LDS Martin Luther Restored The Church

When Luther translated the Bible he didn't need a rock in a hat. He actually knew the languages. Smith did not.

Well like Joseph Smith he started a new Church.

Solomon Smith said:

Joseph Smith was never needed. Martin Luther reformed and restored the Church back to New Testament Christianity.

Click to expand...

I think even a cursory reading of Luther's Bondage of the Will can show how far we drifted from our moorings these days.

Solomon Smith said:

Joseph Smith was never needed. Martin Luther reformed and restored the Church back to New Testament Christianity.

Click to expand...

As a Lutheran you should know better. Luther didn't restore the Church, since the Church did not need restoring.

-CryptoLutheran

Solomon Smith said:

What do you mean? That was Luther’s purpose right? To reform and restore the Church back to its original form?

Click to expand...

Reform, yes; restore, no. The Church didn't need to be restored because the Church was never lost. Luther and co. sought to bring reform to the Church by the correction of abuses. As we confess in the Augsburg Confession,

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - AC, Article XXI, 5-15

-CryptoLutheran

My church is true. No, mine is! I said it first.

2 Timothy 2
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

John 10
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Solomon Smith said:

Apples and Oranges. If he reformed the Church then he restored it.

Click to expand...

Then Christ our God is a liar when He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against His holy Church. And we are liars when we confess in the Creed our faith in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Solomon Smith said:

Joseph Smith was never needed. Martin Luther reformed and restored the Church back to New Testament Christianity.

Click to expand...

He might have reformed the church in the west but the NT Church in Orthodoxy has always been there...

Solomon Smith said:

I personally believe Luther restored the Church.

Click to expand...

Restored to what...?

I normally post at another site, but permit me to chime in once and go away, lol....

Some reality....

1. The "break" between the RCC and Luther was complex. In the beginning, Luther was a dedicated and faithful Catholic monk and professor, a "Doctor of the Church." One of the responsibilities that went with that was to note false teaching and report it. Luther personally heard Indulgence Sellers boldly proclaiming that self saves self by the works self does - buying indulgences being among these. Luther (correctly) noted this violated Catholic teaching (including the Council of Orange). Now, admittedly, all this was ill-defined at the time but Luther was on solid ground and fully expected to be thanked for pointing out this error. And he did so property and respectfully. He was STUNNED by what followed... an ever growing response to denounce Luther and support the error of the Indulgence Sellers. SOME credit all this to the profound theological ignorance of the day, others to pure economics (the RCC badly needed the money), others to politics between German, Italian and Spanish forces within the Holy Roman Empire, but in any case, it stunned Luther. Luther was accused of being a Hussite and.... well.... things QUICKLY became very polemic on ALL sides.

2. From 1517 to 1521, I think a solid case can be made that Luther esteemed the RCC and simply wanted to REFORM some pactices and CLARIFY some teachings (Luther holding that the RCC had actually drifted away or "muddied" things). He was hardly alone in any of this! Luther becomes such a "power" for one and only one reason: He was saying what MANY believed, he became the spokesman for a GREAT many. Even Erasmus joined in thing "Preach it, Marty" crowd. It is during this period that I think the "restore" goal has some legit basis. Luther is often polite and respectful and working through the channels of the denomination... but this declines almost with each month as Luther becomes convinced the RC is in deep trouble and that God was using him to correct.

3. 1521. It is not fully accurate to say that Luther "left" the RCC or that Luther decided to form another church. By 1521, BOTH sides had become very polemic. All this was made worse by the politics of the day and no doubt by a strong nationalism arising in Europe. But Luther did NOT resign, Luther did not LEAVE, Luther did not call for the excommunication of the Pope (or any Catholic). It was the RCC that excommunicated Luther (and by extension, any who "sided" with him). There's an important distinction between being kicked out and leaving, lol. But I'll admit, the "break" largely already existed - I would argue the "fault" of the RCC but Luther certainly replied in kind (Including burning the "bull" that condemned him). After that, Luther had no hope of reconciliation and clearly that was the last thing the RCC wanted. What had happened in 451 and 1054 (two earlier and larger "breaks" in the denomination), had happened again. Princes and kings (in the age of "the religion of the prince is the religion of the people") often embraced Lutheranism - often for a combination of religious, political and economic reasons - so there were soon a number of Lutheran churches (denominations) along political jurisdictions. King Henry VIII did much the same thing around the same time but that was PURELY political and economic since he was still very Catholic in his theology.


Some observations....

1. In terms of both doctrine and practice, Luther was a very conservative man... clearly a Reformer and not a revolutionary. He was very dismayed by the likes of Zwingli and even Calvin whom he disagreed with often more than he did with the RCC. Even some former Lutherans ended up going "off the deep end" and bringing on Luther's wrath (which was no small thing). And he was very upset by the Peasent Revolt where some of this ideas were radicalized and applied to other things. Of all the major figures in the Reformation, he is likely the most conservative... although he certainly could be the most polemic (some say it was just a German characteristic of the day, lol).

2. I strongly suspect that if cooler heads had prevailed on BOTH sides.... if all thing had remained ONLY a church issue, one of theology and practice..... I think history would be very different, I think some true REFORM might have happened, to the joy of Luther, and the "split" of 1521 averted. But that just wasn't the reality: All this was as much a political, economic and nationalistic issue, at least from the RCC perspective. And I agree with some that the profound ignorance of the day and the largely "who cares about theology" feeling of the day made such of what Luther said (and much of what is so important to Protestants today) just not something they ever really engaged in.


Soooo....

Did Luther want to RESTORE the RCC, was he a "restorationist?" Well, maybe a failed one at one point, but not at all in the LDS sense.

Did Luther start a new church? No. His view of the church wouldn't even allow for that. But the only denomination in Germany at the time excommunicated him... and eventually, princes and kings moved the churches in their area from Catholicism to Lutheranism (in various ways) in their jurisdictions. Interesting, for several years, the castle church in Wittenburg was clearly Lutheran in teaching but was still actually a Catholic Church.

It is quite absurd to - in any way - associate Luther with the LDS. At virtually every point, Luther would be horrified by LDS teachings and claims.


- Josiah



.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

It is quite absurd to - in any way - associate Luther with the LDS. At virtually every point, Luther would be horrified by LDS teachings and claims.


- Josiah

Click to expand...

Exactly, CJ. Well said. Good to see ya.

BTW, this subforum is not for debates about Luther/Lutherans.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Some reality....

1. The "break" between the RCC and Luther was complex. In the beginning, Luther was a dedicated and faithful Catholic monk and professor, a "Doctor of the Church." One of the responsibilities that went with that was to note false teaching and report it. Luther personally heard Indulgence Sellers boldly proclaiming that self saves self by the works self does - buying indulgences being among these. Luther (correctly) noted this violated Catholic teaching (including the Council of Orange). Now, admittedly, all this was ill-defined at the time but Luther was on solid ground and fully expected to be thanked for pointing out this error. And he did so property and respectfully. He was STUNNED by what followed... an ever growing response to denounce Luther and support the error of the Indulgence Sellers. SOME credit all this to the profound theological ignorance of the day, others to pure economics (the RCC badly needed the money), others to politics between German, Italian and Spanish forces within the Holy Roman Empire, but in any case, it stunned Luther. Luther was accused of being a Hussite and.... well.... things QUICKLY became very polemic on ALL sides.

2. From 1517 to 1521, I think a solid case can be made that Luther esteemed the RCC and simply wanted to REFORM some pactices and CLARIFY some teachings (Luther holding that the RCC had actually drifted away or "muddied" things). He was hardly alone in any of this! Luther becomes such a "power" for one and only one reason: He was saying what MANY believed, he became the spokesman for a GREAT many. Even Erasmus joined in thing "Preach it, Marty" crowd. It is during this period that I think the "restore" goal has some legit basis. Luther is often polite and respectful and working through the channels of the denomination... but this declines almost with each month as Luther becomes convinced the RC is in deep trouble and that God was using him to correct.

3. 1521. It is not fully accurate to say that Luther "left" the RCC or that Luther decided to form another church. By 1521, BOTH sides had become very polemic. All this was made worse by the politics of the day and no doubt by a strong nationalism arising in Europe. But Luther did NOT resign, Luther did not LEAVE, Luther did not call for the excommunication of the Pope (or any Catholic). It was the RCC that excommunicated Luther (and by extension, any who "sided" with him). There's an important distinction between being kicked out and leaving, lol. But I'll admit, the "break" largely already existed - I would argue the "fault" of the RCC but Luther certainly replied in kind (Including burning the "bull" that condemned him). After that, Luther had no hope of reconciliation and clearly that was the last thing the RCC wanted. What had happened in 451 and 1054 (two earlier and larger "breaks" in the denomination), had happened again. Princes and kings (in the age of "the religion of the prince is the religion of the people") often embraced Lutheranism - often for a combination of religious, political and economic reasons - so there were soon a number of Lutheran churches (denominations) along political jurisdictions. King Henry VIII did much the same thing around the same time but that was PURELY political and economic since he was still very Catholic in his theology.


Some observations....

1. In terms of both doctrine and practice, Luther was a very conservative man... clearly a Reformer and not a revolutionary. He was very dismayed by the likes of Zwingli and even Calvin whom he disagreed with often more than he did with the RCC. Even some former Lutherans ended up going "off the deep end" and bringing on Luther's wrath (which was no small thing). And he was very upset by the Peasent Revolt where some of this ideas were radicalized and applied to other things. Of all the major figures in the Reformation, he is likely the most conservative... although he certainly could be the most polemic (some say it was just a German characteristic of the day, lol).

2. I strongly suspect that if cooler heads had prevailed on BOTH sides.... if all thing had remained ONLY a church issue, one of theology and practice..... I think history would be very different, I think some true REFORM might have happened, to the joy of Luther, and the "split" of 1521 averted. But that just wasn't the reality: All this was as much a political, economic and nationalistic issue, at least from the RCC perspective. And I agree with some that the profound ignorance of the day and the largely "who cares about theology" feeling of the day made such of what Luther said (and much of what is so important to Protestants today) just not something they ever really engaged in.


Soooo....

Did Luther want to RESTORE the RCC, was he a "restorationist?" Well, maybe a failed one at one point, but not at all in the LDS sense.

Did Luther start a new church? No. His view of the church wouldn't even allow for that. But the only denomination in Germany at the time excommunicated him... and eventually, princes and kings moved the churches in their area from Catholicism to Lutheranism (in various ways) in their jurisdictions. Interesting, for several years, the castle church in Wittenburg was clearly Lutheran in teaching but was still actually a Catholic Church.

It is quite absurd to - in any way - associate Luther with the LDS. At virtually every point, Luther would be horrified by LDS teachings and claims.


- Josiah

Click to expand...

I wouldn't associate Luther with someone like Joseph Smith, he had more integrity and is much more believable than the Fraudster Prophet.

Yet the similarity in starting a new Church seems to me a fair comparison. You suggest what Luther wanted was to not start his own Church, yet his actions inevitably lead to such an outcome. If in his excommunication he encouraged people to remain in Rome you might have a case, but the community that gathered around him broke with Rome and this created a New entity. It was not a continuation of something old but a new Church community fundamentally at odds with the old.

This isn't isn't a situation like we see in the Great Schism where two distinct Jurisdictions excommunicated the other, but the break from a single Church body namely the Catholic West.

So it seems that Luther did establish a New Church, something he believed was more pure and faithful than the old one which had basically submitted to the Anti Christ (Pope).

Solomon Smith said:

I personally believe Luther restored the Church.

Click to expand...

You're free to believe that if you wish. But such a view is fundamentally at odds with five hundred years of Lutheran teaching and tradition, and two thousand years of Christian teaching and tradition.

-CryptoLutheran