Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[sola_scriptura]

I think it’s important to note too that even if James was trying to contradict Pauline theology…his writing was under the superattendance of the Holy Spirit…which wouldn’t permit him to contradict what Paul had written and preached. Which may be part of the reason why it can very easily be harmonized with Paul.

I would go even farther than that – I think James was with Paul and Peter, at least eventually, in both mind and Spirit.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Obviously Paul preached salvation by grace through faith and not as a result of works. This is the one main theme reverberated through all the Pauline epistles.

Ok, we’ve heard what Paul has to say. Now what about what Christ has to say? (In matters of salvation, I would prefer to stick with “Christ alone,” anyway).

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see:The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Matt. 11:4-6

So here, “the poor have the gospel preached to them.”

So what then, was this “gospel” that Christ was preaching to them? Remember, Christ had been preaching “the gospel” long *before *his passion. What then did he tell his hearers? What message would they have heard from his lips?

Even where James states that turning a sinner away from the error of his ways will “cover a multitude of sins” James is in accord with both Paul and Peter (see 1 Pet. 4:8, 1 Cor. 13:4-13, Proverbs 10:12). The idea is “love” covers a multitude of sins.

Didn’t you just tell me earlier that Augustine was in error for saying, “wipe out yours sins by daily good works” (sermon 77:B:7:1)??? And again he says:

It does not, however, mean, because I say we cannot be here without sin, that we ought to commit murders, of adulteries, or other deadly sins, which slay at a stroke. Such things are not committed by Christians of good faith and good hope; but only the sort which may be wiped off by the brush of daily prayer.

Sermon 181:8:2

Presumably, correcting an erring sinner qualifies as a “good work,” as “love.”

But from a Protestant viewpoint, how can anything we do “cover a multitude of sins”?

After all, doesn’t Protestant theology insist (and most strenuously I might add) that “ALL our works were as filthy rags”. Isaiah 64:6

Now if taken literally, how can anything as detestable in the eyes of an infinitely holy God as “filthy rags,” i.e. our “works” (good works like charity for example), possibly “cover” even the tiniest of sins??

It makes no sense.

Remember, everything is already completed by God. For Him, in His own reference frame (which transcends time) His work is done.

And yet, Christ remains a High Priest forever! Why?

And you still didn’t touch upon my questions, one of which was (and I hope I don’t get accused of “vain repetition” ):

Which is more sacred, the Church, or the Bible? Or perhaps I should just start a new thread?

Peace.

---

“My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel – i. e. the Devil’s gospel.”

Charles Darwin to Thomas H. Huxley, August 8, 1860.

google.com/books?id=KQetyXP7zB0C&pg=PA124&dq=darwin+%22devil%27s+gospel%22

 

[sola_scriptura]

Ok, we’ve heard what Paul has to say. Now what about what Christ has to say? (In matters of salvation, I would prefer to stick with “Christ alone,” anyway).

So you think Paul was inconsistent with Christ? I think you have a lot of studying to do?

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see:The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Matt. 11:4-6

So here, “the poor have the gospel preached to them.”

So what then, was this “gospel” that Christ was preaching to them? Remember, Christ had been preaching “the gospel” long *before *his passion. What then did he tell his hearers? What message would they have heard from his lips?

What is your point here? Half my post that you responded to discussed my accord with the words of James and his message of charity and love?

Didn’t you just tell me earlier that Augustine was in error for saying, “wipe out yours sins by daily good works” (sermon 77:B:7:1)??? And again he says:

Love is a witness of faith. It is our natural condition after being quickened by the spirit. I did not disagree with Augustine as much as you’re misunderstanding Augustine.

“Works” are works of the law. What James means by works such as charity is a different thing. Secondly from faith flows love and from love flows acts of love. This is witness to faith.

When James speaks of works he speaks for the benefit of the faithful so they may be able to discern truth. However, the faithful do these things anyway – because God works in them to both will and work. God causes our obedience, gives us our faith, and ensures the elect persevere.

So James should be understood as “defining” what faith is, what it looks like. The faithful need to know one who is unrepentingly living in sin and not walking in love does not have real faith.

When he says demons believe, that doesn’t – indeed cannot mean they have saving grace and faith given by God. The Lord did not predestine the children of Satan to salvation. It is important to understand all of scripture well before endeavoring to interpret it.

But from a Protestant viewpoint, how can anything we do “cover a multitude of sins”?

because only faith covers our sins and only those walking in love have true faith …

After all, doesn’t Protestant theology insist (and most strenuously I might add) that “ALL our works were as filthy rags”. Isaiah 64:6

that is an abuse of that passage from Isaiah. Good works that do not proceed from faith are like filthy rags. Indeed any work that does not proceed from faith cannot even be considered good by God. When it does proceed from faith it is always good because it is effectively God doing it.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

So you think Paul was inconsistent with Christ? I think you have a lot of studying to do?

Not at all! I think Paul was consistent with Christ. But I would still like hear from you just what you think the gospel message that *Christ * himself preached was. Specifically, did Christ ever mention, not a cross, for he said, Take up your cross, but His Cross, in any of his gospel messages?

Love is a witness of faith. It is our natural condition after being quickened by the spirit. I did not disagree with Augustine as much as you’re misunderstanding Augustine.

I understand Augustine as the Church understands Augustine. My personal opinion, even were I a Doctor of the Church myself, would be as nothing in comparison with the authority of the Apostolic See, to whose judgments I, in my nothingness, give my wholehearted assent.

“Works” are works of the law. What James means by works such as charity is a different thing. Secondly from faith flows love and from love flows acts of love. This is witness to faith.

When James speaks of works he speaks for the benefit of the faithful so they may be able to discern truth. However, the faithful do these things anyway – because God works in them to both will and work. God causes our obedience, gives us our faith, and ensures the elect persevere.

If “the faithful do these things anyway,” then how do you explain this?:

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as “Der Beichtrat” (or “The Confessional Advice” ),[25] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living “constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,”[26] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[27] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.” (“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.”)[28]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Christianity

See: Luther’s Letter to Chancellor Gregory Brück (An Den Kanzler Brück), 1524-01-13, in Dr. Martin Luther’s Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken: volständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben seiner Werke und Briefe, aus andern Büchern und noch unbenutzten Handschriten gesammelt. From the Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette Collection of Luther’s Letters vol. 2, p. 459 (Letter DLXXII; Latin text) (Berlin: Georg reimer, 1826).

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Surely you would not call that faith and obedience?

So James should be understood as “defining” what faith is, what it looks like. The faithful need to know one who is unrepentingly living in sin and not walking in love does not have real faith.

Again, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al permitted Philip of Hesse to have two wives! Yet they all knew it was wrong, but they did it anyway. So by your understanding, these people could not possibly have had true saving faith, because the not only sinned willing and knowingly, but permitted others to do so! For shame.

Furthermore, they never repented of this great evil (I would challenge any of my dear Protestant friends to produce a single historical document proving me wrong about this. But if any such document be forthcoming, I shall not hesitate to issue a formal apology and humbly repent in sackcloth and ashes).

And then there is the great evil of artificial contraception. Protestants (and sad to say, far too may Catholics) not only practice this evil, but what is worse, even promote it! And they think thereby they are doing good!

Now to be sure, many such people, both Catholic and Protestant, are undoubtedly good and honorable otherwise. And many would even say they love God. But they most assuredly are doing evil, even if convinced in their own minds otherwise.

But do see what I’m getting at?

When he says demons believe, that doesn’t – indeed cannot mean they have saving grace and faith given by God. The Lord did not predestine the children of Satan to salvation. It is important to understand all of scripture well before endeavoring to interpret it.

But by your reckonings, no one by Luther and Calvin could properly understand and interpret the Scriptures!

For 2000 years, all the great minds in the Church, all the Fathers, Doctors, great Saints and holy Martyrs have bungled things. Even Augustine, about whom Luther said

Holy Christendom has, in my judgment, no better teacher after the apostles than St. Augustine.

Even this great Doctor was no match for the Wittenberg and Genevan divines!

Luther’s Works, American Ed., Robert H. Fischer, Helmut T. Lehman, eds., Concordia Publishing House/Fortress Press, 1959, ISBN 0800603370 (Word and Sacrament III), vol. 37:107

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

because only faith covers our sins and only those walking in love have true faith …

Faith covers or Christ covers? (I won’t even go into the whole “covers” vs. actually “cleans and purifies of all filth” thing right now).

that is an abuse of that passage from Isaiah. Good works that do not proceed from faith are like filthy rags. Indeed any work that does not proceed from faith cannot even be considered good by God. When it does proceed from faith it is always good because it is effectively God doing it.

“Effectively God doing it.” I like that Sola! Maybe we are not that far apart after all. Maybe we just need to find the key to understanding each others language! You see, God is indeed “doing it” because, as Augustine says, “we too are himself.”

But this is really getting into some deep theological waters. But it’s an incredible and beautiful idea also! Something, sadly, completely lost on the reformers!

And how different Christianity is from the pagan religions, which have no real concept of the profound union of God and man!

If you get the chance, you must read “The Whole Christ” by Emile Mersch. It’s out of print so you’ll either have to find a used copy or get it from your library. It’s a fascination read and tremendous eye-opener. I myself can only read a bit at a time, so profound are the ideas contained therein. What God has given to man, what he longs to give to man, what unspeakable things he has in store for those who love him! God, you see, wants to give us nothing less than His very self! He wants us to be partakers in His very nature! Indeed, He burns with such love for man, that He would have us become like Him, so much so, that he would have us “conformed to the image of his Son.” Rom. 8:29.

What an unspeakable thought! And I could go on and on. But this is getting off topic, I know.

So for now, let me just bid you good night and God’s peace.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I understand Augustine as the Church understands Augustine. My personal opinion, even were I a Doctor of the Church myself, would be as nothing in comparison with the authority of the Apostolic See, to whose judgments I, in my nothingness, give my wholehearted assent.

You mean the same Apostolic See who forced Galileo to recant?

The great thing with an idea like infallibility is if there was just a single error throughout all church history then the idea logically fails. Well Galileo is one example of a clear, irrefutable error. Therefore infallibility is an erroneous doctrine.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You mean the same Apostolic See who forced Galileo to recant?

The great thing with an idea like infallibility is if there was just a single error throughout all church history then the idea logically fails. Well Galileo is one example of a clear, irrefutable error. Therefore infallibility is an erroneous doctrine.

Luther wrote:

For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s teaching and not mine.

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/0800603397

What do you do with a statement like that? And if Luther wasn’t infallible, why should anyone pay the slightest attention to anything he believed or taught? Same goes for Calvin et al.

But now let me clarify my earlier statement about giving my assent to the Apostolic See. Catholics (unless of course they have forfeited their reason and common sense), are not bound to give their ascent to a given Pope’s every *personal *judgment and opinion. Nor does the Church expect us to. The Pope, after all, is not infallible in his person.

On the other hand, we do very much believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (not each individual) into all truth.

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” John 16:13.

And so in matters of faith and morals (where nothing short of* infallible truth* is acceptable), we believe the Holy Spirit does indeed guide protect the Apostolic See – the “highest See”- from officially teaching error.

Now in the Galileo affair, the Church rendered a wrong opinion, but that’s all it was – an opinion.

There was no infallible decree.

I would recommend you read, or at least peruse, this work:

The Popes and Science by James Joseph Walsh, 1908, Fordham University Press, New York. (Reprinted 2003, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 0766136469).

Walsh does a good job, I think, of dispelling much misinformation and misconception about the historical relationship of the Church to science.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Luther wrote:

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-…/dp/0800603397

What do you do with a statement like that? And if Luther wasn’t infallible, why should anyone pay the slightest attention to anything he believed or taught? Same goes for Calvin et al.

That’s my point – no one is infallible; that includes Luther and Calvin (even though Calvin would have never said such a thing).

The bottom line is with Luther is he faced an onslaught of criticism, attempts on his life, horrible fighting between Catholics and Protestants, etc. It is no secret these things took an exceeding toll on his mental health.

Indeed God works in sometimes very strange ways. Who would have thought God would have anointed a killer of Christians (Paul)? Who would have thought a poor orphan like Esther would have wound up in a royal court? So nothing anyone can say about Luther’s character faults will move anyone with a true understanding of Christ. In fact our poor character, arrogance, and utter sin nature is the very reason why we need a Savior.

You guys think slamming Luther’s character bolsters your position – when indeed it does the exact opposite.

But now let me clarify my earlier statement about giving my assent to the Apostolic See. Catholics (unless of course they have forfeited their reason and common sense), are not bound to give their ascent to a given Pope’s every *personal *judgment and opinion. Nor does the Church expect us to. The Pope, after all, is not infallible in his person.

Thanks for the clarification. It did seem like your comment didn’t acknowledge that infallibility doesn’t mean impeccability.

On the other hand, we do very much believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (not each individual) into all truth.

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” John 16:13.

I do not believe any church of Christ will be overcome by the devil – but it doesn’t mean he might not enjoy some short term success. This comment isn’t directed at the RCC per se – it’s a broad commentary aimed at all churches.

And so in matters of faith and morals (where nothing short of* infallible truth* is acceptable), we believe the Holy Spirit does indeed guide protect the Apostolic See – the “highest See”- from officially teaching error.

Now in the Galileo affair, the Church rendered a wrong opinion, but that’s all it was – an opinion.

There was no infallible decree.

That’s a more accurate statement (I never posited the RCC would create a doctrine to merely refute one man).

However, what the Galileo affair does show is that the church at one time believed Scripture revealed the earth was at the center of the universe. That is a doctrinal statement (in the most important area of doctrine – Scriptural interpretation). They were wrong about that understanding of Scripture and hence illustrated fallibility with regard to doctrine.

Any other assertion strains logic.

I would recommend you read, or at least peruse, this work:

The Popes and Science by James Joseph Walsh, 1908, Fordham University Press, New York. (Reprinted 2003, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 0766136469).

Walsh does a good job, I think, of dispelling much misinformation and misconception about the historical relationship of the Church to science.

I frankly have no doubt the RCC is fine with science (these days). In fact many little known but important scientists were ordained Catholic clergy. The Galileo affair was an error for the church, but the church did change as a result (it just won’t admit it – which IMO is disingenuous). The fact is Christ and the Holy Spirit sometimes trains us through mistakes – unfortunately holding to this untenable position of infallibility is actually an obstruction to the Spirit who always wants to move the church away from our inevitable human errors.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed, but it became corrupted. I like C.S. Lewis’ explanation of this:

There is no such thing as being bad for the sake of ‘badness.’ In other words badness is not a thing unto itself – rather it is corrupted goodness.

Maybe you’ll agree?

The repeated affirmation “and God saw that it was good” in Genesis 1 underscores the intrinsic, fundamental goodness of matter and the whole created order, even after the Fall. This understanding is the basis for a sacramental world-view—that the created order, not only is good, but also can be a means for communion with God, by virtue of being created by the All-Good God. Moreover, the astounding beauty, intricate order, and sublime harmony of all aspects of creation, as well as the tremendously vast expanse of the universe, are intended to draw mankind to an awareness of and appreciation for the Creator, and to the worship of Him–and Him alone.
OSB

 

[Mickey]

You mean the same Apostolic See who forced Galileo to recant?

The great thing with an idea like infallibility is if there was just a single error throughout all church history then the idea logically fails. Well Galileo is one example of a clear, irrefutable error. Therefore infallibility is an erroneous doctrine.

Are you perhaps confusing infallibility with impeccability? Do you know the teaching of infallibility according to the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[TriuneUnity]

The repeated affirmation “and God saw that it was good” in Genesis 1 underscores the intrinsic, fundamental goodness of matter and the whole created order, even after the Fall. This understanding is the basis for a sacramental world-view—that the created order, not only is good, but also can be a means for communion with God, by virtue of being created by the All-Good God. Moreover, the astounding beauty, intricate order, and sublime harmony of all aspects of creation, as well as the tremendously vast expanse of the universe, are intended to draw mankind to an awareness of and appreciation for the Creator, and to the worship of Him–and Him alone.
OSB

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, Mickey. Kudos on pointing out that the material is not inherently bad. There is always a danger of slipping into gnostic views of the universe. My contention though is that it has nothing to do with matter. Man’s matter is corrupted because man’s soul is corrupted. The decay of matter is a result of the deadness that lies at the center of unregenerate man’s being. The matter/spirit dichotomy is not the issue. Man’s soul must be raised from death in order for the material world to truly function as God intended it. A sacramental worldview does not apply to unbelievers because they are outside of God’s saving graces. That saving grace must bring them into God’s sacramental church. And of course, we know that the entire creation will be redeemed at the revealing of Christ’s second advent.

 

[Mickey]

My contention though is that it has nothing to do with matter.

It has much to do with matter. The Word became flesh. Jesus Christ was matter (human) and divine. The sacraments have matter and Spirit----baptism for example has water and the Holy Spirit. You cannot just dismiss matter. But perhaps we are speaking past eachother.

Without the grace of the Holy Spirit, man is easily overcome by the devil, for his willpower alone is incapable of resisting the devil’s temptations. Furthermore, his will was weakened through his disobedience and expulsion from paradise. But he willfully refused God’s helping grace.
OSB

 

[TriuneUnity]

It has much to do with matter. The Word became flesh. Jesus Christ was matter (human) and divine. The sacraments have matter and Spirit----baptism for example has water and the Holy Spirit. You cannot just dismiss matter. But perhaps we are speaking past eachother.

Yeah…what I meant here is that the point is not that matter is corrupted inherently, as the gnostics teach. It is because of man’s spiritual corruption that the material world is fallen. The spirit of man is really the problem not the matter.

 

[Mickey]

The spirit of man is really the problem not the matter.

But we are not totally depraved.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But we are not totally depraved.

What part of man is not?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

That’s my point – no one is infallible; that includes Luther and Calvin (even though Calvin would have never said such a thing).

As a matter of fact, Calvin did say such a thing!

John Stoddard writes"

This despotic attitude was, however, not confined to Luther. It lay in the system itself. Calvin also claimed for himself infallibility, and wrote to Aubeterre (“Lettres francaises,” vol. i., p. 389):

“Dieu m’a fait la grace de me declarer ce qui est bon et mauvais.”

Hence he demanded the death penalty by fire or sword for heretics, that is, for those who differed from him.

Rebuilding a Lost Faith, John L. Stoddard, 1922, P. J. Kennedy & Sons, N.Y. p. 98.
archive.org/details/rebuildingalostf001613mbp

The phrase,

“Dieu m’a faict la grâce de me déclairer ce qui est bon ou maulvais”

Roughly tranlates (pardon my French ) as:

“God gives me the grace to tell me what is good and bad.”

Lettres de Jean Calvin By Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, Librairie de Ch. Meyrueis et Compagnie, Paris, 1854
books.google.com/books?id=8wnQsFK-glIC&pg=PA389&dq=%22Dieu+m%E2%80%99a+faict+la+gr%C3%A2ce+de+me+d%C3%A9clairer+ce+qui+est+bon+ou+maulvais+%22&lr=&as_brr=0

The bottom line is with Luther is he faced an onslaught of criticism, attempts on his life, horrible fighting between Catholics and Protestants, etc. It is no secret these things took an exceeding toll on his mental health.

So now he’s some kind of martyr?

You know, President Reagan, for example, also had to face an “onslaught of criticism, attempts on his life, horrible fighting between” Republicans and Democrats, etc. Yet he never spilled innocent blood, never ever even called for the spilling of innocent blood, never used the kind of *appallingly foul language *that often fell from Luther’s lips, never encouraged or permitted polygamy etc. And the same could be said for countless others who have endured suffering.

In any event, I suggest you read the following to see who were the *real *persecutors:

The Protestant Inquisition: “Reformation” Intolerance and Persecution.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

And this (again from Stoddard):

Hence, whatever may be said of Catholic persecution, the spirit of Protestantism in this respect was just as intolerant. Rousseau says truly:

“The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors.”

The Protestant historian Hallam, in his “Constitutional History” (vol. i., chap, ii.), affirms:

“Persecution is the deadly original sin of the Reformed churches, which cools every honest man’s zeal for their cause, in proportion as his reading becomes more extensive.”

Rebuilding a Lost Faith, P. 209.

Indeed God works in sometimes very strange ways. Who would have thought God would have anointed a killer of Christians (Paul)? Who would have thought a poor orphan like Esther would have wound up in a royal court? So nothing anyone can say about Luther’s character faults will move anyone with a true understanding of Christ. In fact our poor character, arrogance, and utter sin nature is the very reason why we need a Savior.

Are you saying that Luther, the unrepentant spiller of innocent blood, the apostle of polygamy etc… was in fact, the “ANOINTED” of God?! That he’s to be compared with St. Paul?!! With Esther? That perhaps his sufferings could even begin to compare with those of the Saintly Apostles, or of the Martyrs??

And does the following from Luther’s Table Talk sound like anything like what St. Paul would ever recommend?

Between September 2 and 17, 1540, No. 5207. From the Notes (“Aufzeichnungen”) of John Mathesius (1504-1565).

“In Dessau there was a twelve-year old boy like this: [140] he devoured as much as four farmers did, and he did nothing else than eat and excrete. Luther suggested that he be suffocated.

“Somebody asked, ‘For what reason?’

“He [Luther] replied, ‘Because I think he’s simply a mass of flesh without a soul. Couldn’t the devil have done this, inasmuch as he gives such shape to the body and mind even of those who have reason that in their obsession they hear, see, and feel nothing? The devil is himself their soul. The power of the devil is great when in this way he holds the minds of all men captive, but he doesn’t dare give full vent to the power on account of the angels.’”

Note 140, p.396, reads:

In this account Luther is reported to have suggested to friends at his table that a boy whose condition was such that he lived like a vegetable should be done away with. John Aurifaber’s later version (WA, TR 5, No. 9) elaborated on the original by stating that Luther had himself seen and touched the boy and that he advised the prince of Anhalt to have the boy drowned. What had at first been the private expression of an opinion here became a formal recommendation to a ruler. I was in this later version that Luther was cited as an advocate of euthanasia in connection with a court case in Germany in 1964. See Erwin Mühlhaupt, “‘Spiegel,” ‘Stern’ und Luther,” Luther: Zeitschrift der Luther-Gesellschaft, XXXV (1964), 81-88.

Luther’s Works, American Edition, Table Talk, Theodore G. Tappert, ed., Fortress Press and Concordia Publishing House, 1967, vol. 54, pp. 396-397, ISBN 0800603540

books.google.com/books?q=%20%22simply%20a%20mass%20of%20flesh%20without%20a%20soul%22&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&filter=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

thumbsnap.com/v/uS1A9t4v.jpg pp. 396-397

WA, TR 5, = Wiemar Ausgabe (Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works), Tischreden (Table Talk), vol. 5.

“Zeitschrift der Luther-Gesellschaft” = “Magazine of the Luther Society [of Germany].”

You guys think slamming Luther’s character bolsters your position – when indeed it does the exact opposite.

Well, I actually thought we might have some common ground, but you are sure sounding a bit defensive and irrational. So now I’m not sure what to think. But truth be told, no one, certainly not me, is “slamming Luther’s character.” Nor does anyone that I know of have any desire to. (And for the record, Luther did have a number of good points about, but it all seems overshadowed, not so much by the filthy language, or the polygamy, or his tyranny or even his gross hypocrisy - these could be forgiven. But his ferocious pride, arrogance, defiance and unrepentance, these are simply diabolical. And they mark him, not as an agent of the Lord, but more, I’m sorry to say, as an agent of the devil.).

And you should remember this:

Whereas the Bible openly speaks of the sins of the saints, Protestants have done, and continue to do, all in there power to *suppress *the sins of their “saints.” Yet these same Protestants have not the least qualm about *magnifying the smallest faults of the Church. *

Hardly fair,I’d say.

I think you too just want to keep alive the myth that Luther was God’s “anointed” who was “persecuted” for courageously standing up to an evil church.

Regarding Galileo, you really should read Robert Sungenis’ article:

*The Personal Lives and Philosophies of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Einstein. *

catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/personal_lives.htm

If nothing else, read the section on Galileo. You’ll discover, among things, that contrary to the endless myths about Galileo, he in fact,

“was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science”
(The Sleepwalkers, p. 358).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers

amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Vision-Universe/dp/0140192468

 

[sola_scriptura]

Are you perhaps confusing infallibility with impeccability? Do you know the teaching of infallibility according to the Roman Catholic Church?

The funny thing is I keep reminding people that infallibility does not mean impeccability – so no I’m not confusing the two at all.

Infallibility is regarding doctrine (and of course the most important part of doctrine is scriptural interpretation).

The RCC felt that the bible revealed the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the “churches” position (not just that of a few wayward zealots who didn’t like science). Hence this was the churches doctrine with regard to scriptural interpretation (one area they claim infallibility in).

Here’s my problem with the idea of infallibility. When the church declares a certain view regarding interpretation of scripture – they will always lean on the premise of infallibility. However, if the view is later debunked they will say there was no infallible declaration. These sort of semantics smack of intellectual dishonesty and simply cannot not hold water.

To say that only the church may interpret scripture – must mean that when the church brings an individual before one of its official bodies, such as the inquisition, and compels them to recant a position based on the premise that the position held by the individual is contrary to the churches interpretation of scripture – then that is an official declaration of the churches position regarding the scriptural passage at issue, period!

In other words the church called the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe its official position when it brought Galileo before its inquisition for asserting the falsity of that position. Now it seeks to use legalistic gymnastics to say it was not its official position.

Now the church will argue by using red herrings – such as asserting they are not anti-science, when their views regarding science are NOT at issue in the context of the infallibility question. The only things that weigh into this debate are: the church at one time held an official position regarding the interpretation of scripture, they claim that they are infallible regarding interpretation of scripture, they were wrong about that earlier interpretation of scripture, hence they are not completely infallible regarding interpretation of scripture.

 

[Mickey]

What part of man is not?

I think the operative word is “total”.

I cannot explain it aptly–for I am not a great theologian. But I have always enjoyed this short article.

By Fr. Patrick Reardon
In Luke 10:25–37, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan, which many Christians have seen as a parable of man’s fall and redemption. Such an interpretation is usually elaborated in three steps.

First, there is the story of the fall, concerning which we are told, “A certain manwent down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded *him,*and departed, leaving himhalf dead.” This man started in Jerusalem, in the garden place of God’s presence. But he did not stay there. He made a deliberate decision to go down on a journey. No one told him to go. He made the decision on his own, as an assertion of his independence. “Man, though in honor, does not remain,” says the psalmist; “He is like the beasts that perish” (Psalm 49:12).

These robbers did not kill the fallen man completely. They left him half dead. Even fallen, he did not suffer total depravity. There was still some chance for him, though he had no way of saving himself from his terrible predicament. By this man’s disobedience, in fact, sin entered the world, and by sin death. Indeed, death reigned already in his mortal flesh. How shall we describe this poor man’s plight except that he was “alien from the commonwealth of Israel and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12)? He had been left half dead, and there was no help for him in this world.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think the operative word is “total”.

I cannot explain it aptly–for I am not a great theologian. But I have always enjoyed this short article.

By Fr. Patrick Reardon
In Luke 10:25–37, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan, which many Christians have seen as a parable of man’s fall and redemption. Such an interpretation is usually elaborated in three steps.

First, there is the story of the fall, concerning which we are told, “A certain manwent down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded *him,*and departed, leaving himhalf dead.” This man started in Jerusalem, in the garden place of God’s presence. But he did not stay there. He made a deliberate decision to go down on a journey. No one told him to go. He made the decision on his own, as an assertion of his independence. “Man, though in honor, does not remain,” says the psalmist; “He is like the beasts that perish” (Psalm 49:12).

These robbers did not kill the fallen man completely. They left him half dead. Even fallen, he did not suffer total depravity. There was still some chance for him, though he had no way of saving himself from his terrible predicament. By this man’s disobedience, in fact, sin entered the world, and by sin death. Indeed, death reigned already in his mortal flesh. How shall we describe this poor man’s plight except that he was “alien from the commonwealth of Israel and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12)? He had been left half dead, and there was no help for him in this world.

The problem with this statement is twofold; one, it misinterprets what “total” in total depravity means. And I would say the term itself is misleading in as much as it gives the idea that every man is an axe murderer. The term “total” means that the sinful nature invades every part of the totality of the human person. Sin infects his will, his intellect, his emotions, his physical body. There is no part of man that is unaffected by his fallen nature.

Secondly, there is no reference in scripture to being spiritually half dead. The interpretation put forward here of the Good Samaritan parable, and this is no reflection on you, Mickey, is one of the worst interpretations I’ve ever come across. Jesus is not in any way, shape, or form, analogizing the robber’s physical condition to that of unregenerate mans spiritual condition. The concept of being half-dead, aside from being nonsensical (you’re either dead or you’re not), does not exist in Paul’s use of being dead in transgression in sins. He doesn’t say sick, unconscious, wounded, or damaged; he says dead. Kaput.

If you want to find a story in the gospels that parallels man’s spiritual condition with a physical condition it would be that of Lazarus. Lazarus is not only mostly dead (haha) he’s been dead four days. In fact, he stinks. And Christ’s word of power says “come forth” and Lazarus is raised. THAT is what the gospel does in the case of unregenerate sinners. Christ says in our Baptism “come forth” and what was dead is brought to life.

 

[Mickey]

they claim that they are infallible regarding interpretation of scripture, they were wrong about that earlier interpretation of scripture, hence they are not completely infallible regarding interpretation of scripture.

What have they interpreted wrongly?

 

[TriuneUnity]

What have they interpreted wrongly?

Certainly you would argue they have interpreted Matthew 16:18 wrongly