The real Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholikos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would God have used a writer of hate and vitriol who recommended the persecution of so many people as His instrument of reform. I think not. Luther was a mass of contradictions. Some of his own followers found him an OTT embarrassment. Surely a genuine reformer would be **mainly **identified with personal virtue and charity toward those with whom he disagreed. Luther was possessed by vitriolic rantings of the most extreme kind.
 
If only we knew the ways of God. It wouldn’t be the first time he sent his message by making an a** speak. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
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.
Click to expand...
Hey TQ!

Well, I don’t adhere to sola Scriptura, but that’s another thread. However, now that I have reflected on this for a while, I do believe that Luther, “the person” matters. Like Shibboleth points out, we are called to love the sinner and hate the sin. 😛

May the love and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always!

Mickey
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
If only we knew the ways of God. It wouldn’t be the first time he sent his message by making an a** speak. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course you do mean Baalam’s *** or should I say posterior !!!
By the way what happened to Mr. Ed?
 
Here is an official Lutheran response to the question of authority which I received in an e-mail today from a Lutheran who was kind enough to investigate for me:

Thank you for your e-mail, which has been forwarded by our office.

**I’m not exactly sure what is meant by this question; however, Lutherans do not believe that any “special authority” was “conferred on Luther by the Holy Spirit” apart from the authority given to all Christians to read, study and confess what the Word of God teaches. Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit works only through God’s Word and Sacraments, so that any “authority”
given by the Spirit is given through and rooted in God’s own Word.

**I hope this response is helpful to you. Blessings in Christ.

Dr. ( … )
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
 
40.png
Mickey:
Hey TQ!

Well, I don’t adhere to sola Scriptura, but that’s another thread. However, now that I have reflected on this for a while, I do believe that Luther, “the person” matters. Like Shibboleth points out, we are called to love the sinner and hate the sin. Mickey
Click to expand...
Hi Mickey,

This is the bottom line for me on this subject. Luther had faults and sins, but also had some commendable attributes as well. I hold this to be true of all those biblical scholars or figures throughout church history I admire.

If a person’s faults matter to their being able to be a light to the darkness, then, no person should be able to teach or proclaim the gospel, because all persons have sin. There is none perfect but Christ… but Christ has allowed sinners to proclaim his word.

Is there any official teaching in the RCC or your own Church that states only a sinless person has the right to proclaim the gospel?

Regards,
James Swan
 
40.png
kindlylight:
Would God have used a writer of hate and vitriol who recommended the persecution of so many people as His instrument of reform. I think not. Luther was a mass of contradictions. Some of his own followers found him an OTT embarrassment. Surely a genuine reformer would be **mainly **identified with personal virtue and charity toward those with whom he disagreed. Luther was possessed by vitriolic rantings of the most extreme kind.
Click to expand...
would God have used the alleged “first Pope”, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ who at one point in his career denied the Gospel and had to be corrected by Paul (as explained in the book of Galatians), and also denied the Lord outright with cursing?

James Swan
 
Clearly this thread will discuss the personallity of Luther.

However, as a Catholic, I have to say that to point to his actions and then say, Luther could not have been God’s emmissary is mistaken.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Peter, the first Pope shows us how frail humans are. Peter received a vision from God telling him there is no unclean food. Peter preached this and changed the rules for all. But what did Peter do? He abstained from the “unclean” food of the Jewish law. He had to be chastised by Paul to stop preaching one thing but practicing another. Who denied Christ 3 times? Weak Peter.

Does this mean that Peter was not appointed by Christ Himself? NO!

So back to whether or not Luther was an emissary from God. Could he have been with all his faults? Yes. But my personal opinion as a Catholic certainly thinks he wasn’t. But out of all bad God will make something good. The reform of the Catholic Church from the inside and the converts on fire for God from Protestants are the good.

But lets look at Luther to his teaching. Look to the Scripture.

Faith alone. Scripture says it is not faith alone.

I know now that Lutherans and Catholics have come to an agreement about this, but I am ignorant here. Has Luther always meant what has been defined and agreed upon today? If so, why on earth did he use the term faith alone?

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Is there any official teaching in the RCC or your own Church that states only a sinless person has the right to proclaim the gospel?
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of proclaimation. It’s a matter of interpretation.
 
Hi , 🙂
Maria, I can’t say for certain, but upon reading the section concerning good works, in the Book of Concord; it would seem (please correct me if I appear to err on my assessment), that Luther was saying that no amount of works could be meritous, on their own. If you did not have faith, your works were dead. Now, having said that, Luther appears to have believed that once you had recieved faith with the grace of God, you would also obtain the desire to do good works in the name of God; therefore, it is by faith alone that you can merit the grace to do good works which in turn help get you to heaven, not, by faith alone, without works, you get to heaven.
I hope this makes sense.

Peace be with you all, and those whom you love. 🙂
 
  1. Jesus gave us the hierarchy that is the structure of the Catholic Church.
  2. He breathed the Holy Spirit onto the apostles. The apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Word of God.
  3. The authority to interpret for the Holy Spirit (minus revelation which ended with the apostles) comes from Jesus and passes on to our Pope and bishops today. The Pope and bishops will continue to protect this original “deposit of faith” until Jesus’ Second Coming.
  4. Martin Luther was not a bishop.
  5. Thus, Martin Luther had no authority to speak for God. He was not inspired by the Holy Spirit as direct revelation had ended with the apostles.
  6. It is unbiblical to believe that one has the authority to interpret the Scriptures without the authority conferred by the Holy Spirit. Thus, anyone who does so is described in the Bible as a “false prophet”.
  7. T****he whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles. Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.
  8. He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).
  9. Because of this it is Peter who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Just as the gospel does not consist of “cleverly invented fables,” so the interpretation of Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). As the false prophets spoke out of their own imagination,** so the Greek word for “private” in verse 20 of chapter 1 means “out of your own head.” It is the familiar opposite of “authoritative” or “inspired.”** So we can conclude that Peter viewed his own interpretation of Scripture as authoritative and inspired.
  10. The opposite of authority is opinion. As Luther did not have authority, all of his work is opinion.
 
Martin Luther’s “Lutheranism” does not have the fullness of the Church established here on earth by Jesus 2,000 years ago. Only the Catholic Church does:

cym.perthcatholic.org.au/whynot/jesusfounded.php

***PROVIDE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT JESUS FOUNDED CATHOLICISM. ***

Jesus founded Catholicism on the first pope: Peter (Matt 16:18 ). There exists abundant evidence proving that the Early Christian Church was Catholic in faith, worship and government (see the pages entitled: THE EARLY CHURCH WAS CATHOLIC). The date of foundation of every non-Catholic Christian group can be given, and in no case is it 30 AD, and their founder is not Jesus. Only the Catholic Church goes back in every respect to her foundation by Christ Himself. Christ, who is God, founded a Church. He promised it would last to the end of time. Therefore, His Church exists in the world at the present day. Christ imprinted certain marks on His Church so that people could always identify it. No church, therefore, can be His Church, unless it possesses ALL those marks. The Catholic Church alone possesses them. Only the Catholic Church is **one, holy, catholic and apostolic **. (See also Nicene Creed, 325 AD.)

Or these quotes from the early Church fathers:

Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Or even this article with recommended reading:
The Early Church Was Catholic

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605fea2.asp

John Henry Cardinal Newman, the great nineteenth-century Catholic convert, wrote in the introduction to his classic work, *An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, *". . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this." As I began a serious study of my Catholic faith in 1991, the catholicity of the early Church overwhelmed me. Not just a quote from Clement here, and a line from Augustine there, amid contradicting statements from other early Fathers.

What I found was an amazing unanimity on the central doctrines of the faith. Not that the early Fathers agreed on every point-there were development of doctrine and theological controversies throughout Christian history. But what was the Church like during the first four centuries of Christianity?

Ordained bishops headed the local churches, with the bishop of Rome (Peter’s successor) having primacy over the other bishops; the Church celebrated the Mass and considered it a representation of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross; the Church honored Mary, said prayers for the dead, and believed in final purification after death which we now call purgatory. [The following citations are from St. Augustine (paragraph numbers from Jurgens’*Faith of the Early Fathers *): primacy of the Bishop of Rome: 1418, 1507, 1862; Mass as a sacrifice: 1424, 1844, 1977; honoring Mary: 1518, 1643, 1644, 1794, 1974(d); prayers for the dead: 1513, 1516, 1780, 1930, 1934; Purgatory: 1467, 1544, 1776, 1920.] I did not find the early Fathers teaching salvation by faith alone, the Bible as the sole rule of faith, or the " Pre-tribulational Rapture."

Finally, my fourth proposition is:

*The beliefs, government, and worship of early Christianity were clearly Catholic and not Protestant. *
 
(article cont’d)

Don’t worry: you don’t have to take my word for these historical claims. You can verify them for yourself. If you have several hundred dollars to spare, or a good library nearby, you can use the 38-volume The Early Church Fathers (Hendrickson). For only $45, you can get Jurgens’ three-volume Faith of the Early Fathers (Liturgical Press). If all you can afford is $10, get *Early Christian Writings *(Penguin Classics). Be careful! As Cardinal Newman also said in his essay, “To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.”

If you believe you can disprove any of the above propositions, I will review your information prayerfully. If I’m convinced your arguments are correct, I will become a Protestant. If you cannot disprove at least one of these points, obedience to Christ will demand I remain Catholic. You might reflect on what obedience requires of *you. *

If you think these questions about the nature of the Church are unimportant, I ask you to reconsider. Either Christ did or did not establish a visible Church, with bishops, priests, and deacons. If he did not, the claims of the Catholic Church are not just wrong-but arrogant and blasphemous. But if Christ did establish such a Church, then “. . . the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Membership is not optional-Christ commands that you join his visible body.

There is a thread about Catholics as the first Christians on the “Apologetics” forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…3293#post663293

More about Ignatius of Antioch:

Ignatius of Antioch was the first to record the use of the name “Catholic Church” in 107 A.D. That’s only 73 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t know the life expectancy from that time, but it is not unimagineable that some people living at the time that Ignatius’ recorded the name “Catholic Church” would have been alive when Jesus walked the earth. Historians believe that the use of the name was in use for some time before Ignatius recorded it- possibly from the beginning.

“The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.” - From “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

The Ignatian letters are wonderful proof for those who challenge the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ:

(from New Advent)

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. **Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. **
 
posted by nun of the above
Hi , 🙂
Maria, I can’t say for certain, but upon reading the section concerning good works, in the Book of Concord; it would seem (please correct me if I appear to err on my assessment), that Luther was saying that no amount of works could be meritous, on their own. If you did not have faith, your works were dead. Now, having said that, Luther appears to have believed that once you had recieved faith with the grace of God, you would also obtain the desire to do good works in the name of God; therefore, it is by faith alone that you can merit the grace to do good works which in turn help get you to heaven, not, by faith alone, without works, you get to heaven.
I hope this makes sense.

Peace be with you all, and those whom you love. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does. It sounds similar to the position of a modern day Lutheran that I had. Only our conversation was along the lines of -Once a Christian, a person naturally does good works whereas the Catholic postition is more along the lines of we choose to use the grace made available to do good works, with each good work is a decision to keep following Christ. Neither position holds that the works earn the way to heaven.

But I still do not understand the choice of the words faith alone when that on the surface is contradictory to Scripture. But I think I’ve moved this too much off the topic of who is Luther:bigyikes:

Blessings to you and yours,
Maria
 
40.png
Eden:
obedience to Christ will demand I remain Catholic. You might reflect on what obedience requires of *you. *
Click to expand...
Martin wasn’t obedient, and look what happened! 😦
He was a proud man who lacked humility.

A proud monk needs no demon. He has turned into one, an enemy to himself. Darkness is alien to light. Pride is alien to every virtue. Blaspheming words rise up in the hearts of the proud, heavenly visions in the hearts of the humble.
St John Climacus
 
By the way, the article that I posted above about the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church was written by a man named Kenneth Ramage and its entitled “I’LL LEAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IF…”
I have the link there but I wasn’t sure if it was clear it was an article.
The author is a convert to the Catholic faith.
 
On the role of Catholic bishops as apostolic successors with excerpts from the book The Catholic Way:Faith for Living Today by Bishop Donald W. Wuerl

"We call the Catechism of the Catholic Church ‘authoritative’ or ‘authentic’. What does that mean? Both of these words have the same Latin root: auctoritas. They mean that the teaching is more than opinion- it has authority." (Wuerl p 5)

JESUS TAUGHT WITH AUTHORITY

“St. Mark recounts how Jesus 'entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority” (Mark 1:21-22). Jesus had authority because of who he was. ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life,’ he proclaimed (John 14:6). The truth- the very reality of who Jesus is- is what he shares with us through the Church." (Wuerl p 5)

*"*We call the truth that Jesus brings us revelation." (ibid)

HOW REVELATION COMES TO US

“How does the revelation of God in Jesus Christ continue to come to us? It comes through the (Catholic) Church. God sent Jesus and Jesus sent the apostles, so it must continue to be taught today through today’s apostles- the bishops. The Church continues to pass on the revelation of truth in the same way that it has since the days of the apostles. Because the teaching of the Church is rooted in the teaching of Christ that has come to us from the apostles, the Church is called “apostolic”. That means it traces its origins to the apostles, and it still maintains continuity with them. (Christ) built his Church on Peter and the other apostles- the Catholic Church, which he protects by his own presence and the gift of the Spirit. It is through this teaching that God’s revelation reaches us. Hence it is called *authentic *or authoritative teaching.” (Wuerl p 6)

(Cont’d in the next post)
 
REVELATION CONTINUES IN THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

“With the end of the apostolic age, the time of new public revelation came to a close. Since then, the task of the Church has been to hand on the word that had been entrusted to the apostles- the deposit of faith.” (Wuerl p 7)

“Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in a way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; and theologians do not receive with the bishops that ‘sure gift of truth’ (Dei Verbum 8)
that apostolic witnesses of faith receive.” (ibid)

THE NEED FOR AN AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING

“In the history of the Church there have always been people who have proclaimed their own interpretation of God’s revelation. From time to time we hear people say, ‘this is really what Jesus meant’ and ‘that part of the teaching doesn’t count, but this is the really important thing.’ People continue to make such claims today. They open the Bible, pick out a phrase, and conclude that their interpretation is authentic. To avoid this confusion and the possibility of misunderstanding God’s word, Jesus chose apostles and charged them and their successors with the responsibility of teaching the true faith.” (Wuerl p 7)

“Authentic Catholic faith is never partial or selective. It is always universal. We say ‘yes’ to the whole mystery of the faith and to each of its elements because of our personal faith in God.” (Wuerl pp 7-8)

“While every Christian shares in the mission of spreading the truth and bearing witness to the gospel, the apostles, as we have noted, had the prime responsibility of guarding, proclaiming, and verifying the gospel message. For this reason the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *is directed primarily to the bishops, their successors, as an instrument to use in measuring the fidelity of all catechetical materials and as an authentic gauge with an authority rooted in the very revelation of Christ.” (Wuerl p 8)

(Cont’d in one more post)
 
JESUS CHRIST STILL TEACHES WITH AUTHORITY

“This brings us to the question of what means are available to us if we want to live the gospel and share the good news in a way that is faithful to the message of Jesus.” (Wuerl p 8)

"When we ask ourselves to whom should we turn to teach us about the Catholic faith today, our answer ultimately is Jesus Christ! The revelation of Christ lives on in the Church today, which, through the bishops, continues the teaching mission of our Lord. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a means by which the bishops in union with the Pope present the teaching of Christ with an authentic voice and with the authority of the Lord." (Wuerl p 8)
These are excerpts from Bishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh on the authority of the Church. He is also editor of the 4th edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Juxtapose the authority of the Catholic bishops next to an official Lutheran statement about Luther "Lutherans do not believe that any “special authority” was “conferred on Luther by the Holy Spirit” apart from the authority given to all Christians to read, study and confess what the Word of God teaches. Luther’s claim that we all have equal authority to speak for God is both un-Biblical and against the plan of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top