The society after Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

Contarini:

That is to say that truth is irrelevant.

That’s a bizarrely simplistic interpretation. There were a host of factors that brought about schism (never mind the fact that the East-West schism and the various schisms and conflicts of the 14-15th centuries had brought the Church’s unity and authority into serious question before Luther was even born). Scapegoating may feel good, but it is not honest or honorable or just.

And the year, BTW, is 1517.

Edwin

The east west schism was not at least a total protest as it was with Luther. The east just does not acknowledge the authority of the pope. Luther on the other hand did not want to acknowledge a lot more than papal authority. Luther did more damage by a 7 times 70 fold…

 

[JoeyWarren]

Contarini:

That is to say that truth is irrelevant.

That’s a bizarrely simplistic interpretation. There were a host of factors that brought about schism (never mind the fact that the East-West schism and the various schisms and conflicts of the 14-15th centuries had brought the Church’s unity and authority into serious question before Luther was even born). Scapegoating may feel good, but it is not honest or honorable or just.

And the year, BTW, is 1517.

Edwin

a host of other factors, but it took the actions of one man, that being Luther to set up the potential for those factors to exist.

 

[Huguenot]

Paris Blues:

Don’t you guys realize that the devil is behind most of it? Temptations, twists around Truth, etc.

The devil absolutely HATES humanity! He’ll do everything and anything to destroy it. Obviously, since the devil hates God, therefore, he’s going to hate humans too (duh) and will do anything to “damage” so to speak human dignity!

The devil loves it when people get divorce, he loves it when people get killed, he loves it more when people say, “it’s my body, it’s my choice to kill this baby”, he loves it when sacrileges are commited.

Don’t you see, this is NOT what God intended! If it ain’t what God intended, it’s the devil.

It’s my job and YOURS to bring our brethren back.

And if we don’t WANT to come back ? The way some of you speak about us on this forum, making us the basis of all evil on earth, doesn’t encourage us to come nearer …

As far as abortion , divorce and so on, are concerned, in France the position of Evangelicals is very similar to the position of the Catholic Church, so it is strange for me to read here that WE brought about all these evil things …

 

[JoeyWarren]

Huguenot:

And if we don’t WANT to come back ? The way some of you speak about us on this forum, making us the basis of all evil on earth, doesn’t encourage us to come nearer …

As far as abortion , divorce and so on, are concerned, in France the position of Evangelicals is very similar to the position of the Catholic Church, so it is strange for me to read here that WE brought about all these evil things …

Nobody ever implied “WE”.
We implied "HE’.

Once you accept this fact as stated below then only can you start on your path on searching for the truth, isn’t that why you came to this website in the first place?: You were searching for answers?

LUTHER DENIED AT LEAST, THE BOOKS OF REVELATION AND JAMES ARE “GOD BREATHED” ONLY A MAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SATAN COULD EVER MAKE SUCH A CLAIM AGAINST WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR OVER 1400 YEARS!

Good Day!

 

[Huguenot]

JoeyWarren:

Nobody ever implied “WE”.
We implied "HE’.

Once you accept this fact as stated below then only can you start on your path on searching for the truth, isn’t that why you came to this website in the first place?: You were searching for answers?

LUTHER DENIED AT LEAST, THE BOOKS OF REVELATION AND JAMES ARE “GOD BREATHED” ONLY A MAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SATAN COULD EVER MAKE SUCH A CLAIM AGAINST WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR OVER 1400 YEARS!

Good Day!

I’m not Lutheran, I’ve told you before …
I can search for answers, I can try to understand you, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I will convert …

For me the two books you mention are God-inspired as well, if I’m not mistaken they are accepted by Lutherans as well …

No one thinks Luther is infallible , not even Lutherans ( if I’m not mistaken … )

And as I’ve already told you : one of the things I don’t agree on with him is that he kept infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist …

 

[JoeyWarren]

=Huguenot: I’m not Lutheran it doesn’t necessarily mean that I will convert …

For me the two books you mention are God-inspired as well, if I’m not mistaken they are accepted by Lutherans as well …

QUOTE]

No one is trying to convert you. That is something you will determine yourself.

Yes they are accepted by Lutherans, but they were not accepted by Luther, so any person that calls himself a Lutheran, must accept Luther’s view of those 2 books or cease to be Lutheran. A person can’t be Lutheran and refuse Luther’s teaching that these 2 books are not “God Breathed”.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a christian and at the same time refuse any one teaching of Jesus.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a Catholic and refuse the teachings of the Catholic Church which were thru Apostolic Succession was given to the Church.

But what you have failed to understand, is that you as a Protestant are a byproduct of Luther’s original action… It does not matter if you are Luther or not, it is a matter that you are protesting the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Every crucial teaching that the Catholic Church professes can and has been proven thru Scripture.

Issue of Infant Baptism can be brought up in a new thread if you so desire…

 

[Huguenot]

JoeyWarren:

=Huguenot: I’m not Lutheran it doesn’t necessarily mean that I will convert …

For me the two books you mention are God-inspired as well, if I’m not mistaken they are accepted by Lutherans as well …

QUOTE]

No one is trying to convert you. That is something you will determine yourself.

Yes they are accepted by Lutherans, but they were not accepted by Luther, so any person that calls himself a Lutheran, must accept Luther’s view of those 2 books or cease to be Lutheran. A person can’t be Lutheran and refuse Luther’s teaching that these 2 books are not “God Breathed”.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a christian and at the same time refuse any one teaching of Jesus.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a Catholic and refuse the teachings of the Catholic Church which were thru Apostolic Succession was given to the Church.

But what you have failed to understand, is that you as a Protestant are a byproduct of Luther’s original action… It does not matter if you are Luther or not, it is a matter that you are protesting the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Every crucial teaching that the Catholic Church professes can and has been proven thru Scripture.

Issue of Infant Baptism can be brought up in a new thread if you so desire…

I don’t know if I am a “byproduct” of Luther’s original action, there were other reformers …
I agree with you that I protest SOME of the teachings of the Catholic Church, not the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ …for me it is not the same …
It’s true that Lutherans could change their name, but it is not really my problem …

I don’t especially want to start a thread on infant baptism, I just mentioned it to say that I don’t agree with Luther in all his teachings, maybe I could have found another example, but it seemed to be the most striking one …

 

[Paris_Blues]

Huguenot:

And if we don’t WANT to come back ? The way some of you speak about us on this forum, making us the basis of all evil on earth, doesn’t encourage us to come nearer …

As far as abortion , divorce and so on, are concerned, in France the position of Evangelicals is very similar to the position of the Catholic Church, so it is strange for me to read here that WE brought about all these evil things …

I don’t think I said “oh, Protestants are EVIL!” did I? No, please don’t put words in my mouth.

It all comes down to the believer to want to know the Fullness of Truth or not. If they desire to know the Truth in full, come to the CC, but if they don’t want to and think they’re denomination is the truth, that is fine.

However I will say that before I came to the CC, I didn’t realize how much I was missing until I came home to the CC!

 

[JoeyWarren]

I don’t know if I am a “byproduct” of Luther’s original action, there were other reformers …
…

All protestants are a by-product of Luther, he is at the bottom of the upside-down pyramid that is ever-growing and ever-moving downward in the fissure of the schism of Protestantism. The whole of Protestantism rests at his feet.

From a cartoonist perspective I would draw a picture of God sitting on his thrown with Martin Luther sitting at his feet recieving a 1000 jack-slaps across his head from God for every new Protestant denomination that is created But since I can’t draw, then I will have to rely upon someone else to read this and draw it up

I don’t especially want to start a thread on infant baptism, I just mentioned it to say that I don’t agree with Luther in all his teachings, maybe I could have found another example, but it seemed to be the most striking one …

Good I don’t have time for it. I am working on one about Judas Escariot

 

[TinaK]

JoeyWarren:

Yes they are accepted by Lutherans, but they were not accepted by Luther, so any person that calls himself a Lutheran, must accept Luther’s view of those 2 books or cease to be Lutheran. A person can’t be Lutheran and refuse Luther’s teaching that these 2 books are not “God Breathed”.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a christian and at the same time refuse any one teaching of Jesus.

Dear brother in Christ,

1. I am a Christian and a Lutheran. The Catholic Church acknowledges that I was properly baptised in the Name of the Triune God, Father Son, and Holy Ghost.
2. In order to be a Lutheran (and I have covered this on multiple threads, others have dealt with this as well) I must hold to the teachings in the Book of Concord (once again bookofconcord.org/ ). Luther’s personal writings do not come into play with matters of doctrine in the Lutheran church. Yes, Luther shuffled books around, even argued against several of them. *But in the German Bibles used by the early Missouri Synod, those books were all there. It was not until the language of the church switched from German to English that the deuterocanonicals disappeared *(due to the fact that the Lutheran publishing houses didn’t have a copyright to an English Bible. So I have been told. I have 2 of these early Bibles from CPH.)

I appreciate your zeal for the Catholic Church:clapping: , having seen a lot of lukewarmness in the Catholics I personally know. You mention that you were Pentecostal before becoming Catholic. If you are going to debate Luther/Lutheran belief, please do more study. I have seen enough in this thread to keep me from ever wanting to become Catholic. In *Old Errors and New Labels *Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen writes,“Both sides are shooting off fire-crackers, making all the noise of an intellectual warfare and creating the illusion of conflict, but it is only a sham battle in which there are no casualties; There are plenty of explosions, but never an exploded arguement.”

asquared nailed this thread completely in post #3. There are plenty of things that can be blamed on Martin Luther, but abortion is not one of them. To blame all of our society’s issues on one man is to do what Luther did with the pope.

TinaK

 

[IanS]

Hi TinaK:

I know we’ve talked on other threads, but I thought I would chime in here real quick. I don’t think anyone is saying that Martin Luther is directly responsible for abortion. I am 100% certain that he did not have issues like contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, cohabitation, and as you pointed out in another thread, “lesbian goddess worship” in mind. I mean, just how liberal do people think this guy was? But I do firmly believe that on October 31, 1517 a precedent was set that made all this not only allowed but, accepted as the norm.

When you state that a collection of 66 books are to be the only source of authority, you allow people to run off and make out of it whatever makes them feel good. It is impossible for a precedent like this to stand the test of time, and it defies simple logic. Do you really think our country would exist today if the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and then just handed it off to the people to interpret as they saw fit without the authority of the Supreme Court? Do you really think almighty God would do any less for us?

I know this is my personal opinion which doesn’t mean much. However, this is just one area where I saw the protestant ideals fail when I was discerning where God was calling me

 

[Contarini]

Yes they are accepted by Lutherans, but they were not accepted by Luther, so any person that calls himself a Lutheran, must accept Luther’s view of those 2 books or cease to be Lutheran. A person can’t be Lutheran and refuse Luther’s teaching that these 2 books are not “God Breathed”.

That’s purely ridiculous. Who appointed you Lord High Adjudicator of the requirements to be Lutheran? Lutherans get to define what makes them Lutheran. You don’t. Lutherans have never claimed that their beliefs are based on the theological speculations of Luther. They think that Luther played a very important role in restoring a purer understanding of the Gospel. This understanding of the Gospel is found in the Lutheran Confessions. Luther’s writings are not authoritative for Lutherans in themselves. There are many things Luther said that no Lutheran believes, just as is true of any Doctor of the Catholic Church. You are on a completely false trail here.

Besides, Luther was a lot more tentative and less consistent in his rejection of these books than you are claiming.

Another analogy, A person can’t be a christian and at the same time refuse any one teaching of Jesus.

Of course, because Jesus is God Incarnate. Lutherans do not claim this for Luther. Sorry if that’s news to you.

Every crucial teaching that the Catholic Church professes can and has been proven thru Scripture.

That is a foolish claim that no level-headed Catholic theologian or apologist would make. Catholic teaching can neither be proved or disproved decisively by Scripture alone. It’s a lot more complicated than that.

Edwin

 

[TinaK]

Hi IanS,

From the way the original post was worded, I took it to mean that Martin Luther was the direct cause of those four things: Divorce, Death penalty, Abortion and Sacrilege. I’m sorry if I misunderstood. (I intended to use abortion as one specific example.)

When you state that a collection of 66 books are to be the only source of authority, you allow people to run off and make out of it whatever makes them feel good. It is impossible for a precedent like this to stand the test of time, and it defies simple logic.

I thought that there were 72 Seriously, I’m running into this more and more. As Lutherans we have the BoC as the “correct exposition of Holy Scripture”, but what’s to stop the next person from putting his spin on the Bible… I’ve seen that in what I was taught in parochial school vs what Lutherans actually believe. I’m still learning what it means to be a Lutheran, and that might very well be what brings me into the Catholic Church.

 

[Huguenot]

Paris Blues:

I don’t think I said “oh, Protestants are EVIL!” did I? No, please don’t put words in my mouth.

It all comes down to the believer to want to know the Fullness of Truth or not. If they desire to know the Truth in full, come to the CC, but if they don’t want to and think they’re denomination is the truth, that is fine.

However I will say that before I came to the CC, I didn’t realize how much I was missing until I came home to the CC!

I don’t know what American Protestants think about their denomination, but here in France we don’t think “our denomination” is the truth, we think Jesus-Christ is the truth !!

Even if you didn’t say “Protestants are evil”, some of your messages are very tough …or maybe it’s the normal American way of debating, I don’t know …

 

[TertiumQuid]

JoeyWarren:

James Swan, why do you visit here at all?

I used to come here for interesting discussions. Now I come here to be entertainted by comments like yours.

James Swan
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

 

[Huguenot]

JoeyWarren:

All protestants are a by-product of Luther, he is at the bottom of the upside-down pyramid that is ever-growing and ever-moving downward in the fissure of the schism of Protestantism. The whole of Protestantism rests at his feet.

From a cartoonist perspective I would draw a picture of God sitting on his thrown with Martin Luther sitting at his feet recieving a 1000 jack-slaps across his head from God for every new Protestant denomination that is created But since I can’t draw, then I will have to rely upon someone else to read this and draw it up

Good I don’t have time for it. I am working on one about Judas Escariot

1. I don’t mind being a “by-product” …
2. I can’t draw either …

 

[JoeyWarren]

TertiumQuid:

I used to come here for interesting discussions. Now I come here to be entertainted by comments like yours.

James Swan
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

tsk tsk tsk

 

[IanS]

TinaK:

Hi IanS,

I thought that there were 72 Seriously, I’m running into this more and more. As Lutherans we have the BoC as the “correct exposition of Holy Scripture”, but what’s to stop the next person from putting his spin on the Bible… I’ve seen that in what I was taught in parochial school vs what Lutherans actually believe. I’m still learning what it means to be a Lutheran, and that might very well be what brings me into the Catholic Church.

Actually, there are 73 books in the original canon. The canon Martin Luther used only had 39 OT books and the 27 NT books. That’s where I came up with 66. Here’s something I wrote in another thread that may be helpful.

In Jesus’ day the canon of the OT had not been settled. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of scripture. The Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, held that only the first five books of the Bible were Scripture. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition that is much like the Protestant one today. Finally, some Jews honored the canonical tradition that is much like the Septuagint translation of the OT.

The Greek translation was made between 250-125 BC and is known as the “Septuagint” after the Latin word for 70(LXX), which is the number of authors who compiled it.

So which canon did Jesus use?? In His time Hebrew was a dead language and most Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic, while Greek was common in the Mediterranean. So it is no surprise that all the New Testament writers used the Greek Septuagint. The vast majority of OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, even Protestant authors Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno list 340 places where the NT sited the Septuagint, as opposed to only 33 from the Hebrew canon. That’s 90% use of the Septuagint only.

In 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the Hebrew canon used by rabbinic Judaism (Those who rejected Jesus) of 39 books of OT canon. He did this because he did not like what some of the seven books had to say, like praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees.

In response to this heresy, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the 73 book canon of the Bible, including the 46 book Septuagint OT. The Catholic Church did not add the seven books, but merely reaffirmed what she had established 1200 years earlier.

Ask this question, “Would you rather use the OT used by the apostles and other NT writers, or the OT used by the Jews who later rejected Christ?”

If you follow the Septuagint you follow the apostles and other NT writers. If you follow the Hebrew you follow those who rejected Jesus and Martin Luther.

 

[Contarini]

The canon issue isn’t that simple. Josephus also describes the shorter canon, and he does so without indicating that it is in any way controversial. As far as I know, there is actually no evidence for an “Alexandrian” Jewish canon including the deuterocanonicals. That’s sheer inference from the fact that LXX manuscripts–all of which I believe are of Christian provenance–include the deuterocanonicals. Add in the fact that early Christians are all over the map on whether and which deuterocanonicals they actually regard as canonical, and in what sense (Athanasius counts Baruch as fully canonical, Tobit, Judith, and the two wisdom books as non-canonical but authorized as catechetical literature, and doesn’t mention Maccabees; Origen seems to reject the separate deuterocanonical books but regards the LXX version of Daniel, including Susanna and Bel, as authoritative; and so on, and so forth). You simply don’t have the evidence to make this sharp dichotomy between Christian and rabbinic use. It seems more accurate to say that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were solidly canonical, and that there were a number of disputed, deuterocanonical books, including some that Jamnia authorized (Esther, Song of Songs), some that Christians more or less accepted (though with some questions about their status) on the basis of the LXX), and some (Assumption of Moses, Enoch) that almost no one wound up acceptingeven though some early Christians considered them canonical and Jude cites them as if they are reliable sources.

Edwin

 

[JoeyWarren]

Why are there more books in the Catholic Bible?

It is true that the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. Protestants will say that Catholics added books to the Bible, while Catholics say that Protestants subtracted books from the Bible. Which one is it, and which one should we follow?

The books in question are all from the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. Since the Bible we have today did not fall out of the sky neatly bound in leather, it is important to look at where it came from. We need to briefly examine the history of the canon (the authoritative list of writings).

There were two canons for the Old Testament: the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian Canon. Jewish leaders at the Council of Jamnia officially recognized the Hebrew canon in AD 90. This Hebrew Canon did not contain the 7 books in question. The Alexandrian Canon references the list of books found in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was translated in 250-125BC. The Alexandrian does contain the 7 books in question.

So which canon are we to follow?

Protestants, desiring to stay true to Christianity’s common heritage with Judaism, will uphold the Hebrew canon. Though it sounds good to say that you believe in the same Old Testament that the Jews believe in, there is one key point that is left out. During the time of Jesus Christ, Greek was the common language. Therefore the Bible that Jesus was using was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

Catholics uphold this Alexandrian canon found in the Septuagint. The main point: If it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for us!

-Kelly Wilson