Sin boldly?

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Now, I would like to clarify something, and it is this: I have no desire to defame the reformers. Fact is, I’d much prefer to admire them.

This thread has come a long way, and I suggest anyone trudging through this should go back and read your posts early on in this thread.

Here you implied the Reformers were “equally (if not more so) wicked”

Here you say, “the immorality and violence of the “reformers” ought to be exposed”

Here you rely on Denifle’s flawed vilifying caricature- “Fr. Denifle, who also saw through the pretense”

Here you say, “Luther and Calvin, such people deceive and continue to deceive so many unsuspecting souls”

Here you perpetuate more of Denifle’s error of “lust”: “the reformation was a terrible injustice against the Lord’s Church, perpetrated by violent and lustful men with no authority whatsoever to do so”

And these are just a few examples. As far as I can tell based on your comments, anything even remotely that indicts the reformers is good enough for you, which is the flawed Denifle- O’Hare method.

raumzeitmc2:

But how I can I ever be expected to approve of their distortions, their immorality or their violence? I can’t. Any more than I could or would condone such evils on the Catholic side.

I suggest you can first begin by noting some of your research is flawed, like that of Denifle and Grisar. Second, I suggest you actually do a serious study of Luther’s good qualities to balance out all the polemical sources you’ve digested. What you’ll find is Luther and Calvin were not the bogeymen you think they were. Third, in regard to such Luther citations like “sin boldly” you need to go back and do better research on Luther’s theology. As far as I can tell, you completely misunderstood basic tenets of Luther’s distinction between law / gospel and faith / works and Luther’s understanding of justification. In regard to those “immoral” things like Luther’s “bigamy”, or “violence” (whatever that means) you should go back and do better research on the 16th century.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

You’ll certainly never find me countenancing for example, something like the following, which Erasmus recounts:

This was probably not an uncommon sentiment during the sixteenth century. We forget that their society is not our society. We need to take off our PBS membership glasses, our “tolerance” glasses, our democratic glasses, our “down with the death penalty” glasses, etc. Both sides, Protestant and Catholic, as well as the schwermeri had a different notion of tolerance and freedom of expression than we do. Even reading some of Luther’s "violent’ language finds similar expression in Eck or More. That’s why those who post some of Luther’s “shocking” violent language don’t shock me. Rather, I’m shocked by how ignorant they are of the Reformation period and worldview.

raumzeitmc2:

And though I’ve pointed this out before, I reiterate: Luther did say a number of things which were very sensible and even of a noble nature.

If you’ve pointed it out before, I don’t recall it. I don’t spend an extraordinary amount of time here. Very rarely do I get involved in any CA discussion. I think this may be my 5 year anniversary of being here, and you’ll note, my post count is quite low.

raumzeitmc2:

He speaks wonderfully for example, of the Blessed Virgin, and even, sometimes of the saints. Although here he more often than not (so it seems to me) is unduly and even unfairly critical.

Yes, I’m aware of this. What is interesting in this regard is discussion forums like this frequently post criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

raumzeitmc2:

No, Luther was not evil – but he was wrong.

I appreciate that you’re now attempting balance.

raumzeitmc2:

As for the reformation he created, it most certainly was evil!

Of course, that’s your opinion, and I disagree. Any movement that proclaims the Gospel and places the sole authority of faith in the spotlight, regardless of whatever chaos or tranquility it produces, will be that which I defend.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

For it "convulsed all Christendom, caused rivers of blood to flow, and made a chasm in Christ’s Church, which time may never close.” In a word, the “cure” was far worse than the disease, which had in fact, already begun to heal.

I think Stoddard has committed a gross over-generalization by neglecting the fact that Reformers were declared heretics and forced out of the church before the church even began to address corruption issues. Anyone even remotely familiar with the early days of the Luther saga understand the subterfuge Rome attempted to battle the “Luther problem” with.

I think the approach of Lortz must be taken into consideration before one lays the blame of the reformation at Luther’s feet. Lortz takes a bold stand on the state of the church during the sixteenth century. It was in need of an overhaul. It was filled with abuse and theological ambiguity: “[Lortz held that] the reformation is a Catholic matter in that Catholics share the responsibility and the guilt for its happening. So we must make it a concern for us Catholics. We must accept our guilt… It was this state of things within the catholic Church at the beginning of the sixteenth century that made Luther and the reformation possible, even in a certain manner historically necessary” (Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, 56).

Lortz has said:

“Theological confusion within Catholic theology was one of the specially important preconditions which precipitated a revolution in the Church. It is one of those keys which to some extent unlocks the riddle of the colossal apostasy” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany Vol. 1 (London: Darton Longman & Todd Ltd, 1968) 156.

“Theological confusion revealed itself even more profoundly however, amongst the guardians of the doctrine of the Church” (Ibid).

“The darkness [religious life before the Reformation] became all the more ominous because Catholics suffered from the illusion that Catholic doctrine had long since been settled on the disputed points. Few theologians were exempt from this illusion. In the polemic of the day- as we shall see- most of them used the unanimous consensus of the Church as an argument, whereas, in fact, on important questions only a more or less hazy opinion was the substitute for sure knowledge. The deliberations at Trent are proof of this” (p. 157).

“In Luther’s search for a gracious God he came to stand outside the Church without intending to do so. And it was no prearranged revolutionary programme, and no ignoble impulses and desires which led him to desire or seek a break with the Church” (Joseph Lortz quoted in, Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God (Great Brittan: Hodder and Stoughton Publishing, 1953), 27.).

“Today I would even go so far as to ask whether the Catholic scholar might not be in a better position to understand Luther adequately than the Protestant researcher. First, we can take it for granted that we have abandoned the evaluative categories of a Cochlaeus, which dominated for over 400 years, and those of the great Denifle, and even those of Grisar (who was particularly well-versed in details). This assumption holds also for Italy, Spain, and Latin America. Gradually Catholics have come to recognize the Christian, and even Catholic, richness of Luther, and they are impressed. They now realize how great the Catholic guilt was that Luther was expelled from the Church to begin the division that burdens us so today–even in theology. Finally, we are anxious to draw Luther’s richness back into the Church” (Catholic Scholars Dialog With Luther, 6-7).

raumzeitmc2:

This healing would come about, not through anarchy, not through bloody rebellion, but through holiness - the holiness and obedience of the Saints.

Healing? If you’re suggesting that your church holds a majority of people interested in holiness and obedience, and that the Reformers cared little for either, you are committing a gross caricature of both Catholics and Protestants. As to “anarchy, not through bloody rebellion”- you’re caricaturing the sixteenth century. That’s the way things went back then. Things were bloody. Heresy was punishable by death, for both Catholics and Protestants. On both sides, each saw that the other was wrong, and cared deeply about it. This is much different than most Catholics and Protestants today. for Catholics, Protestants now are “separated brethren.” For Protestants, many have no idea what the term means, and couldn’t tell the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.

raumzeitmc2:

It was they, not the reformers, who understood perfectly that the only cure for the evils of the day, the only cure that had proved effective in every age and in every crisis of the Church, was the medicine of sanctity, not the right of private judgment.

This is flowery sentiment. Keep in mind, the councils that comprise the Roman Catholic Church are filled with men who hold their own private judgment. Read the history of Trent, and you’ll even find a group present that didn’t think the Deuterocanonicals were sacred scripture. If Rome were to hold a council tomorrow, one finds a fair number of Rome’s elite that are not conservative Biblical scholars.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

The reformation was not about “corruption,” but the usurpation of authority! The reformers wanted, and were determined to have, the final authority - even if it meant all-out war against the the Bishop of Rome!

You’re wrong that corruption was not a key factor in the Reformation, as even Lortz and other Catholic theologians note. You’re wrong that the reformers "were determined to have, the final authority " - if you’d check, you’d note that Luther often asked for a council to look into the controversies. The Reformers were not against an organized church, but rather an infallible church. None of the leading Reformers denied the church had authority, they denied it had an infallible authority on par with Scripture.

raumzeitmc2:

We have Luther’s own statements for it: My teachings will stand, and the Pope will fall, although he should be supported by all the gates of hell and the powers of the air and the earth and the sea. They have provoked me to war; and war they shall have. They despised the offered peace, and therefore they shall not have peace. Let God see who will give in first, the Pope or Luther…. Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliæ (Martin Luther against Henry King of England), September, 1522.

Here is a great opportunity for you to do some background work I suggest, Henry VIII and Luther by Erwin Doernberg (California: Stanford University Press, 1961). The document you’ve cited is highly polemical, and the background is quite interesting. In 1521 Henry VIII wrote a book against Luther entitled, Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, a book specifically against Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church. On October 2, 1521, the Pope had a book party celebration so to speak, or rather, a ceremony announcing the book.

The ceremony began with Henry’s representative Dr. Clerk referring to Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church,

“…in which, good God! what and how prodigious poison, what deadly bain, how much consuming and mortal venom this poisonous serpent has spewed out… Here the bond of chastity is broken, holy fasts, religious vows, rites, ceremonies, worship of God, solemnity of the Mass etc. are abolished and exterminated, by the strangest perfidiousness that ever was heard of. This man institutes sacraments after his own fancy, reducing them to three, to two, to one, and that one he handles so pitifully that he seems about to reducing it at last to nothing at all… When dreading punishment (which he well deserved) fled, with a mischief, into his perpetual lurking holes in Bohemia, the mother and nurse of his heresies…”

The Pope’s response in the ceremony included praise for Henry VIII that he,

“having the knowledge, will and ability of composing this book against this terrible monster, has rendered himself no less admirable to the whole world by eloquence of his style and by his great wisdom. We render immortal thanks to our creator who has raised such a prince to defend His Holy Church and this Holy See…”

The Pope also granted an indulgence of ten years and ten quadragenes to those who would read Henry VIII’s Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. The overleaf advertised this Papal indulgence to the reader.

So with a little background check, you should be able to understand the polemical nature of this time period. What you’re selectively citing isn’t that outrageous given the time period.Both sides were prone to strong polemic and insult.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I mean isn’t sinning boldly better than sinning like a coward?

I want to expand on this statement (because it probably sounded like a trolling remark). Here’s something I wrote in the “I’m a Presbyterian and I want to convert” thread (with some slight modifications):

*I would say Luther’s words were good ones. Indeed if you’re so ashamed of your sin that you will only admit to it within the confines of a private confessional (i.e. you don’t “sin boldly” but rather “sin timidly” because of shame) then you’re probably crossing over the line of mere human imperfection into conduct that is truly harmful to others (and repulsive to society at large).

Many would say that there’s much more molestation in our society today. However, I think there’s less; and it’s reported by the media much more aggressively these days (so we’re simply more aware of it). To follow on a biblical theme, light is the best disinfectant. When people can harm others in private they’re much more likely to continue their despicable conduct. However, if there is no rock they slide under, no dark corner where they can hurt others with impunity … then they will be tempered (or arrested and removed from society).

So yes if you’re a sinner (which we all are) – then if you’re to sin better you sin boldly. If there’s something you’re doing that is so shameful … then figure out a way to stop doing it and to rid yourself of the psychological compulsion to do it (because poor conduct usually starts out with deviant thoughts and a deviant predisposition). If you’re a child molester for which there is no cure … then better you kill yourself then continue living out your despicable existence (this last sentence is just my opinion, I doubt a religious man would ever recommend such a thing). *

 

[humble_in_doubt]

On second thought … better a child molester confess (or better yet admit his deviant compulsion before acting on it so he can placed in a mental institution) rather than kill himself. With any luck eventually we can find a cure for this horrible predisposition.

I might have to amend my signature … “yet I believe John Calvin (and occasionally Martin Luther) described the meaning of scripture better than anyone”

I suppose the CC does an adequate job of smoothing out the inconsistencies in scripture with pretty elaborate philosophy (drawing heavily on Aristotle). However, I think this merely reflects the differences in how southern Europeans approach things (versus northern Europeans). Just compare the philosophy of men like Immanuel Kant to Aristotle (and you’ll see what I mean). The German seems more predisposed to excellence in engineering (which means their philosophy tends to be more pragmatic and geared towards the real human experience rather than speaking in platitudes as the Greeks did).

I think the English, followed by us (Americans) worked out these differences in, as Paul would say, the “most excellent way.” Men like John Locke, Adam Smith, Emerson, our founders, etc. really developed the best and most self-perfecting system of governance, law, and how humans can peacefully and happily coexist in human history.

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Well, abuses were corrected, vice was purged, Luther fell and the Papacy stood! But Protestants are still protesting!

True, the abuses were addressed, thanks of course to the Reformers. I’m not sure what you mean by “Luther fell.” I am proof of someone who has greatly benefited from Luther contra mundum. I disagree that Protestants are still protesting. Most don’t care and don’t even know what the real issues are. Of course, a great number of Catholics don’t know the issues either. I am indeed in a minority of Protestants that know the issues, and it’s why I believe Rome officially anathematized the gospel at Trent, thus cutting herself off from the church.

raumzeitmc2:

Btw, since by “abuses” you certainly include indulgences, you might be interested in what Joseph Lortz says about indulgences.

the corruption of the practice of indulgences is complicated. The practice over time developed, or should I say, became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.

Pope Boniface VIII (14th century) made use of the idea of a “general” indulgence. Certain times a year/years (like every 100 years) pilgrims could come to Rome and could receive a general indulgence: the removal of all the penalties for their sins. This general indulgence also required one to engage in the whole scope of penance (contrition and confession) as well the payment of certain amount of money. Through this, the original intent of the personal, internalized sacrament of penance became external and commercialized. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) declared that general indulgences could apply also to the dead. By this he increased money revenue.

the 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences. Luther was troubled that those he was ministering to were ignoring the good works he was directing them towards, but rather were purchasing indulgences as a means of satisfaction. They were also being purchased to alleviate suffering of those in Purgatory. Luther came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was non-biblical and non-Christian. For the perfect work of Christ requires no indulgence. Luther said, “The indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm.”

raumzeitmc2:

Now you speak of the “proclamation of the gospel, and dedication to the authority of the Scriptures.” Well, just what is the “gospel” in your opinion?

In Biblical terms,

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

In other words, Christ has paid the penalty for my sin, I do not need an indulgence. My righteousness is the perfect righteousness of Christ, given to me as a gift. My perfect works are Christ’s works, given to me as a gift.

raumzeitmc2:

The reformers characters and credentials can be critiqued without reference to either Denifle or Grisar. Their own words and actions more than suffice.

I would suggest simply reading Luther than reading about Luther. I suggest beginning with his sermons. Unfortunately, you were the one suggesting out dated abandoned historical treatments like Denifle, Grisar, etc. without discrimination. This is why more recent Catholic scholarship is able to note positive aspects of Luther- Once Catholic scholars gave up the approach of Denifle and Luther and took a fresh look at his work, they were able to find a Luther that had been overlooked for 500 years by Catholics. Catholic scholar Anton Fischer put forth Luther a prayer warrior. Johannes Hessen was able to view Luther as having a great experience with God. Father Thomas Sartory saw love as Luther’s inspiration.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Most of what Luther originally brought up were things that lacked definition. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory.

First, read the Catholic encyclopedia article on Purgatory and the section on Indulgences.
newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

But even if certain teachings had not been formally defined, it doesn’t matter. All must await the final decision of the whole Church, which decision trumps the demands of private individuals.

There have been instances in the Church’s history where this or that theological question had not been fully worked out. Prior to its being worked out, theologians were free to discuss and debate. But once a question was settled by the “unanimous voice of the universal Church” (Augustine, Letter 54:4), the discussion was finished. Case in point: St. Cyprian vis a vis the re-baptism of heretics.

Cyprian argued that the heretics, on coming into the Church, had to be re-baptized. After much debate, however, his views were ultimately rejected by the Church. Augustine, writing against the “mad Donatists,” provides us with some insights into how the early Church resolved such questions. Here are some snippets:

What, then, do they [the Donatists] venture to say, when their mouth is closed by the force of truth, with which they will not agree? “Cyprian,” say they, “whose great merits and vast learning we all know, decreed in a Council, with many of his fellow-bishops contributing their several opinions, that all heretics and schismatics, that is, all who are severed from the communion of the one Church, are without baptism; and therefore, whosoever has joined the communion of the Church after being baptized by them must be baptized in the Church.”

The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility.

We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus?

“For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, Matthew 16:18 when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal.”

Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, … if Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh?

I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom.

On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book II)
newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm

Augustine also make another very important point in this same book when he says:

Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out.

And finally:

Wherefore, while rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, the fitting honor to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet venture to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and heretics was contrary to that which was afterwards brought to light by a decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and strengthened by the authority of a plenary Council.

• ibid.

How different all this from the reformers!

Similarly, are you suggesting that the Reformers deviated from the historical Catholic understanding of justification?

Yes, that is to the extent that “faith alone” means no works of charity (not “works of the Torah” btw) need apply when it comes to justification.

But even with “the gospel of Christ and of his saints” there was not “one” tradition of justification before the Council of Trent made its declaration. Note this comment from Jaraslov Pelikan:

And I understand about all that. But again, it doesn’t matter. Debates and discussions about various theological points are always going on in the Church. But they carry no authority until such time as the Church makes a final pronouncement.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Rare information? Like what? I have a large library and collection of Reformation related books. I know of no specific “fact” put forth by Denifle that I probably can’t duplicate in another book.

Well, for one thing, just the extensive number of quotes, many of which you can’t find in English yet.

I think our dialog has brought you to this conclusion. I would speculate, although I don’t know you, that previous to our discussion you were unaware of the assessment of Denifle’s work.

I was very aware (I do occasionally peak out from under my rock, you know!).

While I was suspicious at first because of how rare Denifle’s book is, I do believe you actually had it and read it.

I don’t own a copy, but I have access to one.

I think you reluctantly conceded my point about Denifle anyway when you stated “That doesn’t mean I bind myself to his conclusions or approve of his general tone.” If all you want to do is use his book to extract his Luther citations, I can only exhort you to provide contexts for your extracted quotes, and make sure you’ve read and understood the contexts. Linking to Latin or German texts doesn’t help too many people here on the Catholic Answers forums. I suggest you only use quotes with an extant English context. Truth fears no context.

I freely concede that he was harsh. As for quotes, I make it my business to find the context. But some things still haven’t been translated and my German is not equal to the task. My Latin lags even more. Perhaps it would help everyone if the Lutherans were to put more of Luther’s works in the public domain and online. As for linking to primary sources, I’m surprised that you would even object! Rather curious.

The blog is in many ways dedicated to people who quote Luther from secondary sources without first reading the context.

Guess it’s not for me then! LOL!

This is untrue, and again I wonder if you’ve actually read what I wrote. I provide a section entitled, “F. Criticism of Luther by Lortz”. In that section I hit all the major points Lortz made:.

I just thought add more to what had already been said.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This thread has come a long way, and I suggest anyone trudging through this should go back and read your posts early on in this thread.

Here you implied the Reformers were “equally (if not more so) wicked”

Here you say, “the immorality and violence of the “reformers” ought to be exposed”

Here you rely on Denifle’s flawed vilifying caricature- “Fr. Denifle, who also saw through the pretense”

Here you say, “Luther and Calvin, such people deceive and continue to deceive so many unsuspecting souls”

Here you perpetuate more of Denifle’s error of “lust”: “the reformation was a terrible injustice against the Lord’s Church, perpetrated by violent and lustful men with no authority whatsoever to do so”

And these are just a few examples. As far as I can tell based on your comments, anything even remotely that indicts the reformers is good enough for you, which is the flawed Denifle- O’Hare method.

I stand by my statements. But just because I might say, for example, something like, “Luther was corrupt,” or “So and so reformer was immoral,” doesn’t mean I have any personal animus toward them. I only say what I say t if it’s a statement of fact. And when Luther and the other Wittenberg theologians give a man permission to keep two wives, for example, well, the fact is, that’s simply immoral! So of course I don’t want to put anyone in a bad light, but the facts are the facts. Why you don’t seem to understand that such an action was reprehensible, and ought to be exposed, is beyond me. Luther himself was merciless in his criticisms of others. And his justification? Let me (again ) quote Luther himself.

Therefore, we should hold fast here to the free teaching of St. Paul, I Timothy 5 ;20], when he say, “As for those who sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” Here, St. Paul excludes no one, be he high or low.

Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, 1522.
Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, p. 251.

I suggest you can first begin by noting some of your research is flawed, like that of Denifle and Grisar.

For the zillionth time; those are only two of many sources.

Second, I suggest you actually do a serious study of Luther’s good qualities to balance out all the polemical sources you’ve digested. What you’ll find is Luther and Calvin were not the bogeymen you think they were.

Ooooh yes they were!! LOL!!! But I know that Luther had good qualities; who ever said otherwise (oops! Here comes another lecture on Denifle! ).

O K, seriously. Luther really did have a number of good qualities, and I actually do agree with you that they ought to be better known. Here’s where Lutherans and the Lutheran church could do much to put away misunderstanding, if only they weren’t so afraid of going public domain with Luther’s works. And why are they afraid? A number of reasons:

1. Luther’s foul language (and what may even be termed at times, his downright filthy language). Now Luther knew better. This is proven by the simple fact that, when he had a mind to (and when not seething with rage against the pope or whomever), he could write and say many beautiful and edifying things. So he cannot plead ignorance.
2. Luther’s violent language. For a supposed man of God and a reformer of morals, such language was, is, and always will be out of place.
3. Luther’s scandals e.g. Philip of Hesse.
4. Luther’s constant complaints about how morality deteriorated under his “gospel” and how the people were better under the pope.
5. Luther’s lying, his deceiving.
6. Luther’s attacks on his fellow reformers - Zwingli et al.
7. Luther’s apparent affection for the Mother of God (a mortal sin if there ever was one in some Protestant circles! ).
8. Luther’s disgraceful contempt for the Fathers and Doctors (with some notable exceptions I should say.).

Etc.

Now these and many other such things the Lutherans are afraid will do irreparable damage to the cause of the reformation were they to become widely known. After all, the absurdity and hypocrisy of speaking corruption in the Church when the reformers themselves were taking the lead in such things is, well, you know…

Third, in regard to such Luther citations like “sin boldly” you need to go back and do better research on Luther’s theology. As far as I can tell, you completely misunderstood basic tenets of Luther’s distinction between law / gospel and faith / works and Luther’s understanding of justification.

Read the Fathers, then read the reformers. There’s simply no comparison. As for Luther’s theology, the whole 55 volumes of the American Edition of his Works, when all is said and done, boils down to this one thing: that no sin can damn a man, as long as he believes. That’s the essence of his theology.

In regard to those “immoral” things like Luther’s “bigamy”, or “violence” (whatever that means) you should go back and do better research on the 16th century.

Never seen anyone try to defend bigamy / polygamy the way you have James! You sure you’re not a Mormon??

As for violence, have you never read, “On the Jews and Their Lies?” Or any of the things Luther said against the peasants? Or how about the simple fact that Luther would even physically strike his good friend Melanchthon on occasion?

Very odd, that’s all I can say. Very odd.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This was probably not an uncommon sentiment during the sixteenth century. We forget that their society is not our society. We need to take off our PBS membership glasses, our “tolerance” glasses, our democratic glasses, our “down with the death penalty” glasses, etc. Both sides, Protestant and Catholic, as well as the schwermeri had a different notion of tolerance and freedom of expression than we do. Even reading some of Luther’s "violent’ language finds similar expression in Eck or More. That’s why those who post some of Luther’s “shocking” violent language don’t shock me. Rather, I’m shocked by how ignorant they are of the Reformation period and worldview.

Well, then they need to git mor edumacated!

If you’ve pointed it out before, I don’t recall it. I don’t spend an extraordinary amount of time here. Very rarely do I get involved in any CA discussion. I think this may be my 5 year anniversary of being here, and you’ll note, my post count is quite low.

I don’t remember exactly what I said or where I said on this forum. But I have complimented Luther. And if you ask me, I think I’d get along better with him than you would (specially since he’s had a little time now to rethink some things!)

Yes, I’m aware of this. What is interesting in this regard is discussion forums like this frequently post criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

When he says something good and sensible, then he ought to be recognized for it and people (of all faiths) should be encouraged to listen. And I do think Protestants could learn a lot from what Luther said about Mary. One remark in particular struck me as quite noteworthy. Unfortunately, I photocopied the page but forgot to note which volume it was in. However, I have enough info to track it down. But listen to what Luther says:

In him [Christ] and his mother nature was pure in all members and in all the functions of the members. No female body or one its organs ever attained its natural function without sin, except in this virgin. Here, for one time, God honored nature and it function…

Indeed these are the wondrous works of God! How could he have presented to us a more forceful, a more powerful and purer example of chastity than this birth? How completely do all desires and thoughts, no matter how strong they may be, topple down, when we merely look at this birth and ponder how God’s exalted majesty with all earnestness, with
boundless love and kindness goes to work and has to do in the female flesh and blood of this virgin.

No woman ever gives to a man such pure thoughts as does this virgin, and likewise, no man to a woman as does this child. Pure chastity well forth from this birth, no matter how we regard it, if only we recognize in it the work of God.

The Gospel for Christmas Eve, Luther’s Works, Sermons, vol.? pp. 12-13.

I appreciate that you’re now attempting balance.

I always try to be balanced.

Of course, that’s your opinion, and I disagree. Any movement that proclaims the Gospel and places the sole authority of faith in the spotlight, regardless of whatever chaos or tranquility it produces, will be that which I defend.

So were back to the “gospel” being proclaimed only by Protestants in the 16th century! Poor Augustine; never heard, never knew the gospel! Same for Cyprian, same for Jerome, same for everyone … Pity.

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

No, I do not “rely” on Denifle! He’s only one of many sources.

You implied Luther was an immoral man. You cited Denifle saying, “Nevertheless those runaway monks and fallen priest, who had annihilated their own and other’s decency, modesty, and honor, had the effrontery to come forward as preachers of morality.” By the way, Denifle said “priests” not “priest”. This citation was from the very chapter in which Denifle attempts to paint Luther’s gross immorality of teaching that monks could be married. You perpetuated Denifle’s error of attributing lust to Luther: “the reformation was a terrible injustice against the Lord’s Church, perpetrated by violent and lustful men with no authority whatsoever to do so.” In terms of the source of an argument, the “lustful Luther” argument was best put forth by Denifle, and you more or less parroted his point.

raumzeitmc2:

But “Sin boldly,” even with the context, is still a shocking thing to say though. It tells us something about Luther’s character, about his theology. But if you’re so convinced I’m wrong, simply show me where Luther teaches that one can loose salvation through sin.

The most obvious thing about your statement is it demonstrates an unfamiliarity with Luther’s theology. The method of understanding Luther is not to demand he show you x and fit in your categories. The method is to learn Luther’s categories, and learn how he understood x. If you approach Luther with your categories first, your bound to fail.

raumzeitmc2:

There’s no similarity whatsoever; I’m not “attacking” anyone! I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy of the reformers.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not what your comments have suggested. We’ll take one instance: you accuse Reformers, of which Luther was, of immorality and lust. This is not “hypocrisy,” this is slander. Slander is an attack. My charge stands: I could point out the hypocrisy of some priest or some pope by noting their lust or worse. This is the method of attacking the person rather than the theology. In the case of Luther, he did not lead an immoral or lustful life, so not only are you attacking, you’re also wrong.

raumzeitmc2:

Luther cries, “Sin boldly,” and then decries sinners in the Church! What is one to make of it?

I don’t know if this matters to you, but the “sin boldly” comment comes from a letter that is now but a fragment. It has no address, salutation, or signature. I find it almost ludicrous that Catholics would cling to this statement as a means of discrediting him rather than actually reading his extant published writings in which he painstakingly explained the nature of faith as well as the relationship between faith and works. Why perpetuate ignorance? Why use obscure quotes when many of his most important works are readily available?

But, as to the obscure quote, the first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith. But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God’s paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” and “for the transgression of His people was He stricken” (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.”

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

If you think that Luther didn’t overtly teach to avoid sin at all costs and seek holy living, you really haven’t read Luther. If you think Luther was a grossly immoral lustful man as Denifle posited, you haven’t read history correctly.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I might have to amend my signature … “yet I believe John Calvin (and occasionally Martin Luther) described the meaning of scripture better than anyone”

Might want to keep working on it! LOL!

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Is is permitted to examine Luther’s character or not?

Note how a wise Roman Catholic would do it : “The Church condemned Luther as a heretic. That is certain, but whatever one thinks in detail of Luther’s orthodoxy or heterodoxy, however one may view certain sides of his character, whatever criticism one has to level against his immoderate polemic, there is no doubt that he was a profoundly religious man, a true Christian, who lived by a deep faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and risen to save us. We must also remember that all his life Luther was a man of prayer and a zealous preacher of the Word of God” (Joseph Lortz).

raumzeitmc2:

No, I’m not posting “dirt.” But if some have focused on the negative Luther, it was undoubtedly as a corrective to this kind of stuff:

Catholic writings against Luther began highly polemic. During Luther’s lifetime, one of Luther’s first biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published. Far from a “corrective”- Luther’s literary opponents began the slander campaign long ago.

raumzeitmc2:

The other quotes speak to Luther’s alleged pattern of exaggeration, e.g., “sin boldly.” Thus I think they have a valid place in the discussion.

It was hyperbole. Luther was brilliant with language. It appears to me, you’re having difficulty with Luther’s writing style, thus your extra stuff was not relevant.

raumzeitmc2:

I have the book, I have read the intro, and I do understand the background. But nothing in the intro (and granted, everyone should read it first) necessarily absolves Luther from the possibility of blasphemy. I’m not saying he did, but the words are his, and the context alone does not suffice to redeem him. But, I am willing to be corrected if the words can be shown to be an exaggeration.

I already explained this to you, but you ignored my response. See post #130 again.

raumzeitmc2:

Well, I don’t think I’ve neglected anything. After all, the whole world knows of the “subterfuge between Luther and the papacy.” That is the historical context! - Luther, a man bitterly at war with, and opposed to, the Pope.

You are ignoring historical context.

raumzeitmc2:

Now with regard to Luther’s alleged instances of exaggeration, I just have to ask: are the following quotes to be taken as hyperbole or at face value? “[Luther] raised himself up and after making the sign of the cross with his hand, he said to us who were standing around him, ‘The Lord fill you with his benediction and with hatred of the pope!’” Table Talk, February, 1537, No. 3543A, Luther’s Works, vol. 54, American Edition, 1967, Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603540, p. 228.

The Table talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology. Even Grisar has pointed out, “Of course, it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral—‘children of the moment.’ While they correctly and vividly reproduce the ideas of the speaker, minus the cool reflection which prevails in the writing of letters and still more of books, they contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true. The momentary exaggerations of the speaker at times beget contradictions which conflict with other talks or literary utterances. Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations. Humor and satire of a very pungent kind play a great part in these talks” [Grisar, 481].

As to the comment, if he really said it, Luther’s anger towards the papacy isn’t so hard to figure out if you read a little history. Luther believed Satan was the mastermind behind the papacy. when he attacked the papacy, he was attacking Satan.

“The word and working of God is quite clear; that women were made to be either wives or prostitutes.” (The second quote I’ve seen floating around on the net.)

It’s not my problem, it’s yours. When I cite Luther, I provide a context. If I can’t, I usually don’t use the quote. Once again though we see an excellent example of your methodology- obscure slanderous quotes.

Without a context, I don’t have anything to say, other than Luther’s views on women are easy to find, as are the contexts. No one needs this obscure quote without a context to understand Luther’s views on women.

Your champion Grisar says this comment "so easily lends itself to misunderstanding, Luther does not mean to put women in the alternative of choosing either marriage or vice. In another passage of the same writing he says distinctly, what he repeats also elsewhere : “It is certain that He [God] does not create any woman to be a prostitute.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

First, read the Catholic encyclopedia article on Purgatory and the section on Indulgences.

This is not a meaningful response to: “Most of what Luther originally brought up were things that lacked definition. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory.”

raumzeitmc2:

But even if certain teachings had not been formally defined, it doesn’t matter. All must await the final decision of the whole Church, which decision trumps the demands of private individuals.There have been instances in the Church’s history where this or that theological question had not been fully worked out. Prior to its being worked out, theologians were free to discuss and debate. But once a question was settled by the “unanimous voice of the universal Church” (Augustine, Letter 54:4), the discussion was finished

We’re in agreement, so I’m not sure why the need to reinvent the wheel. The “final decision of the whole Church” may take hundreds of years on any particular point of theology. Until such dogmatic proclamation, Rome’s scholars are allowed to hold their private opinions. When Luther challenged indulgences, he was within the rights allowed him by your church to debate and discuss.

raumzeitmc2:

Cyprian argued that the heretics…How different all this from the reformers!

Irrelevant to this discussion, and also to whether or not Luther had the right to discuss and debate indulgences. History shows the Roman church attempted to silence Luther rather than allow their profit driven enterprise to suffer. I suggest you’re not taking the abuse of indulgences seriously if you think Luther should have simply backed down and waited to till 1546. If this is your opinion, I hesitate to think what this type of obedience means to current any important corruption in the church- if a priest say, sees some gross immorality within the church, should he not do all within his power to stop it?

raumzeitmc2:

Yes, that is to the extent that “faith alone” means no works of charity (not “works of the Torah” btw) need apply when it comes to justification.

You’ve snipped my sentence from it’s context, and here is the argument again in full: Are you suggesting that the Reformers deviated from the historical Catholic understanding of justification? Implied in such an argument is the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church received their understanding of Justification from the Apostles, and subsequent Church history records the passing on of its understanding to the Church Fathers, and then ultimately to its dogmatic proclamation at the Council of Trent. But even with “the gospel of Christ and of his saints” there was not “one” tradition of justification before the Council of Trent made its declaration.

raumzeitmc2:

And I understand about all that. But again, it doesn’t matter. Debates and discussions about various theological points are always going on in the Church. But they carry no authority until such time as the Church makes a final pronouncement.

There wasn’t a defined Roman position on Justification previous to Luther. That is, Catholics cannot even indict Luther’s understanding of justification, because previous to Trent, there was not “one” Catholic understanding of justification.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

Well, for one thing, just the extensive number of quotes, many of which you can’t find in English yet.

No, these obscure quotes aren’t significant to painting an accurate picture of Luther. There are enough of Luther’s writings in print today for anyone to get an accurate picture of his life and work. The “extensive number of quotes” you speak of aren’t all that important to anyone interested in truth, They are only useful to those putting forth propaganda. Propaganda is not effective when proper documentation is given. The only interest I have in these quotes is exposing propaganda. time after time as I’ve researched obscure quotes, it’s the person using them that comes off looking badly, not Luther.

raumzeitmc2:

I was very aware (I do occasionally peak out from under my rock, you know!).

Then if you were aware of Denifle’s faulty argumentation, that you used it positively and knowingly makes me recall the sentiment of your earlier statement: “This is truly tragic, though, because like Luther and Calvin, such people deceive and continue to deceive so many unsuspecting souls. And quite frankly, I believe there is a moral duty, a moral obligation to expose such false teachers.”

raumzeitmc2:

I don’t own a copy, but I have access to one.

As do I. I also happen to have though at least the first 100 pages in my personal library.

raumzeitmc2:

I freely concede that he was harsh.

“He was harsh” isn’t all that important to me. Rather, his flawed presuppositions leading to incorrect analysis are the problem.

raumzeitmc2:

As for quotes, I make it my business to find the context. But some things still haven’t been translated and my German is not equal to the task. My Latin lags even more.

Then I suggest refraining from using them until you’ve read the context.

raumzeitmc2:

Perhaps it would help everyone if the Lutherans were to put more of Luther’s works in the public domain and online.

I appreciate that any books are free on line. One cannot demand that others give books for free. In regards to Luther’s writings, there is a large selection of materials with contexts available.

raumzeitmc2:

As for linking to primary sources, I’m surprised that you would even object! Rather curious.

I only object in the sense of deceptive credibility. I don’t often link to Luther in a different language if I can’t read and understand that language. If I quoted Luther in English and provided the reference to say, German, I’m giving off the appearance that I read the German, understood the context, and then translated the quote being used into English. This is deceptive credibility.

raumzeitmc2:

Guess it’s not for me then! LOL!

The blog is precisely for people who come across quotes being used by people like you.

raumzeitmc2:

I just thought add more to what had already been said.

You earlier said I was giving only one of Lortz. Now you respond you’re simply adding more. Which is it?

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

“You earlier said I was giving only one of Lortz.”

I meant, to say, “one side of Lortz”

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You implied Luther was an immoral man. You cited Denifle saying, “Nevertheless those runaway monks and fallen priest, who had annihilated their own and other’s decency, modesty, and honor, had the effrontery to come forward as preachers of morality.” By the way, Denifle said “priests” not “priest”.

Well, *what *would you call a man who countenanced bigamy? ( this is not “slander” btw, merely a statement of fact). Nor does pointing this out impy even the slightest animus toward the man. As for “priest,” just a typo. Sorry.

You perpetuated Denifle’s error of attributing lust to Luther: “the reformation was a terrible injustice against the Lord’s Church, perpetrated by violent and lustful men with no authority whatsoever to do so.” In terms of the source of an argument, the “lustful Luther” argument was best put forth by Denifle, and you more or less parroted his point.

You call it “error,” but is there not indeed some justification for the charge, based on the historical facts and logic of the case, among which are these?

1. Luther himself admitted his problems with lust, and many of his followers joined his cause simply because they wanted to indulge their carnal appetites i.e., just so they could, “Sin boldly.”
2. If the Catholic faith is true, then the reformation was indeed a terrible injustice against Christ’s one Church.
3. History records that the reformers (and their followers) were indeed violent men.
4. None of the reformers or any of their followers, in fact, had a shred of authority.

A very brief overview of some of the above may be found in the following small pamphlet of 15 pages:

The Reformers on the Reformation (foreign), Charles F. B. Allnatt, Burns & Oates, 1881

A few highlights:

Luther, the prime author of that great" revolution in religion miscalled “The Reformation,” after some years experience of its results, declared: —

“The world grows worse from day to day. Men are now more covetous, malicious, and resentful, more unruly, shameless, and full of vice, than they were in the time of Popery.”

“Our Germany, after so great light of the Gospel, seems to be all but possessed by the devil. Our youths are impudent and unruly, and will no longer submit to education; the old men are loaded with sins of avarice, usury, and many others that may not be told.”

Calvin, the second great patriarch of the Reformation, says:

“But a few years had elapsed since the glorious beginnings of our renascent Church displayed themselves, when straightway we see them reduced to a heap of ruins. But before the Lord inflicted this punishment upon us, there was to be seen everywhere a manifold and horrible profanation of the Gospel, so that this sudden over throwing of our labours that has occurred is not so much a subject for wonder, as is the long-suffering of God in enduring the monstrous wickedness of our age. When so many thousands of men, having thrown off the Papal authority, eagerly, as it seemed, enrolled themselves under the Gospel, how few, think you, have repented of their vices? Nay, what have the majority shown to have been their desire, than that, having shaken off the yoke of superstitions, they might launch out the more freely into every kind of lasciviousness?”

Martin Bucer says:

“The greater part of them (the Reformed) seem only to have sought from the Gospel of Christ the following advantages, to wit: first, that they might free themselves from the tyranny of the Roman Antichrist and his bishops; next, that they might cast off the yoke of every kind of discipline and penance, and of all that religion which remained under the Papacy, and might live and do all things according to the dictates of their carnal lusts and appetites; and lastly, it was by no means displeasing to them to hear that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by good works, for which latter they had no relish. . . . Not a few of them only received the preaching of the Gospel — of whatsoever kind it might be — in order that they might plunder the goods of the Churches.”

Capito, the colleague of Bucer in the administration of the Church of Strasburg, in an epistle to Farel, a.d. 1537, says:

“The Lord grants me to learn what it is to be a pastor, and how great harm has been done by our hasty judgment and inconsiderate vehemence in throwing off the Papal authority. For the multitude, after being accustomed and well-nigh brought up to do as it pleases, has now absolutely thrown off all restraint; as though, by breaking down the authority of the Papists, we made void the power of the Word, of the Sacraments, and of the whole office of the ministry. For they cry out: — ‘I know enough of the Gospel, I can read it for myself; what need have I of your assistance?’”

Smiddellinus (Jacob Andrea Schmidlin,1528 -1590), an eminent Lutheran minister, says:

“To make it plain to all the world that they (the Lutherans) are not Papists, and place no confidence in good works, they take care to practice none; instead of fasting, they pass their time in eating and drinking; when they ought to relieve the poor, they fleece and oppress them; oaths, blasphemies, and imprecations are their usual prayers; so that Jesus Christ is not now so blasphemed amongst the Turks as He is amongst them. In short, instead of humility, nothing reigns amongst them but haughtiness, arrogance, and pride; and all this kind of life is by them called ‘Evangelical.’”

If only you would be willing to at least acknowledge the above, we might be able to have fruitful discussion.

God bless.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

True, the abuses were addressed, thanks of course to the Reformers. I’m not sure what you mean by “Luther fell.” I am proof of someone who has greatly benefited from Luther contra mundum.

Historical distortion! Abuses have always been addressed, even in the New Testament! Indeed, there was never a time in the Church when both abuses and those to address them did not simultaneously exist.

And so whatever abuses were occurring in the 16th century were already being addressed long before Luther came on the scene.

I disagree that Protestants are still protesting. Most don’t care and don’t even know what the real issues are. Of course, a great number of Catholics don’t know the issues either.

This is too often the case!

I am indeed in a minority of Protestants that know the issues, and it’s why I believe Rome officially anathematized the gospel at Trent, thus cutting herself off from the church.

“Anathematized the gospel?” What does that mean???

Luther came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was non-biblical and non-Christian. For the perfect work of Christ requires no indulgence. Luther said, “The indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm.”

So we must take Luther’s judgment over that of whole Church?? But how, prey tell, do you know he wasn’t wrong??

In Biblical terms,

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

In other words, Christ has paid the penalty for my sin, I do not need an indulgence. My righteousness is the perfect righteousness of Christ, given to me as a gift. My perfect works are Christ’s works, given to me as a gift.

Very convenient. But if “Christ has paid the penalty for my sin,” then why does he still find fault? And why could not Tetzel, for example, have simply dismissed his detractors by saying something like, “Oh, stop whining about the ‘selling’ of indulgences!” What does it matter? “Christ has paid the penalty for my sin!”

Do you see the absurdity (indeed the blaspheme!) of such a belief system as you profess?

But how curious it is that Protestant sins are always somehow “covered” and “the penalty” for them fully paid, whereas, for Catholic sins - rather than benefiting from the same “indulgence” - are only to be railed and thundered against by “mighty reformers” !!!

Guess God is “gracious” alright – but only if you’re Protestant!!

In any event, you really haven’t told me what the gospel is yet. So let rephrase the question:

We know that Christ preached the gospel, so what then was it that he preached? What was the essence of his message, his gospel?

God bless.

 

[TertiumQuid]

raumzeitmc2:

I stand by my statements. But just because I might say, for example, something like, “Luther was corrupt,” or “So and so reformer was immoral,” doesn’t mean I have any personal animus toward them.

You appear to exist on a higher plane of being than I do.

raumzeitmc2:

I only say what I say t if it’s a statement of fact. And when Luther and the other Wittenberg theologians give a man permission to keep two wives, for example, well, the fact is, that’s simply immoral! So of course I don’t want to put anyone in a bad light, but the facts are the facts.

I addressed this quite a while back., providing this link. Here are a few highlights about bigamy in the 16th century in general, and as it applied to Henry VIII:

Monogamy was the normal thing among Christians and nobody in Henry VIII’s time, with the exception of the Anabaptists of Munster (1534), denied its normality. Neither the Pope nor Luther regarded bigamy as desideratum; but both of them, and not they alone, regarded it as the lesser evil compared with divorce.

Erasmus of Rotterdam gave, quite casually, the same advice.

The mere fact that the Pope, Luther and Erasmus considered bigamy to be the obvious preferable solution indicates clearly that this idea, so alien and unacceptable to the modern mind, was a perfectly reasonable reaction at the time.

Erasmus is particularly well suited to show that the proposal of bigamy was not regarded as shocking; had he felt that he could be taken to task for proposing an immoral solution, he to would never have given such an opinion in a letter written to England.

Henry VIII and Philip of Hesse were by no means the only exalted persons who had given cause for such discussions and decisions. The Pope had permitted the King of Castile to have two wives. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, Henry VIII’s brother-in-law, committed bigamy twice, was three times divorced and finally married his daughter-in-law; his case, one is happy to say, was not typical of the age, but it shows what was possible.

Luther’s attitude towards the problem of bigamy is made clear in his reply to an inquiry; in 1526 he wrote to Jose Levin Metzsch: ‘In answer to your question whether someone could marry more than one wife, this is my reply: unbelievers may do what they like, but Christian liberty must be made to harmonize with charitable care for the welfare of others wherever it can be done without harm to faith and conscience. But nowadays everyone wants the sort of liberty which pleases his own interest, without any care for the interest and improvement of the community… Even if in the olden days men had many wives, Christians should not follow their example; they have no need to do so, it does not improve them and there is no command to that effect in God’s word. Only scandal and disquiet would be the result…’

-continued-