Was Martin Luther saved?

[r035198x]

I don't think it's possible for us to determine someone's salvation even if we know that they have committed what we think is sin.
All we can say about Luther is whether or not we believe that his teachings were correct and a common answer to that would be some of it yes and some of it no.

 

[EazyMack]

I would assume he was saved, based on his profession that Christ is his Savior.

He was another sinner in need of a savior, and I believe he had one (THE One).

But I strongly disagree with some Lutheran doctrine, as a denomination.

 

[SnowyMacie]

You really should be worried about your own salvation, not that of someone who's already dead.

Thread over.

QFT

 

[MehGuy]

Is Martin Luther saved?

My answer is which ever one angers you the most.

 

[EazyMack]

Is Martin Luther saved?

My answer is which ever one angers you the most.

Which can only be a reflection of the unrest you carry in your own heart.

 

[MehGuy]

Which can only be a reflection of the unrest you carry in your own heart.

I feel no unrest sure. I need no religion... if that's where you are getting at with your post..

 

[Apollo Celestio]

He's in Muslim purgatory.

Double blasphemy!

 

[ImperatorWall]

Don't misunderstand me, my question has little to do with concern over Martin Luther's personal revelation. Although, I should note; professing Christ does not save anyone and I will not believe any profession that does not have behind it a changed heart and mind. Nowhere in the Bible does it say I have to embrace as a brother or sister everyone who simply makes a profession of faith.

No, my question is ultimately about trying to understand the reformation.

And lest the Lutheran get up in arms, I have concerns about Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli as well. I have heard theologians try to gloss over the more troubling aspects of their theology and lives, but I don't think this is the correct treatment.

 

[SnowyMacie]

 

[Rhamiel]

I think it is uncharitable to speculate on the if someone who has allready passed away is damned
since if they are we can not do anything to help them.

I would say that the fruits of his actions destroied the idea of "christendom"
what does "christianity" mean in our modern times? well it means whatever you want it to mean, EVERYTHING is seen as subjective, there is a lack of unity among Christians and the West is very secular, law suits are coming up because someone says a prayer before a town council meeting or whatever
so yeah, that is pretty much the fruits of the Protestant Reformation
there were problems in the Catholic Church, just as their are problems no matter where you go, but the way Luther delt with it seems to have been extreamly counter productive

 

[Blank123]

As to the OP.

I don't know. I don't know enough about his doctrine to think one way or the other if he held to the Biblical gospel. I know he was deceived about many things. But being deceived on secondary issues =/= damned.

I'll just leave it at: If he held to the gospel, then he was saved. If not, then he was not saved.

 

[Blackguard_]

I would say that the fruits of his actions destroied the idea of "christendom"

Which is why the Great Schism happened 500 years earlier?

Anyway, you don't need the Papal kingdom to have "Christendom"

well it means whatever you want it to mean, EVERYTHING is seen as subjective,

That's post-modernism, not Reformation theology.

but the way Luther delt with it seems to have been extreamly counter productive

That goes both ways. The Reformation era Papacy wasn't exactly the picture of humility.

Remember also that Luther was far from the only player in this. Zwingli, Calvin, the Anabapists, etc. were all independent of Luther and handled things differently.

 

[Rhamiel]

Which is why the Great Schism happened 500 years earlier?

Remember also that Luther was far from the only player in this. Zwingli, Calvin, the Anabapists, etc. were all independent of Luther and handled things differently.

hello, I hope you do not mind that I am only going to deal with two of your thoughts?

anyways, even with the Great Schism, there was still an idea that there is an institutional Church and that it has a place in society, informing the culture.
there was a debate about who the Church was, but it was still an idea

after the Reformation this idea kinda goes out the window with the idea of the Invisible Church becoming more and more popular

in another thread about Luther I point this out, in my view of history at least, Calvin, King Henry VIII, Zwingli, Jan Hus and all the rest play second fiddle to Luther, he gave the Reformation the steam to get it to where it is today and make the traditions founded there lasting traditions

 

[ImperatorWall]

As to the OP.

I don't know. I don't know enough about his doctrine to think one way or the other if he held to the Biblical gospel. I know he was deceived about many things. But being deceived on secondary issues =/= damned.

I'll just leave it at: If he held to the gospel, then he was saved. If not, then he was not saved.

Holding to the gospel does not save anyone.

I don't think re-writing the ten commandments and calling for the outright murder of Jews are secondary issues.

Which is why I'm confused he is given such leeway by the church today.

Calvin approved of executing those who disagreed with him, and even threatened to use all of his influence to kill a man if he came within reach.

Knox was a firebrand preacher who incited riots and killings from his pulpit, on purpose.

Zwingli advocated outright war with neighboring states who were not Protestant. He died on the battlefield.

Now, obviously Christians can err greatly (David being a good example), but it seems to me that the more unsightly aspects of the fathers of the reformation are either glossed over or flat out ignored as if they would undermine all the positive things these men did.

 

[Blank123]

Lets stop at that first statement please.

`Holding to the gospel does not save anyone.

How are we saved if not through the gospel?

 

[ImperatorWall]

Lets stop at that first statement please.


How are we saved if not through the gospel?

You did not say saved "though" the gospel, you said saved if he "held" to the gospel.

Holding a proposition to be true (that Jesus died to save sinners) does not save a man.

But certainly, men are saved by the truth revealed in the gospel.

 

[Blank123]

You did not say saved "though" the gospel, you said saved if he "held" to the gospel.

Holding a proposition to be true (that Jesus died to save sinners) does not save a man.

But certainly, men are saved by the truth revealed in the gospel.

Semantics. Lets not get bogged down in them. Its a guaranteed thread derail.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Semantics. Lets not get bogged down in them. Its a guaranteed thread derail.

On the contrary, I think defining our terms is of the utmost importance. Only in this way are we able to come to a proper understanding of each others position and then move forward seeking truth.

If you are not willing to do so, that's fine.

But I'm not even sure what you mean by calling it semantics. Are you saying you agree with me and worded your initial statement incorrectly, or that you think I agree with you and don't realize it?

 

[Blackguard_]

Holding to the gospel does not save anyone.

If you do not agree that believing that for the sake of Jesus, without your merit, you have a gracious God and forgiveness of sins, you should really look into Roman Catholicism.

I don't think re-writing the ten commandments and calling for the outright murder of Jews are secondary issues.

He did neither. Have you ever actually read "Against the Jews and Their Lies"?

He advocates the "get them out of business (e.g. money lending) and put them on farms/expel them" view, that had actually been done them in other times/places, and also destroying synagouges and Jewish books, not exterminating them.

He wasn't a proto-nazi, he was acting in the long tradition of Christian anti-semitism.

Which is why I'm confused he is given such leeway by the church today.

What are you talking about? His anti-semitism is widely condemned.

I think something you might be forgetting is that people are a product of their times too. In the 16th century, pretty much nobody was a big fan of the Jews.

"and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’" -Matthew, 23:30

You're a product of your times too. Remember, you are so bent out of shape over "Against the Jews and Their Lies" but not the far more violent "Against the Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants" .

 

[Blackguard_]

Holding a proposition to be true (that Jesus died to save sinners) does not save a man.

The proposition to believe is that "Jesus died to save me" though.

If you require anymore than "believing a proposition", you are requiring more than faith.

Edit: You would be right to say though that holding to the promise doesn't justify you as if it's a work you do to earn it, the action/ promise of the Gospel/God being what does that. Or, you're not saved by your faith, but by what you have faith in.