The real Luther

[itsjustdave1988]

Churchmouse,

The point is that there is no such thing as 30,000 denominations. To put a little perspective into this please read the article: 30,000 Denominations?

I read it. The author either lacks scholastic integrity or scholastic rigor.

According to Daniel Webster,** a denomination is “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.”**

How many of these denominations are there within the NON-CATHOLIC forms of Christianity? Surely much more than 30,000, no?

For example, Baptist scholars themselves assert, “every Baptist parish is a law unto itself.” Do you know how many Baptist parishes there are in the U.S. alone? Way more than 30,000 I think, judging by the number where I live in Colordado Springs, which is way too many to count. They may belong to a national or regional association, but any decisions made by these assemblies are voluntary to each Baptist parish.

Let’s compare that to a country. Our country has a single legal and administravie government, the US government. Yet, we do have state governments too. However, we are a country strictly so-called because the states MUST ABIDE by the national laws. They are not voluntary, unless one SUCCEEDS from the Union, right?

So, can we rightly say there are over 30,000 non-Catholic denominations as compared to ONE legal and administrative body of the Catholic Church? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Considering all the gazillion independent non-Catholic “non-denominational” denomination which are a “single legal and administrative body” unto themselves, I think 30,000 is a trajecally LOW estimate. How many Lutheran denominations are there? How many Presbyterian? Is there just one “single legal and administrative body” for Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Seventh-Day Adventists, Assembly of God, Christadelphians, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Nestorian Churches, Non-Chalcedonian Churches, etc. etc.?

Yet, is there not just ONE single legal and administrative government of the Catholic Church? Every Bishop in the world reports to governs his own diocese (just like state governments), yet, they all report to just one guy, Pope John Paul II. Consequently, according to Daniel Webster, there’s just one Catholic “denomination”, which is more accurately called ONE CHURCH.

Do you know how many denominations of Roman Catholic Churches in the US, according to the Protestant source by David Barrett?? ONE. In fact, if you actually look at Barrett’s encyclopedia, you will learn that there’s only ONE Roman Catholic denomination listed for every country. Eric Svendsen, the author of the source you trust, doesn’t tell you that, does he?

 

[Churchmouse]

Panis Angelicas:

No pope has ever taught heresy. That’s what it all boils down to in the final analysis.

How would you know?

And who among us believes that? The sins of the popes may have sent them straight to hell for all we know. But amazingly, their sins did not change the Teachings and Doctrines handed down to them from the Apostles. That’s what it means when we say integrity doesn’t impede infallibility.

Again, how would you know if they truly were teaching Apostolic teachings and not heresy?

Luther’s pride caused him to think that he was more correct than ~ not only the Church of his day ~ but the Councils in the 4th century which canonized the Scriptures. He was full of himself! And we all know that “pride goeth before the fall…”
So, he fell away, and formed his own church.

This shows your naivete with Reformation history. Luther didn’t want to leave the church, but was excommunicated. Secondly, would you say that others within the church, those who didn’t believe in the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, were full of themselves? Was Athanasius or Jerome full of themselves? Thirdly, Trent was the council who closed the RC canon, reacting to the Reformation.

Really? And what churches did they found? It’s ok to question something…not ok to disobey it. They may have questioned, but did assent to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church, remaining within the bark of Peter rather than drowning themselves in their own errors.

No need to confuse the issue. You made disparaging remarks regarding Luther’s “throwing out” books. That’s the point! I mentioned that Luther followed another tradition which existed in the church, one that didn’t accept these books. I mentioned some who didn’t adhere to these books either and you attempt to obfuscate the point through irrelevance.

Better read Katholikos’ posts above!

There are many. Which one?

Like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Don’t think so. That’s why we leave the interpretting to the Authority Christ established.

Which one did he establish? Scripture and verse, please.

And we wouldn’t have quaint little posters like you!! :tiphat:

Exactly! Thanks for agreeing .

Peace,
CM

 

[Shibboleth]

itsjustdave1988:

How many Lutheran denominations are there?

Not many, there is a reason that they are called synods, just as there is a reason that Catholics call some offshoots sects.

Some people even in the Lutheran Church figure that the number of Lutheran denominations in America is around 20, but even that is arguable.

In America the ELCA, LCMS and others belong to the Lutheran World Federation, of which most of the Lutheran Churches on the Continent are affiliated with…

ELCA is divided into 64 geographical and 1 non-geographical synods.

All use the book of Concord.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

… But it was problem in Luther’s day.

What was the problem? The non-availability of Bibles for the poor, or innability for the poor to read? Was there a problem that it was expensive to have a Bible back then? That’s true. However, I don’t see that Luther had anything to do with Gutenburg’s printing press, do you? Once the printing press was invented, the first book printed was the Catholic Bible.

How were 18 editions of the German Bible a problem in Luther’s day? One that compelled Luther to take a scalpel to the Word of God, placing into an appendix 7 OT books, parts of Daniel and Esther, and even placing Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation into an appendix. How did this solve any perceived problem?

 

[Churchmouse]

itsjustdave1988:

Churchmouse,
I read it. The author either lacks scholastic integrity or scholastic rigor.

Dave,

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Eric Svendsen, but read the followup to the article. Secondly, I would like to see you interact with Eric if possible. Give the man a chance to defend his “…scholastic integrity or scholastic rigor.” Join us here: The Areopagus

Peace,
CM

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Shibboleth,

Is each Lutheran synod a “legal and administrative body?” In other words, are the individual Lutheran parishes belonging to these synods bound to the laws of the synod? Or is it optional, as is the case with Baptist associations? I’m not arguing, but honestly do not know and I’m curious.

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

This is funny. It’s as simple as looking at post #63 where you claim my “friend” (your word) and I didn’t give credit to Pastor King (which A.Believer did if you would only read what you post). Your assumption that the “friend” that I was referring to is A.Believer is as plain as day, but now you attempt to save face. Not very cool

No “psychic antenna” involved, just common sense.

Peace,
CM

Hey, if it pleases you to think this, be my guest. But you’d be wrong.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CM,

I’ve read many things from Eric Svenson. I don’t find him very convincing. I prefere the classic writers of Christian theology. It’s difficult for me to assent to interpretations of Christianity that were so foreign to the first millenium of Christianity.

Thanks for the invite. However, I think I spend too much time on forums as it is. Life outside cyberspace needs my attention too.

 

[Shibboleth]

itsjustdave1988:

Shibboleth,

Is each Lutheran synod a “legal and administrative body?” In other words, are the individual Lutheran parishes belonging to these synods bound to the laws of the synod? Or is it optional, as is the case with Baptist associations? I’m not arguing, but honestly do not know and I’m curious.

I could give you an answer now but I don’t think that it would be enough to appease either you or I. I will do some research on the issue and get back to you on this as soon as I know.

 

[Churchmouse]

itsjustdave1988:

CM,

I’ve read many things from Eric Svenson. I don’t find him very convincing. I prefere the classic writers of Christian theology. It’s difficult for me to assent to interpretations of Christianity that were so foreign to the first millenium of Christianity.

Thanks for the invite. However, I think I spend too much time on forums as it is. Life outside cyberspace needs my attention too.

Understandable. There is a life out there.

I just thought you would like to interact with Eric on this, considering what you stated.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Hey, if it pleases you to think this, be my guest. But you’d be wrong.

Well, me or anyone else who reads the post

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

And this by someone who would argue that integrity doesn’t impede infallibility. So, regardless of the evils committed by popes in the past, it’s okay, infallibility isn’t stalled by their evil deeds. Why not apply the same standards to Luther? If Luther was called by God to reform the church and, at the same time, was a heinously evil man, wouldn’t this be the same? Try looking at things from both sides of the fence. Maybe you should get yourself a copy of Papal Sins by Gary Willis or Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy by Peter De Rosa, both written by Catholics. Then we’ll talk about “evil men.”

This shows a profound misunderstanding of infallibility. Luther was not called by God to reform the Church – he appointed himself. He changed the canon of Scriptures, introduced novel doctrines, and started his own church. He reformed nothing.

Read Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid, then we’ll talk about “evil men.” Neither Wills nor De Rosa are practicing Catholics. They use the designation as a ploy. Catholics bashing the Catholic Church sell more books.

Luther wasn’t the only one who questioned these books. There were various views in the history of the church regarding various forms of canon, but there were two which held prominence: those who accepted the deuterocanonicals (i.e. Augustine, etc.) and those who didn’t (i.e. Jerome, etc.). Of those who didn’t, three were contemporaries of Luther (Pope Leo and Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan).

This should be discussed in a separate thread. I’ll make one.

(continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

As for James and others, true, Luther called it an “epistle of straw” but he didn’t reject it and used them, as Scripture, within his writings.

Read his preface to James and Jude, which I have posted on this thread in its entirety. Luther rejected them as Scripture. Once more, I repeat, he put them in a separate section at the back of his German translation of the Bible and left the pages unnumbered to emphasize that one could read them, but they were not to be considered Scripture. Hebews and Revelation and the so-called “apocrypha” got the same treatment.

Again, please explain why the “apocrypha” are missing from Protestant Bibles and the four NT books Luther said also were not Scripture are not missing, since he treated all eleven books exactly the same.

Or it can be interpreted that he re-introduced doctrines which the church strayed from. We wouldn’t have quaint little forums like this one, if everyone felt that Luther was the one who introduced them.

Luther’s doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia had never before been taught – and certainly they were not taught by Jesus and His Apostles. They made their appearance in the historical record for the first time in the 16th century.

Unfortunately, many are not knowledge about the history of Christianity, the history of the Bible, or that doctrines also have a history which can be traced. .

"His thunderbolt idea that faith alone was sufficient for salvation came, in his own words, as ‘knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower’ " (William Manchester, A World Lit only by Fire, The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance, Little, Brown & Co., 1993, p. 140, quoted by H.W. Crocker III in Triumph, The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, A 2,000 Year History, p. 237.)

Sole Fide is clearly not a “restored” doctrine, but a new one. There were no Christian Scriptures until the Church canonized the NT and formed the Bible in 397 A.D. So Jesus and the Apostles could not have taught it. Luther invented the term “Sola Scriptura” and the doctrine that goes with it.

Peace be to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers, Jay

 

[katiem]

Hi Churchmouse,

I read the book the facts about luther as well as luther’s works. I have also read some of luther’s sermons. Another interesting fact, my brother in law is of german descent, he actually has a copy of one of Luther’s german Bible’s where the books of James, Revelations, Hebrew and I believe Jude are in an appendix and not contained with the rest of Holy Scripture. I donot believe that Msgr. O’ hare slammed Luther, I beleive Luther slams Luther in his own words. Luther’s very words are of public domain, just take a look.

Peace be with you!

 

[Shibboleth]

Well, the original premise of this thread was to ask if Protestants and others knew about the whole of the person that was Martin Luther. From a Protestant side it appears that some do and some do not. Those who ask questions and do a little research gain knowledge of both sides of his person.

I have admitted a few times in this thread that Luther said and did some things that were down right horrific in my estimation; but he also did other things that were commendable. Some of the Catholics on this thread want to place most if not all blame on Luther for the “shattering of Christ’s body” but contradict themselves by stating that he was not the only person that lead to the reforms in the Church. You cannot have it both ways. Luther contributed to both but it did not start or end with him on either issue.

If you want to contribute to this thread and talk about the man that was Luther as a whole, we must acknowledge both halves of the person. For those that just talk about one half of Luther are being biased and in my estimation have no intention other than to push their agenda which has nothing to due with the subject at hand.

I implore the unilateralists to go and start a thread either entitled, “Why Luther was a Saint” or “Why Luther was Evil Incarnate.” Otherwise keep your diatribes to yourself and start presenting a “fair and balanced” picture of the man that was Luther.

 

[Shari]

I for one think maybe it is time to forgive Luther for his mistake, and for the reformation. Also he wasn’t the only person to help out with that. Yes he messed up, yes we are having to try and clean up the mess and keep our children knowing the truth and the true faith. My mother is Lutheran so I understand the confusion it causes, but I also understand all the things we can learn from a lot of our protestant brothers and sisters. There are some very holy people in protestant churches who want to serve the Lord the best they know how, and they do it with passion. There is so much we can learn from each other, and I pray for the day when we are united together again. Remember out of bad always comes good, sometimes you just have to look a little harder.

 

[Katholikos]

Katholikos:

Shibboleth, as soon as you write a post on the good aspects of Hitler, I’ll write one on the good aspects of Luther. JMJ Jay

There are two essential problems that one has to deal with in Luther: one is philosophical/theological and the other is personal.

Luther was philosophically a nominalist. This put him on a collision course with Catholicism. With regard to justification, Luther says the sinner is cloaked or covered over (like a “snow covered dunghill”). God looks upon the sinner AS THOUGH the sinner were just. Catholic theology says no, through the application of the infinite merits of Christ, God MAKES the sinner just; we become a “new creation in Christ.” The soul of the justified doesn’t just SEEM TO BE whiter than snow (Isaiah 1:18), but IT IS – it’s full of grace, which is the Divine Life of God, like the souls of Adam and Eve before the Fall.

If Luther had really understood that the “apocrypha” were the Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles, would he have ditched the deuteros? Perhaps not.

Luther’s most intractable personal problem was scrupulosity. His own opinion of his sinfulness got in the way of what his confessor told him, and he refused to hear the Good News that he was forgiven. His childhood problems with his father led to problems with father figures – especially with “Big Daddy,” the Pope.

There. I gave Luther two excuses – his philosophy and the trauma of his childhood (which was no small matter; he truly suffered at the hands of both his mother and his father).

Oremus pro invicem, Jay

P.S. Caps are for emphasis

 

[Katholikos]

cuis.edu/ftp/WITTENBERG/HESSE_PHILIP_OF-QUOTES_FROM_LUTHER_ON_B.IGAMY_OF-9610
%between%

This website has correspondence between"Walther Library – Concordia Theo. Seminary" and Rick Strickert in Austin, TX, which documents the Philip of Hesse affair in some detail, including Luther’s own letters.

This is for anyone who wanted the Hesse bigamy matter documented in Luther’s own words.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

So, this website belongs to Concordia University. Pretty impressive researching!
I cannot understand how such intelligent people can see all the deceptive maneuvering of Luther to cover up his signing of the document granting Philip a dispensation to take a second wife, yet still think of him as a great leader.
Then again, I could never figure out how so many so-called Christians could support Bill Clinton, either.

These quotes were proof to me that Luther knew his actions were wrong, even though he wouldn’t admit it:

"I am not ashamed of my counsel, even if it should be published in all the world, but for the sake of the unpleasantness which would then follow, I should prefer, if possible, to have it kept secret." (Smith, pp. 377-9; from Seidemann: Lauterbach’s Tagebuch auf das Jahr 1538, p.196 ff. On dating see Rockwell, p. 137, note 3.)

"Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian church, one should tell a good strong lie?" (Smith, p.381; see also Lenz, p.373)

When noblemen began to suspect and question the bigamous relationship, Luther gave this advice to Philip: **"It is better to leave them in uncertainty and let them stumble around for proof which they can never get, for a mere copy of a letter would not be proof… Why don’t the coarse, inconsiderate people keep quiet when they know we want them to? God bless you. Amen…(**Smith, p. 383; see also Lenz, p.389)
The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1911)

He even promised to lie, if asked, and claim that the matter was “confessional” in nature, therefore he couldn’t comment; all the while, covering his own involvement in the matter. Purdy clever.

 

[Katholikos]

Regarding Luther’s rejection of Revelation,

From a Lutheran website, a translation of Luther’s own words:

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

1. This short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book.
2. Luther means II Esdras, which was called IV Esdras in the Vulgate.
3. The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by most as Eusebius reports. In the annotations of his edition Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.

---

JMJ Jay