Heather in Neverland 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 So therefore we should just ignore all his other ideas? No matter how much merit they have? Is it possible that a "very bad man" could still come up with a very good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 So therefore we should just ignore all his other ideas? No matter how much merit they have? Is it possible that a "very bad man" could still come up with a very good idea? Matthew 7:15-18 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Scripture is pretty clear on this question, no? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Anyone who has studied Luther in any real depth realizes the man had some serious character flaws. I'm listening to some CDs about Martin Luther right now. Didn't know much about him before. Wow -- he had a rough childhood, huh? Sounds like he was maybe a little bit messed up/had some baggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Matthew 7:15-18 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Scripture is pretty clear on this question, no? Bill Ooooh. Ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Matthew 7:15-18 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Scripture is pretty clear on this question, no? Bill Well golly, then I suppose we should never listen to anyone ...ever... about anything. Because not one of us is perfect and every church father there ever was who ever had a good idea about anything ALSO sinned at some point in their life. It is ridiculous to think that someone who had some really bad ideas could not possibly also have some good ideas. I am not Lutheran and I have never taught that Luther was a perfect man or a saint or anything other than a Catholic who spoke out about some really important issues. And I have never taught my kids to accept wholesale the teachings of any mere human. But I would also never teach them that someone who sins should have everything they have ever taught ignored entirely. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well golly, then I suppose we should never listen to anyone ...ever... about anything. Because not one of us is perfect and every church father there ever was who ever had a good idea about anything ALSO sinned at some point in their life. I'm sorry but Martin Luther's viscous anti-Semitism goes far beyond being "less than perfect" and deep into the realm of the greatest moral evil. It is ridiculous to think that someone who had some really bad ideas could not possibly also have some good ideas. Jesus seemed to disagree. See above. I suppose "Sola Scriptura" is occasionally inconvenient. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 So much for "no one is bashing the Protestants." Sorry folks. And on that note, I'm outta here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm sorry but Martin Luther's viscous anti-Semitism goes far beyond being "less than perfect" and deep into the realm of the greatest moral evil. OK, just so I am clear on your stance... you are saying that because Luther had anti-semitic views at some point in his life we should then throw out his 95 theses, all his other writings and anything else he ever said or did that was good? That is not a question meant to continue the argument. Just one so I can understand your position clearly. If that is what you are asserting then I will happily leave the conversation because I really find no merit in it whatsoever. If you are trying to cherry-pick scripture in order to make some kind of "christians are hypocritical" point then I will also happily bow out because that topic has been discussed ad nauseum and is also not, to my understanding, the point of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Luther was a product of his time. If you dismiss him because of antisemitism, then you would have to dismiss the entire European population of that era and all their contributions to humanity. The entire European population of his time was not advocating burning Jewish houses of worship and their schools, and expropriating all the property of the Jews. But Luther did. That is not "pot stirring", that is historical fact. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Matthew 7:15-18 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Scripture is pretty clear on this question, no? Bill So then are you saying Luther's Reformation (ETA: I am really thinking of the Theses, not the entire Reformation) was NOT good in and of itself because of Luther's involvement? Most people are saying the Reformation was great but Luther had some wrong ideas as well. It sounds like you are saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, scripturally speaking? (Just trying to clarify what you meant :confused:. I know my own position.) Edited February 2, 2011 by LittleIzumi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwka Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Most people are saying the Reformation was great but Luther had some wrong ideas as well. Most people do not think that Reformation was great. At least 1 billion Catholics think it was a rebellion rather than the reformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen in VA Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think the OP has a very good point - namely, that Luther's anti-semitic views are not widely known, discussed or publicized. I dug out the book about him that Notgrass uses for their World History curriculum - Here I Stand by Roland H. Blainton - and found that it mentions this aspect of him in a very cursory way and on only about 2 pages of text. The Notgrass text does mention twice that "Luther was not perfect," but does not specifically mention his anti-semitic remarks. I'd be interested in hearing from others using different World History textbooks how this aspect of Luther is treated. Is Notgrass an anomaly, or is this treatment of Luther fairly common in high school textbooks? I believe that Luther is an important historical figure because his actions led to a sweeping change in the religious landscape at the time. By drawing attention to what he considered to be flaws of the Catholic church at that time, he upset the status quo and set history on a new course. For that reason he should figure in the history books and be studied. It would be nice of those history books could tell the whole story, regardless of how unflattering it may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Indeed Scripture is abundantly clear on the subject. Every single one of us has sinned. Our hearts are desperately wicked. We are wholly incapable of any good thing apart from Christ. The thing really is that Protestants don't have a dog in this race. We know we are fallible human beings and deserving of everlasting hell and ****ation. Each and every single one of us. Luther no more or no less than myself. We don't elevate men or women to exalted positions. We don't believe that any one person is better or more holy than another. We are saved by grace. Christ is our righteousness. He is our example. He is the ONLY one we look to. Was Luther a sinner? Yep. Just like you. Just like me. Just like all of us. Though there is some precedent for him being held to a higher accountability because he was a teacher. James echoes some of Spy Car's sentiments when he says... Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. [2] For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. [3] If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. [4] Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. [5] So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. [7] For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, [8] but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. [9] With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. [10] From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. James 3 But Paul also admonishes us that none of us has attained perfection. He made it very clear that he still was still striving with his own sinful nature. That we would continue to struggle with our sinful natures our entire lives. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Romans 7:18-25 ESV) So basically... 1.Luther was a sinner just like the rest of us (though it is only to our own defect that we'd prefer to find his sins more loathsome than our own). You may look forever through the annals of history and you will never find a perfect man or woman. 2. Luther, as a teacher of the Word, will likely be held to a higher level of accountability before God. 3. Our faith, our doctrine, our theology is founded solely in Scripture and not in the words or behavior of fallible man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. (Psalm 118:8) So say what you will of Luther. The only interest I have in Luther is where his thoughts align with Scripture. This sinner listens weekly to another sinner preach from Truth. The truth is what matters. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. (2 Corinthians 4:7 ESV) We are all lousy clay pots. And no, I've never found Sola Scriptura inconvenient. Ah, and for those who want another tangent. Paul answers the question of "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" He says, "Certainly not!" That is the ultimate struggle, no? To strive to live a holy life knowing you will fail and resting in grace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykdsmomy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I may be WAY off here but looking at both sides of the issue, I think it would be fair to compare Luther to say a modern day Joel Osteen or another high profile pastor. What if Joel Osteen started to go off the deep end? What if he started spouting hate towards a race or religion after years of inspiring people (I don't care for him at all myself but this is for argument sake). Would we still praise him for his good works? I'm sure Hitler had some good ideas but his insanity and hatred towards anyone that was different outweighed any good ideas or good deeds he may have done/achieved. (highly doubtful he had any redeeming qualities) I think the hatred that Luther spewed far exceeded any original ideas he had to begin with. When we teach about the reformation, then we should also be teaching about Luther's character. Did Luther corner the market on protestantism? Was he solely responsible for changes in the Catholic church? This is a tough topic. I had heard he went "crazy" in his later years....but I never knew the extent of his "insanity" ....which sounds more like hate he had in his heart for a long time....which then begs the question.....what was his stance on Jews when he wrote his ninety-five theses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) I like that James Daisy. I just depart with you in seeing a huge gulf between being "imperfect" and being so wicked you would advocate burning other peoples schools and houses of worship and expropriating their property because they don't believe the way I do. I don't claim to be perfect, I'm sure you don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would accept the idea that burning synagogues and stealing the property of the Jews is a moral act. Not even close. There is a difference between imperfect and wicked. Bill Edited February 2, 2011 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyfaithe Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 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. :iagree::iagree: ~~Faithe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen in VA Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I like that James Daisy. I just depart with you in seeing a huge gulf between being "imperfect" and being so wicked you would advocate burning other peoples schools and houses or worship and expropriating their property because they don't believe the way I do. I don't claim to be perfect, I'm sure you don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would accept the idea that burning synagogues and stealing the property of the Jews is a moral act. Not even close. There is a difference between imperfect and wicked. Bill You're right, Bill. But it isn't the fault of other Christians that Luther happened to get a few things right. Just because he found truth in Scripture and communicated that to others, does not mean that the truth is no longer found in Scripture. Others found it there as well. There were whole groups of people not associated at all with Luther and before his time that found the same truths - follks like the Waldensians. It just happened that the political stage in Germany was set for Luther's ideas to take root and spark a change. It's the change he brought about that others were unable to (the Waldenses were nearly annhialated by the Catholic Church) for which he is remembered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I like that James Daisy. I just depart with you in seeing a huge gulf between being "imperfect" and being so wicked you would advocate burning other peoples schools and houses or worship and expropriating their property because they don't believe the way I do. I don't claim to be perfect, I'm sure you don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would accept the idea that burning synagogues and stealing the property of the Jews is a moral act. Not even close. There is a difference between imperfect and wicked. Bill I wholeheartedly agree that the action you state above are horrific to all us. I also agree that it is important to study the positive and negative contributions of people, even religious ones. Maybe especially religious ones. The kids and I studied the Crusades this week and Pope Gregory VII. My only reason for responding to this thread at all was to gently remind those of my shared faith that if our faith was dependent upon man's personal holiness, we'd have given up a long time ago. I wanted to encourage them not to allow any man's wicked behavior to shake their faith in Christ, who was perfect. That is sometimes hard to remember amidst all the disappointment we find in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Indeed Scripture is abundantly clear on the subject. Every single one of us has sinned. Our hearts are desperately wicked. We are wholly incapable of any good thing apart from Christ. The thing really is that Protestants don't have a dog in this race. We know we are fallible human beings and deserving of everlasting hell and ****ation. Each and every single one of us. Luther no more or no less than myself. We don't elevate men or women to exalted positions. We don't believe that any one person is better or more holy than another. We are saved by grace. Christ is our righteousness. He is our example. He is the ONLY one we look to. Was Luther a sinner? Yep. Just like you. Just like me. Just like all of us. Though there is some precedent for him being held to a higher accountability because he was a teacher. James echoes some of Spy Car's sentiments when he says... But Paul also admonishes us that none of us has attained perfection. He made it very clear that he still was still striving with his own sinful nature. That we would continue to struggle with our sinful natures our entire lives. So basically... 1.Luther was a sinner just like the rest of us (though it is only to our own defect that we'd prefer to find his sins more loathsome than our own). You may look forever through the annals of history and you will never find a perfect man or woman. 2. Luther, as a teacher of the Word, will likely be held to a higher level of accountability before God. 3. Our faith, our doctrine, our theology is founded solely in Scripture and not in the words or behavior of fallible man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. (Psalm 118:8) So say what you will of Luther. The only interest I have in Luther is where his thoughts align with Scripture. This sinner listens weekly to another sinner preach from Truth. The truth is what matters. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. (2 Corinthians 4:7 ESV) We are all lousy clay pots. And no, I've never found Sola Scriptura inconvenient. Ah, and for those who want another tangent. Paul answers the question of "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" He says, "Certainly not!" That is the ultimate struggle, no? To strive to live a holy life knowing you will fail and resting in grace. I love you Daisy. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I just depart with you in seeing a huge gulf between being "imperfect" and being so wicked you would advocate burning other peoples schools and houses of worship and expropriating their property because they don't believe the way I do. I don't claim to be perfect, I'm sure you don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty sure neither of us would accept the idea that burning synagogues and stealing the property of the Jews is a moral act. Not even close. There is a difference between imperfect and wicked. Bill I agree. Hubs and I were earlier this week talking of how early Protestants ended up prosecuting each other. Luther and Zwingli (a lesser known reformist, but very important and equal to Luther and Calvin) both prosecuted Jews, Anabaptists, Catholics and their fellow Protestant brothers. We knew of Luther's POV as I attended a Lutheran college and hubs attended seminary decades ago. http://www.reformationtours.com/site/490868/page/629552 http://news.adventist.org/2010/07/lutherans-apologize.html Folks -- we need to understand the Reformation was a bloody upheaval. And one of the main reasons our nation has today a separation between church and state is to avoid the bloodshed and madness from events like the Great Reformation. There is a lot of reconciliation still left to do from our Christian "hands" to much of Church history, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) That seems a bit strange, otherwise why write the book? I am just surprised that this book exists. From what Professor Fears said, apparently people took Luther's ideas to an extreme that Luther did not condone, foresee, or intend. That said, I don't mean to condone or minimize Luther's views or the results of his making his views public. I grew up Lutheran, and in my church, Luther was like one step below Jesus. I had no idea he'd written an anti-Semetic treatise until a couple of years ago. Edited February 2, 2011 by LizzyBee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Most people do not think that Reformation was great. At least 1 billion Catholics think it was a rebellion rather than the reformation. Yeah, you probably don't want to go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yeah, you probably don't want to go there. Why? Are people on this classical education board incapable of handling a discussion from differing view points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 :iagree: Luther had some great, Biblical insight, but in other areas he was a complete and total whackadoodle. Not the term that came immediately to mind, but it fits. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwka Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Luther just happened to be in a place and in a time of a possible philosophical, theological and political revolt. He was not a genius, although some might call him an exceptional scholar. He was a child of voluntarism and nominalism (Okham, Scotus - their ideas talked about and taken to the extreme), and his state of mind combined with his personal guilt created a momentum that could be prevented, if contained within the Church. He was not the first, neither the best to debate about the faith issues that were boiling for few hundreds years before him. Via moderna (as opposed to the via antiqua) had already it's grip on people's minds, and Luther by deciding to drastically follow the thought rejecting the natural law (and adding "allein" to the Rom 3:28) made all the simple folks confused. That his thought wasn't made into a coherent theological system we can see in how quickly the other protesters (Protestants) formed their own versions of Christianity: about 125 denominations during Luther's lifetime only, with few main streams, fighting fiercely not only ideologically between each other. Revolts in philosophy and theology always bring political revolutions and further disconnected philosophical and/or theological systems. Descartes, Hume and Kant had an open door. Homeschooling moms have a big job of detangling world's ideas. :-) Edited February 2, 2011 by iwka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 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." First of all, I was raised Lutheran, and I don't believe Lutherans today think that Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. :) Obviously, the Lutheran church defends the Protestant Reformation, but the entire Reformation is not made entirely invalid on the basis of Martin Luther's obvious problems towards the end of his life. This is not an issue which has been swept under the rug by the Lutheran church. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has written about this here and in other places. I have read Roland Bainton's biography about Luther several times, and Bainton (who is a Lutheran historian) is extremely honest about Luther's faults, especially towards the latter end of his life. The excellent Bonhoeffer biography by Eric Metaxas (which I've read) also raises Luther's health issues and possible dementia. It is not sound logic to summarily dismiss all of Martin Luther's theology on the basis of irrational statements which he made towards the end of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Most people do not think that Reformation was great. At least 1 billion Catholics think it was a rebellion rather than the reformation. If that is the case why did Pope Paul III initiate the Council of Trent? I'd wager that your numbers are off. I don't think there are a billion Catholics today or during Luther's time that did/do not recognize the need for reforms within the church. And those that see the reformation as a rebellion really don't know their history well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yeah, you probably don't want to go there. Why on Earth not? Are "them fightin' words?" What is up with this statement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 First of all, I was raised Lutheran, and I don't believe Lutherans today think that Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. :) I can't stress this enough: No one has brought down the Catholic church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 This is not an issue which has been swept under the rug by the Lutheran church. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has written about this here and in other places. So glad you posted this link. I had forgotten about this resolution and was glad to read it again. It is exactly how I feel about the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I think I know Kate well enough, through her posts and the gentle tone therein, to believe that this statement is not meant as "fightin' words" but as trying not to provoke another debate between Protestants and Catholics. Besides, such a debate would tend to divert from the point of the OP, which was regarding her discovery of Martin Luther's anti-Semitic tract, written towards the latter end of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenn in Mo Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 OK, just so I am clear on your stance... you are saying that because Luther had anti-semitic views at some point in his life we should then throw out his 95 theses, all his other writings and anything else he ever said or did that was good? That is not a question meant to continue the argument. Just one so I can understand your position clearly. If that is what you are asserting then I will happily leave the conversation because I really find no merit in it whatsoever. If you are trying to cherry-pick scripture in order to make some kind of "christians are hypocritical" point then I will also happily bow out because that topic has been discussed ad nauseum and is also not, to my understanding, the point of this thread. Great question, Heather. I'm still curious as well. Some posters have mentioned that this horrendous writing of Luther's defines who he was, when clearly it was written toward the last years of life and completely goes against his earlier thoughts on the same subject: If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles ... When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are...If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either. My grandmother has Alzheimers and has had drastic personality changes during her last few years. I would hate for someone to take things she says/does now and say that it sums up the person she was. Obviously, Luther was off his rocker. But for most of his life, he felt differently about this same subject than what he wrote in his later years (which have already been suspect of being mentally stable.) As for those verses picked out of Matthew, I don't think that Luther fits the definition of prophet, but even ignoring this fact, his "tree" produced a lot of good fruit for a time. That would have been a good time to listen. Towards the end, he was producing nasty fruit and at that point, it was time to start discounting what he shared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheBrink Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My only reason for responding to this thread at all was to gently remind those of my shared faith that if our faith was dependent upon man's personal holiness, we'd have given up a long time ago. I wanted to encourage them not to allow any man's wicked behavior to shake their faith in Christ, who was perfect. That is sometimes hard to remember amidst all the disappointment we find in this world. YES! One's faith in God should never be dependent on the behaviors of another fallible human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My only reason for responding to this thread at all was to gently remind those of my shared faith that if our faith was dependent upon man's personal holiness, we'd have given up a long time ago. I wanted to encourage them not to allow any man's wicked behavior to shake their faith in Christ, who was perfect. That is sometimes hard to remember amidst all the disappointment we find in this world. :iagree:I think faith in Christ should be seperated from these and other despicable acts. I think it s equally important to understand where one's faith has come from, who has influenced it, and why. It is good to ask questions about our belifes and how we came to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 First of all, I was raised Lutheran, and I don't believe Lutherans today think that Martin Luther brought down the Catholic Church. :) Obviously, the Lutheran church defends the Protestant Reformation, but the entire Reformation is not made entirely invalid on the basis of Martin Luther's obvious problems towards the end of his life. This is not an issue which has been swept under the rug by the Lutheran church. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has written about this here and in other places. I have read Roland Bainton's biography about Luther several times, and Bainton (who is a Lutheran historian) is extremely honest about Luther's faults, especially towards the latter end of his life. The excellent Bonhoeffer biography by Eric Metaxas (which I've read) also raises Luther's health issues and possible dementia. It is not sound logic to summarily dismiss all of Martin Luther's theology on the basis of irrational statements which he made towards the end of his life. :iagree: There are lots of writings by theologians who comment on and analyze Luther's writing. It would be a much better source than opinions on a forum. That Bonhoeffer biography was awesome. There's also a movie about Luther which is a good starting point. Comparing Luther to Hitler is a tad ridiculous. Seriously. :svengo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 :iagree: There are lots of writings by theologians who comment on and analyze Luther's writing. It would be a much better source than opinions on a forum. That Bonhoeffer biography was awesome. There's also a movie about Luther which is a good starting point. Comparing Luther to Hitler is a tad ridiculous. Seriously. :svengo: I don't think we are unbiased enough to make that statement. Someone of Jewish descent...may have a very different feeling on Luther's similarities to Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I can't stress this enough: No one has brought down the Catholic church. No one is making that claim; I'm certainly not, nor should anything in my post be construed to imply that I believe that Luther or anyone else "brought down" the Catholic church. I have a number of very good friends who are Catholic---on this forum---and I have the deepest respect for them and their faith. That was never called into question. This is really a side issue, and not the main point of the original poster. 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 one is making that claim; I'm certainly not, nor should anything in my post be construed to imply that I believe that Luther or anyone else "brought down" the Catholic church. I have a number of very good friends who are Catholic---on this forum---and I have the deepest respect for them and their faith. That was never called into question. This is really a side issue, and not the main point of the original poster. I said that. I should have said something that was more accurate such as, "split Christendom". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I said that. I should have said something that was more accurate such as, "split Christendom". But then the EO's would have said that had already happened :D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 But then the EO's would have said that had already happened :D. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 But then the EO's would have said that had already happened :D. Haha! There is split and then there is SPLIT. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm sorry it is just one of those things that makes me crazy. I mean if the Church had fallen I would sleep in every single Sunday. ;) Or maybe not. My people would have probably gone EO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm sorry it is just one of those things that makes me crazy. I mean if the Church had fallen I would sleep in every single Sunday. ;) Or maybe not. My people would have probably gone EO. Come on over, honey ;) (you know I love ya and have to tease) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Haha! There is split and then there is SPLIT. :D Uhm, that first split was nothing to sneeze at...it's just typically ignored by western history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Come on over, honey ;) (you know I love ya and have to tease) :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LG Gone Wild Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Uhm, that first split was nothing to sneeze at...it's just typically ignored by western history. I am not sneezing but it's not quite the same bitter divorce felt worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Come on over, honey ;) (you know I love ya and have to tease) There is no where close to come on over to. And dh, who just joined the Church, would probably clobber me. And besides, I'd rather kneel than stand. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I don't think we are unbiased enough to make that statement. Someone of Jewish descent...may have a very different feeling on Luther's similarities to Hitler. No way. Not even close. Think about the amount of death and destruction Hitler personally engineered. No one in the history of the world has commanded that much evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I am not sneezing but it's not quite the same bitter divorce felt worldwide. Then my guess is that you don't actually keep up with what actually goes on between the two. It still has an impact today when one government is taking churches from one and handing it over to the other and then another government comes in and does the same in reverse. Maybe you forgot to read the part about the sacking of Constantinople or the issues with Charlemagne (and I don't say this against Catholics, it's merely fact of history and I'm sure they can point out from their view easily enough the trauma such a "divorce" caused between us historically). The arguments are still there and the debates can get pretty nasty amoungst some. I question the "felt worldwide" bit...because it totally ignores the East. It's merely "worldwide" in the Western mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 No way. Not even close. Think about the amount of death and destruction Hitler personally engineered. No one in the history of the world has commanded that much evil. aaaaawwwww, but one can't help but wonder what Hitler would have accomplished without Luther's influence. The point is we can't know. nor am I in a position to say with any certainty one way or the other. 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.