Why I could never follow Luther.

[Magdalena09]

Anyone can make blanket statements, but they are meaningless without documentation…

Indeed; you certainly have, as I see no citations in your accusations…merely repeated misinformation that is now widely accepted as fact by those who don’t know any better. Funny how often those who demand “proof” from Catholics don’t hold themselves to the same standards and reject the proof presented to them, anyway.

 

[swords99]

The Diet of Worms was a political, not ecclesiastical, body. Of course, the connection between religion and politics was much closer then. Nonetheless, the outlawing of Luther was a political action, decreed by the emperor. The Church had no authority to do what was done, even if it agreed with it and urged it.

The scope of the Church’s authority was both religious and political. Popes used the threat of excommunication and banishment from the Church, to wield power over political rulers

The outlawing of Luther was the desire of the church of Rome as well. Luther was threatened with excommunication and banishment, had to go into hiding, was pressured to recant. The RCC went after dissenters. It was married to the state of Rome. It had its monarch in the pope, its princes in the prelate, its legislative in ecumenical councils, a constitution in canon law, it went to war and negotiated treaties and collected taxes.

 

[BlueShadow123]

He removed books from the bible. That in itself is a good enough reason not to follow him.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Blueshadow, I think you are confusing Luther with an English group that exported Bibles.
They are the ones who refused to ship any Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals In 1830. Luther’s first name was Martin, not Methuslah. Luther was following Saint Jerome’s lead in his opinion of the Deuterocanonicals. In addition, Luther judged books by how much they contained the message of the Gospels. If anything, he can justifiably be accused of being too Christocentric. Compared to Matthew, for instance,the book of James does not tell the gospel story to the same extent. Looking from our standpoint, we see it as dealing with other issues, particularly that of living a faithful life. Maybe it is not gospel, but it is far from being meaningless in the lives of believers.

As for the Lutheran Church being called Lutheran, it is a convention. Even if we changed our name to the Churches of the Augsburg Confession, people would still call us Lutheran for a long time, since it is shorter and easier. It would not change one point of doctrine to change the name. BTW, that is the name that Luther would have prefered. If you care to look back a good way in this thread, you will see my discussion of why I use
the term “Catholic Church” instead of “Roman Catholic.” As Rinnie pointed out, either one is the name we bear, and we take the good with the bad.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Blueshadow, I think you are confusing Luther with an English group that exported Bibles.
They are the ones who refused to ship any Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals In 1830. Luther’s first name was Martin, not Methuslah. Luther was following Saint Jerome’s lead in his opinion of the Deuterocanonicals. In addition, Luther judged books by how much they contained the message of the Gospels. If anything, he can justifiably be accused of being too Christocentric. Compared to Matthew, for instance,the book of James does not tell the gospel story to the same extent. Looking from our standpoint, we see it as dealing with other issues, particularly that of living a faithful life. Maybe it is not gospel, but it is far from being meaningless in the lives of believers.

As for the Lutheran Church being called Lutheran, it is a convention. Even if we changed our name to the Churches of the Augsburg Confession, people would still call us Lutheran for a long time, since it is shorter and easier. It would not change one point of doctrine to change the name. BTW, that is the name that Luther would have prefered. If you care to look back a good way in this thread, you will see my discussion of why I use
the term “Catholic Church” instead of “Roman Catholic.” As Rinnie pointed out, either one is the name we bear, and we take the good with the bad.

I know a lot about luther. And there is only 1 reason in which I agree he took the books out. However its not the taking the books out that I agree with, its the problem he had with the catholic church. At the time, from what I have read and researched, one of the reasons is because the catholic church said that if you pay them, or give your money to the church, it can help god to forgive your sins.

I don’t agree with that, so I understand why he’d have a problem with that.
however I could be wrong, its just something I found out while researching. But I believe the bible in its whole, original form is what people should be reading. nothing added, nothing taken away.

 

[Magdalena09]

Blueshadow, I think you are confusing Luther with an Luther was following Saint Jerome’s lead in his opinion of the Deuterocanonicals.

I wanted to comment on this, as I often see non-Catholics trying to pass the buck to St Jerome when it comes to the incomplete Bibles protestants use. (Not that you were necessarily trying to do that.)

St Jerome knew and respected the authority of the Church, which is why when he translated the Vulgate, he included the Deuterocanon. In that respect, Luther would have done well to follow St Jerome’s example.

Following the logic of those who say that Luther was just finishing what St Jerome started, I or anyone else could elect to remove James and Revelation from the Bible, as Luther opposed those two books, and be justified in doing so by pointing to Luther. And on and on and on.

This is short and concise and explains it better than I could.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Actually No, you are way off. First of all remember I told you no cash can be involved anymore. Then the only way your slate is wiped clean totally is when you see the true damage your sin has done, and you really suffer yourself for the damage you have done.

You seem to think that money and doing good deeds is enough. That is not how it works, you must be sincere in those works, and it would be in those works, that you would probally actually come to love those Children. Then when you actually became to know them, and really love them, and then turn around and see someone do what you stated and actually felt their pain is when it really happens.

That is how to actually explain Purgatory. But you have done purgatory time actually here on earth. You have not only been purged from that sin in the process, that actual desire to repeat that sin is actually wiped clean forever.

Once you spent time with those kids and their familys you would become a part of their live and actually love them as your own family. That is a great example of the good Lord working in mysterious ways. Then you would maybe be somewhere with the Child or Mother or Father or bro, or sis and see the pain they endured by seeing someone making fun of that kid, and then you would see the great understanding, and would you not agree, it would be then where you saw the great damage of your sin, and would feel great pain yourself in a different way of understanding, that can come only from God. And then that sin would never be repeated, would you not agree?

That is when an indulgence would be granted, Or a better example would be if you never made fun of those kids, but donated money and much time just because its in your heart to do so. But because of the money thing today, its not allowed for an indulgence as I stated to you why.

OK I get what you are saying. However, this is not what was happening in the 1500’s and it’s certainly was not what was being taught to the people.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Not according to Tradition.

St Ignatitus of Antioch (C 110. A.D.)

St Ignatitus claims the Church of Rome has Priority in which the company of Church united by concord.

I can totally buy into primus inter pares of the second century.

St. Ignatitus insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in Tradition of the Apostles which every Local Church has perserved that every CHurch must have recourse to the RC which contains Tradition which is preserved by all Church’s.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And actually Mike there is no difference between what they are today, and what they were yesterday, while I agree that it looked like abuses could have occured it was not usually that way. Not as a norm.

Like anything else in this world abuses always happen by the sin of man, but abuse could not be possible if it were done the way that Jesus taught. But unfortunately some Men can fall from Grace and ruin it for many.

But Luther as far as I can see never disagreed with indulgences, just the abuse of them, which no one is disputing.

Again, I think your understanding of indulgences is quite different. And here is why: Looking at the history of the time, if indulgences were as you say, correct me if I am wrong, the working out of a sin into your own physical suffering of your sin as to purge that sin from you, then how would it be possible and what would the efficacy really be of being able to purchase a piece of paper saying that your punishment is removed due to the Church’s storehouse of merits. Or even if there was no money in hand that the Church again would be able to “purge” your sin from your or someone dead through the Vatican’s bank of stored up merits. Luther did not bring up a beef with indulgences themselves, because he never was challenging the idea that the pope/papacy could lift or stay any punishment so assigned by the pope/papacy.

 

[JustaServant]

The RCC went after dissenters. It was married to the state of Rome. It had its monarch in the pope, its princes in the prelate, its legislative in ecumenical councils, a constitution in canon law, it went to war and negotiated treaties and collected taxes.

Documentation please.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The council of Trent was and still is about a lot of anathema against others. It was an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. This council denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone and grace alone. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians.

The CC was responsible for the Death of Jan Hus. The Diet of Worms made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence. There are many more stories like these.

In all fairness, the Diet of Worms was called by the Emperor and not the Church. However I could never see the HRE going against the papacy.

 

[campeador]

However I could never see the HRE going against the papacy.

I’m sorry my friend, but you’d be wrong… Sack of Rome (wiki link):

Emperor Charles V was greatly embarrassed and powerless to stop his troops, but (politically speaking) he was not displeased by the fact that they had struck decisively against Pope Clement VII and imprisoned him. In actuality, Charles was partially responsible for the sack of Rome, because he expressed his desire for a private audience with Pope Clement VII and his men took action into their own hands.

This marked the end of the Roman Renaissance, damaged the papacy’s prestige and freed Charles V’s hands to act against the Reformation in Germany and against the rebellious German princes allied with Luther. Nevertheless, Martin Luther commented: “Christ reigns in such a way that the Emperor who persecutes Luther for the Pope is forced to destroy the Pope for Luther” (LW 49:169).

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I’m sorry my friend, but you’d be wrong… Sack of Rome (wiki link):

Oops my bad. Well it just goes to show that Church and Governments make for strange bedfellows.

 

[rinnie]

I know a lot about luther. And there is only 1 reason in which I agree he took the books out. However its not the taking the books out that I agree with, its the problem he had with the catholic church. At the time, from what I have read and researched, one of the reasons is because the catholic church said that if you pay them, or give your money to the church, it can help god to forgive your sins.

I don’t agree with that, so I understand why he’d have a problem with that.
however I could be wrong, its just something I found out while researching. But I believe the bible in its whole, original form is what people should be reading. nothing added, nothing taken away.

One thing we must try to do is get our info, as accurate as we can. Now from what I have learned from the years of studying my faith, Luther did not take out the books.

But what Luther did was move them, which in turn he got his point acrossed that he did want them removed, but knew he had no authority to do so. But in honesty they were removed after Luther, But he did drive the bus we can say. Or planted the seed.

 

[rinnie]

What of the Orthodox? Are they not led by the Holy Spirit?

Please Mike, I thought we were trying to have a honest and intelligent discussion. Anyone or any faith that accepts God is led by the Holy Spirit. I don’t care who they are or what faith they are. If God is involved the H.S. in involved. There is no Father w/o the Son or H.S.

All faiths have much truth, and all faiths have God. But we are called to all come together into the fullness of the truth. That is what this is about. Not to sling mud on one another.

It is not about the Holy Spirit leading us to the truth, it is about who has the authority to teach the truth and explain it to us what the Holy Spirit is teaching.

ANd according to the scripture, it is the Church that Jesus build and made Peter the leader of. Which has been handed over to the Pope to guard, and make sure that we are understanding what the Holy Spirit means, and how the H.S. wants us to live. So we can all know the complete truth and live in complete lightness of God.

 

[JonNC]

One thing we must try to do is get our info, as accurate as we can. Now from what I have learned from the years of studying my faith, Luther did not take out the books.

But what Luther did was move them, which in turn he got his point acrossed that he did want them removed, but knew he had no authority to do so. But in honesty they were removed after Luther, But he did drive the bus we can say. Or planted the seed.

rinnie,
I very much appreciate this post, but if Luther drove this bus, the bus was built by Jerome, Eusebius, and others long before Luther came on the scene.

He did move them, rinnie, reflecting his concern, shared by many before him and during his time, that their canonicity was in dispute. Here is what Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, said about the D-C books:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. **For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. **Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

The very point should be that, until the Council of Trent, Catholics were permitted to question the D-C’s, as well as the antilegomena books of the NT. Luther, in all honesty, should be permitted the same discretion as Cajetan, Jerome, Eusebius, et al in this way.
The real criticism of American Lutherans, if one wants to criticize, is the acceptance of Protestant Bibles that exclude the D-C’s. That is one criticism we Lutherans should consider, and re-evaluate.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Campeador, we are in total agreement here.

Saint Augustine as a youth was praying for continence and an attractive woman walked by. He ended his prayer by adding the caveat, “but not just yet.”

The personal failings of any of the players in the drama of the Reformation may make for interesting reading, but they add nothing to the understanding of the events themselves. Let us admit to every sin and then get back to what is important in this discussion.

ESV: I John Chapter 1

[8] If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

For his part, Luther nearly wore out the patience of his confessor when he was a friar. He was only too aware of his sins.

Christ is First, I want to welcome you to this fellowship. We are all sinners here, trying to release the saints that are in us. Excuse our lower moments and look for the gold that emerges sometimes as nuggets, but often as dust that must be sifted.

The issue of Luther leaving the church has been explored in this thread. As I understand it, excommunication is not initiated by the person, but by a bishop, at minimum. As such, it cannot be terminated by the person, but by the bishop or some other member of the hierarchy. Luther had a lot of regrets about the course of the Reformation. If he had led it, it would not have gone the way it did, but events were beyond his or the Church’s control.

Now, after 12 pages of discussion. let us turn to the topic that began this thread. It is certainly not necessary for salvation to be Lutheran. Some of you, Dogknox in particular, seem to promote the idea that there is not salvation outside the Church. The question then becomes, is it sufficient to be Lutheran, in regard to salvation?

There are many reasons to cleave to one denomination. As some of you are cradle Catholics, I am a cradle Lutheran. There is the continuity of culture. My son-in-law, who is currently excommunicated because he married outside the church without prior permission, has said he likes the culture of the Catholic Church. Some few come to a particular denomination because of theological considerations (about 10% according to some polls I have read). For others it is as simple as the church being the closest to home, or offering children’s programs.

So, when you say “I could never be Lutheran,” how do you mean it? Does it mean that you would lose your salvation? Does it mean you are at home in the Catholic Church (or other denomination, since this is not necessarily a Lutheran-Catholic conversation)? What are the dimensions of this statement?

I guess I can answer this question honesty and by the way I appreciate your honesty and kindness, it shows in your reponse.

I do not think that I could lose my Salvation if I was brought up Lutheran, because like you said it is all I ever knew. But on the other hand if I was RC and changed I believe I could. Simply because God revealed to me through the RCC the Sacraments. ANd I would have to (what can I say here deny them maybe:shrug.

What we have to do is help one another, to show eachother why we feel what we feel, and why just because there were humans in the RCC that were not the best example for God at the time, still does not ever change the word of God that was taught.

This is the ONE thing that will keep me Roman Catholic, the rest of my life. Its really kinda simple.

Jesus promised Me ONE thing, he said that there will be people who will try to tear down his Church, and they will be wearing his clothing at times. ANd history has proved that it has and will always happen, But he said that no matter what MAN can do they will never over power the Holy Spirit. It will guide us in the truth until the end of time.

Now with that said, we have one thing as I said that we have a guarantee from God, that when it comes to teaching the Truth the RCC will always do it. The truth will come from the Pope and the Bishops, but it will be given to them From the Holy Spirit. So when we are taught scripture, Tradition we are promised by God that the Holy Spirit will guard the truth.

Now when we get down to it, what is important here, throwing mud at one another because my Pope did this, or my Bishop did that, or is knowing the truth to Gods words and being taught how to live them out what you are looking for.

Because at the end of MY TIME, when it is all said and done, Jesus is going to say to me, I don’t care what the Pope did, or the Bishop did, or the Priest did, lets talk about the truth that I promised you that would come through them, what did YOU DO with it??

Jesus is going to say did you accept my truth, as the Holy Spirit gave you, did you live it, did you do your best to help others to see it also?

I am not here to degrade Luther, or ever hurt anyone in the faith, I am just saying why I cannot accept his teachings. And doing my best to show how. But I pray I will never hurt anyone or insult them in trying to do so.

Bottom line we are God’s People guys, We have to be Christians first!! And it is also good to learn how our leaders in the RCC and other Church’s have failed to do what God asked of them. ANd how for many they did make good, but how it took their whole life to finally do so. Kinda like us would you not think!

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,
I very much appreciate this post, but if Luther drove this bus, the bus was built by Jerome, Eusebius, and others long before Luther came on the scene.

He did move them, rinnie, reflecting his concern, shared by many before him and during his time, that their canonicity was in dispute. Here is what Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, said about the D-C books:

The very point should be that, until the Council of Trent, Catholics were permitted to question the D-C’s, as well as the antilegomena books of the NT. Luther, in all honesty, should be permitted the same discretion as Cajetan, Jerome, Eusebius, et al in this way.
The real criticism of American Lutherans, if one wants to criticize, is the acceptance of Protestant Bibles that exclude the D-C’s. That is one criticism we Lutherans should consider, and re-evaluate.

Jon

I can see your point on that Jon, and agree with you on it also. But here is another point to consider, While I agree it was not until Trent, I am not sure that we were actually permitted to question them at all really though. Do you see what I am saying?

Let me say this another way, Where did we ever have the right to question the teaching’s of the Church? Put another way, did we have the right then, and do we have the right now. In my eyes No, to both.

Because in all honesty we either believe in the Holy Spirit leading the Church from the day of Pentecost until the present or we don’t. And if we don’t. As the Apostles once said to Jesus, Where do we go??

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;7255493]I can see your point on that Jon, and agree with you on it also. But here is another point to consider, While I agree it was not until Trent, I am not sure that we were actually permitted to question them at all really though. Do you see what I am saying?

The question then, rinnie, would be what ecumenical council (as opposed to local or regional) prior to Trent authoritatively set the canon, and if there was one before the Great Schism, why is (are) the Orthodox canon(s) different?
And further, why would a Cardinal, alive during the heat of the Reformation, state that the D-C’s were not of the canon?

Let me say this another way, Where did we ever have the right to question the teaching’s of the Church? Put another way, did we have the right then, and do we have the right now. In my eyes No, to both.

I would say that the canon was not dogmatically defined (for Catholics) prior to Trent, and therefore the freedom was there, and not contrary to the Church.

Because in all honesty we either believe in the Holy Spirit leading the Church from the day of Pentecost until the present or we don’t. And if we don’t. As the Apostles once said to Jesus, Where do we go?

And we both believe this: leading and guiding us back to the unity in the Church Militant that exists in the Church Triumphant.

Jon

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Thank God we now have separation of church and state.

… and Thomas Jefferson tells us why!

Remember Servetus!