Mind if i ask Hedrick about something you said in my predestination post. You said my situation is surprisingly similar to Luther's
Can i ask in what ways that is?
Even though it's pretty self explanatory, Martin Luther was the one who stared Lutheranism right? aka "Luther"
Luther had a really hard time believing he was saved. He was a brilliant guy who had been a monk, trying to get closer to God. But that didn't do it. He was never sure he had repented carefully enough, sincerely enough, and that he hadn't forgotten a sin. If you read a biography, I think you'd see yourself in him. Not only did he find it hard to believe that he had done everything he needed to, the theology at the time made it unclear what exactly he had to do.
Part of this was the Catholic theology at the time. (There have been adjustments since then.) It taught that you had to do everything you could on your own, and God would then give you his grace. It also understood passages in the Bible that talked about the righteousness of God as speaking of his moral perfection, and thus emphasizing the difficulty that we have relating to him.
Luther's change started when he realized that for Paul at least, God's righteousness is not something that isolates us from him, but rather his commitment to save us. (Since then we've learned a bit. It's now clear that righteousness for Paul was actually covenant righteousness, God's commitment to honor his covenant and save his people even though they had rebelled. However this is a minor adjustment. Luther was right that God's righteousness is good news for us, not the bad news he had thought it was.)
He came to understand God as someone who is committed to saving us despite our sin and rebellion. In theory all Protestant concepts of faith are based on this insight, however some Protestants have gotten far enough from Luther that they have almost recreated the theology he opposed. (Just as in my view many Christians have managed without realizing it to recreate the thought of Jesus' opponents, the Pharisees.) One problem is that Luther's insights are hard to state simply. It's very easy to turn his ideas into systems that look like his but differ in subtle but significant ways.
In theory both Lutherans and Reformed should maintain his original insights, though in my view some traditional Reformed thought lost sight of some key aspects of it. I don't know Lutheran history as well, but I believe modern Lutherans have some differences from Luther's original theology as well, though I'm not sure how serious.
Luther is an interesting guy. In my opinion he was the most brilliant theologian of the Reformation, though not always the most systematic. Calvin was more inclined to tidy things up and produce a reliable systematic whole. Calvin was as brilliant a Biblical commentator as Luther was a theologian. The skills are related but not identical.
Luther also had the bad luck of having people following him around and taking down everything he said, even at dinner. He was a man of his time, who tends to look rather uncouth at times in his informal talk.
I find Luther's theology the most interesting and attractive of any I know. I'm just not sure he's entirely right about what Jesus meant. But then, most Christians (liberal and conservative) don't share my commitment to making sure that all theology is based on Jesus' teachings.
my bad..