Martin Luther - Prophet or Heretic?

[Albion]

I live in i have to regard his citizenship of two Kingdoms doctrine as vaguely nationalistic and parochial though.

I surely cannot figure out why that would be.

 

[barryatlake]

The Question; "Martin Luther - Prophet or Heretic?

Answer, -Heretic

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Question; "Martin Luther - Prophet or Heretic?

Answer, -Heretic

And you know this how? Can we assume that you are parrotting your church's indictment?

 

[barryatlake]

bbbbbbb, you ask; " And you know this how? Can we assume that you are parrotting your church's indictment? "

I deduce this from knowing that Jesus left us only with One True Church, albeit not a "perfect' church but a church as foretold by Jesus in [ Matt.13: 24-30 ] we see that it contains "good and bad '' members. also Matt.5:13-16, Matt. 13:1-9. His True Church is Apostolic as in Luke 19:16 , Acts 2: 42 doctrine, community, Sacred rite [ bread ] these verses along with the rest of the Holy Bible together with Christ's personal Teachings and commands only to His apostles/successors have be sincerely believe in any true Apostolic Church.

 

[Rhamiel]

here is what Luther had to say about the Book of James

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

Luther, besides making himself the enemy of the Vicar of Christ, we can also see Luther speaking out against Sacred Scripture

 

[barryatlake]

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

 

[Albion]

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history.

You should know by now that they weren't "since the beginning of Church history." The canonization didn't occur until over 300 years after Christ and those books had always been in doubt. And as has also been noted, a number of different Catholic churches use a different set of books even today from the next Catholic Church.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, you are correct, I meant to say from the 'time of canonization.'
So you do agree with the rest of post #26 -
He [ Luther ] also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

 

[LilLamb219]

Luther changed his views many times on things throughout his life.

It took awhile for him to understand the book of James because at first he thought it conflicted with by grace, through faith for salvation.

When bringing up points about Luther, you should really take note at what point in his life did he believe something and also what the context of his wording was besides the situation going on in history at the time.

 

[Rhamiel]

Luther changed his views many times on things throughout his life.

It took awhile for him to understand the book of James because at first he thought it conflicted with by grace, through faith for salvation.

When bringing up points about Luther, you should really take note at what point in his life did he believe something and also what the context of his wording was besides the situation going on in history at the time.

so would you say that he was a heretic at the time he denounced the book of James and that he latter repented?

 

[bbbbbbb]

so would you say that he was a heretic at the time he denounced the book of James and that he latter repented?

I think "heretic" is much too strong a word. Obviously, everyone would agree that he was in serious error to have made such rash statements. The fact that he did change his mind (repent) later, shows that he was capable of renouncing his error.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Albion, you are correct, I meant to say from the 'time of canonization.'
So you do agree with the rest of post #26 -
He [ Luther ] also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

The "time of canonization" for the Catholic Church was the Council of Trent.

 

[bbbbbbb]

bbbbbbb, you ask; " And you know this how? Can we assume that you are parrotting your church's indictment? "

I deduce this from knowing that Jesus left us only with One True Church, albeit not a "perfect' church but a church as foretold by Jesus in [ Matt.13: 24-30 ] we see that it contains "good and bad '' members. also Matt.5:13-16, Matt. 13:1-9. His True Church is Apostolic as in Luke 19:16 , Acts 2: 42 doctrine, community, Sacred rite [ bread ] these verses along with the rest of the Holy Bible together with Christ's personal Teachings and commands only to His apostles/successors have be sincerely believe in any true Apostolic Church.

Interesting. I deduce that you believe that, in reality, there is not more than one true Apostlic Church, which, coincidentally, happens to be your own. Thus, it comes as no surprise to me that you simply repeat the statements of your denomination regarding whatever matter comes to hand which, in this case, happens to be Martin Luther.

 

[Albion]

I think "heretic" is much too strong a word. Obviously, everyone would agree that he was in serious error to have made such rash statements. The fact that he did change his mind (repent) later, shows that he was capable of renouncing his error.

Welll, you don't become a heretic unless there's some judgment of heresy, and the person has to be resolute and final about his stance, so it doesn't look as though Luther's musings about that book actually do constitute heresy.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Heretic. Meaning he taught error. Different doctrine than the Church has passed on for 1500 years prior. Whether his heresy was needed by the church, as protestants believe or not, is still being debated since the reformation. But heresy is heresy. The last prophet sent by God was John the Baptist. After John, God became flesh and dwelt among us. He left us a Church which He founded on the Apostles. Gave them the power to bind and loose, and said this Church would last from then (1st century AD), until the consummation of time, and the creation of the new heavens and new earth. So Luther was not a prophet. He was a splitter from the Church, with cause in his mind. I don't doubt that he was upset about many practices which needed clamping down on by the Bishops. I'm sure he felt justified, and therefore, if his conscience was clean, I don't judge him. That is between him and God. But he doesn't seem to meet the criteria of prophet by any stretch, and he does seem to line up with the definitions in the Church of heretic. It's up to each of us to decide, through thoughtful prayer. For what it's worth, I began this journey of mine AS a Lutheran, and most of my family still are, so I have great love and respect for the people who make up the Lutheran faith. I just found the doctrine to not line up with that of the Church established by Christ, and I have desired to put truth ahead of convenience or even my own family traditions. My brother and I pray for each other, who both seem to be following their consciences, which is in turn the voice of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

Heretic. Meaning he taught error.

So then...we're all heretics, right? I mean, none of us is a trained theologian, so it's probably the case that we've "taught" (or believed, to be more correct about it) something that's in error.

Different doctrine than the Church has passed on for 1500 years prior.

So it's mainly Roman Catholics who are heretics? There's no doubt about the fact that the RCC hasn't "passed on" for 1500 years many of its most distinctive doctrines. That's exactly what Luther protested--the innovations that the church had adopted only many years after the Apostolic age.

 

[stevenfrancis]

So then...we're all heretics, right? I mean, none of us is a trained theologian, so it's probably the case that we've "taught" (or believed, to be more correct about it) something that's in error.



So it's mainly Roman Catholics who are heretics? There's no doubt about the fact that the RCC hasn't "passed on" for 1500 years many of its most distinctive doctrines. That's exactly what Luther protested--the innovations that the church had adopted only many years after the Apostolic age.

Hi Albion. I believe I answered the OP. I haven't said anything about the Church of England, at all, and I even expressed my love for sincere Lutheran believers. My statements describe the way in which I view the answer to the question "was Luther a heretic or a prophet". I answered heretic, and I will stand with that. It is not given in anger, bitterness, or even emotion. It is an answer to a question. Thank you for your comments. May God bless you richly.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion. I believe I answered the OP. I haven't said anything about the Church of England, at all, and I even expressed my love for sincere Lutheran believers. My statements describe the way in which I view the answer to the question "was Luther a heretic or a prophet". I answered heretic, and I will stand with that. It is not given in anger, bitterness, or even emotion. It is an answer to a question. Thank you for your comments. May God bless you richly.

Well, steven, I know that you are not a no-knuckles internet brawler, but if someone on a discussion board posts an opinion backed by some reference to history or definitions, it's normal for the reader to express his own view of those same things, don't you agree? You can think of Luther as a heretic--or as a pomegranate--if you wish, but I still think that the reasons you laid out for that are in error.

 

[Rhamiel]

I think "heretic" is much too strong a word. Obviously, everyone would agree that he was in serious error to have made such rash statements. The fact that he did change his mind (repent) later, shows that he was capable of renouncing his error.

regecting books of Sacred Scripture does not make someone a heretic?

if that is too strong of a word
well then how can we call anyone a heretic?

as a Protestant, you should be more enraged then I am over this rejection.

All you have is Sola Scripture, so if someone rejects the Bible (or in this case, several books of the New Testament) they are rejecting the ONLY theological authority that God has placed on earth (atleast according to the Protestant view)

 

[Albion]

All you have is Sola Scripture, so if someone rejects the Bible (or in this case, several books of the New Testament) they are rejecting the ONLY theological authority that God has placed on earth (atleast according to the Protestant view)

DID someone reject the Bible or several books of it? And who gets to say so?