How do Protestants feel about Martin Luther?

[Albion]

He's saying killing in defense of your family and country is okay. How the is that comparable to what Luther is saying?

If I take Athanasius' words and not yours, it is exactly what I said. The point is that we do not take super-literally every 'turn of phrase' that our best communicators and thinkers use, and we do know that they often are employing some verbal technique that's intended to direct us to a deeper meaning. If it dawns on you...great. If it goes over your head...that's unfortunate. If it dawns on you only when the speaker is a favorite of your own denomination...shame on you. But this isn't their fault.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What do you think of this joint celebration by Catholics and Lutherans of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and the progress of ecumenism since? You know, we are extremely close to having intercommunion.

I'm not so keen on the idea. Protestants can celebrate their 500 years. Christians should mourn those 500 years. Lots of blame to go all around, and to my mind almost nothing to celebrate.

Several years ago it was bandied about that the Catholic Church should recognize St. Luther. Happily that idea has been put to rest. I'd maybe support a St Hus, maybe. As for Luther, a somewhat miseducated monk with lots of personal family of origin baggage to contend with, who discovered a Catholic teaching and made a big stir about abuses in Germany. All to the good. But the poor guy unraveled in the end. God is merciful, but that doesn't make Luther an example of personal holiness to follow.

What I would like to see is a shakeout of Christianity so that those groups who are loyal to Christ can find incrementally more and more agreement, while those who have instead chosen the world will either confirm that trajectory or be called back to Christ. I don't have any illusions this will be possible. I think instead many will celebrate 2017, rah rah, and few will mourn.

 

[Albion]

I'm not so keen on the idea. Protestants can celebrate their 500 years. Christians should mourn those 500 years. Lots of blame to go all around, and to my mind almost nothing to celebrate.

Maybe we should describe the Roman Catholic Church as beginning with the accession of Pope Francis. That would be the proper comparison, as silly as all this kind of denominational one-upmanship is.

 

[Soyeong]

Show me where he lauds contrition, because as far as I can tell, he doesn't seem to regard it as important. In fact he seems to consider it outright harmful.

I didn't say anything about contrition, but from what I can tell, his view was that we can not know for sure whether we are contrite because that is a judgement of God, but our certainty is not in whether we are contrite, but in the promise of God. Can you cite where he considers contribution to be outright harmful? Unless you disagree with everything that he said, then you should be in agreement with some of the things he said, especially towards the earlier part of his life, but it should be clear from my post that I don't agree with everything he said. He started having health problems and became bitter towards the end of his life, which explains some of the bad things he said, but doesn't excuse them, however, it doesn't negate the good things that he said either.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Lutherans have female ordination and gay marriage (at least, the ones chummy with the Catholic Church do), I don't really see how intercommunion is close under those circumstances.

Some Lutherans. Others don't. Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans have nothing to do with the homosexual agenda and although I'm not absolutely sure I do think they only ordain men to their clergy. Lutherans 'as a whole' are too mixed a bag to make generalizations about.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Maybe we should describe the Roman Catholic Church as beginning with the accession of Pope Francis. That would be the proper comparison, as silly as all this kind of one-upmanship is.

Do what you want.

 

[Albion]

Lutherans have female ordination and gay marriage (at least, the ones chummy with the Catholic Church do), I don't really see how intercommunion is close under those circumstances.

That's right. These are the Lutherans that Rome is dealing with--the most liberal of the various Lutheran churches. But that is the way the Vatican seems always to work when it's trying to undermine some other communion. That is to say, cut deals with the largest group, not the one that is theologically the most sound or closest to the Catholic Church on doctrine.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Some Lutherans. Others don't. Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans have nothing to do with the homosexual agenda and although I'm not absolutely sure I do think they only ordain men to their clergy. Lutherans 'as a whole' are too mixed a bag to make generalizations about.

They're not the ones making progress with the RCC though. They didn't even sign that mutual agreement concerning Sola Fide, and in fact they still see the Catholic position on that as wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

They're not the ones making progress with the RCC though. They didn't even sign that mutual agreement concerning Sola Fide, and in fact they still see the Catholic position on that as wrong.

I don't see much 'progress' at all. I see it from the Lutheran side more as some old hangers on of the ecumenical movement who haven't realized that the Lutheran groups they belong to aren't the same groups they were 30 years ago. On the Catholic side they are more comfortable with those old hangers on folks even though the groups they belong to have made any reunion impossible.

There is a tiny proportion of Lutherans that it is worth the time for Catholic ecumenists to talk to. Not those in groups that have sold out to the world, for there is no real future in that, but those who have kept the faith. Some of those want nothing to do with Catholics (I think the Wisconsin Synod has kept all of their 'pope as antichrist' teachings) but a few who already call themselves Lutheran Catholics might be worth talking to. In the end maybe it boils down to forming a Lutheran Use like the Anglican Use, where some may go for it but most will not. With my interesting personal lineage maybe I'd fit there too.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think your put down of St Peters is a too clever reason to disparage something good, just for the true purpose of giving voice to prejudice, in this case your bias against the Catholic Church.

I don't see myself as being a knee-jerk anti-Catholic. I'm probably one of the more friendly non-Catholics than most on the forums. But the events that built St. Peter's are the very thing that started the Reformation.

Don't you mean when the LORD harasses you?

God never harasses.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't see myself as being a knee-jerk anti-Catholic. I'm probably one of the more friendly non-Catholics than most on the forums. But the events that built St. Peter's are the very thing that started the Reformation.

Hey, you could explain how you are 'Eastern' and 'Evangelical' and 'Catholic' all at the same time. I can bend my mind around maybe two at a time, but only for a few moments.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't see myself as being a knee-jerk anti-Catholic. I'm probably one of the more friendly non-Catholics than most on the forums. But the events that built St. Peter's are the very thing that started the Reformation.

Without the misbegotten sale of indulgences 'for the remission of sin' (An impossibility Tetzel nonetheless proclaimed ) in Germany that funded the new St. Peter's, Luther would have lacked that whole issue so central to the '95 Theses'. The old St. Peter's was a building in trouble but it didn't have to come down just yet. In that sense the new St. Peter's was a cause of the reformation. Mostly though was the overzealous and massively incorrect way of making money for the project in Germany. That was the real abuse that launched the reformation.

 

[Open Heart]

But the events that built St. Peter's are the very thing that started the Reformation.

The blatant selling of indulgences by Tetzel and others was absolutely scandalous upon the Church. THAT is part of the moral corruption that started the Reformation. You have to separate the building of St. Peters from where the money came from. There is everything right with building an inspirational work of architectural art that brings people into a state of transcendence where they can easily worship.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hey, you could explain how you are 'Eastern' and 'Evangelical' and 'Catholic' all at the same time. I can bend my mind around maybe two at a time, but only for a few moments.

I don't mean that to be taken too seriously. I'm an Orthodox catechumen (baptized Methodist) that goes to a Lutheran church (ELCA) and accepts the ministry of the pastor there. It's a very long story that I've talked about elsewhere. I just prayed for a church to go to and I found this one I am currently going to. And it just so happens the pastor is Greek-American and has a wall full of icons.

I put up with the sometimes banal liturgy and language in the prayers (the pietist hymns in particular make me roll my eyes), and the decidedly different emphases, but the sermons are good and when I receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, often times something happens to me I cannot explain except to say, I encounter God. Constantine wanted to know what contrition is like in a Lutheran context, there have been times I have almost cried during the service. Lutherans are just quiet and not very emotional people and don't often talk about spiritual experiences (though they do have them). But they are warm people and have good hearts.

An Episcopalian priest I talked to recently said, I'm basically just like Abraham, I am wandering but I am not lost. I try to stick with those words during times I doubt.

 

[civilwarbuff]

http://laphamsquarterly.org/intoxication/spite-devil

Follow your link, on the bottom right corner click "12 step program" then read......
You will understand why I don't bother to reply otherwise.....
Always check your sources......

 

[Cush]

Some Lutherans. Others don't. Missouri Synod Lutherans and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans have nothing to do with the homosexual agenda and although I'm not absolutely sure I do think they only ordain men to their clergy. Lutherans 'as a whole' are too mixed a bag to make generalizations about.

I agree. It is like us Presbyterians, the PCUSA is so liberal that it hasn't anything really in common with Presbyterians other than its form of church government. Some of the Lutherans I read from on this board make me want to vomit in my mouth.

There are some though that I respect, but if there is a criticism I have about the Lutheran denomination in general, it is that there isn't enough separation from the ceremonial aspects of Catholicism.

On Luther's beer quote, I love em. I'm a "wet" Presbyterian, and I can see in life those that cause another to stumble by their legalism, and turning a person to themselves for salvation.

God bless,
William

 

[FireDragon76]

Modern days Lutherans take sin seriously (probably the most seriously of any mainline church), but they aren't moralists or legalists. I don't know how to explain it better than that. Luther's quotes are very pastoral in nature and not something that you can just generalize from easily.

Since we are in a thread saturated with Orthodoxy, I thought I'd quote from some Dostoyevsky. I think this is very Lutheran:

“At the last Judgment Christ will say to us, “Come, you also! Come, drunkards! Come, weaklings! Come, children of shame!” And he will say to us: “Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well.” And the wise and prudent will say, “Lord, why do you welcome them?” And he will say: “If I welcome them, you wise men, if I welcome them, you prudent men, it is because not one of them has ever been judged worthy.” And he will stretch out his arms, and we will fall at his feet, and we will cry out sobbing, and then we will understand all, we will understand the Gospel of grace! Lord, your Kingdom come!”"

 

[mark kennedy]

It seems Protestants these days tend to have more of a Calvinist bent than a Lutheran one. So what's the general consensus on Martin Luther?

I've never thought much of his writing but nailing those 97 thesis to the door of the church was s watershed moment. He was largely overlooked until Luther's students printed, publish and then distributed then across Germany. Luther was trying to defend the doctrine of indulgences but ended up rediscovering justification by faith. Justification by faith goes back to the Jerusalem and is synonymous with the Gospel. What is distinctive is that early Protestants said, 'alone', Its never alone theologians will tell you, sanctification must follow. So its by Grace through faith alone which appears to be the same as being apart from works. Now sanctification must follow, we are saved unto good works in Christ which dovetails with Catholic and Protestant theology, so what is it about this guy that incited a movement that sparked the rise of not just religious thought but democracy and the scientific revolution would emerge in the wake.

Luther was challenging Rome with one core concept, so profound it permeates New Testament doctrine concerning ministry.

That concept is the priesthood of all believers.

Here are some quotes by him.

Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business.

Sound statement, it's long been recognized that the marriage covenant is roughly comparable to a business contract.

But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.

News to me I was not aware that Medieveal. wives we entitled to divorce if her current husband isn't doing it for her anymore.

Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly

This one reminds me of Judah andvTamay. On an wouldn't produce an heir but spilled his seed on the ground, he dies. His brother is supposed to produce a male heir but pulls an On an and he dies. Without a male heir she gets nothing so she dresses up with a veil which was the mark both of brides and prostitutes. Judah offered her a truckload of goodies for her favors and a male heir is the result. Judah would be chosen as the royal line over his two older brothers because of the incident at Shechem. This would also be the Messianic line, Tamar and Rehab of Jericho are named in the Messianic line in Matthew.

It a bit odd that he would say saved but I think what he is getting at is sometimes practicality can sometimes carry as much moral weight as even sexual purity.

I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.

The law did say not to multiply you wives as the heathern. do but Solomon literally had hundreds of wives. Late in the history of preexilic Judah the wicked queen Athalia killed all but one of the house of David. Its not by might, not by power and certainly not by procreative. vigor.

Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.

Clearly he is mistaken here to the point of heracy if not outright blasphemy. The Samaratan woman was a chance conversation that brought the Gospel to the Samaitans for the first time. The Apostles would not minister to them infill some eight years after the ascension but this incident happened very early in Jesus ministry. I suspect the beatitudes were delivered in the Kidron valley where Ezra read the Law nearly half a millions previously and from there Jesus would pass through Samarai. on the return trip to Nazareth.

Mary Magnalin is a bit of a puzzle, we don't know why she was chosen to be his handmaiden but she server him right up to the end and was the only no nonapostolic. follower to do so. She had a last name which was probably a title, we also know she had seven demons cast out of her. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest she was a prostitute except the time at Bethany where a woman at Bethany was his feet with her hair and tears. Her name was Mary to but it's unclear if it's the same Mary. There is absolutely no reason to think Jesus was involved with her sexually or that Jesus ever saw the woman caught in adultery again after that evening she was brought before him.

Luther is taking some liberties that sound a lot like licence here.

I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain al the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus.

I wonder how familiar he would have been with the eighth century prophet's; Isaiah, Micah, Hoses and Amos. One of God's complaints was the way the rich grind the poor, hoarding wealth at their expense. A complaint second only to idolatry. Not a great commentary on a man so profoundly influential in the rise of the Protestestant Reformation. If thus is how people thought back then I can certainly see why the need for reform was so urgent.

To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!

This view wold become increasingly problematic as. populations doubled and tripled around Europe after the discovery of the New world. At the diet of Worms the presiding Emperor Edwards was the grandson Archduke Ferdinand and Isabella who commissioned. Columbus and profited greatly from the venture. What I don't think they realized was that populations were drowning beyond the ability of the few to control the many.

Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.

I was reading in Genesis about the time following the draught prophecies by Joseph. When the drought came Pharoh bought the land for food and after the drought imposed a fifteen percent charge to return to their farmlands now owned outright by Pharoah. Over time Israel would be systematically enslaved until the Eqyptians were killing male infants. Its always been this way, there is nothing new under the sun.

If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee l name of Abraham.

Wow this guy is a real charmer. We like to think the last vintage of antisemitism was purged at Nuremberg. But even now ethnic Arabs call for Jewish blood from Pakistan. to Palestine. Luther's words can be refuted with four simple words as Pauline as justification by Grace through faith. There is no difference.

Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.

There might actually be some precedence for that just not much of a positive result. The taskmaster of Solomon was offered a kingdom like David , had he accepted his descendants would have control all of Israel excel Jerusalem. He decided he would rather set up a kissing camels idol. Some things just never change.

Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.

Moses was a levitical priest, being from the tribe of. Levi. I'm all in favor of disbanding professional priestcraft but I'm not sure Luther would have been so anxious to dismiss Moses if the implication was to dismiss professional clerics.

It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.

There is a story that once Luther got so frustrated. with the teaching of James two that he ripped it out of his Bible. The words faith without works is dead drove him up the wall. Given his attitude toward the poor its not suprising. In James two and first Corinthians eleven they are dealing with the same problem, how rich Christians treated their fellow believers who happened to be poor. Paul warn that some of you are I'll and some of you sleep.

If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies

Paul tells US in Romans seven the Law is holy righteous and good. The problem is within yourself not something inheritantly wrong with The Mosaic Law.

One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them

All theology is philosophical, he is leaving me to wonder what he is in favor of instead of opposed to.

It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.

He is right if those good works wrap around your ego and make you conceited.

Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.

I think he means the natural mind that cannot comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.

St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.[

/QUOTE]

Nor do I think they would want to.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ViaCrucis]

Starting around A.D. 250, with the intense persecutions under Emperor Decius, a gradual change began to take place as the bishops (pastors) of certain notable churches assumed a hierarchical authority over the churches in their regions (e.g., the church of Rome). While many churches surrendered themselves to this new structure, there were a substantial number of dissenting churches that refused to come under the growing authority of the bishops. These dissenting churches were first called “Puritans” (different from the English puritans) and are known to have had an influence as far as France in the 3rd century. As the organized (Catholic) church gradually adopted new practices and doctrines, the dissenting churches maintained their historical positions. The consistent testimony of the church for the first 400 years of its history was to administer baptism to only those who first made a profession of faith in Christ, with few dissensions. Starting in A.D. 401, with the fifth Council of Carthage, the churches under the rule of Rome made infant baptism official. With the advent of infant baptism, the separatist churches began re-baptizing those who made professions of faith after having been baptized in the official church. At this time, the Roman Empire encouraged their bishops to actively oppose the dissenting churches, and even passed laws condemning them to death. The re-baptizers became known as Anabaptists, though the churches in various regions of the empire were also known by other names, such as Novatianists, Donatists, Albigenses, and Waldenses depending on the movement. Some of these movements can be traced back far earlier than the Anabaptist movement, but became unified.

Small problem. None of that is true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't mean that to be taken too seriously. I'm an Orthodox catechumen (baptized Methodist) that goes to a Lutheran church (ELCA) and accepts the ministry of the pastor there. It's a very long story that I've talked about elsewhere. I just prayed for a church to go to and I found this one I am currently going to. And it just so happens the pastor is Greek-American and has a wall full of icons.

Wow. A mouthful. Not sure how Orthodox catechumen coexists with the Lutheran. Thanks for sharing.

Lutherans are just quiet and not very emotional people and don't often talk about spiritual experiences (though they do have them). But they are warm people and have good hearts.

Some of that is a Scandinavian thing, some a Lutheran thing, and some cannot be separated. Half of my heritage is Danish. So I know how that goes. Maybe not exactly the same as a Swede or Norwegian but well enough. Or would your Lutherans be German?