature/benefit” example, what does it mean to us once we receive the Eucharist?

For me it is to leave Church and spread the Grace and love of Christ I’ve received in the Eucharist.To, as St. Francis said “Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words.” “Christ abide’s in me”, and I must do my best to imitate Jesus Christ now. He becomes “food indeed” in my daily life to act more Christ-like.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man,

Your insights are truly singular…

So it seems to me the RCC (and EOC) position is a huge exercise in missing the point.

There is ths really interesting history that actually begins afted the death of St. John in 100 and actually goes beyond the death of St. Augustine of Hippo in 430 AD. The Early Chruch Fathers are the next link in the Chain that begins with Christ founding His Church on Peter and goes directly to Benedict XVI. Christ promised the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit and there can be no error taught in matters of Faith and Morals. The Real Presence is a matter of Faith. It has been defined and proclaimed for 1500 years prior to the first ‘Reformer’ launching their rebellion and apostacy.

The point, that has not been missed, is that Christ’s words as contained in John 6 and in the Synoptics account of the Last Supper are as the CC has taught for almost 2,000 years. The Consecrated Bread and and Wine are the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. And that is the way it is.

The issue is: do you believe in the words of Christ in establishing His Chruch so that it would never teach error - or the words of a flawed human like Luther or Calvin? I’ve made my choice for the CC.

God bless

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hi, Orange_man,

Your insights are truly singular…

There is ths really interesting history that actually begins afted the death of St. John in 100 and actually goes beyond the death of St. Augustine of Hippo in 430 AD. The Early Chruch Fathers are the next link in the Chain that begins with Christ founding His Church on Peter and goes directly to Benedict XVI. Christ promised the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit and there can be no error taught in matters of Faith and Morals. The Real Presence is a matter of Faith. It has been defined and proclaimed for 1500 years prior to the first ‘Reformer’ launching their rebellion and apostacy.

The point, that has not been missed, is that Christ’s words as contained in John 6 and in the Synoptics account of the Last Supper are as the CC has taught for almost 2,000 years. The Consecrated Bread and and Wine are the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. And that is the way it is.

The issue is: do you believe in the words of Christ in establishing His Chruch so that it would never teach error - or the words of a flawed human like Luther or Calvin? I’ve made my choice for the CC.

God bless

 

[raumzeitmc2]

If you notice, not only does Christ qualify His earlier statements (by explaining the words He spoke are spirit & the flesh counts for nothing)

And Spurgeon writes along the same lines:

Hear what the Saviour says in the next sentence. “It is not your admiration of my flesh that is of any use to you for my flesh profits nothing; it is the spirit that quickens…

Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1860, New York, p. 286
books.google.com/books?id=wKMTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=%22my+flesh+profits+nothing%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA286,M1

Christ’s flesh profits nothing?? His sacred body counts for nothing??

Let’s return again, to the very words of Christ himself:

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is MY flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51

“MY flesh … for the life of the world.”

“Whoever eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Jn. 6:54

“For MY flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Jn. 6:55

“Whoever eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood remains in me, and I in him.” Jn. 6:56

Folks, Christ’s flesh is not worthless; It was his very flesh that redeemed the world! And this redemption * cost him his life!*

So let us not trivialize his words. Let us, instead, recognize what the whole world has known and taught from the beginning viz, the enormous difference between words, “My flesh” and “the flesh”, a difference which even Luther himself understood and defended:

Zwingli pointed to his “brazen wall” in John 6, “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Luther shattered that bulwark by simply pointing out Christ does not say “My flesh profiteth nothing”…

The Lutheran Witness, 1917, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., vol. 36, p. 240.
books.google.com/books?id=meIpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&dq=luther+zwingli+%22my+flesh%22&lr=

Luther also said:

Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the Holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? Or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men…

Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived.

Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

randydomingo.com/newceg/beg/Eucharist.html

The only reference I’ve seen for this quote so far is:

Luther, Opera, Tome VII, Wittenberg Edition, p. 391. (the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works was published in 19 volumes -12 vols. German (1539 - 1559) and Seven vols. Latin (1545-1548) ).

List of numerous Latin Works from Worldcat: Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Raumzeitme2,

Thank you for that quote from Luther - I had never read this before!

randydomingo.com/newceg/beg/Eucharist.html

The only reference I’ve seen for this quote so far is:

Luther, Opera, Tome VII, Wittenberg Edition, p. 391. (the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works was published in 19 volumes -12 vols. German (1539 - 1559) and Seven vols. Latin (1545-1548) ).

List of numerous Latin Works from Worldcat: Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri,

The basic idea is that Christ clearly laid out the Divine Plan for our salvation - and providing us with the Eucharist - His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity - is what He did. The Holy Spirit has guided the CC in all of its teachings about Faith and Morlas and there is NO error here. To claim error here is to clearly disbelieve Christ’s very words.

So, just what are we left with? A matter of Grace and Faith. Either believe Christ, the Church He founded on Peter, and the consistent teachings of the CC for the past 2,000 - or don’t. Ultimately, we will all be judged on the road we choose and the personal actions (or inactions) we took in getting there as we use (or don’t use) the grace of God.

God bless,

 

[bobregan]

And Spurgeon writes along the same lines:

Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1860, New York, p. 286
books.google.com/books?id=wKMTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=%22my+flesh+profits+nothing%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2009&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA286,M1

Christ’s flesh profits nothing?? His sacred body counts for nothing??

Let’s return again, to the very words of Christ himself:

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is MY flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51

“MY flesh … for the life of the world.”

“Whoever eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Jn. 6:54

“For MY flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Jn. 6:55

“Whoever eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood remains in me, and I in him.” Jn. 6:56

Folks, Christ’s flesh is not worthless; It was his very flesh that redeemed the world! And this redemption * cost him his life!*

So let us not trivialize his words. Let us, instead, recognize what the whole world has known and taught from the beginning viz, the enormous difference between words, “My flesh” and “the flesh”, a difference which even Luther himself understood and defended:

The Lutheran Witness, 1917, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo., vol. 36, p. 240.
books.google.com/books?id=meIpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&dq=luther+zwingli+%22my+flesh%22&lr=

Luther also said:

randydomingo.com/newceg/beg/Eucharist.html

The only reference I’ve seen for this quote so far is:

Luther, Opera, Tome VII, Wittenberg Edition, p. 391. (the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Works was published in 19 volumes -12 vols. German (1539 - 1559) and Seven vols. Latin (1545-1548) ).

List of numerous Latin Works from Worldcat: Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri,

Very well put!

 

[jean8]

This post is so clear and well presented. It comes from sound reasoning and knowledge and it is a pleasure to debate with the likes of you.

Thank you and God bless you
Cinette

Being a Lutheran, I have read about Martin Luther.
R.C. Sproul has written a chapter in his book about Luther. “The Holiness of God”
Luther was edcucated as a Lawyer he was also a genius. He struggled with how we should approach a holy God. He had the problem of using the Law to justify his thoughts which were wrong. R.C. puts it this way…“Martin Luther understood how serious the problem is for unnjust people to live in the presence of a holy God”
."Luther had the equivalent of two Ph.D’s by the time he was twenty one years old.
Read chapter five, The Insanity of Luther.

God bless,
jean

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Being a Lutheran, I have read about Martin Luther.
R.C. Sproul has written a chapter in his book about Luther. “The Holiness of God”
Luther was edcucated as a Lawyer he was also a genius. He struggled with how we should approach a holy God. He had the problem of using the Law to justify his thoughts which were wrong. R.C. puts it this way…“Martin Luther understood how serious the problem is for unnjust people to live in the presence of a holy God”
."Luther had the equivalent of two Ph.D’s by the time he was twenty one years old.
Read chapter five, The Insanity of Luther.

God bless,
jean

Well, I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call Luther a “genius.” But I’m certainly more than happy to have that judgment left to others. In any event, I think we should bear in mind the following words of St. Augustine, who was himself a brilliant man.

Many people are endowed with eloquence, and are bad, and they make use of this very eloquence in running rings round many others and defrauding them, and in seeking secular power for themselves. All such people are to be condemned, but still they are human beings.

– Sermon 374:4:1, Works, III/11, p. 394. Date: 409.

A sharp mind is a great good, but still the sort that the good can use well, and the bad badly; it’s not yet a good by which you can become good. All the perversities of all errors, all sects, preaching deviant morals and ungodliness, {16} have had as their authors men of great brilliance. They weren’t the brain-children of any sort of men, they were started by men of the sharpest intelligence.

–Ibid., sec. 5:2, pp. 394-395.

Note 16: Omnes sectae praevaricationis et impietatis; by the former sort, preaching deviant morals, he is likely to have had pagan philosophical schools in mind like those of the Epicureans and Cynics; by the latter, teaching ungodliness, impiety, Christian heresies.

The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermons, III/11, 1997, ISBN 1565481038 ISBN 9781565481039
openlibrary.org/b/OL8664916M/Sermons%2C-Newly-Discovered-(Works-of-Saint-Augustine

Just something to think about.

God bless.

Everyone,

Re: the sacredness of Christ’s body and blood.

Was just doing a little checking and found a ton of references; a few you might want to bookmark for future reference.

Precious Blood – Catholic Encyclopedia.
newadvent.org/cathen/12372c.htm

And these search results from Google web and Book search.

“Christ’s sacred flesh”
google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=christ%27s+sacred+flesh&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22christ%27s%20sacred%20flesh%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

“Christ’s sacred body”
google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&as_q=&as_epq=christ%27s+sacred+body&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo:en-USfficial&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22christ%27s%20sacred%20body%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

“Christ’s sacred blood”
google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&as_qdr=all&q=%22christ%27s+sacred+blood%22&btnG=Search
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=com.yahoo:en-USfficial&q=%22christ%27s%20sacred%20blood%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

 

[fiddler927]

HisAlone, Luther repented of his anti-Semitic views before he died.
In any case, the Lutheran church does not perpetuate those beliefs. The Lutheran Church merely teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I would also point out that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, was executed for his role in the plot to assassinate Hitler, and for the fact that he helped to protect Jews from the Holocaust. The fact that Luther had anti-Semitic beliefs regarding Jews (as did most of medi-eval Europe, which was Catholic) can no more be associated with Lutheran doctrine than medi-eval anti-Semitism can be associated with Catholic doctrine.
The whole Luther-anti-Semitic-Lutheran doctrine is a red herring.
If anyone has a problem with Lutheran teaching, he or she should address it directly with regard to Scripture and the differences between Catholic understanding and Protestant understanding of what Scripture teaches.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

HisAlone, Luther repented of his anti-Semitic views before he died.
In any case, the Lutheran church does not perpetuate those beliefs. The Lutheran Church merely teaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I would also point out that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, was executed for his role in the plot to assassinate Hitler, and for the fact that he helped to protect Jews from the Holocaust. The fact that Luther had anti-Semitic beliefs regarding Jews (as did most of medi-eval Europe, which was Catholic) can no more be associated with Lutheran doctrine than medi-eval anti-Semitism can be associated with Catholic doctrine.
The whole Luther-anti-Semitic-Lutheran doctrine is a red herring.
If anyone has a problem with Lutheran teaching, he or she should address it directly with regard to Scripture and the differences between Catholic understanding and Protestant understanding of what Scripture teaches.

Not sure that will help Luther’s reputation! For someone who claimed to believe Sola Scriptura, he didn’t seem to mind changing the scriptures to fit his dogma:

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).

Matthew 3:2 states,

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”.

Martin Luther, in his German translation, changed the word ‘repent’ to ‘mend’ or ‘do better’ (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God’s laws through repentance.

Martin Luther, for example, taught,

Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).

He seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).

The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,

“And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds…”

Yet Martin Luther rendered it, “they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles” (O’Hare, p. 201).

 

[IowaJay]

Not sure that will help Luther’s reputation! For someone who claimed to believe Sola Scriptura, he didn’t seem to mind changing the scriptures to fit his dogma:

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

.

Good grief, how many times do I have to point out that Pope Benedict XVI has recently stated that Luther’s use the word “alone” is not an issue!

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

vatican.va/holy_father/be…081119_en.html

 

[fiddler927]

Once again, while Luther did indeed teach an antinomian understanding of grace initially**, that did develop over his lifetime into a more mature understanding of the relationship between God and the sinner. I believe that we should make note of the fact that we Lutherans do not regard everything Luther taught or said or wrote to be infallible; only the Word of God is infallible. Luther was man, and what he taught about faith and its connection with grace and forgiveness was transformative. But our only rule of faith and practice is Holy Scripture, not what Martin Luther (or any other mere man) has said or done over the centuries. That is why I said that pointing out his sinfulness as being some sort of proof of the wrongness of his teaching is a red herring. If you believe what he taught was wrong, then address that specifically, and leave his failings out of it.

 

[fiddler927]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHESTERTONRULES
Not sure that will help Luther’s reputation! For someone who claimed to believe Sola Scriptura, he didn’t seem to mind changing the scriptures to fit his dogma:

The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

…Martin Luther would once again emphasize…that we are “justified by faith alone”, apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein (“alone”) in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther’s move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

.

Good grief, how many times do I have to point out that Pope Benedict XVI has recently stated that Luther’s use the word “alone” is not an issue!

Faith alone, not faith that is alone.

“Good works are the necessary fruit of salvation.”-- Martin Luther