Luther's theses

[II Paradox II]

okay the first part you mentioned up there, the 55 volumes, this is by luther himself? that's what i'm looking for. not someone's opinion of him but words straight from luther himself.

Yes, as Lotar said, they were all written by Luther. He was a very prolific writer. The books I mentioned are just for getting a better handle on his thought. As he often used paradoxes and strong rhetoric to explain his theology, he can be very confusing to read at times thus the need for overviews that help to explain what his general ideas were (BTW - this is also why it is so easy to mischaracterize Luther, who, unlike a theologian like Aquinas, often rests his theology in logical tensions and contraditions. As most people do not think like this, they often only take one side of his thought and make it seem as though that is what he meant by his words - witness the infamous "sin boldly" comments that are paraded around the net from time to time...)

ken

 

[JVAC]

Ken, that was a very good post!

We must remember when reading Luther, that certain works, emphasized certain things in certain ways (like how many certains I used?). It is very important to know his basic beliefs, and why he is writing, and to whom he is writing.

I suggest starting with reading "Freedom of a Christian Man" as your first Luther Reading. There is layed out quite succinctly his belief of Salvation. This will help you understand other readings like, the Bayblonian Captivity and the Secular Authority. I don't know if there is an online version of these writings, but too, I don't usually trust online sources, myself.

-James

 

[kimber1]

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Luther's 97 Theses which were posted prior to his 95 Theses?

umm, no i sure haven't. what is that?

 

[Reformationist]

perhaps i need to jsut find some of luther's own writings rather than slants either way b/c forgive me but the first part of that showed Catholics to be outright eveil and hateful towards their opinion of him.

The Catholic hiarchy, at least initially, took very little notice of him. To them he was nothing more than an upstart monk of no consequence. Luther did provoke them, partially by intention, partially by circumstances outside of his control, i.e., the widespread acceptance of his writings by MUCH of Christendom. The point is that many, many high ranking, Pope backed officials of the Catholic church DID hate him. So, too, did many civil authorities, mostly because his teachings called their ungodly conduct for what it was and denied the effectiveness of the evil practice of indulgences as a way of bypassing God's judgment against sin.

i don't think that the Church has ever denied there were abuses going on back then but i guess one of my biggest problems and what i've gathered in reading what you linked me to is the thinking that perhaps luther himself didn't have the grasp on Catholicism that he should have adn these abuses pushed him from the faith when he should have clung to it and tried to understand that men are indeed fallible and not blame the entire Church on certain men's shortcomings but that's just my opinion

My advice, read up on Luther's REPEATED attempts to petition for a meeting to understand the unlawful practice of indulgences. Anyone who says that Luther's initial reaction to ungodly practices in the church was to forthright just abandon it has done no study on Luther. Luther's requests for debating this church sanctioned sinfulness were quite numerous. Their eventual response? Invite him to Worms, not for the purpose of debating ANY church doctrine but merely to tell him to recant of his blasphemous writings, which they would not tell him why they were blasphemous, "or else." Luther described it this way:

"I was asked, 'Are these books yours?' 'Yes.' 'Do you recant?' 'No.' 'Then get out!'"

As I said, the meeting was not as Luther had requested, a panel of impartial learned scholars and theologians come together to discuss the validity of his teachings. It was a political, church backed farce of a witch hunt.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

umm, no i sure haven't. what is that?

It was the fruit of all of Luther's being and striving up to that point, from which should grow a sturdy landmark of a tree of knowledge. The Ninety-seven theses were an official, marketable challange against the iniquities of Christianity and the proper understanding and application of the Gospel.

One author contrasts the two as one, the Ninety-seven, being the fruit of all his being and striving to date, the other, the Ninety-five (far more famous of the two), an occasional albeit important side issue.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

The 95 Thesis were written in response to Johann Tetzel's techniques used to gain more indulgences ex: "This indulgence will cover any sin, even if one defiled the blessed Mother herself."

Ah yes, good ol' Tetzel. Here's another he's famous for:

"Whenever a coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs."

What a joke he was. All Luther did was point that out.

At the time Luther constructed these, he believed the Pope to be innocent of indulgences. He believed that renegade clergy were rousting the peasantry to get more money for themselves. The thesis were a deffence to Christian Liberty and seemingly, the Pope.

Absolutely. Well said.

Luther was a Baptized believer, and he earnestly tried to seek the true faith. We honor that commitment, and try to emulate it in our own devotion to the Lord. We don't laud Luther because he caused a split in the Church, we honor him for the courage he had to stand up for the Faith.

Unless I am proved to be wrong by the testimony of the Scriptures or by incontrovertible reasoning - for I cannot bow merely to the authority of either popes or Councils, since it is known that they have often erred and contradited one another - until this be done my conscience is prisoner to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant, for to go against conscience is neither right nor healthy. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." - Martinus Luther, Diet of Worms

That we would all have that conviction of faith that is strong enough to hold us captive to the Word of God. I pray that the Lord shall bless us all this way.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

LOL, okay i'll bite...
see this is one of those things i don't understand..it's like he's saying that he believes the pope has the power to get everyone out of purgatory.[/size][/font]

Uhh...many of the high ranking officials of the Catholic church of the 16th century taught that the Pope had power over purgatory. Luther didn't make it up. It's what they were teaching.

His question is a valid one.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

If you really want to know more about Luther you might want to read one of the many biographies of him available. Here are a few:

1) Here I Stand by Ronald Bainton
2) Luther In Context by David Steinmetz
3) Luther's Theology of the Cross by Alister McGrath
4) Lift High This Cross by Eugene Klug

ken

Another is Luther Alive by Edith Simon.

God bless

 

[twex]

Ah yes, good ol' Tetzel. Here's another he's famous for:

"Whenever a coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs."

What a joke he was. All Luther did was point that out.

Is there a reliable source for tracing that saying back to Tetzel with any degree of certainty?

I'm afraid poor Tetzel, like Luther, has been the victim of harsh polemics for centuries.

 

[Reformationist]

Is there a reliable source for tracing that saying back to Tetzel with any degree of certainty?

I'm afraid poor Tetzel, like Luther, has been the victim of harsh polemics for centuries.

I have no clue what you consider reliable so I am unable to answer this with any degree of sufficiency.

God bless

 

[InquisitorKind]

Unless James Swan has converted recently, he's Reformed and in seminary, he's definitely not Catholic. Dave Armstrong has debated him several times.

James Swan is doing research on Roman Catholic scholarship. Who said he was Catholic? Why would that matter?

~Matt

 

[Phoebe]

hi PRE folk

i don't mean to crosspost but i have a thread in OBOB in which y'all can't debate and it was brought to my attention that perhaps i should be asking y'all.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1992417#post1992417
i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person? ( i mean this NOT as a slam and y'all have to keep in mind that until recently i used to be Protestant as well so take it easy on me okay? )
i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses.

any nice and charitable help would be appreciated.

The same could be said of St. Paul or any of the apostles. People thought they were drunk on the day of Pentecost.