Luther's theses [Archive] - Christian Forums

kimber1

16th March 2004, 11:13 AM

InquisitorKind

16th March 2004, 11:31 AM

hi PRE folk :wave:

i don't mean to crosspost but i have a thread in OBOB in which y'all can't debate and it was brought to my attention that perhaps i should be asking y'all. :)
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1992417#post1992417
i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person? ( i mean this NOT as a slam and y'all have to keep in mind that until recently i used to be Protestant as well so take it easy on me okay? :))
i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses.

any nice and charitable help would be appreciated. :)Instead of taking OBOB's uninformed opinions on Luther, why don't you read what modern Roman Catholic scholarship has to say on him?

http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

The bottom two papers are the ones I'm recommending and will give you a much more in-depth look at Luther, and, as I mentioned before, from the perspective of Roman Catholic scholarship.

~Matt

nyj

16th March 2004, 12:24 PM

The bottom two papers are the ones I'm recommending and will give you a much more in-depth look at Luther, and, as I mentioned before, from the perspective of Roman Catholic scholarship.

Unless James Swan has converted recently, he's Reformed and in seminary, he's definitely not Catholic. Dave Armstrong has debated him several times.

kimber1

16th March 2004, 12:36 PM

wow, that was long!!
okay first, who is this "we" that luther is referring to?
2nd, what is nominalism?

after reading both of those...hmmmmmmm interesting. perhaps i need to jsut find some of luther's own writings rather than slants either way b/c forgive me but the first part of that showed Catholics to be outright eveil and hateful towards their opinion of him.

i don't think that the Church has ever denied there were abuses going on back then but i guess one of my biggest problems and what i've gathered in reading what you linked me to is the thinking that perhaps luther himself didn't have the grasp on Catholicism that he should have adn these abuses pushed him from the faith when he should have clung to it and tried to understand that men are indeed fallible and not blame the entire Church on certain men's shortcomings but that's just my opinion :) i'll go find some of luthers own stuff and exit quietly before i start a riot :)

JVAC

16th March 2004, 12:41 PM

i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person? ( i mean this NOT as a slam and y'all have to keep in mind that until recently i used to be Protestant as well so take it easy on me okay?)
i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses.

Because, Luther had REAL ULTIMATE POWER!

Ok, enough with the inside jokes, on to business. Luther was a fallable man as we are. We never claimed that he didn't have his failings. However, he expounded certain truths that a Christian shouldn't deny, ex: That one can't buy thier way out of Purgatory, that one should have faith in the Christ of God, that he indeed died for you and your sake, and that "where he is, there too you shall be".

The 95 Thesis were written in response to Johann Tetzel's techniques used to gain more indulgences ex: "This indulgence will cover any sin, even if one defiled the blessed Mother herself." At the time Luther constructed these, he believed the Pope to be innocent of indulgences. He believed that renegade clergy were rousting the peasantry to get more money for themselves. The thesis were a deffence to Christian Liberty and seemingly, the Pope. However, many things happened and it didn't turn out in Luther's favor, in regards of the Church reforming.

Luther is honored as any Saint is. Luther was a Baptized believer, and he earnestly tried to seek the true faith. We honor that commitment, and try to emulate it in our own devotion to the Lord. We don't laud Luther because he caused a split in the Church, we honor him for the courage he had to stand up for the Faith.

-James

P.S.
The Lutheran Church holds that indulgences are heretical, and is summarized in Thesis #82: They ask e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose."

JVAC

16th March 2004, 12:44 PM

don't think that the Church has ever denied there were abuses going on back then but i guess one of my biggest problems and what i've gathered in reading what you linked me to is the thinking that perhaps luther himself didn't have the grasp on Catholicism that he should have adn these abuses pushed him from the faith when he should have clung to it and tried to understand that men are indeed fallible and not blame the entire Church on certain men's shortcomings but that's just my opinion :) i'll go find some of luthers own stuff and exit quietly before i start a riot :)
Just to clarify something, one of those fallable men was sitting on the Holy Roman See, Pope Leo X, not a very good man when you look at what he did.

You won't start a riot, these posts are fun. Or are they, I guess tone of voice is all interpreted in the mood you are in. [I am happy]

-James

kimber1

16th March 2004, 12:49 PM

LOL, okay i'll bite... ;)
#82: They ask e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose." see this is one of those things i don't understand..it's like he's saying that he believes the pope has the power to get everyone out of purgatory.

JVAC

16th March 2004, 12:54 PM

#82: They ask e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose." see this is one of those things i don't understand..it's like he's saying that he believes the pope has the power to get everyone out of purgatory.</FONT></FONT>
Here he was illustrating a point: IF the Roman Bishop, had that power, THEN why didn't he liberate them out of Christian Love?

-James

II Paradox II

16th March 2004, 12:57 PM

i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person? ( i mean this NOT as a slam and y'all have to keep in mind that until recently i used to be Protestant as well so take it easy on me okay? :))
i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses. a few thoughts:

1) I suspect that much of our judgment of Luther is driven more by prejudice than by actual knowledge. Luther was a very complex man who lived in a very complex time. As such, it is no wonder that interpretations of his life have varied so widely in the scholarly and popular literature. From my own perspective, though I know he had problems, I don't really think the psychochological deconstruction done to him by Grisar, Denifle and others is appropriate (an opinion shared by many modern Luther scholars, both catholic, protestant and secular).

2) As for being emotionally disturbed, I'm not sure that disqualifies one from making great advances in theology or many other areas. Lest you forget, mild to extreme forms of disfunction (especially social) oftentimes go hand in hand with people of exceptional intelligence. Luther himself was nothing if not a genius, one who excelled in seeing the complexities of life in all of it's paradoxical beuaty. I have no doubt that he often felt the pressures of seeing things in the world that others simply could not comprehend. One note here as well about his particular form of thought - extreme intelligence usually expresses itself in one of two ways, in systematizing vast amounts of data into coherent theoretical systems (ala aquinas) or in simply being able to see life as so complex as to be beautifully incoherent and complex (thus Luthers oft quoted disdain for reason, a toy of the lesser composed who could not see how it's usefulness stopped exactly where it was most needed, at the true knowledge of God). Of the two types, the latter has the most difficult time in social settings because of the unique nature of their insights. In essence, I'm not sure I would throw out the insights of Luther becuase of what is perceived as his very difficult inclusion into society and life.

3) For myself, one reason I cannot dismiss Luther is because I have experienced the reality of his evangelical insights and I have seen them in the lives of many people around me. Simply put, if Luther's thoughts were the ravings of a madman, why do so many who are evidently from all walks of life report such a profound consonance of experience with Luther?

4) One further reason to take him seriously is because I think he was right. If there was no rational reason to believe him, very few people would. You may not see the legitimacy of his claims but many others do.

there is more to say, but that should do for now...

ken

kimber1

16th March 2004, 12:58 PM

Here he was illustrating a point: IF the Roman Bishop, had that power, THEN why didn't he liberate them out of Christian Love?

-Jamesahhh okay i see. so luther felt that the pope at that time was the one who was abusing the selling of indulgences and therefore was kind of "calling him on his authority"? is that basically what you're saying?

JVAC

16th March 2004, 01:16 PM

ahhh okay i see. so luther felt that the pope at that time was the one who was abusing the selling of indulgences and therefore was kind of "calling him on his authority"? is that basically what you're saying?
Not exactly, He was writting that to the people, he thought that the Pope wasn't selling them. So he was writting to those people bishops/clergy who supported them. He was saying that if the Pope had that power he would use it. Only later did he figure out that it came from the Pope.

However, now it could be said as you said it. We could use that to challenge Papal authority on this matter. But that is subject for another thread.

-James

JOYfulbeliever

16th March 2004, 01:25 PM

You won't start a riot, these posts are fun. Or are they, I guess tone of voice is all interpreted in the mood you are in. [I am happy]
:D

Isnt' that the truth!

I don't have a whole lot to add...okay, I have basically nothing to add. Luther is a man to me...the only person that I "follow" is Jesus Christ...so, I don't put a whole lot of thought into this stuff...

So, I'll leave the discussion for those who are much more wise in this area than myself.

However, I just have to say this...I love threads like this! Where different denominations and beliefs can come together and discuss their differences and questions, even though they don't agree, and be HAPPY about it, without arguing or debating! What a refreshing change of pace!!!

Keep it up guys! I'm enjoying this thread, just because of the "pleasantness" (is that a word?) of it! :D :clap:

kimber1

16th March 2004, 01:42 PM

JOYfulbeliever

16th March 2004, 01:49 PM

so deos anyone have a link to any of his works and the why's that he wanted certain books from the Bible?
Are you talking about the Apocrypha?

From my understanding, it wasn't just Luther that didn't agree with them being part of the Bible - it was a group of Biblical scholars. They were removed because they were all in agreement that there was nothing that supported that these 14 books were inspired Scripture. They were more of fantasy type books according to the scholars. Out of these 14 books, the Catholic Bible kept 7 of them.

I'll try to find you some links from the little bit of research that I have done lately...I'll get back to you, probably this evening, since most of my stuff is at home...and I'm not. :D

II Paradox II

16th March 2004, 01:55 PM

so deos anyone have a link to any of his works and the why's that he wanted certain books from the Bible? i understand his issues with the indulgences and think they were warranted to an extent but i'm kind of hoping to grasp his whole reasons for the reformation rather than just a few points. :) Project Wittenburg (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#lc) has a few of his works online. I would suggest reading the large catechism, his definition of faith (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt), Threefold Righteousness (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/3formsrt.html) and Treatise on good works (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luthworks.html). Unfortunately they don't have much online but it's a start (in case you're wondering, there are 55 volumes of Luther's Works available in the library, of which only about 1 volume worth is available online)

If you really want to know more about Luther you might want to read one of the many biographies of him available. Here are a few:

1) Here I Stand (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452011469/qid=1079459133/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/102-1944260-1856931) by Ronald Bainton
2) Luther In Context (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801026091/qid=1079459216/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by David Steinmetz
3) Luther's Theology of the Cross (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631175490/qid=1079459277/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by Alister McGrath
4) Lift High This Cross (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0758602766/qid=1079459368/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by Eugene Klug

ken

kimber1

16th March 2004, 02:02 PM

okay the first part you mentioned up there, the 55 volumes, this is by luther himself? that's what i'm looking for. not someone's opinion of him but words straight from luther himself.

Lotar

16th March 2004, 02:45 PM

Lotar

16th March 2004, 02:50 PM

okay the first part you mentioned up there, the 55 volumes, this is by luther himself? that's what i'm looking for. not someone's opinion of him but words straight from luther himself.Luther's Works are all written by Luther, or transcripts taken from his lectures and sermons. There are few people who have written as much as him.

http://shop.cph.org/Category.pasp?txtCatalog=CPHProduct&txtCategory=Luther's%20Works

kimber1

16th March 2004, 03:01 PM

okay thank you very much for y'alls nice and charitable answers! :) i'll do some reading and then let you know if i have any further questions.

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:04 PM

hi PRE folk :wave:

Hello.

i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person?

Been noted by who and "disturbed" in what way?

i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems

Like? I am aware that Luther seemed to have a preoccupation with his flatulance but other than that I am not aware of any abnormal behavior. I take that back. Luther was highly conscious of his own sinfully depraved nature and took himself to task even more than he SUCCESSFULLY debated the corrupted Roman Catholic officials whose goal was clearly to stifle the growing acceptance and effects of his writings.

and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses.

Is your lack of understanding due to the language of the times or is it a theological issue? Let me see if I can, with the help of Edith Simon, offer help:

Theses 1-4 were concerned with defining the precise meanings of penance and penitence. Theses 5-7 marshalled the general principles by which the respective power or impotence of papal indulgences were to be assayed. Theses 8-29 were concerned with indulgences for the dead and the assumption of papal power over purgatory. Theses 30-40 with indulgences for the living. Theses 41-52 posed a comparison of contributions to the St. Peter's building fund, with other good works (by means of propositions such as, "He who refuses to help a poor man in order to buy a letter of pardon for himself does not gain God's favour but God's wrath"). These 52-80 were calculated to assess the relative value of preaching indulgences and preaching the Gospel, and also of the Treasury of Merit and the treasure of God's Word. Theses 81-89 cited current arguments put forward by some laity, as Luther had previeously given them in his All Saints and Lenten sermons: Why did not the Pope empty purgatory at one sweep, out of Christian love and charity, instead of piecemeal and for money? Why, if it was ruled to be wrong to go on praying for souls released from purgatory, were not the countless benefices suppressed which had been endowed for the purpose of mortuary and anniversary massis in perpetuity? Why did not the Pope, being "rich as Croesus," build St. Peter's out of his own pocket: why would he wring those of poor believers? What might the Pope be able to bestow on people who in perfect contrition had already won full remission for themselves? - Theses 90 and 91 proposed that to muzzle such objections without answering them was a grave mistake and also would not work. Theses 92-95, however, were only a summing-up of the foregoing, albeit sonorous and solemn. - Edith Simon, Luther Alive

any nice and charitable help would be appreciated. :)

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Luther's 97 Theses which were posted prior to his 95 Theses?

God bless

II Paradox II

16th March 2004, 03:06 PM

okay the first part you mentioned up there, the 55 volumes, this is by luther himself? that's what i'm looking for. not someone's opinion of him but words straight from luther himself.
Yes, as Lotar said, they were all written by Luther. He was a very prolific writer. The books I mentioned are just for getting a better handle on his thought. As he often used paradoxes and strong rhetoric to explain his theology, he can be very confusing to read at times thus the need for overviews that help to explain what his general ideas were (BTW - this is also why it is so easy to mischaracterize Luther, who, unlike a theologian like Aquinas, often rests his theology in logical tensions and contraditions. As most people do not think like this, they often only take one side of his thought and make it seem as though that is what he meant by his words - witness the infamous "sin boldly" comments that are paraded around the net from time to time...)

ken

JVAC

16th March 2004, 03:14 PM

Ken, that was a very good post!

We must remember when reading Luther, that certain works, emphasized certain things in certain ways (like how many certains I used?). It is very important to know his basic beliefs, and why he is writing, and to whom he is writing.

I suggest starting with reading "Freedom of a Christian Man" as your first Luther Reading. There is layed out quite succinctly his belief of Salvation. This will help you understand other readings like, the Bayblonian Captivity and the Secular Authority. I don't know if there is an online version of these writings, but too, I don't usually trust online sources, myself.

-James:wave:

kimber1

16th March 2004, 03:16 PM

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Luther's 97 Theses which were posted prior to his 95 Theses?
umm, no i sure haven't. what is that?

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:17 PM

perhaps i need to jsut find some of luther's own writings rather than slants either way b/c forgive me but the first part of that showed Catholics to be outright eveil and hateful towards their opinion of him.

The Catholic hiarchy, at least initially, took very little notice of him. To them he was nothing more than an upstart monk of no consequence. Luther did provoke them, partially by intention, partially by circumstances outside of his control, i.e., the widespread acceptance of his writings by MUCH of Christendom. The point is that many, many high ranking, Pope backed officials of the Catholic church DID hate him. So, too, did many civil authorities, mostly because his teachings called their ungodly conduct for what it was and denied the effectiveness of the evil practice of indulgences as a way of bypassing God's judgment against sin.

i don't think that the Church has ever denied there were abuses going on back then but i guess one of my biggest problems and what i've gathered in reading what you linked me to is the thinking that perhaps luther himself didn't have the grasp on Catholicism that he should have adn these abuses pushed him from the faith when he should have clung to it and tried to understand that men are indeed fallible and not blame the entire Church on certain men's shortcomings but that's just my opinion :)

My advice, read up on Luther's REPEATED attempts to petition for a meeting to understand the unlawful practice of indulgences. Anyone who says that Luther's initial reaction to ungodly practices in the church was to forthright just abandon it has done no study on Luther. Luther's requests for debating this church sanctioned sinfulness were quite numerous. Their eventual response? Invite him to Worms, not for the purpose of debating ANY church doctrine but merely to tell him to recant of his blasphemous writings, which they would not tell him why they were blasphemous, "or else." Luther described it this way:

"I was asked, 'Are these books yours?' 'Yes.' 'Do you recant?' 'No.' 'Then get out!'"

As I said, the meeting was not as Luther had requested, a panel of impartial learned scholars and theologians come together to discuss the validity of his teachings. It was a political, church backed farce of a witch hunt.

God bless

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:26 PM

umm, no i sure haven't. what is that?

It was the fruit of all of Luther's being and striving up to that point, from which should grow a sturdy landmark of a tree of knowledge. The Ninety-seven theses were an official, marketable challange against the iniquities of Christianity and the proper understanding and application of the Gospel.

One author contrasts the two as one, the Ninety-seven, being the fruit of all his being and striving to date, the other, the Ninety-five (far more famous of the two), an occasional albeit important side issue.

God bless

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:37 PM

The 95 Thesis were written in response to Johann Tetzel's techniques used to gain more indulgences ex: "This indulgence will cover any sin, even if one defiled the blessed Mother herself."

Ah yes, good ol' Tetzel. Here's another he's famous for:

"Whenever a coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs."

What a joke he was. All Luther did was point that out.

At the time Luther constructed these, he believed the Pope to be innocent of indulgences. He believed that renegade clergy were rousting the peasantry to get more money for themselves. The thesis were a deffence to Christian Liberty and seemingly, the Pope.

Absolutely. Well said.

Luther was a Baptized believer, and he earnestly tried to seek the true faith. We honor that commitment, and try to emulate it in our own devotion to the Lord. We don't laud Luther because he caused a split in the Church, we honor him for the courage he had to stand up for the Faith.

Unless I am proved to be wrong by the testimony of the Scriptures or by incontrovertible reasoning - for I cannot bow merely to the authority of either popes or Councils, since it is known that they have often erred and contradited one another - until this be done my conscience is prisoner to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant, for to go against conscience is neither right nor healthy. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." - Martinus Luther, Diet of Worms

That we would all have that conviction of faith that is strong enough to hold us captive to the Word of God. I pray that the Lord shall bless us all this way.

God bless

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:40 PM

LOL, okay i'll bite... ;)
see this is one of those things i don't understand..it's like he's saying that he believes the pope has the power to get everyone out of purgatory.[/size][/font]

Uhh...many of the high ranking officials of the Catholic church of the 16th century taught that the Pope had power over purgatory. Luther didn't make it up. It's what they were teaching.

His question is a valid one.

God bless

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 03:55 PM

If you really want to know more about Luther you might want to read one of the many biographies of him available. Here are a few:

1) Here I Stand (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452011469/qid=1079459133/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/102-1944260-1856931) by Ronald Bainton
2) Luther In Context (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801026091/qid=1079459216/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by David Steinmetz
3) Luther's Theology of the Cross (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631175490/qid=1079459277/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by Alister McGrath
4) Lift High This Cross (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0758602766/qid=1079459368/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1944260-1856931?v=glance&s=books) by Eugene Klug

ken

Another is Luther Alive (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0340044365/qid=1079466836/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5168314-2737744?v=glance&s=books) by Edith Simon.

God bless

twex

16th March 2004, 05:51 PM

Ah yes, good ol' Tetzel. Here's another he's famous for:

"Whenever a coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs."

What a joke he was. All Luther did was point that out.
Is there a reliable source for tracing that saying back to Tetzel with any degree of certainty?

I'm afraid poor Tetzel, like Luther, has been the victim of harsh polemics for centuries.

Reformationist

16th March 2004, 06:39 PM

Is there a reliable source for tracing that saying back to Tetzel with any degree of certainty?

I'm afraid poor Tetzel, like Luther, has been the victim of harsh polemics for centuries.

I have no clue what you consider reliable so I am unable to answer this with any degree of sufficiency.

God bless

InquisitorKind

16th March 2004, 08:23 PM

Unless James Swan has converted recently, he's Reformed and in seminary, he's definitely not Catholic. Dave Armstrong has debated him several times.
James Swan is doing research on Roman Catholic scholarship. Who said he was Catholic? Why would that matter?

~Matt

Phoebe

16th March 2004, 09:10 PM

hi PRE folk :wave:

i don't mean to crosspost but i have a thread in OBOB in which y'all can't debate and it was brought to my attention that perhaps i should be asking y'all. :)
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1992417#post1992417
i guess my biggest question is why do y'all hold luther so dear when it's been noted that he must have been quite the disturbed person? ( i mean this NOT as a slam and y'all have to keep in mind that until recently i used to be Protestant as well so take it easy on me okay? :))
i mean, he exhibited some quite disturbing behavior it seems and i just seriously don't really understand the majority of his theses.

any nice and charitable help would be appreciated. :)

The same could be said of St. Paul or any of the apostles. People thought they were drunk on the day of Pentecost.