Martin Luther

[tulc]

tulc and stumpjumper agree on the Gospel

tulc(among many other things!)

 

[dave90]

LOL! Because he's a brother in the Lord? I think the better question is why are you attacking him? And over things no one (but you) seems to have a problem with.

I do have a problem with it. I admit.

 

[Punchy]

I agree with Martin Luther that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and needed reform, but Sola Scriptura and Lutheran doctrine were not the answer. It would have been better if Luther had tried to join the Orthodox Church, which didn't have the selling of indulgences and other abuses that he protested against.

 

[stumpjumper]

Eh^

Well history would show that there was no Orthodox Church around the corner...

Luther was aware of the Eastern Christians and had nothing but nice things to says about them, but it was a different time and "joining a Church" is a bit easier today than it was 500 years ago

 

[tulc]

I do have a problem with it. I admit.

...as is your right!
tulc(care for some coffee?)

 

[Punchy]

Eh^

Well history would show that there was no Orthodox Church around the corner...

Luther was aware of the Eastern Christians and had nothing but nice things to says about them, but it was a different time and "joining a Church" is a bit easier today than it was 500 years ago

Luther knew what Orthodoxy was and even referred to it as "the better half" of Christendom. Luther most definitely could have communicated with the Orthodox Church and requested one of their hierarchs to establish Apostolic Succession in Germany, rather than allowing a cult of personality to be built around himself. There were Orthodox Christian countries close enough to Germany for this to be possible. It should not forgotten that, at one time, England and other parts of the West were Orthodox Christian rather than Roman Catholic.

If you consider the matter historically, there is no reason why one should not be an Orthodox Christian. Historically, the Orthodox Church is the Church as founded by Jesus and the Apostles, which has remained relatively unchanged since that time. There is the liturgical and doctrinal tradition of the early Christians, rather than the popular trends of today's Evangelical leaders. Though I sympathize with Martin Luther, his solution was not a solution at all.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I agree with Martin Luther that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and needed reform, but Sola Scriptura and Lutheran doctrine were not the answer. It would have been better if Luther had tried to join the Orthodox Church, which didn't have the selling of indulgences and other abuses that he protested against.

Actually Luther's successor, Philipp Melanchthon, led a delegation to Patriarch Jeremias II (I believe 'The Second'...) and they had a nice long talk. But justification through faith alone by grace alone proved a barrier.

I really do think Lutheranism and Orthodoxy are closer than most people think. But Scripture must serve as a check against all subsequent doctrines which claim to be apostolic since it is the truest and earliest record of apostolic tradition- and since the clear teaching of Scripture is justification through faith alone by grace alone, and since Paul anathematizes any who alter this gospel, we are obligated to hold fast to this teaching.

EDIT: May I also add that I have defended the compatibility of Lutheranism and Orthodoxy to the teeth, often at the cost of alienating my fellow Lutherans. I believe in theosis, I believe that St. Irenaeus' recapitulatory Christus Victor model of atonement is compatible with substitutionary atonement, I believe in iconic veneration, and I believe that on the matter of the real presence we shouldn't try and figure out how it works (transubstantiation or sacramental union) but maintain pious silent. But sola fide, sola gratia keeps me Lutheran, and probably always will.

 

[E.C.]

I think the Orthodox/Protestant reaction of the other was with curiosity. However, there were two meetings between the Patriarch of Constantinople and some Protestants (not sure if Lutheran or whatever). The patriarch did not like the Protestants because he and others saw many errors in the theology and so forth so after a few great disagreements (mainly that of the Protestant delegates pushing their agenda onto the East) the communications stopped.

On a better note, of all the 15,000+ forms of Protestantism, Orthodox seem to get along more so with Anglicans and Lutherans.

 

[Punchy]

Actually Luther's successor, Philipp Melanchthon, led a delegation to Patriarch Jeremias II (I believe 'The Second'...) and they had a nice long talk. But justification through faith alone by grace alone proved a barrier.

What would make Luther's personal interpretation a greater authority than Apostolic Tradition?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

On a better note, of all the 15,000+ forms of Protestantism, Orthodox seem to get along more so with Anglicans and Lutherans.

Mostly, I think, because neither attack Holy Tradition simply because it is tradition (unlike John Knox, who threw a picture of the Theotokos into the ocean so 'she could learn to swim.')

On this note I'd like to recommend Toumo Manermaa's Christ Present in the Faith and Carl Braaten's Union With Christ- both examinations of Luther's theology with a light to show its compatibility with theosis.

 

[Punchy]

Wouldn't the world be a better place if Luther had converted to Orthodox Christianity?

 

[E.C.]

I don't think Luther would have converted. Mainly because since the Crusades, virtually all contact between the Roman Catholics and thee Orthodox stopped.

Mostly, I think, because neither attack Holy Tradition simply because it is tradition (unlike John Knox, who threw a picture of the Theotokos into the ocean so 'she could learn to swim.')

On this note I'd like to recommend Toumo Manermaa's Christ Present in the Faith and Carl Braaten's Union With Christ- both examinations of Luther's theology with a light to show its compatibility with theosis.

What!? That has to possibly be one of THE most heretical actions I've heard!

I'll have to check that book out.

 

[Punchy]

Sola Scriptura, in all actuality, is an excellent concept. Since the Orthodox Church wrote the New Testament, its doctrines can be defended by Scripture alone, thus showing the falsehood of Protestantism.

 

[E.C.]

Sola Scriptura, in all actuality, is an excellent concept. Since the Orthodox Church wrote the New Testament, its doctrines can be defended by Scripture alone, thus showing the falsehood of Protestantism.

And/or the councils which made decisions based on the Bible (Old and New Testaments) but, a lot of Protestants seem to pride themselves with saying "Scripture only!" even though some do not realize that the decisions reached at the councils used the Bible as the main "source" per say.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What!? That has to possibly be one of THE most heretical actions I've heard!

And people wonder why I don't want to call myself a Protestant...

Sola Scriptura, in all actuality, is an excellent concept. Since the Orthodox Church wrote the New Testament, its doctrines can be defended by Scripture alone, thus showing the falsehood of Protestantism.

And/or the councils which made decisions based on the Bible (Old and New Testaments) but, a lot of Protestants seem to pride themselves with saying "Scripture only!" even though some do not realize that the decisions reached at the councils used the Bible as the main "source" per say.

I don't know of any Protestant groups that disagree with councils 1-6...

And those that disagree with 7 are, well, wrong.

And agreed, if I had to point to the church founded by Christ, I would point to Orthodoxy (I say this in agreement with the presented idea that Orthodoxy wrote the New Testament). I'm just glad I don't have to, because A. I think without Rome, the ecclesial patriarchy is broken and B. I think that the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) deviates from the limits of apostolic orthodoxy, namely in the matter of justification through faith alone by grace alone.

And if it weren't for B, I probably would be Orthodox. But, alas, I see Orthodoxy as deviating from the apostolic doctrine on this core issue and laid out truest and earliest in the New Testament.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It is found in the writings of the church fathers, those close in proximity and time to the original authors of the New Testament and, therefore, are better qualified at understanding Scripture than 20th century Americans.

I see. So, there's no chance that these so-called (c)hurch fathers were in error, simply because they were born closer to the time after the death of the apostles? I mean, apostacies and errors were already well established during the time that the apostles still walked this earth, so what exactly seperates those so called (c)hurch fathers from at least some of the same apostacies and/or errors existent during the timeframe of the apostles?

BTW&DM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Not at all . . . . Catholicism did not give birth to Protestantism . . .

Revolt and rebellion to Apostolic teaching and truth gave birth to Protestantism . .

Uhh......yeah......right......

 

[thereselittleflower]

Uhh......yeah......right......

Absolutely right!

Discovering this is what sent me into 3 years of intensive study and prayer that eventually led me into the Catholic Church, the last place on earth I expected to ever find myelf. . . . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I agree with Martin Luther that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and needed reform, but Sola Scriptura and Lutheran doctrine were not the answer. It would have been better if Luther had tried to join the Orthodox Church, which didn't have the selling of indulgences and other abuses that he protested against.

Punchy, are you Eastern Orthodox?


.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

GCC, but that's just it . .. it wasn't an appeal to scriptures per se . . . it was an appeal to Luther's personal interpretation of scripture, and when others followed suit and interpreted scripture differently than he, he had fits about it and denounced them.

In the process, he rejected Sacred Traditions (not just pratices, but doctrines) of the Church that have been taught since the time of the Apostles simply because they did not line up with his personal interpretation of scripture.

Uhh......yeah......ok......

Kinda like the dogma that the earth was allegedly flat......and the currently standing belief that came forward from the now-dead john paul that evolutionary theory has sufficient (pseudo) scientific evidence to establish its (alleged) integrity as an (allegedly) plausible theory.

This all drives one to truly embrace what's written where it says in 1 John 2:27, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

What a revelation. How about that. Makes one appreciate the freedom we've been handed by Christ Jesus, which frees us from legalistic teachings such as the alleged requirement to tithe of ones wages, which is one of those indefensible dogmas from the Pit.

An appeal to the "plain sense of scripture" within Protestantism has resulted in a plethora of divisions within Protestantism with no two groups agreeing on all that is supposedly the "plain sense of scripture" . . .

It is a model that doesn't work as I have learned from my own personal, first hand experience.

If the rcc were truly the model the Lord intended, then there'd be no need for His return to rule with a rod of iron.

I am sorry, and I am not just speaking as a Catholic . . I was protestant myself for 30+ years and lived these divisions personally . . .

I'm neither, and am completely unified and at peace with those who confess Christ Jesus as their only Lord, their only Savior, and only intercessor.

Hebrewa 7:25 Wherefore He (Christ Jesus) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Whew! That sure is reassuring, and I don't need some dude wearing a funny looking robe or collar to interpret the clear language of those passages. They speak for themselves quite well.

BTW&DM