Was the devil part of the Deformation...I mean Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paris_Blues
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Nicene:
Martin sure Lived his word:

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable…
Hello again Nicene,

I am very familiar with Luther’s attitude toward the Jews. See my paper here:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm

If after reading through this link, you would still like to discuss this issue, i’m sure it will be an interesting discussion.

Regards,
James Swan
 
40.png
Nicene:
You mean like the ad hominem attacks posted previuos to those?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Hello Nicene,

I’m not sure i’m following you here.

Apologies,
James Swan
 
In truth I see Martin Luther in light of his times, as with the Papacy. There were no good sides. However if one wishes to play the game of character assination as scholarship I’m more than happy to oblige them in that area.

In other words if one wishes to start attacks, expect return volleys until the point that they really want to discuss, theology, apologetics, and history in light of their times instead of sound bites taken anachonistically.

Put it this way. you seem like a reasonable fellow. I wouldn’t use those on you unless you began to degenerate the conversation first into a sound bite. You don’t seem the type though.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
Fifth, I advise that safe*conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (…remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: “First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.”

“I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.”

Wanna see what he said about the epistle of James?

How about the other books he tried to remove, a model of Christianity that one.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

With Luther, compare a Doctor of the Church, on the Jews:​

Medieval Sourcebook:
Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407) : Eight Homilies Against the Jews


Discussion of these texts: Medieval Sourcebook: Notes on Reaction to the Posting of the Chrysostom Text on the Jews

If Luther was a “model of Christianity” - then so was the preacher of these homilies, and in the same sense. Who is still regarded as a Saint. “But he said many other things, that are not like these homilies” - and so did Luther. To judge by the endless recycling of a few scraps of what Luther said, one could be forgiven for thinking he never said anything else. ##
 
40.png
Nicene:
Wanna see what he said about the epistle of James?

How about the other books he tried to remove, a model of Christianity that one.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Hi Nicene,

I’m very familiar with this subject as well. See my paper here:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

If after reading through this link you still wish to discuss this issue, i’m sure it will be an interesting discussion.

Regards,
James Swan
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Hello Nicene,

I’m not sure i’m following you here.

Apologies,
James Swan
That question invites the question, “Was the devil involved in the development of the Papacy ?”
Why not ? There is a startling contrast between the crucified Peter, bearing witness to Christ by his death for His Name; and the Renaissance Papacy of Alexander VI. Alexander VI bought the Papacy - showing himself a successor, not of Peter, but of Simon Magus, the first man after Pentecost to attempt to traffic in spiritual things. Simon Magus tried to pay cash for the power of the Holy Spirit. Who rebuked him ? Who else but Peter ?
If that is not devil’s work - what is ?
This post is ad hominem. Or wouldn’t you agree?

The original poster started out no better, however I will say I do believe that Satan was working to destroy the church in those times, but not only from without but from within (Parable of the sower) To charicature Martin Luther as Satan is no better than the bibles printed at the time with the pictures of the Pope as Satan.

Unless people are willing to get past the foolishness and actually talk nothing will get acomplished in healing the wounds left behind.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
All fragmenting of the Body of Christ is caused by human sin. Whether the devil was directly involved is anyone’s guess, but what is a fact is sinning humans were involved.
 
40.png
Nicene:
In truth I see Martin Luther in light of his times, as with the Papacy. There were no good sides. However if one wishes to play the game of character assination as scholarship I’m more than happy to oblige them in that area.

In other words if one wishes to start attacks, expect return volleys until the point that they really want to discuss, theology, apologetics, and history in light of their times instead of sound bites taken anachonistically.

Put it this way. you seem like a reasonable fellow. I wouldn’t use those on you unless you began to degenerate the conversation first into a sound bite. You don’t seem the type though.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Hi Nicene,

If you wish to discuss any aspect of Luther or the Reformation, be it the personal character of the Reformers, or the doctrine and history of the Reformation, I will do my best to live up to being a “reasonable fellow.”

However, i am well aware of the subjects you’ve raised on Luther. I really dislike hit and run Luther citations that do nothing but enflame a conversation. I can only advise you that you make sure you know and understand what you’re posting from Luther before you post it.

Cordially,
James Swan
 
If Luther was a “model of Christianity” - then so was the preacher of these homilies, and in the same sense. Who is still regarded as a Saint. “But he said many other things, that are not like these homilies” - and so did Luther. To judge by the endless recycling of a few scraps of what Luther said, one could be forgiven for thinking he never said anything else. ##
I agree, so why do it in the first place? Doesn’t that cut both ways? Your charicature above of the catholic church as the church of S. Magus didn’t take in the same consideration now did it?

What would have been more fruitful, a charicature in response to the original poster or trying to disillusion him within the framework of honest dialogue?

I’ll ask point blank, Do you believe the catholic church is the church of Simon Magus and the Papacy is of Satan.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
Unless people are willing to get past the foolishness and actually talk nothing will get acomplished in healing the wounds left behind.Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Hi Nicene,

I kinda attempted this in my very first post in this thread. The tendency to villify Luther in actual Catholic scholarship is over. Even the article on Luther in the Catholic Encyclopedia is outdated, incorrect, and follows an ad hominem approach.

I’m not sure “healing” will ever happen between protestants and catholics- perhaps we can be nicer to each other- but the doctrinal differences are to important to compromise on.

Regards,
James Swan
 
I’m not sure “healing” will ever happen between protestants and catholics- perhaps we can be nicer to each other- but the doctrinal differences are to important to compromise on.
Nicer is a good start, but I disagree with the healing part because it is the body of Christ we are talking about, if that isn’t worth trying to heal then I don’t know what is. I’m not a pessimist. Christianity is built upon hope and charity.

The churches are interested in trying to heal, hense the joint declaration on Justification.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
This post is ad hominem. Or wouldn’t you agree?

The original poster started out no better, however I will say I do believe that Satan was working to destroy the church in those times, but not only from without but from within (Parable of the sower) To charicature Martin Luther as Satan is no better than the bibles printed at the time with the pictures of the Pope as Satan.

Unless people are willing to get past the foolishness and actually talk nothing will get acomplished in healing the wounds left behind.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I know it is. Sometimes the only way to show how an argument sounds, is to use it against the arguer. Hence that post.​

I entirely agree with your last two sentences. ##
 
40.png
Nicene:
I agree, so why do it in the first place?

Do what in the first place ? Are you sayoing that it is OK for Chrysostom to vilify other human beings - but wrong for Luther to do so ? By what right does Chrysostom preach a duty of hatred of Jews?​

Doesn’t that cut both ways? Your charicature above of the catholic church as the church of S. Magus

I did not say that it was​

didn’t take in the same consideration now did it?

I was replying to a comment, not commenting unprompted - so I suggest you say that to the OP​

What would have been more fruitful, a charicature in response to the original poster or trying to disillusion him within the framework of honest dialogue?

I’ll ask point blank, Do you believe the catholic church is the church of Simon Magus and the Papacy is of Satan.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

No, I don’t. I did not say it was. I do think that any Church, like the people in it, is capable of devilish behaviour - I don’t see this as in any way ruled out by the words of Christ. The evil that Catholics in particular, and Christians in general, do, and have done in the past, certainly seems to support this idea.​

I wrote what I did, to try to show just how offensive the OP’s suggestion sounds. ISTM that it is self-serving - unless one is prepared to allow that what one thinks of other religious bodies, may be no less true of the one to which one belongs. IOW: for a Catholic to regard the Reformation as somehow affected by the devil, is self-serving, unless the Catholic is prepared to think the same applies to the Catholic Church. In a sense, it is very trite to say that Churches are influenced by the devil.

Peter, let’s not forget, was addressed as “satan” by Christ. Luther was not.

Where do you see a caricature ? ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## I did not say that it was ## ## I was replying to a comment, not commenting unprompted - so I suggest you say that to the OP ####

I did:
The original poster started out no better,
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Hi Tertium Quid (aka James Swan),

I just wanted to drop you a note and say that I really liked reading your material on Luther. Can you recommend a few books about Luther and the Reformation that a lay person like myself could read?

Thanks in advance,
Free Grace!
 
I wonder, who is more Christian:
  1. The Protestant believer who regularly attends worship services, studies God’s Word and gives to missions across the globe…
or
  1. A craddle Catholic who rarely ever goes to Mass, does not rea the Bible and rarely ever gives to anything…
 
Paris Blues:
I hate to say it that way but it kinda makes me wonder because our other brethren don’t have the fullness of TRUTH and they need to know it!

It’s like as if Satan got Martin Luther to think the way he did and thought it would be funny to lead people away from the Truth, therefore, people “twist” things around, etc.?? Did the devil cause Luther to branch apart from the CC?!?!

.
You go it right the first time - the Protestant Deformation. And I have no doubt as to who instigated it.

May the Lord richly bless you.
 
Free Grace!:
Hi Tertium Quid (aka James Swan),

I just wanted to drop you a note and say that I really liked reading your material on Luther. Can you recommend a few books about Luther and the Reformation that a lay person like myself could read?Thanks in advance,
Free Grace!
Hello There Free Grace,

Thank you for your kind words. I can recommend a few things.

From a protestant perspective on Luther’s life, Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil is an excellent book. As a friend of mine stated, “It’s neither a gloss over of Luther’s life nor an anti-Luther book pretending to be an unbiased history. The facts and quotes are referenced and the book has a great index.”

For a basic understanding of Luther’s theology see:The Foolishness of God by Siegbert w. Becker. The book gives an excellent overview of Luther’s concept of “reason”. In the process, the author gives an excellent summary of Luther’s concept of God, both hidden and revealed, the masks of God, and the theology of the cross. A real plus is that the book isn’t written in theo-babble. Anybody can grip what the author is saying. Same with On Being A Theologian Of The Cross by Gerhard O. Forde. Both are great books.

From a Catholic perspective, see any books on Luther written by John Todd, Joseph Lortz, or jared Wicks.

sorry to be so brief- but i’m on my way out tonight. More later-

James Swan
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Hello There Free Grace,

Thank you for your kind words. I can recommend a few things.

From a protestant perspective on Luther’s life, Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil is an excellent book. As a friend of mine stated, “It’s neither a gloss over of Luther’s life nor an anti-Luther book pretending to be an unbiased history. The facts and quotes are referenced and the book has a great index.”

For a basic understanding of Luther’s theology see:The Foolishness of God by Siegbert w. Becker. The book gives an excellent overview of Luther’s concept of “reason”. In the process, the author gives an excellent summary of Luther’s concept of God, both hidden and revealed, the masks of God, and the theology of the cross. A real plus is that the book isn’t written in theo-babble. Anybody can grip what the author is saying. Same with On Being A Theologian Of The Cross by Gerhard O. Forde. Both are great books.

From a Catholic perspective, see any books on Luther written by John Todd, Joseph Lortz, or jared Wicks.

sorry to be so brief- but i’m on my way out tonight. More later-

James Swan
Thank you! I look forward to reading more of you here on this thread. I hope you have a good evening out tonight.

Free Grace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top