Doctrines of the so-called schismatic/heretic Martin Luther

[BobRyan]

I myself think that Martin Luther had some good ideas - but in the dark ages he was viewed as a schismatic and a heretic by the supposedly "infallible" sources in power during those dark ages.

Today some of his ideas are still held to be heretical/unchristian/unorthodox according to some folks (even on this very board)

Here is a quote from wikipedia on Martin Luther (not sure it will be tolerated on GT).

" During the Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther was among notable advocates of conditional immortality, which prompted the French reformer John Calvin to criticize him for embracing the doctrine of "soul sleep."

Christian conditionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R.C. Sproul has stated that he himself accepts the "Gramatico Historical" method of interpreting the Bible - and so also (he claims) did Martin Luther.

So not everyone has declared Luther's views to be heretical and schismatic -- though I don't think that Sproul also agrees with Luther on either the point of "soul sleep" OR the point of "conditional immortality" as mentioned in the wikipedia article above.

This thread will focus on the doctrines of Luther ( "the heretic" as some apparently prefer to think of him.)

Is it not surprising that there are still those within the Christian church that will think of the doctrine of Luther as heretical or schismatic or shall we say "unorthodox"??

I myself do not agree with Luther on all points of his doctrine - but to refuse to tolerate them or to declare them to be outside of the domain of the Christian religion?? That is a step I am not prepared to take.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Another difference between Calvin and Luther - where Luther gets the doctrine right and Calvin misses the boat is "Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

To oppose Martin Luther's doctrine in the OP some are appeal to "the witch" of the OT who was asked by king Saul to "conjure up for me whomever I shall name" and was asked to do it "by thy familiar spirit" (ie demons).

King Saul's idea was to appeal to the power of the witch, the demons working with the witch -- to gain power over the dead saints (Samuel in this case) and bring them up "on command". And then his choice was to trust in the words of the witch once she claimed to do the deed requested.

By Contrast - God claims the devil is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44.

And so in Isaiah 8:19-20 God condemns consulting the dead on behalf of the living.

So then who to trust - God? Witches???

Martin Luther seems to have chosen to trust God on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ViaCrucis]

"The Dark Ages" were long over when Martin Luther was a twinkle in Hans Luther's eye.

If the term "Dark Ages" is going to be used at all--and I believe the term has far outlived any usefulness, as the period so described is no longer dark to the inquiry and prying of the historian; at least use it properly as historians did in the past to describe that period of the middle ages between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance.

But seeing as we know what was going on in Western Europe in that period, and can quite adequately describe the events and people of that period, the period is no longer "dark", and thus "dark ages" is no longer an appropriate term.

Though, of course, you're appropriating "dark ages" to mean something completely different than what historians have meant, re-interpreting it to refer to some sort of "age of ignorance" or "age of wickedness" or some such nonsense.

Now if you want to talk about the Greek Dark Ages, the period between the Dorian Invasion and the time of Homer, that's still a valid term.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rhamiel]

To oppose Martin Luther's doctrine in the OP some are appeal to "the witch" of the OT who was asked by king Saul to "conjure up for me whomever I shall name" and was asked to do it "by thy familiar spirit" (ie demons).

King Saul's idea was to appeal to the power of the witch, the demons working with the witch -- to gain power over the dead saints (Samuel in this case) and bring them up "on command". And then his choice was to trust in the words of the witch once she claimed to do the deed requested.

By Contrast - God claims the devil is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44.

And so in Isaiah 8:19-20 God condemns consulting the dead on behalf of the living.

So then who to trust - God? Witches???

Martin Luther seems to have chosen to trust God on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

I was not thinking of witches.... I was thinking of Moses seeming very much awake next to our Lord and Elijah

 

[JacobLaw]

Another difference between Calvin and Luther - where Luther gets the doctrine right and Calvin misses the boat is "Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity"

in Christ,

Bob

Interesting; good points, I think so much dogma that really is lacking biblical support is still being cut by the sharp and two edged sword.

 

[BobRyan]

I was not thinking of witches.... I was thinking of Moses seeming very much awake next to our Lord and Elijah

Indeed Moses is in bodily form in Matt 17 just as is Christ and Elijah. Not a bit of difference.

Gives us reason to believe that Jude's reference to the book "The Assumption of Moses" is probably correct.

Which would support Luther's teaching in the OP about the soul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ViaCrucis]

RE: Luther and "soul sleep" is a far more complicated issue.

If one looks at Luther's own statements and we ask if he believed in "soul sleep", our answer is basically, "Kind of?"

Here's a treatment of that very subject -- Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther’s Understanding of “Soul Sleep” (Part Three)

Basically Luther refuses to be dogmatic about the present state of the dead, at times speaking of the souls of the dead as asleep, and at other times as feeling/awake. He basically just doesn't want to entertain too much speculation on the subject and so never speaks terribly dogmatic about it.

Employing Luther into the array of pro-soul sleep figures is somewhat tenuous at best. Yes he kind of believed in it--sorta--but he's hardly a smoking gun in the Adventist's arsenal.

From a specifically Lutheran perspective I'd argue that Luther's personal opinions either way are ultimately little more than interesting trivia. Luther isn't some prophet-founder of Lutheranism. Luther also believed the earth was the center of the universe, and had some of the most disgusting words ever uttered against the Jewish people. We would do right to not only disagree with Luther here, but we ought to wholeheartedly rebuke Luther here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[branchofthevine]

You can find an anthology of Luther's works called "What Luther says" and under "death" he writes "We Christians, however, who have been redeemed through the precious blood of God's Son should by practice become accustomed in faith to despise death and to look upon it as a deep, sound, sweet sleep, to consider the coffin as nothing but our Lord Jesus' bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing but a soft bed of ease and rest. And indeed, this is just what it is before God; for He says 'Our friend Lazarus sleepeth' [John 11:11], 'The maid is not dead, but sleepeth' [Matt 9:24]"

However, I don't think it is correct to shove Luther's thought into this box and say "aha, this nicely kept doctrine is what he believes"

Here are some more quotes of Luther on death

"We do say: There is a difference between going to sleep and dying, but for Christians, there is in truth, no difference"

"The Fathers called churchyards coemeteria (cemeteries) that is, places in which one sleeps, sleeping quarters, where Christians are buried, and I wish they were still so called. So Isaiah says: 'they shall rest in their beds (57:2). To them the grave is not a tomb, but as it were, a bed in which they sleep until the time comes when they are to be awakened. (Isaiah 26:19)"

"Churchyards are called bedrooms and beds. These places of burial are held in peculiar honor and are called sleeping places (cemeteries). These names are a very fine testimony, whereby we confess by the manner of burying the dead that they will surely rise on Judgment Day. For the name of the burial place indicates that we carry the dead out in order to put them into the earth as into a bed of downy feathers. Moreover, the Holy Spirit calls dying and being buried lying down to sleep. For Christ says of Jairus' daughter, who had died 'give place, for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth," and He says to her: "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise" (Mark 5:41), that is, wake up, and promptly the damsel arose, just as if she have been lying in a deep sleep. How could we be willing, without this comfort, to look forward to so much adversity in this world? For Christians then, the churchyard is to be a sleeping place, for so God Himself calls it. The entire Holy Scripture, the Patriarchs, the prophets, and the entire Christian Church so call it"

"Since death is called a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but we shall awake and live again, and the time during which we sleep cannot be long. It will seem as if we had just dropped off, so that we shall rebuke ourselves for having been appalled and frightened at so fine a sleep in the hour of death. And so from grave and corruption we shall in a moment go to meet our Lord and Savor Christ in the clouds. We shall be alive, entirely sound and vigorous, with a clean, bright, transfigured body. We should, therefore, with all confidence and joy commit and commend our soul, body, and life to Christ, as to our faithful Savior and Redeemer, even as we must without all care, commit our life to Him in bodily sleep and rest, certain that we shall not lose it, as it seems, but kept safely and well in His hand, it will be sustained and restored to us."

Perhaps it is better to investigate his position more closely and decide for yourself what he means.

 

[Albion]

"The Dark Ages" were long over when Martin Luther was a twinkle in Hans Luther's eye.

Very true, and I also appreciate your comments about Luther and doctrine--

1. He is often cited as a proponent of this or that belief, when in reality he was in the process of assessing some belief, and

2. He is not the guru or Pope figure for any denomination. To Luther, the word of God was paramount, not the opinion of any mortal, himself included.

 

[BobRyan]

You can find an anthology of Luther's works called "What Luther says" and under "death" he writes "We Christians, however, who have been redeemed through the precious blood of God's Son should by practice become accustomed in faith to despise death and to look upon it as a deep, sound, sweet sleep, to consider the coffin as nothing but our Lord Jesus' bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing but a soft bed of ease and rest. And indeed, this is just what it is before God; for He says 'Our friend Lazarus sleepeth' [John 11:11], 'The maid is not dead, but sleepeth' [Matt 9:24]"

However, I don't think it is correct to shove Luther's thought into this box and say "aha, this nicely kept doctrine is what he believes"

Here are some more quotes of Luther on death

"We do say: There is a difference between going to sleep and dying, but for Christians, there is in truth, no difference"

"The Fathers called churchyards coemeteria (cemeteries) that is, places in which one sleeps, sleeping quarters, where Christians are buried, and I wish they were still so called. So Isaiah says: 'they shall rest in their beds (57:2). To them the grave is not a tomb, but as it were, a bed in which they sleep until the time comes when they are to be awakened. (Isaiah 26:19)"

"Churchyards are called bedrooms and beds. These places of burial are held in peculiar honor and are called sleeping places (cemeteries). These names are a very fine testimony, whereby we confess by the manner of burying the dead that they will surely rise on Judgment Day. For the name of the burial place indicates that we carry the dead out in order to put them into the earth as into a bed of downy feathers. Moreover, the Holy Spirit calls dying and being buried lying down to sleep. For Christ says of Jairus' daughter, who had died 'give place, for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth," and He says to her: "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise" (Mark 5:41), that is, wake up, and promptly the damsel arose, just as if she have been lying in a deep sleep. How could we be willing, without this comfort, to look forward to so much adversity in this world? For Christians then, the churchyard is to be a sleeping place, for so God Himself calls it. The entire Holy Scripture, the Patriarchs, the prophets, and the entire Christian Church so call it"

"Since death is called a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but we shall awake and live again, and the time during which we sleep cannot be long. It will seem as if we had just dropped off, so that we shall rebuke ourselves for having been appalled and frightened at so fine a sleep in the hour of death. And so from grave and corruption we shall in a moment go to meet our Lord and Savor Christ in the clouds. We shall be alive, entirely sound and vigorous, with a clean, bright, transfigured body. We should, therefore, with all confidence and joy commit and commend our soul, body, and life to Christ, as to our faithful Savior and Redeemer, even as we must without all care, commit our life to Him in bodily sleep and rest, certain that we shall not lose it, as it seems, but kept safely and well in His hand, it will be sustained and restored to us."

Perhaps it is better to investigate his position more closely and decide for yourself what he means.

Excellent reference. But how "instructive" that such doctrines from Martin Luther would be banned by Protestants in certain situations. Catholic viewers must find that incredibly ironic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Employing Luther into the array of pro-soul sleep figures is somewhat tenuous at best. Yes he kind of believed in it--sorta--but he's hardly a smoking gun in the Adventist's arsenal.

From a specifically Lutheran perspective I'd argue that Luther's personal opinions either way are ultimately little more than interesting trivia. Luther isn't some prophet-founder of Lutheranism. Luther also believed the earth was the center of the universe,
-CryptoLutheran

The point about Luther is to argue that Protestants should at least hear what he had to say rather than banning his doctrine as if it were the same unchristian heresy that the Catholic church labeled it.

So while as I stated that I too do not agree with everything Luther wrote - I would not ban his doctrine as not in realm of Christian beliefs. No sense in going after Luther the way the Catholics did in the dark ages.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

Excellent reference. But how "instructive" that such doctrines from Martin Luther would be banned by Protestants in certain situations. Catholic viewers must find that incredibly ironic.

in Christ,

Bob

I suppose some Catholics do that, but you're apparently still thinking that 'if Luther thought about it,' it must be Protestant doctrine. That's just not right. It's not even the doctrine of any Lutheran church I know. And this isn't the only example of Luther weighing a number of interpretations of Scripture and their implications before reaching his final position.

 

[BobRyan]

I stated before that I differ with Luther on some things - for example I don't think the 4th commandment can be bent/edited to point to week-day-1 instead of the 7th day as God stated it.

However I cannot then claim that this difference of view is outside the realm of Christian discussion or debate and that Luther's view should not be "tolerated".

Frankly if prayers to the dead, confecting the body of Christ, purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, worship using images, Mary as sinless like Christ - co-mediatrix, queen of heaven etc are all within the realm of Christian tolerated debate - then so also are Luther's doctrines even though I may differ with some of them.

You appear to argue that I am claiming that to "tolerate" the discussion of the doctrine means one "must agree with Luther". I don't know why you are going there.

That Protestants would join with Catholics in banning Luther's doctrines - seems to be without "excuse".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

All right. I'm willing to admit that the whole issue hasn't jelled for me. You're apparently trying to make a distinction between "wrong" and "wrong but tolerated," however I just don't get it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The point about Luther is to argue that Protestants should at least hear what he had to say rather than banning his doctrine as if it were the same unchristian heresy that the Catholic church labeled it.

So while as I stated that I too do not agree with everything Luther wrote - I would not ban his doctrine as not in realm of Christian beliefs. No sense in going after Luther the way the Catholics did in the dark ages.

in Christ,

Bob

So basically you want to change the rules of the Christians only sections, and you're using a thread in GT in order to make your point.

Not that I even necessarily disagree with your point. But is this really the place to push your agenda?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Here's an idea: How about only Lutherans can take up a pro-soul sleep and only Ethiopian Orthodox can take of a pro-Sabbath position, but not SDAs? I'd be on board with that.

 

[BobRyan]

So basically you want to change the rules of the Christians only sections,

I don't think it is against the GT section to agree to not toss Luther out the window even though I differ with him on one or two points.

My claim is that even though I do have differences with him - I "tolerate them" as within the realm of Christian discussion.

Those who wish to be intolerant of the idea of all of Luther's doctrine being discussed simply because they differ with him on a certain point - may feel free to do so as often as they wish.

Everyone has free will. I have listed an example where I differ with Luther but difference is not the same as declaring him to be a heretic and schismatic when I differ with Luther.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

All right. I'm willing to admit that the whole issue hasn't jelled for me. You're apparently trying to make a distinction between "wrong" and "wrong but tolerated," however I just don't get it.

I think "difference of opinion" is the "Accepted norm" on GT.

I doubt that statement is possible to refute.

I see a number of different doctrines affirmed by Luther and listed on this thread where I differ with Luther in some cases but not others.

I am not throwing him under a bus simply because I differ with him on some doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Albion]

I think "difference of opinion" is the "Accepted norm" on GT.

I doubt that statement is possible to refute.

I see a number of different doctrines affirmed by Luther and listed on this thread where I differ with Luther in some cases but not others.

I am not throwing him under a bus simply because I differ with him on some doctrines.

So what is the point of this thread then? -- that we all agree with some of what Luther said and disagree with some of it?

All right. Consider it done.