How do Protestants feel about Martin Luther?

The Hammer of Witches said:

The concept of an "Anabaptist" started when the Catholic Church began the practice of infant baptism. They would re-baptize people, earning them that name.

Click to expand...

Um. The recorded practice of baptizing infants, goes back no later than the 2nd century. The Anabaptists didn't exist until the 16th century.

That's a disparity of at least 1400 years.

-CryptoLutheran

Job8 said:

The *Lutheran* doctrine of Justification cannot be any different than the Bible doctrine. There is nothing in my comments that amounts to ridicule, which means that you have Lutheran chip on your shoulder.

It is a historical fact that instead of Martin Luther accepting the biblical doctrine of water baptism as taught by Anabaptists and Baptists, he persecuted them and killed them. Which shows that Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic who was not willing to go all the way back to Bible Christianity.

Click to expand...

Or.... that Baptists and Anabaptists are just mistaken.

rockytopva said:

I have often wondered if the roots of the holocaust were not planted by Martin Luther himself. He did write a book called, "The Jews and their lies." And John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake. Both men are going to answer in judgement for their deeds.

Click to expand...

also Zwingli tried to starve Swiss several cities to death
luckily he was killed in battle before his evil plans could come to fruition

grandvizier1006 said:

but if it weren't for them I don't know if the West would be more willing to be religiously pluralistic today.

Click to expand...

you say that like its a good thing
yeah, rampant secularism and existential crises are good things?

ViaCrucis said:

Um. The recorded practice of baptizing infants, goes back no later than the 2nd century. The Anabaptists didn't exist until the 16th century.

That's a disparity of at least 1400 years.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

infant baptism is accepted among every historic form of Christianity
people really do not like hearing that their beliefs were made up only a little over 400 years ago

If I can trace the lineage of my faith...

1. The Lord Jesus
2. The Apostle Paul
3. John Wycliffe
4. Martin Luther
5. John Bunyan
6. John Wesley
7. William Seymour

I cannot remove Martin Luther from this list, especially as Wesley had benefited from his teachings...

"In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." - The Journal of John Wesley

On the life of Martin Luther and of John Calvin I find that these men had suffered health problems. And that these health problems made them irritable men...

Luther had been suffering from ill health for years, including Ménière's disease, vertigo, fainting, tinnitus, anginaand a cataract in one eye. From 1531 to 1546, his health deteriorated further. The years of struggle with Rome, the antagonisms with and among his fellow reformers, and the scandal which ensued from the bigamy of the Philip of Hesse incident, in which Luther had played a leading role, all may have contributed. In 1536, he began to suffer from kidney and bladder stones, and arthritis, and an ear infection ruptured an ear drum. His poor physical health made him short-tempered and even harsher in his writings and comments. His wife Katharina was overheard saying, "Dear husband, you are too rude," and he responded, "They are teaching me to be rude."

His last sermon was delivered at Eisleben, his place of birth, on 15 February 1546, three days before his death. It was "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory," according to Léon Poliakov. James Mackinnon writes that it concluded with a "fiery summons to drive the Jews bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians." Luther said, "we want to practice Christian love toward them and pray that they convert," but also that they are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do." - Wikipedia

In my perspective Martin Luther was a great reformer and did great early on. I could not follow this man in his latter years, as in the words of his own wife, he had become much too rude.

Rhamiel said:

people really do not like hearing that their beliefs were made up only a little over 400 years ago

Click to expand...

No more than others like to hear that they have been lied to for 1900 years.....so lets not get a flame war started here; we have managed to avoid one up to this point.

AV1611VET said:

Many people tried to reform the Catholic Church from within and paid for it with their lives.

Martin Luther had a different idea.

He would reform the church from without.

So he left the church and started a "breakaway religion" that came to be called Lutheranism.

His adherence to infant baptism however led to the deaths of many Anabaptists, as Martin Luther persecuted them with the same vengeance as the Catholics did.

Source: The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll

Click to expand...

This is completely wrong, sorry. Luther's intent at the outset (Augsburg Confession) was to work within the Catholic Chruch, his Church. The change happened with his excommunication by the Pope and declaration of his outlawry by the Catholic secular ruling authority.

AV1611VET said:

Not that I know of.

But that disciple of Satan, along with Wesley and Calvin, exposed their whereabouts and let others do their dirty work.

Click to expand...

Interesting that despite their differences, Luther considered Karlstadt a friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Karlstadt

ViaCrucis said:

Um. The recorded practice of baptizing infants, goes back no later than the 2nd century. The Anabaptists didn't exist until the 16th century.

That's a disparity of at least 1400 years.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Took them that long to fall into heterodoxy.

Rhamiel said:

also Zwingli tried to starve Swiss several cities to death
luckily he was killed in battle before his evil plans could come to fruition




you say that like its a good thing
yeah, rampant secularism and existential crises are good things?


infant baptism is accepted among every historic form of Christianity
people really do not like hearing that their beliefs were made up only a little over 400 years ago

Click to expand...

Let's not forget one of Zwingli's later followers; the "saintly" John Knox.

Everyone can throw stones at everyone else, but it is always counterproductive.

If I am going to follow a man I am going to absorb myself in his teachings and make a judgement. If a mans faith causes him to end up in the mulligrubs, I will in most cases avoid the guy.

mulligrubs [muhl-i-gruhbz] noun, ( used with a singular or plural verb) Southern U.S.
1. ill temper; colic; grumpiness.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

This is completely wrong, sorry. Luther's intent at the outset (Augsburg Confession) was to work within the Catholic Chruch, his Church. The change happened with his excommunication by the Pope and declaration of his outlawry by the Catholic secular ruling authority.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the info.

I'm a little rusty on the details, as I haven't read that book for some time.

I'll have to brush up on it!

So shall we condemn a man for seeking a deeper relationship with his Maker despite his shortcomings? Luther's intentions were to find a deeper relationship with God that's why he questioned IC and the fact that still to-date IC is still a sound doctrine to RCC then we need to know what was wrong with his view of the Trinity. He loved Christ and admonished him (from his writings) and he spoke in favor of the God-head more than everything else. So to him, he wanted the CC to consider their heart convictions, he just wanted CC to remove everything else (saints, icons, statues etc) and focus on the Great I AM. He may have failed in conveying the message like that but from the look of things we still suffer the same judgement as he did, "the outcasts" SO BE IT!!!

CodyFaith said:

People gotta use common sense with these things imo.

Click to expand...

True. Usually when the new assumed "facts" or "quotes" appear from somewhere, take them with a pinch of salt. Rewriting history is not strange to history itself either, and people knew propaganda and fact twisting even back then. History is not all facts - in fact, it's a story retold by the people in the past.

Take medieval era, for example. As being a heavily Christian era, it fitted poorly to revolutional 18th Century, and so it made sense to them to cast the Middle Ages in a negative light to push what they considered as progress. Same thing continued in the 19th Century still.

I'm not saying that Middle Ages were utterly romantic and perfect. But when claims like bathing few times a year come to play, it sounds a bit incredible - one might think that the pure natural instinct of all living beings would make one do it far, far more often. The time wasn't utterly romantic, but neither I believe that it was down right awful.

So there is a chance that Luther would have had a few false quotes made for him as well for the sake of propaganda. Who knows how many things the father of lies has touched.

I was raised as a Lutheran actually, but I knew very little about the man himself, except that he was a bold reformist. Lutherans aren't meant to worship him as a saint either. We are simply encouraged to research the Bible on our own. Trying to embrace the biblical truth, whatever it may be.

As for the moment, I am looking for my denomination in a way, and the dialogue between them interesting. That's why I registered here in the first place.

The Lutherans have been seeking dialogue with the people they have persecuted in the past. Which is the right thing to do! I have no bones against Lutheran doctrine, but we must never condone mean spirits!

Mennonite World Conference President Danisa Ndlovu of Zimbabwe presents Lutheran World Fellowship President Bishop Mark S. Hanson with a wooden foot-washing tub to represent Mennonites' commitment to a future “when the distinguishing mark of Lutheran and Anabaptist-Mennonite relationships is boundless love and unfailing service” in Stuttgart, Germany...



This was the right thing to do and I take my hat off to Bishop Mark S Hanson for doing such a brave thing!

Anna the Seeker said:

True. Usually when the new assumed "facts" or "quotes" appear from somewhere, take them with a pinch of salt. Rewriting history is not strange to history itself either, and people knew propaganda and fact twisting even back then. History is not all facts - in fact, it's a story retold by the people in the past.

Take medieval era, for example. As being a heavily Christian era, it fitted poorly to revolutional 18th Century, and so it made sense to them to cast the Middle Ages in a negative light to push what they considered as progress. Same thing continued in the 19th Century still.

I'm not saying that Middle Ages were utterly romantic and perfect. But when claims like bathing few times a year come to play, it sounds a bit incredible - one might think that the pure natural instinct of all living beings would make one do it far, far more often. It's not utterly romantic, but neither I believe that it was down right awful.

So there is a chance that Luther would have had a few false quotes made for him as well for the sake of propaganda. Who knows how many things the father of lies has touched.

I was raised as a Lutheran actually, but I knew very little about the man himself, except that he was a bold reformist. Lutherans aren't meant to worship him as a saint either. We are simply encouraged to research the Bible on our own.

Click to expand...

Who has any right to condemn or justify anything when we didn't live in those times? We cannot judge them for their lack of "our greater knowledge" through modern perspectives.

tickingclocker said:

Who has any right to condemn or justify anything when we didn't live in those times? We cannot judge them for their lack of "our greater knowledge" through modern perspectives.

Click to expand...

They too had knowledge that we may need again - modern era has the ignorance of it's own.

FireDragon76 said:

The preaching at church is more of an evangelical catholic type, but the worship is basically liturgical Methodism with some catholic elements. It's hard to convince Lutherans that worship needs more dignity because it's very much a secondary issue in Lutheran confessions and because of the quietistic tendency in Lutheran tehology, so American Lutheran worship tends to blend with the wider mainline evangelical religious culture. Plain, ugly churches and banal hymns and liturgy focused somewhat on humanistic "felt needs". The Episcopal Church does worship much better.

Click to expand...

As someone baptized as Lutheran when I was a baby, I must agree that our worship seems to miss something with plain churches and dry liturgies. I'm not entirely spiritually satisfied... and what is wrong with the greater practice of art for spiritual purpose? As long as one doesn't mistake to worship the art itself.

I actually consider Lutheran church as quite "invisible" in a way. If the passers by didn't know any better, they could think that we might be Atheists.

Constantine the Sinner said:

Yeah, Greek art and architecture have zero influence on later art and architecture.

Click to expand...

Plenty of other examples that were not used in idol worship

ViaCrucis said:

Um. The recorded practice of baptizing infants, goes back no later than the 2nd century. The Anabaptists didn't exist until the 16th century.

That's a disparity of at least 1400 years.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

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.

Rhamiel said:

also Zwingli tried to starve Swiss several cities to death
luckily he was killed in battle before his evil plans could come to fruition




you say that like its a good thing
yeah, rampant secularism and existential crises are good things?


infant baptism is accepted among every historic form of Christianity
people really do not like hearing that their beliefs were made up only a little over 400 years ago

Click to expand...

It is, when you think about it. The split from the Catholic Church led to various Protestant groups seeking the freedom to worship as they chose, which the Catholic Church had not provided because it saw itself as the one true church (despite the Orthodox also being around). The conflicts following the Reformation led most countries in Europe to grant religious freedom to their people. England is the most prominent example. The U.S. was very often a refuge for Christian minority groups as well. Had there been no Reformation and the Catholic Church had stayed monolithic for more centuries I doubt that Western society would have ever valued religious freedom today. It might not have even been in the Constitution at all. Out of conflict came understanding--I actually posted about this in anothe thread where some liberals were ranting about the "religious right".

Rampant secularism is, unfortunately, an accidental byproduct of things like the "priesthood of all believers". I think people took that to mean something it doesn't and eventually people decided to abandon Christianity altogether. But think about it: were people not doing the same before Martin Luther? And weren't many other people pretending to be Catholic that believed they could do whatever they want, no matter how sinful, as long as they had been given the sacraments? The only difference was that after the Reformation and into the Enlightenment many people were more open about it like they are today. I think that even when you omit specific historical events, the end product is similar, if not the exact same. I think it has to do with human nature.

Disenchantment is a common problem in many western Christian traditions. Faith is bifurcated into something either overly intellectual or overly sentimental. It comes from the new sense of self that slowly emerged from the Renaissance, and especially in the Enlightenment. Even Luther was dealing with it in his day, the homo incurvatus in se, the private, guarded self. People in the middle ages and even today in non-western cultures have a different view of the self, a more interrelated sense of self. If the self is only what happens inwardly, then of course religious art, rites, rituals, etc. have little meaning. I think that is partly what Luther was struggling with - new ideas about the self and the human will were shaking up the academic side of Christendom and making the Gospel murky.

But today the sense of self has changed yet again, you see this especially in unchurched young people. Now instead of culture driven by a profound sense of guilt, we have a fame/shame dynamic culture in the west. So I'm not sure the Lutheran/Reformed message is as directly relevant without a lot of contextualization.