What did Luther believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter owoeizme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rinnie said:
What I have learned about Luther and read is I think he was a very gifted man. But somehow along the line he just snapped.

Sometimes I think it would be what we would call today a nervous breakdown. The way he was tormented with voices and things. I believe the devil got to him.

The reason I believe it was the devil is because God never torments anyone but the devil did.

I truly WANT to believe that in the end Luther got it right with God somehow and was granted much mercy from God. I pray I am right. I think deep down inside his love for God was very very strong.

But something just happend to him and he snapped.
Click to expand...
Yeah I kind of agree with you. I believe Luther loved God and Church very much. For Peter’s sake, :p, from reading the BoC (I am trying to get through it all Jon lol) I believe Luther felt the need to “revamp” certain doctrines that “he” felt were going down the wrong path. I believe he started out with a pure intent to reform the corrupt, but by actions on both sides, it spun way out of control and opened the door to many more reforms. Reform begets reform. Look at how much Lutheranism has reformed since the time of Luther. I can justly say that Luther would NOT be happy with the way the some synods are going. Sadly, I believe Luther was a product of the times. Pride and ego on both sides got in the way.

I am sure Satan played a part in the seperation. If he cannot beat us then the next best thing is to divide us. :mad:
 
I’ll certainly vouch for the veracity of Mr. Swan’s citations on Luther. I got schooled myself, caught up in various catholic myths about Luther over time and never did find a case where he cited something incorrectly. Nice work.

I think it’s important to remember that this subject has been a topic of passion, invective and a few wars for 500 years+ now. It’s naïvet to expect no distortions and over-simplifications to have crept in. Luther himself was no stranger to the polemic tactic!

From what I’ve read over the years (and forgive me, I’m not a scholar and have no handy citations), it appears to me that the pre-thesis posting Luther was a catholic with a severe case of scrupulosity. His conscience was hyperactive and tormented him constantly. Scrupulosity is a problem not unknown to Catholicism, but I’ve never seen any signs that Luther sought conventional help for dealing with it. Instead, it appears he may have been too proud to admit it and instead developed his theology of “faith alone” in response to his scrupulous conscience. It explains the ferocity of his conviction and savage attacks on defenders of catholic teaching that faith and deeds are innately connected, not separate. One can actually read Luther in a manner on justification that is reconcilable with catholic teaching (as the “joint declaration” has done). Thus, it seems to me that the anger of his attacks on catholic theology and the who defended it at the time must have arisen from a deeper defensiveness somehow.

Someday I’ll get around to looking up the timeline. My supposition above would suggest that “Faith Alone” came first and that “Scripture Alone” came later as the Church attempted to correct potentially erroneous interpretations of his teachings, so something was needed to allow him to dismiss their corrections. The cementing of positions on both sides seems to me as much the result of hot heads as genuine irreconcilable difference.

In any case, it’s too simplistic to either hold Luther up as a hero of the faith or demonize him as an agent of Satan. Life is messy, people are sinful and we all need our Savior. But I do believe that Luther was a key player in the splintering of Christianity in western civilization, and I believe that that fragmentation of the Church is the root cause for the near collapse of faith in Europe (coming fast to America). His personal faith may have been mighty, but his works have resulted in calamity. Ironic.
 
hn160 said:
There is a book by Ewe Siemon-Netto titled The Fabricated Luther; Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths. This can be found at www.amazon.com and at Concordia Publishing House - www.cph.org.
Ewe lived as a child during the Nazi Nightmare and later the Communist East German years.
Click to expand...
So “On the Jews and Their Lies” was NOT authored by Luther?

To a certain extent you have a point that Luther shouldn’t be entirely blamed for absorbing a common prejudice of his day and failing to filter it out. We all are guilty of that in our respective ages. And I even believe Swan when he says that that document was largely ignored in Luther’s own day. But it’s an uncomfortable fact that Lutherans hold up Luther as a hero of faith if he authored that piece. We catholics have a similar problem in some of Aquinas’s writings, so it’s not unique to Lutheranism.

The problem of historic Christian anti-Semitism goes well beyond Luther and into the human proclivity for seeking scapegoats. It’s much more convenient to despise ‘Christ-killers’ when such a label applies to THEM (the scapegoat). It’s a bit less smug when one realizes that ALL of us are sinners so that all of us are the ‘Christ-killers.’ Gulp.
 
manualman said:
So “On the Jews and Their Lies” was NOT authored by Luther?

To a certain extent you have a point that Luther shouldn’t be entirely blamed for absorbing a common prejudice of his day and failing to filter it out. We all are guilty of that in our respective ages. And I even believe Swan when he says that that document was largely ignored in Luther’s own day. But it’s an uncomfortable fact that Lutherans hold up Luther as a hero of faith if he authored that piece. We catholics have a similar problem in some of Aquinas’s writings, so it’s not unique to Lutheranism.

The problem of historic Christian anti-Semitism goes well beyond Luther and into the human proclivity for seeking scapegoats. It’s much more convenient to despise ‘Christ-killers’ when such a label applies to THEM (the scapegoat). It’s a bit less smug when one realizes that ALL of us are sinners so that all of us are the ‘Christ-killers.’ Gulp.
Click to expand...
Remembering, again, that Luther was not an anti-semite. He welcomed Jews who became Christian. He was opposed to the religion.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Remembering, again, that Luther was not an anti-semite. He welcomed Jews who became Christian. He was opposed to the religion.

Jon
Click to expand...
So I am not anti bees I just dislike to be stung? Lol just joking
 
JonNC said:
Remembering, again, that Luther was not an anti-semite. He welcomed Jews who became Christian. He was opposed to the religion.
Click to expand...
I grant you the technical difference, but I doubt it brought much comfort to Jews not interested in converting!

Since I respect your knowledge Jon, does anything in your own reading contradict my supposition that Luther suffered from scrupulosity (pre-theses)?
 
manualman said:
So “On the Jews and Their Lies” was NOT authored by Luther?

To a certain extent you have a point that Luther shouldn’t be entirely blamed for absorbing a common prejudice of his day and failing to filter it out. We all are guilty of that in our respective ages. And I even believe Swan when he says that that document was largely ignored in Luther’s own day. But it’s an uncomfortable fact that Lutherans hold up Luther as a hero of faith if he authored that piece. We catholics have a similar problem in some of Aquinas’s writings, so it’s not unique to Lutheranism.

The problem of historic Christian anti-Semitism goes well beyond Luther and into the human proclivity for seeking scapegoats. It’s much more convenient to despise ‘Christ-killers’ when such a label applies to THEM (the scapegoat). It’s a bit less smug when one realizes that ALL of us are sinners so that all of us are the ‘Christ-killers.’ Gulp.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that, Any regime can take writings of whatever including Catholic Popes to justify what they were doing. There is one fact, most of the high ranking Nazis were Catholic including Hitler. Early in 1523 Luther wrote " That Jesus Was Born a Jew". He had hope that the Jews of Germany would convert. Later he wrote “On Jews and Their lies” 1543 after he became disillusion with the Jews. One has to remember in the Middle Ages, Jews had a hard life, they were not well liked except when the various Princes and Primates of the Church wanted to borrow money. The Fuggers helped Albert the Bishop of Maniz secure his Bishoprics.
 
owoeizme said:
I grew up Catholic but, after talking to a couple protestant friends, I only recently started really looking into why we do what we do. I realized it was easier to understand the church’s teaching by looking up the history of the church. So after I had read up on the history of the Catholic Church I decided to read up on the history of the reformation and was shocked by what I read about Martin Luther. Apparently, his beliefs were always changing, was an antisemitic, believed in predestination, and focused only on the parts of the bible that he deemed to be valid. While yes he did bring to light some of the corruptions that was being practiced at that time, shouldn’t we reject his teaching such as the five SOLA’s because he did preach something other then what the apostles preached and didn’t have sound doctrine? Wouldn’t that classify him as a false teacher? If I have inaccurate information please help to clarify too.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Exactly. Applaud anyone where we agree, stand for the truth where we disagree.
 
hn160 said:
…There is one fact, most of the high ranking Nazis were Catholic including Hitler. …
Click to expand...
Nonsense. It’s historical fact that Hitler was baptized as a catholic as a child, but anybody remotely familiar with Nazi proclivity for bizarre occult fetishes can’t say that senior Nazis were catholic with a straight face. That’s as distorted a comment as saying that Satan is an angel; it’s telling a lie with true statements.
 
manualman said:
Nonsense. It’s historical fact that Hitler was baptized as a catholic as a child, but anybody remotely familiar with Nazi proclivity for bizarre occult fetishes can’t say that senior Nazis were catholic with a straight face. That’s as distorted a comment as saying that Satan is an angel; it’s telling a lie with true statements.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out that all the blame for anti-Semitism cannot be laid at the door of Luther or Lutherism. I am not saying that the Catholic Church is at fault either. The Nazis were plain evil and would and could use any writings to suit their purpose.
 
I believe reformation helped us all to understand the true gospel which lead us to salvation.
I strongly believe Load Jesus let that to happen so we are out of the corrupted Rome.
 
Christ4us said:
I believe reformation helped us all to understand the true gospel which lead us to salvation.
I strongly believe Load Jesus let that to happen so we are out of the corrupted Rome.
Click to expand...
Haha…and which of the 10,000 christian sects do you subscribe to?
 
manualman said:
Nonsense. It’s historical fact that Hitler was baptized as a catholic as a child, but anybody remotely familiar with Nazi proclivity for bizarre occult fetishes can’t say that senior Nazis were catholic with a straight face. That’s as distorted a comment as saying that Satan is an angel; it’s telling a lie with true statements.
Click to expand...
True.

GKC
 
Jesus said ’ i know my sheep and they follow me’…so they dont get different meaning

message is simple man…
 
Christ4us said:
Jesus said ’ i know my sheep and they follow me’…so they dont get different meaning

message is simple man…
Click to expand...
Then why do some Christians believe you must have water baptism and some do not…same message man…different answer. Why do some Cbristian s insist you must say the sinners prayer and some don’t…same message man…different answer. My fingers are now tired…thanks a lot man…
 
manualman said:
Nonsense. It’s historical fact that Hitler was baptized as a catholic as a child, but anybody remotely familiar with Nazi proclivity for bizarre occult fetishes can’t say that senior Nazis were catholic
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, though, what about “once Catholic, always Catholic”? I’ve heard that more times than I can count. Wouldn’t that apply? If not, why?
 
Alizarin said:
In all seriousness, though, what about “once Catholic, always Catholic”? I’ve heard that more times than I can count. Wouldn’t that apply? If not, why?
Click to expand...
As I’m not willing to allow some to say that Luther was the cause or contributed to the brutality of the nazis, neither am I willing to let the charge be applied to Catholics. While I understand what you’re saying, the fact is that Hitler and the nazis did not act like Chrisitans, either Catholic or Lutheran. The anti-Judaism of the Reformation era, while reprehensible, is not the same as Hitler’s antisemitism, nor is it responsible for it.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top