Martin Luther - Prophet or Heretic?

[mindlight]

I am trying to understand the life of Martin Luther and his contribution to the global historical church.

It seems to me that his main contributions were:

1) that he exposed a great deal of corruption in the Catholic church and indeed contributed greatly to the impulse for its reform.
2) That those who followed his teachings were freed from a lot of the worldliness and corruption of a religious framework gone badly wrong. They were able to restore that direct contact to God which had characterised the early church and gain a new confidence and indeed freedom from knowing that their justification before God was by faith. In establishing that direct connection they no longer found their way to God barred by religious hypocrites who only loaded them down with guilt and fear while parading their religious credentials to receive the worlds applause.
3) The competition between Christians and shattering of the old Feudal orders effectively led to the spread of Christianity around the world as Christians from different denominations competed to bring their versions of the gospel to pagans first.

However:

1) He was an anti-Semite who said some outrageous things about Jews and he lacked all understanding of the significance of Israel in history
2) By undermining the authority of the church arguably he empowered Princes to wage war with the authority of God and for their own self interests. This may well have contributed to the devastation of the religious wars that followed.
3) Effectively he was a schismatic who irrevocably split the church. But then I do not see how he could have done otherwise with a clean conscience so maybe this was Gods will.

So what do you think - prophet or heretic. Did he shake the church up, expose its sins and get it back on track OR did he contribute to a new kind of worldiness, division and deception?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would say neither. History has set him down as a Reformer. The Reformers, although condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church, did set in process some much-needed reforms within that body. They were not Prophets in that none of them foretold the future.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I agree - more or less - with bbbbbbb. Martin Luther was not a prophet in the classic sense of receiving direct revelation from God - at least not in the same manner as Elijah or Isaiah. (Not to say Luther didn't obey God's call and direction.) At the same time, he was a seriously flawed human being; much like all us other Christians saved by Grace.

Luther's conclusions regarding the established (Roman Catholic) church were accurate, timely and needed. In addition to beginning what is commonly known as the Protestant Reformation, Luther's actions also began an internal reform in the established church.

Did others who followed misuse Luther's reforms for their own political and personal gain? Surely. However, to blame Luther for that is the same as blaming Jesus for crooked televangelists.

To be sure, Martin Luther was not universally accepted as the finest example of a loving Christian during his life. This is borne out by writings about him dating from his life. He may not have been the sort with whom one would desire to spend dinner and a quiet evening chat.

But then, I've heard rumors I'm not always as charitable as I ought.

 

[mindlight]

I would say neither. History has set him down as a Reformer. The Reformers, although condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church, did set in process some much-needed reforms within that body. They were not Prophets in that none of them foretold the future.

Surely there is more to the role of a prophet that telling the future but I agree that the label Reformer fits better than prophet.

While others were affirming an order that no longer had a basis in the bible, or indeed God, others could see that the challenge he represented was a needed one.

The Catholic church benefited from such a critique and from being forced to reform in response to the idea that they were no longer the true Church with the way they were currently doing things.

 

[mindlight]

I agree - more or less - with bbbbbbb. Martin Luther was not a prophet in the classic sense of receiving direct revelation from God - at least not in the same manner as Elijah or Isaiah. (Not to say Luther didn't obey God's call and direction.) At the same time, he was a seriously flawed human being; much like all us other Christians saved by Grace.

Luther's conclusions regarding the established (Roman Catholic) church were accurate, timely and needed. In addition to beginning what is commonly known as the Protestant Reformation, Luther's actions also began an internal reform in the established church.

Did others who followed misuse Luther's reforms for their own political and personal gain? Surely. However, to blame Luther for that is the same as blaming Jesus for crooked televangelists.

To be sure, Martin Luther was not universally accepted as the finest example of a loving Christian during his life. This is borne out by writings about him dating from his life. He may not have been the sort with whom one would desire to spend dinner and a quiet evening chat.

But then, I've heard rumors I'm not always as charitable as I ought.

Sometimes I wonder if the character flaws fit the plan that God has for a man. It required someone who was not overly impressed with flattery and the worlds applause to do what he did. Also that others misused his message should not be interpreted as the fruit of that message, so agreed. Also interesting insight that he was more a man of truth than love. More an earthquake than a reconciling force

 

[barryatlake]

All of your facts written above only DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL PROTESTANTS HAVE EMBRACED A PURELY MAN-CREATED RELIGION, WHICH LUTHER WAS INVENTING AND RE-INVENTING BY THE DAY

The true faith of Jesus Christ is a deposit. It does not fall out of the sky to a man who lives 15 centuries after Christ. It was revealed by Jesus Christ to His Apostles 2,000 years ago, and it was passed on by the Apostles to the Church.

Jude 1:3 “… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

The true faith thus has a historical link to the apostolic Church; and it can be shown to have been believed by those who came before in the Church. It is passed on from generation to generation. Martin Luther grew up with the Catholic faith. Protestantism was unknown to him as a child; it was unknown to him as a priest; it was unknown to him when he posted his 95 Theses, and even when he first called the pope the Antichrist and was appealing to a general council. At some point, indeed, Martin Luther came up with Protestantism, and his conclusions had no link with his predecessors or even with what he said or believed before. They were truly the inventions and “discoveries” of a man, Martin Luther.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

All of your facts written above only DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL PROTESTANTS HAVE EMBRACED A PURELY MAN-CREATED RELIGION, WHICH LUTHER WAS INVENTING AND RE-INVENTING BY THE DAY...

Barry, I'm sure this makes a lot of sense to one who is steeped in the Roman Catholic Church.

It falls rather flat to those who have lived a life in Christ without the Roman Catholic Church.

Stick to your convictions, work on getting rid of your vitriol. If it helps any, I have a problem with vitriol as well. Not toward the RCC or members, but vitriol nonetheless.

 

[mindlight]

All of your facts written above only DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL PROTESTANTS HAVE EMBRACED A PURELY MAN-CREATED RELIGION, WHICH LUTHER WAS INVENTING AND RE-INVENTING BY THE DAY

The true faith of Jesus Christ is a deposit. It does not fall out of the sky to a man who lives 15 centuries after Christ. It was revealed by Jesus Christ to His Apostles 2,000 years ago, and it was passed on by the Apostles to the Church.

Jude 1:3 “… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

The true faith thus has a historical link to the apostolic Church; and it can be shown to have been believed by those who came before in the Church. It is passed on from generation to generation. Martin Luther grew up with the Catholic faith. Protestantism was unknown to him as a child; it was unknown to him as a priest; it was unknown to him when he posted his 95 Theses, and even when he first called the pope the Antichrist and was appealing to a general council. At some point, indeed, Martin Luther came up with Protestantism, and his conclusions had no link with his predecessors or even with what he said or believed before. They were truly the inventions and “discoveries” of a man, Martin Luther.

For your information the Lutheran church as with the Anglican church and various others all claim that they ordain their bishops in the Apostolic succession and this tradition is taken seriously.

Martin Luther was responding to a church that suggested you could tithe your way to heaven or ease the sufferings of your relatives in purgatory with a payment to the church. They then spent this money on palaces for popes and bishops. I doubt if you are defending such behaviour as Christlike.

The difference between a religious hypocrite and Martin Luther is his willingness to trust directly in God for his salvation rather than in an imperfect church. Seems to me that for all his faults, and they were many , this was a safer bet and a better ground for faith than that offered by the Catholic church of the time.

However the pope of the time was not THE AntiChrist.

 

[mindlight]

Barry, I'm sure this makes a lot of sense to one who is steeped in the Roman Catholic Church.

It falls rather flat to those who have lived a life in Christ without the Roman Catholic Church.

Stick to your convictions, work on getting rid of your vitriol. If it helps any, I have a problem with vitriol as well. Not toward the RCC or members, but vitriol nonetheless.

And that for me is the key insight of the Reformation that we are saved directly by our own relationship with God and justified if at all by faith in God.

But the divisions that remain in the church trouble me . The Catholic church of today is transformed for the better compared to those times. The Lutheran church in Germany by contrast is Liberal beyond belief and its theological training programmes seem to turn out more atheists than Christians.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

for just about the best Godly description of martin luther's use in God's Plan for the last 2000 years, see the cfp christian fellowship publishers(white covers) book(s) online free, non-prejudicial non-denominational, all in line, yes, tested thoroughly, not promoting any denomination, all in line with Scripture
by watchman nee (and be sure certainly to differentiate from witless lee who did damage with nee's name

 

[LilLamb219]

Luther was just another sinful man that God chose to use to help bring back the message about Christ and the forgiveness of sins won at the cross.

Luther never meant to create a new church. He only wanted reform. His writings were influenced by the times that he lived in; the culture had a great impact on those writings too! Plus, he changed his mind on some things as he aged.

I know you haven't said this or even suggested it, but I have to clarify for the sake of clarification that Lutherans don't really "follow" Luther. We appreciate his contribution to Christianity and respect a lot of what he said. We realize he was just a man who sins like the rest of us. This is most certainly true

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luther was just another sinful man that God chose to use to help bring back the message about Christ and the forgiveness of sins won at the cross.

Luther never meant to create a new church. He only wanted reform. His writings were influenced by the times that he lived in; the culture had a great impact on those writings too! Plus, he changed his mind on some things as he aged.

I know you haven't said this or even suggested it, but I have to clarify for the sake of clarification that Lutherans don't really "follow" Luther. We appreciate his contribution to Christianity and respect a lot of what he said. We realize he was just a man who sins like the rest of us. This is most certainly true

Indeed.

Luther isn't the Lutheran pope, nor do we regard him as the "founder". He's not a prophet, a founder.

Neither a prophet nor a heretic. Just a sinner, a sinner who said some good things, and who said some bad things (and some of those bad things were truly quite awful). We don't treat Martin Luther the way Mormons do Joseph Smith or SDAs do Ellen G. White. There is no need to justify the things he said when those things were morally reprehensible, or to pretend that he was a gleaming, radiant example of Christian holiness (he would be the first to tell you that he was not).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rhamiel]

on your lists of complaints against Luther

1, I have recently found out that his anti-Semitism did not come until late in life, some people blame this on old age and a failing mind
others have said that Luther thought that after he "reformed" the Church, the Jews would flock to his sect, he seemed to forget that this was not the case in the first 300 years of Christianity...

2, yes, the splintering of Christianity, the lack of unity of the faith has led to an over confidence of secular authorities, I think the rise of Secularism in the West can clearly be seen as a Product of the Protestant Revolt

3, also a valid critique, the lack of unity among Christians is a cause for scandal, and many do not even see it as a problem

 

[Basil the Great]

All of your facts written above only DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL PROTESTANTS HAVE EMBRACED A PURELY MAN-CREATED RELIGION, WHICH LUTHER WAS INVENTING AND RE-INVENTING BY THE DAY

The true faith of Jesus Christ is a deposit. It does not fall out of the sky to a man who lives 15 centuries after Christ. It was revealed by Jesus Christ to His Apostles 2,000 years ago, and it was passed on by the Apostles to the Church.

Jude 1:3 “… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

The true faith thus has a historical link to the apostolic Church; and it can be shown to have been believed by those who came before in the Church. It is passed on from generation to generation. Martin Luther grew up with the Catholic faith. Protestantism was unknown to him as a child; it was unknown to him as a priest; it was unknown to him when he posted his 95 Theses, and even when he first called the pope the Antichrist and was appealing to a general council. At some point, indeed, Martin Luther came up with Protestantism, and his conclusions had no link with his predecessors or even with what he said or believed before. They were truly the inventions and “discoveries” of a man, Martin Luther.

Your post is certainly food for thought. If Protestantism is Christianity in it's purest form, then why did it take over 1,400 years to appear? However, the alternative is also flawed. Since the three Apostolic branches of Christendom split long ago into the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, Protestants do not have a single alternative, nor do they have any certain way of determining which of the three Apostolic Churches represents Christianity in it's purest form. Now if the RCC, the EOC and the OOC could unite into one Apostolic Church, then Protestants might be forced to seriously re-think their position.

 

[barryatlake]

Basil the Great, I appreciate your post and will attempt to answer as to why the EOC and the OOC should re-unite to Christ's One True Apostolic Church. If the Catholic Church has been once the only true Church [ singular ], then she is the true Church still, and shall be the true Church of Christ until the end of time. For Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. He says that He has built it upon a rock, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
Now, if the Catholic Church has fallen into error, then the gates of hell have prevailed against her. And if the gates of hell have prevailed against her, then Christ has not kept his promise. Then He has deceived us, and if He has deceived us, then He is an impostor! If He be an impostor, then He is not God, and if He be not God, then all Christianity is a cheat and an imposition.
Again, in [Matthew 28:19-20], Jesus says to His Apostles: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus says,"I am with you always, even till the end days [Matt28: 20 ]
Christ, then, solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time. Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as Protestant say she has, then Christ must have abandoned her. If so, He has broken His oath. If He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all. Again, our Lord, speaking solely to His Apostles [John 14th chapter] has promised that He would send to His Church [ then, at Pentecost ] the Spirit of Truth, to abide with her forever. Yes, the EOC and OOC must unite back to the Church that Jesus left with St.Peter so as they also will be united with that One True Apostolic Church that contains the "Fullness of the Faith."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Basil the Great, I appreciate your post and will attempt to answer as to why the EOC and the OOC should re-unite to Christ's One True Apostolic Church. If the Catholic Church has been once the only true Church [ singular ], then she is the true Church still, and shall be the true Church of Christ until the end of time. For Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. He says that He has built it upon a rock, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
Now, if the Catholic Church has fallen into error, then the gates of hell have prevailed against her. And if the gates of hell have prevailed against her, then Christ has not kept his promise. Then He has deceived us, and if He has deceived us, then He is an impostor! If He be an impostor, then He is not God, and if He be not God, then all Christianity is a cheat and an imposition.
Again, in [Matthew 28:19-20], Jesus says to His Apostles: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you. Jesus says,"I am with you always, even till the end days [Matt28: 20 ]
Christ, then, solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time. Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as Protestant say she has, then Christ must have abandoned her. If so, He has broken His oath. If He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all. Again, our Lord, speaking solely to His Apostles [John 14th chapter] has promised that He would send to His Church [ then, at Pentecost ] the Spirit of Truth, to abide with her forever. Yes, the EOC and OOC must unite back to the Church that Jesus left with St.Peter so as they also will be united with that One True Apostolic Church that contains the "Fullness of the Faith."

Wow! It is quite amazing what you can hang from that astoundingly small, but infinitely strong, word IF.

 

[barryatlake]

Basil the Great, all the following are Apostolic, EOC, OOC, and Catholic Church, all are One, as from Apostolic lineage.

 

[Albion]

I am trying to understand the life of Martin Luther and his contribution to the global historical church.

It seems to me that his main contributions were:

1) that he exposed a great deal of corruption in the Catholic church and indeed contributed greatly to the impulse for its reform.
2) That those who followed his teachings were freed from a lot of the worldliness and corruption of a religious framework gone badly wrong. They were able to restore that direct contact to God which had characterised the early church and gain a new confidence and indeed freedom from knowing that their justification before God was by faith. In establishing that direct connection they no longer found their way to God barred by religious hypocrites who only loaded them down with guilt and fear while parading their religious credentials to receive the worlds applause.
3) The competition between Christians and shattering of the old Feudal orders effectively led to the spread of Christianity around the world as Christians from different denominations competed to bring their versions of the gospel to pagans first.

However:

1) He was an anti-Semite who said some outrageous things about Jews and he lacked all understanding of the significance of Israel in history
2) By undermining the authority of the church arguably he empowered Princes to wage war with the authority of God and for their own self interests. This may well have contributed to the devastation of the religious wars that followed.
3) Effectively he was a schismatic who irrevocably split the church. But then I do not see how he could have done otherwise with a clean conscience so maybe this was Gods will.

So what do you think - prophet or heretic. Did he shake the church up, expose its sins and get it back on track OR did he contribute to a new kind of worldiness, division and deception?

He was considered a heretic by the Church of Rome because he questioned some of its teachings. But that doesn't mean anything, if he was correct. Time has shown that he was. However, he didn't claim to be a prophet and there would be no reason to think him one. He was merely a Bible scholar who had the courage of his convictions. He was, by the way, not political and was famous for teaching that the religious world and the secular world are to be kept separate by us all, so it is unreasonable to lay political developments at his doorstep.

 

[Albion]

Your post is certainly food for thought. If Protestantism is Christianity in it's purest form, then why did it take over 1,400 years to appear?

Well, of course, it did not. At least not if you are speaking of the ideas involved rather than the word "Protestant" that dates only to the late 1520s. And it was not a term that the Reformers took upon themselves. Most of the reforms sought were corrections to innovations that had crept into the church in only the three previous centuries and we not in any way 1400 years old.

 

[mindlight]

He was considered a heretic by the Church of Rome because he questioned some of its teachings. But that doesn't mean anything, if he was correct. Time has shown that he was. However, he didn't claim to be a prophet and there would be no reason to think him one. He was merely a Bible scholar who had the courage of his convictions. He was, by the way, not political and was famous for teaching that the religious world and the secular world are to be kept separate by us all, so it is unreasonable to lay political developments at his doorstep.

Yes I think Bible Scholar or Reformer are better labels. He was a man of truth and lies that are so deeply entrenched are rarely dislodged without a fight. But he was concerned with the truth not its impacts. He was willing to stake his life on what he could believe in good conscience.

As someone who emigrated from one country to another. Whose fathers and grandfathers were born on 2 different continents to the one I live in i have to regard his citizenship of two Kingdoms doctrine as vaguely nationalistic and parochial though.