LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I never knew that Martin Luther wrote this book. Wikipedia explains a little Martin Luther's progression from benevolence to violent dislike. I am just shocked that I never heard of this before. I haven't read the book. I wasn't aware that he had any ideas regarding Jews at all. ETA: This isn't an anti-Lutherans post. As I understand it modern Lutherans/Lutheran church have disavowed (sorry, I can't think of the right way to express it) this material. Edited February 1, 2011 by LG Gone Wild Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 When I taught at a Lutheran school, our general understanding of Martin Luther was that as he aged, he some serious mental issues. His loonier stuff was chaulked up to that. We taught the kids to be grateful for the issues that he raised within the church and for making a stand and for his earlier writings, but...he wasn't idealized and they were aware that not all of his teachings were sound much less worthy of being respected and followed. I don't know if that is true of all Lutheran schools. This was just the outlook of that local Missouri Synod church, it's board, and the principal of this school. Faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 When I taught at a Lutheran school, our general understanding of Martin Luther was that as he aged, he some serious mental issues. His loonier stuff was chaulked up to that. We taught the kids to be grateful for the issues that he raised within the church and for making a stand and for his earlier writings, but...he wasn't idealized and they were aware that not all of his teachings were sound much less worthy of being respected and followed.....Faith I tend to think he had dementia. He was angry that he hadn't reached Jews with the message of Jesus. So, dementia or pride. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenda in FL Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Doesn't it seem that all the great "heroes" all have some sort of terrible flaw? John Knox wasn't all that either if you ask me and I'm partial to Presbyterianism!! I hate finding out abut their flaws after the fact - teach them at the same time - and explain the good that came from their lives despite their failings. There were things I never learned about Lincoln until after I was in college - I felt betrayed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 This is a significant aspect of his life and it's MISSING in the dialogue. He was a major figure in history, more than any pope save St. Peter, and no general history book I read that talked about the Reformation OR Counter Reformation mentions this. Considering his profound influence on history, I find it preposterous it's not even discussed. It didn't have to be discussed as a way to put down Protestantism but it's not even given an oh-by-the-way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpidarkomama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The only problem with the dementia theory is that he was not an isolated man with whacky ideas. Hatred of Jews was everywhere and became increasingly virulent with the writings he published. Needless to say, the next several hundreds of years in Germany were very, very bad for the Jews. Again, not solely because of Luther but he did play a very influential role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan in KY Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Doesn't it seem that all the great "heroes" all have some sort of terrible flaw? John Knox wasn't all that either if you ask me and I'm partial to Presbyterianism!! :iagree: Every last one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfarmhand Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 if I recall correctly.... Back then, there was no freedom of worship. Church and state were sort of one and the same. By not being Christian, people were suspect of not being loyal citizens. In ML's earlier years, he desired to reach the Jews with the message of Christianity. However, later on, when the message he presented was rejected by Jewish people, he reacted much as if they were traitors to the country. I can't remember exactly...so pardon me if I am mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrresistibleGrace Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Doesn't it seem that all the great "heroes" all have some sort of terrible flaw? :iagree: Such a vivid reminder that EVERY human is a sinner in need of a great Redeemer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpidarkomama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I thought it went the other way around that time? That church law actually trumped civil law? And that heresy was "against the law" and Jews were heretics and therefore behaving illegaly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfarmhand Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I thought it went the other way around that time? That church law actually trumped civil law? And that heresy was "against the law" and Jews were heretics and therefore behaving illegaly. yeah, yeah,...I think this is what I was trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm Lutheran...I've read about this before, too. In Dietrich Bonhoeffer's biography (the new one by Eric Metaxas), the author says that Luther's anti-Jewish ramblings were pretty unknown to pastors until the 20th century. There's also a documentary on Bonhoeffer - that's on Netflix - and they address Luther's writings about the Jews for a few minutes. Actually, that's where I paused it last night. :D (funny this thread shows up - are you all a figment of my imagination?) There's the theory that he was just insane at the end (possible). There's the theory that he was angry because he tried to convert the Jews to Christianity and they refused (my guess, too). I think I read somewhere that he was hearing voices, too. Maybe he did have some kind of mental illness later in life. Our pastor has a book in his office called Luther and the Jewish People (or something like that). You could google it - maybe there's articles about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonNative Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Such a vivid reminder that EVERY human is a sinner in need of a great Redeemer! :iagree:And honestly, isn't there someone in every "religion" that has something negative said about them? Personally, it is what it is-it doesn't change the good things that he spoke/wrote about. Edited February 1, 2011 by OregonNative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 :iagree:And honestly, isn't there someone in every "religion" that has something negative said about them? Personally, it is what it is-it doesn't change the good things that he spoke/wrote about. No, this isn't saying that Martin Luther was a curmudgeon or a homos@xual or had a hankering for gambling. This is pointing how he dedicated an entire book preaching extreme anti-Semitism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Rufus Fears talked about this on one of the Teaching Company sets, but I'm not sure which one. It's been awhile since I listened to it, so I don't remember all the details. But to the best of my recollection, he said that although Martin Luther disliked Jews, it was not his intent that his views or writings be used to justify the evil things that were subsequently done to the Jews in Germany, and he lived with great regret and guilt because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonNative Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No, this isn't saying that Martin Luther was a curmudgeon or a homos@xual or had a hankering for gambling. This is pointing how he dedicated an entire book preaching extreme anti-Semitism. :svengo:Well, let's hope he was crazy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No, this isn't saying that Martin Luther was a curmudgeon or a homos@xual or had a hankering for gambling. This is pointing how he dedicated an entire book preaching extreme anti-Semitism. That's true. But are you implying that we should reject any of his good ideas because he had some bad ideas too? I just went over this idea with my kids on Monday during logic... if a serial child murderer came up with the cure for cancer would we ignore it because it came from a child murderer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Rufus Fears talked about this on one of the Teaching Company sets, but I'm not sure which one. It's been awhile since I listened to it, so I don't remember all the details. But to the best of my recollection, he said that although Martin Luther disliked Jews, it was not his intent that his views or writings be used to justify the evil things that were subsequently done to the Jews in Germany, and he lived with great regret and guilt because of it. That seems a bit strange, otherwise why write the book? I am just surprised that this book exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 That's true. But are you implying that we should reject any of his good ideas because he had some bad ideas too? I just went over this idea with my kids on Monday during logic... if a serial child murderer came up with the cure for cancer would we ignore it because it came from a child murderer? No, what I was saying was the comparison wasn't true. We aren't talking about a bad habit Martin Luther had. We are talking about a book he wrote to make sure people understood how Jews should be "handled". And I find it amazing that it's hardly talked about. How about this flip? If he wrote this book, preaching killing of Jews because they annoyed him, can any of his ideas be that sound? It seems awkward to me to say, "Yay! Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. So he advocated terminating resistant Jews. Oh well, no one's perfect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No, what I was saying was the comparison wasn't true. We aren't talking about a bad habit Martin Luther had. We are talking about a book he wrote to make sure people understood how Jews should be "handled". And I find it amazing that it's hardly talked about. How about this flip? If he wrote this book, preaching killing of Jews because they annoyed him, can any of his ideas be that sound? It seems awkward to me to say, "Yay! Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. So he advocated terminating resistant Jews. Oh well, no one's perfect." Well no...it's a horrific thing that he wrote that book and even had those ideas about Jews in the first place and I would never gloss over that fact in teaching (but I also don't make "perfect heros" out of most people in history). I teach Martin Luther as a lead figure in the reformation. Period. Not as some kind of saint. But to say that you can't trust ANY of his ideas because one of his ideas was awful is a fallacy. (Can you tell we are having fun with our logic class?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandaceC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was not aware of this and have been reading about Martin Luther, so thank you for sharing the link! I do wonder...could this be compared to all the Christians who went right along with slavery in our country? I am NOT advocating any of the slavery or hate of any persons...but I look back on American history and think WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!?! :eek: But I know back then, it was normal!?!? right? almost a way of life? Not advocating, just wondering if this might be a fair comparison?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Well no...it's a horrific thing that he wrote that book and even had those ideas about Jews in the first place and I would never gloss over that fact in teaching (but I also don't make "perfect heros" out of most people in history). I teach Martin Luther as a lead figure in the reformation. Period. Not as some kind of saint. But to say that you can't trust ANY of his ideas because one of his ideas was awful is a fallacy. (Can you tell we are having fun with our logic class?). But should you? Should you trust them just because you like them? You can call into question the soundness of his ideas. You can put the entire man into context and not chop off at the 95 theses. Which is my point. From reading regular school books, I never knew this about him and it is a significant point. I wasn't looking for dirt on Martin Luther. I happen to stumble on this reading about a woman's experience in a history class about anti-semitism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was not aware of this and have been reading about Martin Luther, so thank you for sharing the link! I do wonder...could this be compared to all the Christians who went right along with slavery in our country? I am NOT advocating any of the slavery or hate of any persons...but I look back on American history and think WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!?! :eek: But I know back then, it was normal!?!? right? almost a way of life? Not advocating, just wondering if this might be a fair comparison?? You mean ML's anti-semitism? I find it almost funny that he got angry when they frustrated him but they didn't want to convert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No, what I was saying was the comparison wasn't true. We aren't talking about a bad habit Martin Luther had. We are talking about a book he wrote to make sure people understood how Jews should be "handled". And I find it amazing that it's hardly talked about. How about this flip? If he wrote this book, preaching killing of Jews because they annoyed him, can any of his ideas be that sound? It seems awkward to me to say, "Yay! Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. So he advocated terminating resistant Jews. Oh well, no one's perfect." Whoa! Luther did not bring down the Catholic Church. She still stands today and actually is probably still standing in some part to Luther and his ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 But should you? Should you trust them just because you like them? You can call into question the soundness of his ideas. You can put the entire man into context and not chop off at the 95 theses. Which is my point. From reading regular school books, I never knew this about him and it is a significant point. I wasn't looking for dirt on Martin Luther. I happen to stumble on this reading about a woman's experience in a history class about anti-semitism. How about St. Augustine? If you look at his early life there is nothing there to merit sainthood. Yet he went on to become a doctor of the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Nice tag. Did anyone put "Catholic bashing" on the Happy Reformation Day thread? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Nice tag. Did anyone put "Catholic bashing" on the Happy Reformation Day thread? :confused: :iagree:Seriously, who is Protestant bashing? LG is just trying to get a handle on why this isn't "discussed in polite circles." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 How about St. Augustine? If you look at his early life there is nothing there to merit sainthood. Yet he went on to become a doctor of the church. True but again, you see the whole man. His life isn't summed up either philandering OR saintliness. It's both. Also, there is a different progression. St. Augustine started out like or worse than the rest of us and made his way towards sainthood. Can we say the Martin Luther was making his way towards greater holiness? Anyway, I hadn't intended to argue a case against Martin Luther. My point is that his 95 Theses are common knowledge but not his anti-semitic work. If he did regret it, well, that's not common knowledge either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Whoa! Luther did not bring down the Catholic Church. She still stands today and actually is probably still standing in some part to Luther and his ideas. Permission to slap me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVA Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I do wonder...could this be compared to all the Christians who went right along with slavery in our country? I am NOT advocating any of the slavery or hate of any persons...but I look back on American history and think WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!?!?! :eek: But I know back then, it was normal!?!? right? almost a way of life? This very issue was discussed on Challies.com this past summer in regards to Stonewall Jackson- very provocative discussion. Even the patriarchs stumbled/messed up. Some did horrible things - ie: Abraham's passing Sarai/his wife off as his sister to save his own skin, David commiting murder and adultery, Jacob deceiving his father etc.... As a previous poster noted- every man is need of a Redeemer- no matter what good he may contribute to society and his fellow man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 True but again, you see the whole man. His life isn't summed up either philandering OR saintliness. It's both. Also, there is a different progression. St. Augustine started out like or worse than the rest of us and made his way towards sainthood. Can we say the Martin Luther was making his way towards greater holiness? Anyway, I hadn't intended to argue a case against Martin Luther. My point is that his 95 Theses are common knowledge but not his anti-semitic work. If he did regret it, well, that's not common knowledge either. No, we can't necessarily say that. But if you look at the whole of anyone you'll find something. It could be argued that Luther's book was just the print version of what most everyone of the time thought. When the Church is teaching that the Jews, just by being Jewish, had part in Christ's execution, pretty much everyone is antisemitic. Check the history and timeline here. 1555: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum," required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges, and be confined to ghettos. Over 3,000 people were crammed into about 8 acres of land. The public health problems were horrendous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Permission to slap me. :smash: ;) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No one is without flaw, except Christ. I'm not shocked that the patriarchs, fathers of the faith, fathers of our country, even, did/said some bad things. They weren't perfect. Today's heroes aren't perfect, either. I think it's a perspective we all need to have when revering someone: they all have flaws and weaknesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 No, we can't necessarily say that. But if you look at the whole of anyone you'll find something. It could be argued that Luther's book was just the print version of what most everyone of the time thought. When the Church is teaching that the Jews, just by being Jewish, had part in Christ's execution, pretty much everyone is antisemitic. Check the history and timeline here. That people sin isn't the argument, that good people sin isn't the argument, that great men/women sin isn't the argument, is it? BTW, there might be this misunderstanding by some that think Catholics believe that Catholic saints are people who never sinned or stopped sinning. No. Going back, St. Augustine and Martin Luther both sinned but that doesn't mean they are morally equal or lead morally equivalent lives. That is a weird website. Now, I am curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Regarding the tag of "protestant bashing"... Martin Luther wrote the bloody book, not me! I only just found out about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 But should you? Should you trust them just because you like them? You can call into question the soundness of his ideas. You can put the entire man into context and not chop off at the 95 theses. Which is my point. From reading regular school books, I never knew this about him and it is a significant point. I wasn't looking for dirt on Martin Luther. I happen to stumble on this reading about a woman's experience in a history class about anti-semitism. We don't trust Luther's theology because we "like it" but because it is Biblical. That a person can have correct doctrine in some areas of his/her life and not in others is nothing new. Everything Luther said should be held up against Scripture. Where it strays from Scripture, it should be thrown on the dung heap (i.e. anti-semitism). Where it aligns with Scripture, it should be welcomed. Protestantism allows for flawed individuals. It is why we believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the arbiter of truth. Anyone who has studied Luther in any real depth realizes the man had some serious character flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That people sin isn't the argument, that good people sin isn't the argument, that great men/women sin isn't the argument, is it? BTW, there might be this misunderstanding by some that think Catholics believe that Catholic saints are people who never sinned or stopped sinning. No. Going back, St. Augustine and Martin Luther both sinned but that doesn't mean they are morally equal or lead morally equivalent lives. That is a weird website. Now, I am curious. I think the bolded might be something similar to what you've got going on. Because the published antisemitic book isn't a well known fact, it threw you for a loop. I had no idea until you started this thread. Just because great men and women have great ideas or have done great things does not mean that they are great through and through. There are a good many great people who have issues that by themselves would negate the greatness. These things are not talked about often, but they are not hidden away from the world. On this thread alone there are many that responded that knew about Luther's ideas about the Jews. Several have taught about this part of Luther's life to others. Just because you and I had never heard of them before today does not mean they are being withheld from the general population on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is a significant aspect of his life and it's MISSING in the dialogue. He was a major figure in history, more than any pope save St. Peter, and no general history book I read that talked about the Reformation OR Counter Reformation mentions this. Considering his profound influence on history, I find it preposterous it's not even discussed. It didn't have to be discussed as a way to put down Protestantism but it's not even given an oh-by-the-way. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think the bolded might be something similar to what you've got going on. Because the published antisemitic book isn't a well known fact, it threw you for a loop. I had no idea until you started this thread. Just because great men and women have great ideas or have done great things does not mean that they are great through and through. There are a good many great people who have issues that by themselves would negate the greatness. These things are not talked about often, but they are not hidden away from the world. On this thread alone there are many that responded that knew about Luther's ideas about the Jews. Several have taught about this part of Luther's life to others. Just because you and I had never heard of them before today does not mean they are being withheld from the general population on purpose. That's true. I think it unfair to expect great people to be perfect for EVERYBODY. BUT, he wasn't some no-name pope or saint. His name is a recognizable as Coca-Cola. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virg Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I agree with the PP! Acts 17:11 tells us the Bereans were of very noble character because they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. My pastor tells us every week to be like a Berean. :) I belong to the the Wesleyan branch of denominations and there are several beliefs of Luther's that I disagree with. However I still think he was a church leader led by God. It is all a give and take. My twins were born when I was unmarried and 18. In Martin Luther's time I would have been a horrendous sinner, that one act would have marred anything else I ever did. In today's church it is viewed as a sin that I have been forgiven for and I have been told that I shouldn't let it affect my ministry. In their time anti-semitism was not even viewed as a sin by most. I am NOT condoning his belief just that no matter how much we try to see through God's eyes, we see through glass colored by our times. It is odd that I haven't heard more about it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamato3 all-boy boys Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 We don't trust Luther's theology because we "like it" but because it is Biblical. That a person can have correct doctrine in some areas of his/her life and not in others is nothing new. Everything Luther said should be held up against Scripture. Where it strays from Scripture, it should be thrown on the dung heap (i.e. anti-semitism). Where it aligns with Scripture, it should be welcomed. Protestantism allows for flawed individuals. It is why we believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the arbiter of truth. . Beautifully said, Daisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 We don't trust Luther's theology because we "like it" but because it is Biblical. That a person can have correct doctrine in some areas of his/her life and not in others is nothing new. Everything Luther said should be held up against Scripture. Where it strays from Scripture, it should be thrown on the dung heap (i.e. anti-semitism). Where it aligns with Scripture, it should be welcomed. Protestantism allows for flawed individuals. It is why we believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the arbiter of truth. Anyone who has studied Luther in any real depth realizes the man had some serious character flaws. :iagree::iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 mmmm... lets see you are upset does it cause you to doubt your churches teaching does it cause you to doubt Christianity do you feel like you been lied to or do you feel vindicated in your churches teaching just not seeing how this would be a big deal I don't put down the catholic church because of the crusades.:tongue_smilier: I have attended protestant churches all my life and not one has ever covered martin Luther or church history I honestly had no knowledge of Church history/theology until I started home schooling 6 years ago and yeah can't remember what church history book I read but it did cover Luther's' antisemitic ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) But are you implying that we should reject any of his good ideas because he had some bad ideas too? Of course, because good trees do not bear bad fruit. Luther was a viscous anti-Semite and his writings did much to deepen the historical anti-Semitism in Germany and inspired and impowered the Nazis in their violence towards Jews. Luther advocated the same sort of violence as the Nazis. Very bad man. Bill Edited February 2, 2011 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Of course, because good trees do not bear bad fruit. Luther was a viscous anti-Semite and his writings did much to deepen the historical anti-Semitism in German and inspired and impowered the Nazis in their violence towards Jews. Luther advocated the same sort of violence as the Nazis. Very bad man. Bill I have missed you, Bill. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan in TN Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is a significant aspect of his life and it's MISSING in the dialogue. He was a major figure in history, more than any pope save St. Peter, and no general history book I read that talked about the Reformation OR Counter Reformation mentions this. Considering his profound influence on history, I find it preposterous it's not even discussed. It didn't have to be discussed as a way to put down Protestantism but it's not even given an oh-by-the-way. I'm coming late into the conversation, and haven't read all the posts. My understanding is that early in the reformation, Luther believed that the Jews weren't converting to Christianity because they hadn't been presented with the full gospel of grace. But as time went on, he became more and more frustrated and angry because he couldn't understand why they wouldn't convert even when presented with the true gospel. I've only read small portions of his writing concerning the Jews, but much of it doesn't seem to embrace the message of the gospel that he himself, and other reformational figures, taught. This has been a subject that we've had to address with our own kids, since they are descendents of Luther and so they have more interest than most on his life and teaching. We think it's best to address it honestly and remind them that even the most Godly of men and women are sinners. Often those sins aren't easily seen since we are easily blinded by our own culture. But if we teach them sound doctrine in accordance with scripture, they have the foundation by which to judge everything else they come across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 We don't trust Luther's theology because we "like it" but because it is Biblical. That a person can have correct doctrine in some areas of his/her life and not in others is nothing new. Everything Luther said should be held up against Scripture. Where it strays from Scripture, it should be thrown on the dung heap (i.e. anti-semitism). Where it aligns with Scripture, it should be welcomed. Protestantism allows for flawed individuals. It is why we believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the arbiter of truth. Anyone who has studied Luther in any real depth realizes the man had some serious character flaws. :iagree: Luther had some great, Biblical insight, but in other areas he was a complete and total whackadoodle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That's true. I think it unfair to expect great people to be perfect for EVERYBODY. BUT, he wasn't some no-name pope or saint. His name is a recognizable as Coca-Cola. No, he wasn't a no-name. Let me ask you this though. As a Catholic how much of Luther's life have you studied? I can tell you that as a Catholic what I know about Luther would fit on the head of a pin. But what I know about Pope Gregory the Great and St. Peter and St. Faustina and the BVM and ... on and on probably a great deal more than any average Protestant will know. And maybe I'm just not shocked by much any more so I really don't care if Luther was antisemitic or secretly a woman. (Just saying. I don't think he was a woman.) It does not effect anything today and back in his day he would have been a revolutionary if he had been pro-Judaism. Like I said before, he just published a book about what everyone else was already thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Of course, because good trees do not bear bad fruit. Luther was a viscous anti-Semite and his writings did much to deepen the historical anti-Semitism in Germany and inspired and impowered the Nazis in their violence towards Jews. Luther advocated the same sort of violence as the Nazis. Very bad man. Bill Hi Bill! I've been wondering where you've been. How are you and yours doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 mmmm... lets see you are upset does it cause you to doubt your churches teaching does it cause you to doubt Christianity do you feel like you been lied to or do you feel vindicated in your churches teaching just not seeing how this would be a big deal I don't put down the catholic church because of the crusades.:tongue_smilier: I have attended protestant churches all my life and not one has ever covered martin Luther or church history I honestly had no knowledge of Church history/theology until I started home schooling 6 years ago and yeah can't remember what church history book I read but it did cover Luther's' antisemitic ideas Again, who is Protestant bashing? LG is asking a question about why aren't Luther's thoughts on the Jews as well known as his thoughts on the Church. That isn't bashing or putting down any Protestant church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.