The real Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholikos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Contarini:
Mickey,
And the question remains: just what do you think you are going to prove? If you prove that Luther was the Father of All Evil, most Protestants will just shrug. The only people for whom this is really relevant are Lutherans. While the basis for Lutheranism is the Creeds and Confessions, not Luther as an individual, it would be pretty hard to be a devout Lutheran and still think Luther was totally despicable. (Good look making that case, BTW. My point is that even if you made it, it wouldn’t be a knock-down argument against Protestantism.)
You misjudge me Edwin. I’m not out to prove that Luther was the father of all evils and I’m not out to prove that Luther was totally despicable. Heck, I have immediate family members and a good friend who are Lutherans! I just see it as very subjective. It is quite challenging to study this man and his theology, without peering through colored glasses.
 
40.png
Eden:
Part of the reason that we are polarized on the issue of Luther is that he is a polarizing figure. The difference as Catholics is that we think in absolutes. Abortion is either right or wrong. Gay marriage is either right or wrong. Luther was either right or wrong. For Catholics, there was only one Church created on earth by Jesus. In order for Luther’s ideas to be legitimate, Luther would have to have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to break from the Church and create a new church. The Protestant view is relativist. Varying views are open to interpretation and while opinions may not always match, there is no right answer. It’s a way of thinking in which, “your religion is equal to mine, and while I disagree with Presbyterians on this, I agree with Methodists on that.”
I must agree with this. Don’t get mad Edwin! 😛
Forget Luther the man. I’ve said this before; what are the results of his actions? I happen to believe he was wrong. I happen to believe that the Church would have reformed herself whether Luther existed or not. Why do I believe this? Because I believe that Christ protects the Church that he founded. Luther did not want thousands of different churches with varying theologies, but other reformers latched on to some of his ideas and ran with them. I happen to believe that Martin Luther would be sick to his stomach if he were alive today and witnessed the current environment of protestantism. On the other hand, how about this for irony:

The Catholic Church is in desparate need of renewal. Some of the most brilliant teachers and theologians of today, (some of them clergy), are converts from protestantism. They are teaching and re-catechizing cradle Catholics. The renewal is happening today. And much of it is coming from the protestant ranks! This blows my mind! Could this be why God let the reformation occur–to renew the Catholic Church? :hmmm:
 
40.png
Mickey:
The Catholic Church is in desparate need of renewal. Some of the most brilliant teachers and theologists of today, (some of them clergy), are converts from protestantism. They are teaching and re-catechizing cradle Catholics. The renewal is happening today. And much of it is coming from the protestant ranks! This blows my mind! Could this be why God let the reformation occur–to renew the Catholic Church? :hmmm:
I agree Mickey! Some of the most enthusiastic Catholics are our converts. They are truly a blessing to the Church. The only way that I can see God having a hand in the “Reformation” is, He allowed it to happen. I don’t see how God could have been the impetus for the movement as that would have to mean that He made a mistake with His original design.
 
40.png
Eden:
I agree Mickey! Some of the most enthusiastic Catholics are our converts. They are truly a blessing to the Church. The only way that I can see God having a hand in the “Reformation” is, as you said, he allowed it to happen. I don’t see how God could have been the impetus for the movement as that would have to mean that he made a mistake with his original design.
👍
 
Edwin-

There is no doubt that many others in Luther’s time were equally anti-Semitic. However:
  1. We Catholics do not hold any of those other anti-Semitic people out as great examples of the Christian life. We denounce their words and deeds. Instead, we hold out the lives of the saints as examples for the faithful to follow. Lutherans, however, often point to Martin Luther instead (more on that below) as the example of a great Christian. Lutheran pastors love to quote Luther as exhorting people to “sin boldly”.
  2. These other anti-Semitic people did not bother to write a 128-page diatribe against the Jews which the Nazis used to incite and justify the Holocaust. I recall no instances of the Nazis parading around writings of a Catholic cleric during their rallies. Perhaps I am wrong, and you can enlighten me on this point.
  3. Luther’s other writings on government were tailor-made for National Socialism. Luther justified despotism and showed his scorn for the common person.
  4. If you identify yourself as a “Lutheran”, by definition, you hold yourself out as giving a special deference to the thought and words of Martin Luther, of being a follower of the theology of Martin Luther. Yes, I know that the name was originally coined by Catholics, but Lutherans have proudly kept the name, at least in this country. What other Protestant denominations are named after their founders? Why do Lutherans in the U.S. keep the name (after all, the “Lutheran” church in Germany is called the “Evangelical” church instead)? In my opinion, it’s because of an identification by the average Lutheran with Luther, rightly or wrongly. Lutheran churches go to great lengths to promote this identification among their faithful. You do not find this is other mainline Protestant denominations. You do not find Methodists calling themselves “Weslayans” or Presbyterians calling themselves “Knoxians”.
In contrast (in my opinion), Identification with Martin Luther is drilled into the heads of most Lutherans. Lutherans are taught Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms growing up, and must memorize portions of it for confirmation. Luther is regularly quoted from Lutheran pulpits. Luther’s portraits hang in Lutheran churches and classrooms. I have seen him as the subject of a stained glass window in a Lutheran church trumpeting “The freedom of conscience of the Christian man.” There is the Luther League. Sunday School kids are invited to “Meet Martin Luther” for two years in the curriculum. I could go on. I should know because my wife and much of my family is Lutheran. My children were baptized in a Lutheran chuch. I am an associate member of a Lutheran church, I lead the Monday morning liturgy of hours prayer at that church, we attend the church off and on, and I have some very good Lutheran friends there. Yet I am a practicing Catholic, and it is my opinion that Martin Luther was one of the two biggest disasters to ever befall Christianity. It is my opinion that it is by the grace of God that the ELCA is a good and decent group of churches and people - despite Martin Luther - and not because of him.

Unfortunately, Luther is seen almost as a demigod by many Lutherans, the greatest example of freedom of conscience, the authority by which theological theories are evaluated - along with “What Would Jesus Do?”, many Lutherans add “How would Luther see this?” This is regularly brought up in casual theological discussions with serious Lutherans.

Sadly, Luther’s ugly legacy is almost completely whitewashed (actually it’s ignored) in the Lutheran churches and services I’ve attended. One exception - kudos to our Lutheran church for co-sponsoring a symposium at the Houston Holocaust Museum on the legacy of Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, none of Luther’s other shortcomings or outrageous comments or writings have ever gotten one word said about them from any Lutheran church I’ve ever attended or been associated with.

So yes, I am holding Luther to a different standard from the average anti-Semite of the 16th Century. Since he has been elevated to such a lofty place in the hearts and minds of many Protestants, he must be scrutinized more closely to evaluate whether he is really deserving of his heroic, saint-like status among Protestants. We regularly hold our public officials, our sports heroes and our clergy of all denominations to those same higher standards. We rightfully expect more out of our “leaders” and role-models because they are our heroes and role-models; it just comes with the territory. And Luther, in my opinion, fails miserably in that regard.

AMDG
 
40.png
Eden:
If Luther’s viewpoints don’t bother Protestants, well, I guess that’s why they’re Protestant! Still, I fail to see why Catholics trying to discuss Luther from a Catholic perspective on a Catholic forum is objectionable.
This got me thinking on what would be the Catholic Perspective on the nature of a person.

This is what I have come up with…

The Catholic Code of Cannon Law states that all people are entitled to their good name. This immediately tells me that one must not go around bad mouthing an individual by name – not that I am accusing anyone of doing this on this thread. Also I think that because of Catholic views on sacrifice and forgiveness that they must always work to be as positively ingenuous on a person as possible.

Another common statement in Catholicism and other Christian Religions is, “Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner.” I think what it comes down to on the issue of individuals like Luther is to say, this is sinful or that is sinful but in a way as to be careful not to transfer that onto the whole of his being.

Luther has succumbed to one of two existences at this point. Either he is in Hell and suffering for his sins, at which point I am not sure if we need to be adding to that fire, or he is in Heaven.

If he is in Heaven, as far as Catholicism is concerned, he has been cleansed of all past sins in Purgatory. If this is the case, if a Catholic is bad mouthing Luther in Sainthood then they are speaking ill of someone that does not have a single sin on their soul and is far cleaner than anyone could hope to wish to be on this Earth.

So in the end I think that a Catholic stance on Luther would have to be only in regards to whether or not some of the things that he did were sinful and not whether or not Luther was a bad person.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Another common statement in Catholicism and other Christian Religions is, “Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner.” I think what it comes down to on the issue of individuals like Luther is to say, this is sinful or that is sinful but in a way as to be careful not to transfer that onto the whole of his being.
Hi Shibboleth!

You hit the nail on the head here. 👍

God Bless!
 
Hi Shibboleth! I completely respect what you are saying. You are quite right when you say, “Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.” The Catholic perspective on Martin Luther is a little different as he was not declared just a sinner but a heretic. That is very serious. Like I said before, I understand where you are coming from even though we usually don’t agree.

:blessyou:
 
Hi Edwin, Shibboleth and TQ,

I agree with what Eden just said - hate the sin and love the sinner. Even though I don’t see much good in what Martin Luther did, I have to remind myself that ultimately God makes the ultimate decisions about each of us, and I’m certainly not one who can cast the first stone at anybody.

I thank each of you for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, and I thank God that we can discuss sensitive subjects such as this as brothers and sisters in Christ.

God bless you all,

AMDG
 
Luther as an instrument of God stretches credibility. Would an instrument of God write the following as quoted in a book by Peter Weiner:
Luther’s antisemitic laws consist of seven paragraphs only. Here they are:
Luther
"Set fire to their synagogues and schools; and what will not burn, heap earth over it so that no man may see a stone or relic of them forever.

Pull down and destroy their houses since they perpetrate the same nefarious things in them as in their schools. Pack them all under one roof or stable, like the gypsies, that they may know that they are not lords and masters in our land as they boast.

Deprive them of all their prayer-books.

Forbid their rabbis henceforth to teach.

Deprive them of the right to move about the country.

Forbid them the business of usury, and take from them all their belongings.

Hand the strong young Jews of both sexes flail, axe, mattock, spade, distaff, and spindle; and make them work for their bread in the sweat of their brow, like all the children of Adam. Confiscate their property and drive them out of the country." (W53, 525 abridged).
 
40.png
Mickey:
Who am I to argue, TQ? You’re the expert.
Hi Mickey,

You won’t find anywhere me saying I consider myself an “expert”. I am not. I can be wrong, and I have been wrong (although, I must say, the overwhelming majority of mis-information, (or rather, the misuse of information to portray Luther as the arch boggeyman) has come from the Catholic side in regards to the topic of “Luther”.
Originally Posted by Mickey
Lol. What do you really think James? Blatant bias? “Factoids”?
You crack me up!
Are we clear now about my approach to Hartmann Grisar? I’m still not sure what was so funny, but I kind of figured i’d get a response like, “Who am I to argue, TQ? You’re the expert.”
40.png
Mickey:
Since Luther felt that complete chastity was a gift of God, and hence he advocated marriage, do you think he was saying that since very few receive this God given gift, marriage should be pursued? What is your opinion on this?
Yes, and you just interpreted Luther more accurately than Hartmann Grisar.

James Swan
 
40.png
kindlylight:
Luther as an instrument of God stretches credibility. Would an instrument of God write the following as quoted in a book by Peter Weiner:
I would have never imagined that the first Pope, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ would at one point in his career deny the Gospel and have to be corrected by Paul (as explained in the book of Galatians).

Go figure. what does this tell us about trusting in people, rather than Christ?

James Swan
 
40.png
Eden:
You are not obligated to agree with my conclusion. However, you have made it quite clear in other threads that Luther’s vitriolic assault on Jews did not develop until the end of his life. It seems a matter of convenience to reject that idea now:
Hi Eden,

Let’s recall what was said by the Catholic Encyclopedia about John Eck, and then apply “Eden Logic” to Mr. Eck:

“He was the most distinguished theologian of the time in Germany, the most scholarly and courageous champion of the Catholic Faith. Frank and even in disposition, he was also inspired by a sincere love of truth; but he showed none the less an intense self-consciousness and the jovial bluntness of speech which characterized the men of that day” Catholic Encyclopedia, Johann Eck entry]

Now you have some choices here:
  1. Even though Johann Eck seemed to be a dedicated Catholic, he was secretly a Protestant, because he also dedicated his talent to writing anti-Jewish treatises. Thus, he secretly moved away from Catholicism, and wrote anti-Jewish propoganda, in which case, the Catholic Encyclopdia is grossly mistaken about him.
  2. Johann Eck was influenced by his culture, and cultural conformity can betray one’s judgment. Thus Johann Eck, like Martin Luther should be viewed in the cultural climate they lived and died in. This is not to give them a free pass, but to use perspective when evaluating their anti-Jewish writings. In other words, Eden’s argument that “X moved away from Catholicism and did any particular bad behavior” is an example of the logically fallacy “post hoc ergo proctor hoc”.
  3. I don’t care about applying logic, I know what I like and I like what I know. Luther was the closest thing in human form to the Devil. Stop trying to present facts and information. I won’t change my mind no matter how much sense it makes.
Pick one.

James Swan
 
One should be mindful, as a Protestant that when discussing Luther it is possible to move over the line into disrespect to Catholics. Luther as “arch bogeyman” is an interesting concept. Because, in fact, Luther has been declared a heretic in our Church. You have been free to promote him here on this forum. However, determining that Catholics see Luther as a “bogeyman” - as though we are children cowering in our beds in a darkened room - is condescending.

Let me just clarify once and for all what Luther is to Catholics- a heretic. What does that mean? It means he was a “spiritual poison”.

The anathema excludes the one who professes heresies from the communion of the Church, if he does not retract his errors. But for precisely this reason it is an act of the greatest charity toward all the faithful, comparable to preventing a dangerous disease from infecting innumerable people. By isolating the bearer of infection, we protect the bodily health of others; by the anathema, we protect their spiritual health (The Charitable Anathema, p. 5 by Dietrich von Hildebrand).

Rebuking Luther is not uncharitable, it is a necessity for our spiritual health.

"To admonish the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy, so it cannot be said that to correct our brothers and sisters in the Faith is uncharitable. In the words of Cardinal Newman, “the fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth.” Von Hildebrand also writes, “One cannot make a peace at the cost of truth, and especially not at the cost of divine truth. This would imply an offense of God.” And the great theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.” The identification of error is for the common good, as well as the good of the one who has fallen into error.

The Catholic hierarchy is especially charged by Christ to protect His flock, to put the faithful “on notice” when danger approaches. They are to defend the flock from the wolves, to be good shepherds and not flee as the cowardly hired-hand in the Gospel. But many have become purveyors of spiritual poison, of heresy. Even if, after rebuke, these heretics do not reform, the faithful are nevertheless helped by such an exposure of these heretics:

It is likely, of course, that a theologian or teacher or journalist who is spreading heretical thought will resent the anathematizing of his opinions; it is indeed quite possible that, instead of obediently yielding to the Church’s authority (in the divine institution of which he is supposed to believe), he may rebelliously cling to his heresies. But the millions of innocent and faithful Catholics will know with absolute certainty the identity of heretical opinions and will thus be protected from infection (pp. 151-16).

It is characteristic of the heretics and dissenters to label Church condemnations of their errors as “negative,” attempting to deflect blame and attention from their errors. But the defense of truth is really “positive,” and to refrain from fraternal correction when called to do so is directly contrary to Scripture: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him” (Leviticus 19:17), and “If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3).

“Every sin consists formally in aversion from God… Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him… Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals.”
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Hi Eden,

Let’s recall what was said by the Catholic Encyclopedia about John Eck, and then apply “Eden Logic” to Mr. Eck:

“He was the most distinguished theologian of the time in Germany, the most scholarly and courageous champion of the Catholic Faith. Frank and even in disposition, he was also inspired by a sincere love of truth; but he showed none the less an intense self-consciousness and the jovial bluntness of speech which characterized the men of that day” Catholic Encyclopedia, Johann Eck entry]

Now you have some choices here:
  1. Even though Johann Eck seemed to be a dedicated Catholic, he was secretly a Protestant, because he also dedicated his talent to writing anti-Jewish treatises. Thus, he secretly moved away from Catholicism, and wrote anti-Jewish propoganda, in which case, the Catholic Encyclopdia is grossly mistaken about him.
  2. Johann Eck was influenced by his culture, and cultural conformity can betray one’s judgment. Thus Johann Eck, like Martin Luther should be viewed in the cultural climate they lived and died in. This is not to give them a free pass, but to use perspective when evaluating their anti-Jewish writings. In other words, Eden’s argument that “X moved away from Catholicism and did any particular bad behavior” is an example of the logically fallacy “post hoc ergo proctor hoc”.
  3. I don’t care about applying logic, I know what I like and I like what I know. Luther was the closest thing in human form to the Devil. Stop trying to present facts and information. I won’t change my mind no matter how much sense it makes.
Pick one.

James Swan
How fun! A game! How delighting! :rolleyes: I feel sorry that you spent so much time working on this game when you totally missed the point of my post on this. Several pro-Luther posters have stated that Luther’s anti-Semitism was influenced by Catholic anti-Semitism. I said that if Luther was anti-Semitic because he was infected by Catholic anti-Semitism wouldn’t he have been at the height of his anti-Semitism when he was a Catholic? As you have stated in previous threads, Luther was most vitriolic in his anti-Semitism toward the end of his life. Thus, Luther’s brand of anti-Semitism was his own.
 
40.png
Eden:
How fun! A game! How delighting! :rolleyes: I feel sorry that you spent so much time working on this game when you totally missed the point of my post on this. Several pro-Luther posters have stated that Luther’s anti-Semitism was influenced by Catholic anti-Semitism. I said that if Luther was anti-Semitic because he was infected by Catholic anti-Semitism wouldn’t he have been at the height of his anti-Semitism when he was a Catholic? As you have stated in previous threads, Luther was most vitriolic in his anti-Semitism toward the end of his life. Thus, Luther’s brand of anti-Semitism was his own.
Recall this statement:
40.png
EDEN:
His writings became more and more hateful the further and further away he moved from the Church.
Regards,
James Swan
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Recall this statement:

Regards,
James Swan
Yes. His writing became more hateful the further and further he moved away from the Church. The longer he lived after his excommunication - The further he moved away from the Church. Therefore, his anti-Semitism was not a Catholic anti-Semitism. It was Luther’s own brand of anti-Semitism. Thanks for reposting this sentence. It illustrates that Luther was an anti-Semite apart from the Church. In short, anyone who has the inclination to blame Luther’s anti-Semitism on Catholicism has no leg to stand on. Luther was his own man and was responsible for his own actions.
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
I’m still not sure what was so funny, but I kind of figured i’d get a response like, “Who am I to argue, TQ? You’re the expert.”
You’re just funny, that’s all.🙂

BTW, Don’t get angry James! That was not sarcasm. I don’t research Luther, but you research him extensively. I figure that makes you somewhat of an expert. But hey, if you can’t take a compliment, I’ll go back to my old crabby self. 😛
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Yes, and you just interpreted Luther more accurately than Hartmann Grisar.
That was a lucky stab in the dark. 😃
 
40.png
Eden:
Yes. His writing became more hateful the further and further he moved away from the Church.
Just so we’re on the same page, you therefore agree Luther’s nagativity towards the Jews after 1538 was not because he moved away from the distinct doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. This was not a factor causing him to write what he did.

I’m not one to blame Luther’s anti-Jewish writings on something he gleaned from the RCC. However, the RCC didn’t help the situation during the midieval period and the sixteenth century, but along with Luther, many of its “members” perpetuated anti-Jewish sentiment.

Recall that Martin Luther was born into a society of animosity toward the Jews. The Jews were stigmatized as those who killed Christ, and deserved to experience God’s wraith as His rejected people. They had become the scapegoats of society, blamed for countless evils befalling the medieval age. The populace had gone as far to create fictional crimes to charge to their account. They were said to partake in ritual murders: slaughterers’ of Christian children for blood to use during Passover.

Early in his career, Luther was to say of the Jews:

“The Jews are the most miserable people on earth. They are plagued everywhere, and scattered about all countries, having no certain resting place. They sit as on a wheelbarrow, without a country, people, or government; yet they wait on with earnest confidence; they cheer up themselves and say: It will soon be better with us."

Luther found blatant anti-Jewish sentiment inherent in his culture, and in the Roman Catholic Church:

“Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks—the crude (Donkeys’)’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.

I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived."

Luther was convinced that by exposing the errors and abuses of the papacy, and treating them with kindness, the Jews would be converted:

“If I were a Jew, I would suffer the rack ten times before I would go over to the pope. The papists have so demeaned themselves that a good Christian would rather be a Jew than one of them, and a Jew would rather be a sow than a Christian. What good can we do the Jews when we constrain them, malign them, and hate them as dogs? When we deny them work and force them to usury, how can that help? We should use toward the Jews not the pope’s but Christ’s law of love. If some are stiff necked, what does that matter? We are not all good Christians."

Regards,
James Swan
 
40.png
Mickey:
You’re just funny, that’s all.🙂

BTW, Don’t get angry James! That was not sarcasm. I don’t research Luther, but you research him extensively. I figure that makes you somewhat of an expert. But hey, if you can’t take a compliment, I’ll go back to my old crabby self.
This is one of the limitations and faults of this method of communication. When you’ve read some of my words, you read “anger.” This is not the case. If anything, my tone is rather one of “seriousness” in almost every post i’ve written here.

I don’t get “angry” because some folks here refuse to look at the real facts about Luther, but would rather embrace faulty stereotypes. If anything, the feeling i’ve gotten for the most part is saddness.

I don’t think it helps the cause of the RCC to embrace faulty stereotypes about Luther, or rely on taking his words out of context to prove him to be a bad guy. It certainly hasn’t made many Cathoics participating in the plethora of Luther threads here recently look like they know what they’re talking about, especially when I, and others have taken the time to correct them. What i’ve seen here over and over is something like. “If only you were Roman Catholic, you could see the truth about Luther…” and they present a whole lot of stuff that is more propoganda than factual.

No one is going to embrace a true saving faith because a particular theological worldview continues to point out negativity about what it opposes. I try to steer clear away from that Jack Chick type of approach.

What Luther said about the Jews, or whether or not he kicked the cat on the way to the Diet of Worms really doesn’t matter. Luther “the person” doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether what he preached and taught conforms to the sole rule of faith- The Scriptures.

No Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority, or immaculately conceived. We realize Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he is right because history shows this was the case. When he makes terrible statements about the Jews, he’s not right (or wrong) because he was somehow a Protestant pope or the originator of Protestantism, he’s wrong because a clear exposition of the Scriptures do not support such terrible statements.

Regards,
James Swan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top