Was Luther right about the Pope, but wrong about Mary?

[gtsecc]

When folks say the reformed restored us to traditional Christianity, I don't know what they mean or how they come up with that idea. Typically Protestants reject Mary's perpetual Virginity, but accept other idea from the reformers. Did they pick and choose by the power of the Holy Spirit? Is it a collective wisdom of reformation folks? What is the method for choosing which doctrine is accepted?

[julian the apostate]

luther and calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity

luther has an essay online somewhere affirming the immaculate conception

[gtsecc]

luther and calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity

luther has an essay online somewhere affirming the immaculate conception
So what exactly is the theological process by which one arrives at the conclusion they were correct about the reformation, but wrong about Mary.

[Colabomb]

So what exactly is the theological process by which one arrives at the conclusion they were correct about the reformation, but wrong about Mary.
I can't answer this question directly, but I can say that we of the more protestant mindset don't take everything our leaders say as infallible.

I can agree with Luther about one thing, and disagree with him on another. That is not contrary to Christian Teaching.

[gtsecc]

I can agree with Luther about one thing, and disagree with him on another.
I am nto accusing you or anyone else of anything. :) I simply asked how or what is the theological mechanism.

[Colabomb]

I am nto accusing you or anyone else of anything. :) I simply asked how or what is the theological mechanism.
Someone a bit more educated on the issue could probably answer better.

[julian the apostate]

sola scriptura

[HandmaidenOfGod]

luther has an essay online somewhere...

Wow, Luther was online before the internet was invented?! Cool! :P ^_^

[HandmaidenOfGod]

What is the method for choosing which doctrine is accepted?

I often wondered the same thing myself...

[julian the apostate]

Wow, Luther was online before the internet was invented?! Cool! :P ^_^

he is everywhere at all times, so it is possible

[higgs2]

sola scriptura

exactly. It's easy! You just run it through the bible and see if it's biblical. If it's not biblical then toss it. The bible is a perfect guide for every decision and question in life.

[gtsecc]

If everythign is made so simple with the reading of Scripture, then those who beleive this must think the Pope hasn't read the Bible, or His Holyness doesn't do it with the Power of the Holy Spirit.

[karen freeinchristman]

If everythign is made so simple with the reading of Scripture, then those who beleive this must think the Pope hasn't read the Bible, or His Holyness doesn't do it with the Power of the Holy Spirit.

You said it, not me.

[gtsecc]

You said it, not me.
Obviously I am just pointing out some problems with claims about the Bible made on these forums.

Or wait a min. are you saying you actualy woudl entertain the idea that He hasn't read it or did so without the Holy Spirit and if he read it he woudl suddenly be evangelical? Please clairfy.

[Fish and Bread]

This old chesnut about Luther believing in all sorts of Marian doctrines is a little bit misleading. It is true that he affirmed all Roman Catholic doctrine in his early days as a Roman Catholic monk/priest, to the best of my knowledge. He then *gradually* changed his views. So, there are a lot of time periods where he wrote things or made statements supporting a lot of things that he wouldn't have supported by the end of his life.

In some famous sermons, Luther recalls getting injured and crying out to Mary for help. He uses this to illustrate the point that, in his opinion, he was relying on Mary instead of Jesus for his salvation (With the implication that this was the wrong thing to do). Luther got less and less Marian as his days went on.

I don't think it's really fair the way "Oh, Luther had a strong Marian devotion" is mentioned again and again in some circles. Technically, it's true -- he did early in his life -- but he also believed in Papal authority, purgatory, etc.; early in his life. People assume when Luther is referred to without any clarifying details, that people are referring to Luther's theology as it was towards the end of his preaching career.

All of that said, the implied point of the thread is a good one -- sola scriptura allows for multiple interpretations of virtually everything. At the time Luther was preaching it, perhaps it made sense, since it hadn't ever really been tried and seemed like a sensical reponse to the excesses of the establish church in the middle ages, but since that time we have seen that the fruits of it are massive doctrinal confusion. One can not use the bible alone to determine issues of the validity of infant baptism, the real presence, etc.. The bible can be taken too many different ways. There needs to be a clear way of determining the criteria used for interpretation.

In fairness, Luther's vision of sola scriptura didn't exclude tradition and history from consideration, it just said the scripture must be able to prove things introduced from outside sources. Even that leaves some wiggle room, though.

[Colabomb]

exactly. It's easy! You just run it through the bible and see if it's biblical. If it's not biblical then toss it. The bible is a perfect guide for every decision and question in life.
You misunderstand Sola Scriptura.

[Yahweh Nissi]

If everythign is made so simple with the reading of Scripture, then those who beleive this must think the Pope hasn't read the Bible, or His Holyness doesn't do it with the Power of the Holy Spirit.

I certainly do not believe either of these things about the Bishop of Rome*; the point is that he doesn't believe in Sola Scripture (I hold to it in the sense that Fish and Bread mentioned - not just ignoring tradition, etc) - different basic presupersitions lead to different conclusions.

And yes, people who hold to Sola Scripture come to different conclusions themselves, but just because it is neater to accept Papal authority and the magisterium of the Church does not mean that it is right.

Love YN.

*a term I use with the upmost respect

[Lumieredelune]

Obviously I am just pointing out some problems with claims about the Bible made on these forums.

Or wait a min. are you saying you actualy woudl entertain the idea that He hasn't read it or did so without the Holy Spirit and if he read it he woudl suddenly be evangelical? Please clairfy.

YES. ^_^


:sorry:

[higgs2]

If everythign is made so simple with the reading of Scripture, then those who beleive this must think the Pope hasn't read the Bible, or His Holyness doesn't do it with the Power of the Holy Spirit.
Well, we can just take what the Pope says and run it through the bible to see if it's biblical. Piece of cake.

[Colabomb]

Well, we can just take what the Pope says and run it through the bible to see if it's biblical. Piece of cake.
Do not mock us Higgs. You may disagree with us, but it is unChristian and quite honestly bratty to sit and mock us.

I will pose a question though.

Which Traditions shall we follow? the Tradition that says that noone outside of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome shall be saved? Or the Tradition that Eastern Orthodox Christians are suddenly part of the Church and that we are ******* Children?

Shall we follow the Tradition of the Orthodox that those outside of orthodopraxis are not valid? Or shall we follow the Tradition of the Ecusa stating that just about everyone and their mother is a Christian?

Just which Traditions are good and which are bad?

At least we have a rule by which to judge Tradition, even if we do so imperfectly. What is your standard?

[higgs2]

Do not mock us Higgs. You may disagree with us, but it is unChristian and quite honestly bratty to sit and mock us.

I will pose a question though.

Which Traditions shall we follow? the Tradition that says that noone outside of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome shall be saved? Or the Tradition that Eastern Orthodox Christians are suddenly part of the Church and that we are ******* Children?

Shall we follow the Tradition of the Orthodox that those outside of orthodopraxis are not valid? Or shall we follow the Tradition of the Ecusa stating that just about everyone and their mother is a Christian?

Just which Traditions are good and which are bad?

At least we have a rule by which to judge Tradition, even if we do so imperfectly. What is your standard?
I'm sorry, Cola. I really was not mocking *you*, I was being silly, really. I do realize that what you mean by "sola scriptura" is not what I portray. But I have had people say exactly that about "running something through the bible". I do apologize if you were taking it personally, I really don't believe anyone here thinks that way. I was, like I said, being silly.

Please forgive me for offending you.

[SirTimothy]

Uh.. higgs are you being sarcastic? Because I actually agree with what you're saying and am trying to decide if you're being serious or not...

Timothy (Who does run everything through the Bible. If the Bible contradicts it then lets get rid of it, if the Bible doesn't say anything about it then it's probably unimportant... and the Bible is something we can guarantee was inspired by the Holy Spirit!)

[Colabomb]

I'm sorry, Cola. I really was not mocking *you*, I was being silly, really. I do realize that what you mean by "sola scriptura" is not what I portray. But I have had people say exactly that about "running something through the bible". I do apologize if you were taking it personally, I really don't believe anyone here thinks that way. I was, like I said, being silly.

Please forgive me for offending you.
Oh... Now I feel silly.

I thought you were being serious.

Please forgive me for jumping at your throat because of a misunderstanding.

[julian the apostate]

What is your standard?

I dont know about Higgs,
but mine is Grace

[higgs2]

Uh.. higgs are you being sarcastic? Because I actually agree with what you're saying and am trying to decide if you're being serious or not...

Timothy (Who does run everything through the Bible. If the Bible contradicts it then lets get rid of it, if the Bible doesn't say anything about it then it's probably unimportant... and the Bible is something we can guarantee was inspired by the Holy Spirit!)


Oh dear :blush: The way you put it, it sounds reasonable, SirTimothy. But I must admit I was sort of making fun of people who think that "running something through the bible" is as easy as writing down your question and putting it in one end of the bible, turning it on, and retrieving the answer from the other end.

Now I hope I haven't really just offended everyone here. :crossrc:

[Colabomb]

I dont know about Higgs,
but mine is Grace

No offense intended (trying to be a bit more sensitive on the forums), but this seems to me to be a theology of emotion.

[SirTimothy]

Oh dear :blush: The way you put it, it sounds reasonable, SirTimothy. But I must admit I was sort of making fun of people who think that "running something through the bible" is as easy as writing down your question and putting it in one end of the bible, turning it on, and retrieving the answer from the other end.

Now I hope I haven't really just offended everyone here. :crossrc:

I don't offend easily. But yes, I do try and line everything up with Scripture. It's just never easy.. the Bible is such a difficult book. Very uncomfortable in places too... I know the kind of people you're thinking of and I poke fun at them in a much MUCH nastier way...

[Bonifatius]

Towards the end of his life Luther's theological method comes down to "It is so because I believe it is". He made his understanding of justification by faith alone the central point of all his doctrine, teaching, practice and even exegesis. Whatever the text maybe he is writing about, he'll end up talking about this idea.

And from his days on most Lutherans have believed it because Luther has taught it.

Modern exegesis has proven that Luther's reading of Romans is fundamentally wrong, btw. But the Lutherans do not care.

It is fascinating how far one person's wrong ideas could mislead millions and millions of people in many generations...

Best
Boni

[Colabomb]

Towards the end of his life Luther's theological method comes down to "It is so because I believe it is". He made his understanding of justification by faith alone the central point of all his doctrine, teaching, practice and even exegesis. Whatever the text maybe he is writing about, he'll end up talking about this idea.

And from his days on most Lutherans have believed it because Luther has taught it.

Modern exegesis has proven that Luther's reading of Romans is fundamentally wrong, btw. But the Lutherans do not care.

It is fascinating how far one person's wrong ideas could mislead millions and millions of people in many generations...

Best
Boni
Wow, the pride in this post.

Exegis of the time also sometimes went against his interpretation. Just because someone disagrees with him does not mean he is wrong.

I'd also like to point out that you just called one of the largest Christian bodies a bunch of ignorant sheep.

[julian the apostate]

No offense intended (trying to be a bit more sensitive on the forums), but this seems to me to be a theology of emotion.

what i said was in now way directed at you in any kind of negative way

fyi

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Do not mock us Higgs. You may disagree with us, but it is unChristian and quite honestly bratty to sit and mock us.

I will pose a question though.

Which Traditions shall we follow? the Tradition that says that noone outside of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome shall be saved? Or the Tradition that Eastern Orthodox Christians are suddenly part of the Church and that we are ******* Children?

Shall we follow the Tradition of the Orthodox that those outside of orthodopraxis are not valid? Or shall we follow the Tradition of the Ecusa stating that just about everyone and their mother is a Christian?

Just which Traditions are good and which are bad?

At least we have a rule by which to judge Tradition, even if we do so imperfectly. What is your standard?

eh hem

Excuse me but the EOC does NOT condemn outside of the EOC to hell. Heck, we aren't even certain of our OWN salvation, nevermind those outside of the EOC. The EOC has NEVER claimed to have a grip on the Grace of God. Who God sends where is HIS choice -- not ours.

Whether you agree with the doctrine and traditions of the EOC is one thing, but one thing you cannot dispute is that the EOC has remained unchanged in doctrine and praxis.

In regards to your comment about the EOC being "suddenly part of the Church" -- I will decline to comment, as I don't want to be accused of breaking any rules in CF.

I would just encourage you to take a look at Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm)" and his views on the schism.

In XC,

Maureen

[julian the apostate]

Towards the end of his life Luther's theological method comes down to "It is so because I believe it is". He made his understanding of justification by faith alone the central point of all his doctrine, teaching, practice and even exegesis. Whatever the text maybe he is writing about, he'll end up talking about this idea.

And from his days on most Lutherans have believed it because Luther has taught it.

Modern exegesis has proven that Luther's reading of Romans is fundamentally wrong, btw. But the Lutherans do not care.

It is fascinating how far one person's wrong ideas could mislead millions and millions of people in many generations...

Best
Boni


actually,, NT Wright and the NPP would basically say Luther was right on Justification but wrong on his interpretion of that one verse

Have you ever read Hans Kung on Trent
that it was basically an endorsement of the core of what Luther taught?

[Colabomb]

eh hem

Excuse me but the EOC does NOT condemn outside of the EOC to hell. Heck, we aren't even certain of our OWN salvation, nevermind those outside of the EOC. The EOC has NEVER claimed to have a grip on the Grace of God. Who God sends where is HIS choice -- not ours.


Maureen, please forgive me dear sister if I have offended you. This was not my purpose.

I have an acquantance who is a Ukranian Orthodox Bishop. He is one of the most caring, loving Christian men I know.

I understand that many Orthodox are gracious such as this man is. However, I live in a city with a Greek Orthodox Congregation (a cathedral no less) who will not pray with any other Church, including the other Orthodox Churches in the Area. There have been many Orthodox who are just as judgemental and cruel as my ukranian friend is loving and kind.

Whether you agree with the doctrine and traditions of the EOC is one thing, but one thing you cannot dispute is that the EOC has remained unchanged in doctrine and praxis.

Again no offense, but there are many differences amongst the Orthodox Christians. Some Churches will not allow women who are menstruating to recieve the Sacrament, some will. Some will not pray with non-Orthodox, some will. Some recongize many Orthodox bodies as being legitimate, some only accept themselves.

In regards to your comment about the EOC being "suddenly part of the Church" -- I will decline to comment, as I don't want to be accused of breaking any rules in CF.

This was a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, not of the Orthodox. I believe that the Orthodox are indeed part of Christ's Church.

I would just encourage you to take a look at Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm)" and his views on the schism.

In XC,

Maureen

I have not read the book, but we do own it. Perhaps I will look at it. But I believe you misunderstood my point.

Again, sister, forgive me if I have offended you.

[Colabomb]

what i said was in now way directed at you in any kind of negative way

fyi
Oh, I didn't take it in any wrong way.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Maureen, please forgive me dear sister if I have offended you. This was not my purpose.

I have an acquantance who is a Ukranian Orthodox Bishop. He is one of the most caring, loving Christian men I know.

I understand that many Orthodox are gracious such as this man is. However, I live in a city with a Greek Orthodox Congregation (a cathedral no less) who will not pray with any other Church, including the other Orthodox Churches in the Area. There have been many Orthodox who are just as judgemental and cruel as my ukranian friend is loving and kind.



Again no offense, but there are many differences amongst the Orthodox Christians. Some Churches will not allow women who are menstruating to recieve the Sacrament, some will. Some will not pray with non-Orthodox, some will. Some recongize many Orthodox bodies as being legitimate, some only accept themselves.



This was a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, not of the Orthodox. I believe that the Orthodox are indeed part of Christ's Church.



I have not read the book, but we do own it. Perhaps I will look at it. But I believe you misunderstood my point.

Again, sister, forgive me if I have offended you.

Having been raised in the UOC, a current attendent of an OCA parish, and being familiar with GOARCH and the Antiochian diocese, I can see how such frivolties may cause the EOC to look like a disorganized mess. But in actuality it isn't.

For in Orthodoxy we have tradition with a small "t", and we have Holy Tradition, with a big "T." These are more than just spelling differences. Holy Tradition is doctrine, it is infallable, it is Traditions that have been passed down to us from Christ and the Holy Apostles. (Such as the Holy Tradition of the Eucharist.)

Tradition with a small "t" are customs and beliefs (many of them localized to geographic and ethnic groups) such as you described. Pews or no pews, praying with Orthodox vs. non-Orthodox, having gold crowns or flower crowns at the Wedding. They are NOT official doctrines of the Church.

Just as the Anglican Church does not place salvific emphasis on whether or not you are high church or low church, the Orthodox Church does not place salvific emphasis on "tradition", but it DOES place salvific emphasis on Holy Tradition.

While I'm not sure if you're friends with Vladyka Antony or ArchBishop Constantine, you may want to discuss this with them.

In XC,

Maureen

[Colabomb]

Having been raised in the UOC, a current attendent of an OCA parish, and being familiar with GOARCH and the Antiochian diocese, I can see how such frivolties may cause the EOC to look like a disorganized mess. But in actuality it isn't.

For in Orthodoxy we have tradition with a small "t", and we have Holy Tradition, with a big "T." These are more than just spelling differences. Holy Tradition is doctrine, it is infallable, it is Traditions that have been passed down to us from Christ and the Holy Apostles. (Such as the Holy Tradition of the Eucharist.)

Tradition with a small "t" are customs and beliefs (many of them localized to geographic and ethnic groups) such as you described. Pews or no pews, praying with Orthodox vs. non-Orthodox, having gold crowns or flower crowns at the Wedding. They are NOT official doctrines of the Church.



Sister, I understand the difference between tradition and Tradition. We have the same discussions here, and we use the same terms.

My issues with Orthodoxy stem from their interpretation of what they consider Tradition.

Considering most other orthodox and non-orthodox churches as heterodox is not an issue of "little t" tradition.

I consider them fractured, not because of tradition but because many argue amongst themselves about who is and is not Orthodox, and in some cases, who is and is not Christian.

Just as the Anglican Church does not place salvific emphasis on whether or not you are high church or low church, the Orthodox Church does not place salvific emphasis on "tradition", but it DOES place salvific emphasis on Holy Tradition.

While I'm not sure if you're friends with Vladyka Antony or ArchBishop Constantine, you may want to discuss this with them.

In XC,

Maureen

[gzt]

dear sir:
please to be stopping the smoking of rocks. that is to say, quit trotting out your ignorance about Orthodoxy for all to see. i would gladly, if i had the time, discuss your characterization in full with you, but since the afternoon is short, i will instead leave you with the following sage piece of advice. describe your own tradition and not the tradition of others unless you are certain you are doing so in a way that reasonable people familiar with it would appreciate, if not agree with. i mean, you would not like at all the sort of stuff i have to say about anglicanism from my passing familiarity with it, but i refrain because i know i'm really quite ignorant of the whole thing.
much love,
mr gzt

[Bonifatius]

actually,, NT Wright and the NPP would basically say Luther was right on Justification but wrong on his interpretion of that one verse

Have you ever read Hans Kung on Trent
that it was basically an endorsement of the core of what Luther taught?

Wright has put it very nicely: Luther said the right thing but for the wrong reasons. Or better: on the wrong exegetical basis.

Funny thing though is that Lutherans nowadays in ecumenical discussions still dig out their Lutheran Confessions and to prove them they point to Romans. ...

In fact there is a lot in Luther that I find wrong and indeed heretical (his understanding of reflexive faith is really not orthodox at all) but luckily the Lutherans did not follow him in all these things. In fact many Lutherans in America (ELCA) and Scandinavia are far more Catholic than Lutheran these days.

The interesting thing is that many people point to Luther as the great hero of rediscovering the biblical doctrine of justification. But when I started reading Luther in more detail I found his views rather extreme and heretical, whereas the ideas of the Council of Trent seem rather balanced... I haven't read Küng's book but I think that in some respect the Council of Trent perfectly understood Luther's interpretation of fides and rightly condemned it. Some of the fomulations are literal quotations from Luther's works.

[Colabomb]

dear sir:
please to be stopping the smoking of rocks. that is to say, quit trotting out your ignorance about Orthodoxy for all to see. i would gladly, if i had the time, discuss your characterization in full with you, but since the afternoon is short, i will instead leave you with the following sage piece of advice. describe your own tradition and not the tradition of others unless you are certain you are doing so in a way that reasonable people familiar with it would appreciate, if not agree with. i mean, you would not like at all the sort of stuff i have to say about anglicanism from my passing familiarity with it, but i refrain because i know i'm really quite ignorant of the whole thing.
much love,
mr gzt
Are you stating that there are no Orthodox like the ones I described?

Again, the Greek cathedral in my city is VERY judgemental of other Christians, including other Orthodox. Instead of telling me I am ignorant, address my complaint.

I state clearly that there are many wonderful Orthodox Christians such as my bishop friend. But to state that the entire Orthodox Church is united as one is simply incorrect.

[gtsecc]

I'd also like to point out that you just called one of the largest Christian bodies a bunch of ignorant sheep.

Please see Colabomb's request about Strawmen.

[gtsecc]

But to state that the entire Orthodox Church is united as one is simply incorrect.
Starwman!!

Doctrinally, they are the most united.

[Colabomb]

Starwman!!

Doctrinally, they are the most united.
Really?

They can't even agree on who is and isn't Orthodox.

[gtsecc]

Yeah Really.

[Colabomb]

Yeah Really.
Than tell me why the Greeks in my city won't pray with the other Orthodox??

[gtsecc]

Than tell me why the Greeks in my city won't pray with the other Orthodox??
No idea let's ask in TAW.

[Colabomb]

No idea let's ask in TAW.
I did so.

After a bit of cooling down, I realized this got a bit heated.

Still not sure about how unified Orthodoxy is, but sorry if I stepped on some toes.

[gtsecc]

I did so.

After a bit of cooling down, I realized this got a bit heated.

Still not sure about how unified Orthodoxy is, but sorry if I stepped on some toes.
They have unity problems, problems you could easily characterize as really really bad - Bishops fighting during Pascha (Easter) BUT theologically, they are very unified.

[Colabomb]

They have unity problems, problems you could easily characterize as really really bad - Bishops fighting during Pascha (Easter) BUT theologically, they are very unified.
Actually that lack of unification was what I was going on about.

[gtsecc]

Actually that lack of unification was what I was going on about.
You won't find it.
If you do, please tell me.
Trust me, I have looked for it.

[ContraMundum]

He was right about both.

[ContraMundum]

If everythign is made so simple with the reading of Scripture, then those who beleive this must think the Pope hasn't read the Bible, or His Holyness doesn't do it with the Power of the Holy Spirit.

The Pope in Luther's time (at the posting of the 95) was a Cardinal in his early teens, and no, he hadn't read the Bible or studied theology to get his position in the church. Luther himself was unfamiliar with the scriptures until a couple of years after his ordination to the priesthood, and he was a lucky exception to the rule. The New Testament wasn't available to him until he arrived at Wittenberg as a lecturer. The early 16thC had a tremendous shortage of available Bibles due mainly to expense and of course some decrees of local bishops etc.

Thanks to the Reformation, even Popes can have Bibles now readily available in the native tongue.

[ContraMundum]

So what exactly is the theological process by which one arrives at the conclusion they were correct about the reformation, but wrong about Mary.

Sola Scriptura- practiced in Anglicanism by scripture, tradition, reason.

(Important point for anti-Protestants here: Sola Scriptura does not mean "the Bible Alone", but is in the ablative form in Latin, that is, "through the scriptures alone". The assertion of the Reformers was always the truth that "the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and things not contained therein are not binding on Christians". This is not what many modern day people who are "Bible only" Christians believe. They have lost the path.)

[ContraMundum]

Towards the end of his life Luther's theological method comes down to "It is so because I believe it is". He made his understanding of justification by faith alone the central point of all his doctrine, teaching, practice and even exegesis. Whatever the text maybe he is writing about, he'll end up talking about this idea.

And from his days on most Lutherans have believed it because Luther has taught it.

Modern exegesis has proven that Luther's reading of Romans is fundamentally wrong, btw. But the Lutherans do not care.

It is fascinating how far one person's wrong ideas could mislead millions and millions of people in many generations...

Best
Boni

Learning (post grad) in a Lutheran seminary I need to tell you this is complete nonsense. No offence Boni. I've read more Luther and Lutheranism than some people have had hot dinners and believe me, this is mere mockery and an insult to the scholars who set the standard for the whole western Christian world, including Romanists, centuries ago.

[Bonifatius]

Learning (post grad) in a Lutheran seminary I need to tell you this is complete nonsense. No offence Boni. I've read more Luther and Lutheranism than some people have had hot dinners and believe me, this is mere mockery and an insult to the scholars who set the standard for the whole western Christian world, including Romanists, centuries ago.

I am by no means surprised that the Lutherans see it that way. ;)

But I still believe that the "real Luther" is one of the best kept secrets of the Lutheran church. As I said in the other post, the Lutherans did not follow Luther in everything - thank God. There is some good Lutheran theology out there (one needs only to look at Philip Melanchthon, but then we are again leaving the "true Lutheran position" as the Philipist school was condemned by the Gnesio-Lutherans in the late 16th c).

There are some writings from Luther's later years the scholars were so embarassed about that they never even appeared in print until very late. The Weimarer Ausgabe kindly omitted them). Have you ever studied such gems as "Wider Hans Worst" or the like??

I honestly recommend a very good book by Paul Hacker: "The ego in faith. Martin Luther and the origin of anthropocentric religion". It came out in the sixties. Paul Hacker mainly presents quotations from Luther's works with a very fine analysis. You'll probably not find it in your seminar library, I expect. The foreword to the original edition was written by a very intelligent young scholar, who now happens to be the Bishop or Rome, btw.

I actually believe that what is good in Luther is from Catholic sources. The Reformation started when a Catholic monk read Catholic books and rediscoverd Catholic teachings.

Best
Boni

[Bonifatius]

Luther himself was unfamiliar with the scriptures until a couple of years after his ordination to the priesthood, and he was a lucky exception to the rule. The New Testament wasn't available to him until he arrived at Wittenberg as a lecturer. The early 16thC had a tremendous shortage of available Bibles due mainly to expense and of course some decrees of local bishops etc.


I am very sorry, but you do not really believe this, do you??

What did the monks in the Augustinerkloster at Erfurt use for their services? Did they not have a library? Erfurt was one of the biggest and richest cities in the late middle ages, no bibles around? Please remember that Johannes Gensfleisch, commonly known as Gutenberg started printing bibles several decades before Luther went to Erfurt or even Wittenberg. There were lots of Incunables around at that time. The bible was not only available in Latin (and Greek!) but also in German. There have been at least 40 translations of the bible or parts of the bible into German before Luther!

Maybe Luther did not use the bible or the New Testament extensively before he started teaching at Wittenberg (which in itself says a lot about late mediaeval spirituality and practice), but certainly it was available.

Best
Boni

[Fish and Bread]

One way of looking at this might be to say that it is remarkable that, in a time where the corruption was so great that people in their early teens were becoming Popes and Cardinals while people were often made bishops as political favors, and with so little biblical literary, such a degree of doctrinal purity was maintained. Can you imagine the type of doctrines we'd get if a thirteen year old who had never picked up a bible were given complete control over our church today? It seems that God was with the Roman Catholics, in some way, shape, or form; in ensuring that they maintained basic Christian doctrine in such a time. We can quibble around the edges and say they went astray here or there, certainly in the sale of indulgences, but I find it amazing that all of the sudden the boy-king Pope didn't declare that Jesus was really an elephant or something. Maybe I just have low expectations. ;)

[ContraMundum]

I am very sorry, but you do not really believe this, do you??

Yes, I do.

What did the monks in the Augustinerkloster at Erfurt use for their services?

Lectionaries.

Did they not have a library?

Yes, full of philosophy, theology and canon law.

Erfurt was one of the biggest and richest cities in the late middle ages, no bibles around? Please remember that Johannes Gensfleisch, commonly known as Gutenberg started printing bibles several decades before Luther went to Erfurt or even Wittenberg. There were lots of Incunables around at that time. The bible was not only available in Latin (and Greek!) but also in German. There have been at least 40 translations of the bible or parts of the bible into German before Luther!

There were as, far as I can find, only two (or three if you count High German) complete translations of the Bible in German before Luther's, and interestingly enough, they translated his "controverisal" passage in Romans just as he did. :)

Maybe Luther did not use the bible or the New Testament extensively before he started teaching at Wittenberg (which in itself says a lot about late mediaeval spirituality and practice), but certainly it was available.


I never said the Bible wasn't available, I was saying it wasn't always easy to get. Indeed, if it wasn't available, then Luther would never have been able to get it either, right? What perhaps triggered you was the comment that I said "The early 16thC had a tremendous shortage of available Bibles due mainly to expense and of course some decrees of local bishops etc". This is true. On occasion, local authorities forbade scripture reading. Worse still, one "infallible" Pope translated (wrote, actually) his own terrible version of the Bible, adding and leaving out entire verses and forbade the reading of all other translations by Papal Bull (Sixtus V, Aeternus Ille). Of course you know some of the people burnt at the stake were killed for reading or distributing the scriptures in that era. Don't be fooled by the modern Roman revisionism that says these things never happened.

You're right about late medieval practice regarding the subjugation of scripture being the order of the day. This is precisely what the Reformers were ocmplaining about. They didn't make it up- they lived it. They are witnesses of their world to us today. Let us not forget it.

[karen freeinchristman]

Worse still, one "infallible" Pope translated (wrote, actually) his own terrible version of the Bible, adding and leaving out entire verses and forbade the reading of all other translations by Papal Bull (Sixtus V, Aeternus Ille). Of course you know some of the people burnt at the stake were killed for reading or distributing the scriptures in that era. Don't be fooled by the modern Roman revisionism that says these things never happened.

You're right about late medieval practice regarding the subjugation of scripture being the order of the day. This is precisely what the Reformers were ocmplaining about. They didn't make it up- they lived it. They are witnesses of their world to us today. Let us not forget it.

This is amazing. We take so much for granted these days in the West.

[ContraMundum]

I am by no means surprised that the Lutherans see it that way. ;)

But I still believe that the "real Luther" is one of the best kept secrets of the Lutheran church.

I believe the "hidden Luther" myth is one of the most pathetic apologetic tools of the modern Roman Apologetic machine. Luther was not perfect- that's good, so we don't feel tempted to worship him instead of the Lord. I know plenty of "orthodox Confessional" Lutherans that basically treat him as the infallible interpreter of the word (although, naturally, employing double-speak and denying infallibility to any man), but most Lutherans have a balanced view of him. I agree it is sad that Phillip Melancthon got a raw deal from the Gneiso-Lutherans (as did Spener later on) but again, that doesn't mean much on the grand scale. Most modern Lutherans are pretty liberal in comparison with their ancestors, as is the case also in Anglicanism and Romanism.

If I want to know what Martin Luther wrote, I just have to read it myself- I've got the complete works about 1 meter away from me right now. I don't need some secondary source. I can eat the meat and spit out the bones myself. Have you read them yourself? Studied them for a lengthy period?

Besides the hagiographical Luther is no greater an exaggeration than the one that says Constantine was a devout and godly man or that any saint is without foibles. It's just someone's interpretation of them. Sometimes, we see what we want to see or remember only the positive or the negative, forgetting the humanity of it all.

[Bonifatius]

There were as, far as I can find, only two (or three if you count High German) complete translations of the Bible in German before Luther's, and interestingly enough, they translated his "controverisal" passage in Romans just as he did.
Hello ContraMundum,

there were at least 18 full versions of the Bible in German before Luther! This is only the printed versions between 1466 and 1522 and not even counting the Old High German and Middle High German translations. Have a look here: http://www.pfalz-nt.de/portal/ML_BibelnvorLuther.pdf




I said "The early 16thC had a tremendous shortage of available Bibles due mainly to expense and of course some decrees of local bishops etc". This is true.


I'd say this is not true, but rather an ahistorical judgement. The shortage is only there if you look at it from a modern perspective. In fact the oppposite is true: Compared to the centuries before there was an amazing abundance of bibles and devotional literature in the early 16th century due to the fact that the printing had been invented, so bibles had become much much cheaper and were much easier to produce than before. Also there was a huge increase of literacy in the 15th and 16th century so that people actually could read it. This was due to new civic schools and better education for the non noble families. Historians speak of the first civic century.



On occasion, local authorities forbade scripture reading. Worse still, one "infallible" Pope translated (wrote, actually) his own terrible version of the Bible, adding and leaving out entire verses and forbade the reading of all other translations by Papal Bull (Sixtus V, Aeternus Ille).


Not only this pope's translation was terrible, but others also, which was one of the reasons for some authorities to forbid the reading and translating of the bible altogether. We should not forget that even countries like Spain which never were influenced by the Reformation got a bible in the vernacular ...



Of course you know some of the people burnt at the stake were killed for reading or distributing the scriptures in that era. Don't be fooled by the modern Roman revisionism that says these things never happened.


O, I am not going to deny this.


You're right about late medieval practice regarding the subjugation of scripture being the order of the day. This is precisely what the Reformers were ocmplaining about. They didn't make it up- they lived it. They are witnesses of their world to us today. Let us not forget it.


Yes, that is partly true. But the Reformers were of course one of the parties in a conflict, and some of their writings we can still read were clearly polemical rather then balanced (which of course is true for the other side as well). Subjugation of course is one of thes polemical words. We from our perspective see this as a major fault of mediaeval Catholicism, but as we see from the early Luther, scripture reading just did not matter for them. In their understanding the celebration of the holy liturgy was much more important (and that included the reading of scripture). In their view they did not withhold anything important of the faithful. It is easy for us to say now that they supressed the most important bit of Christianity, but that is only because our understanding of Christianity is now very much shaped by the Reformation and its theology. Which means basically that we judge the Catholic hierarchy mainly by measures that we have set up later and which they did not have a chance to know at all.

Best
Boni

[Bonifatius]

If I want to know what Martin Luther wrote, I just have to read it myself- I've got the complete works about 1 meter away from me right now.


You sad man! ;)

I do not have my stuff here at the moment, but I will later get back to you to point you to some enlightening passages! If it is the complete works, it will certainly comprise the gems I've mentioned like "Wider Hans Worst" or even "Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet"??


I don't need some secondary source. I can eat the meat and spit out the bones myself. Have you read them yourself? Studied them for a lengthy period?


Well, I have studied Theology at a German Lutheran University (Hamburg), I hope that counts ... ;)

Apart from the "Lutherus absconditus" (may he exist or not :) ) I even do not like the visible Luther. I do not like his anthropology (it is far too negative in my understanding), I do not like his understanding of forensic justification (where is the efficacy of grace??), I do not like his understanding of sanctification (does it even exist??), I do not like his undertanding of the sacraments, I do not like his church politics... In all this I would rather go for the balanced formulations of the Council of Trent or even for Calvin whom I think to be a much better theologian... :bow:

I do not even like his rejection of the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures. If I had to name a thing in Luther that I like than it may be his radical understanding of the division between earthly and spiritual power ("Lehre von den zwei Gewalten"), as the claim for earthly and political power by the popes was one of the worst developments of the middle ages. But then - what happened in Lutheranism in Germany immediately after the Reformation? There was a combination of spiritual and earthly power again when the princes became the heads of the Lutheran churches. A situation that remained until 1918!


Best
Boni

[ContraMundum]

Hello ContraMundum,

there were at least 18 full versions of the Bible in German before Luther! This is only the printed versions between 1466 and 1522 and not even counting the Old High German and Middle High German translations. Have a look here: http://www.pfalz-nt.de/portal/ML_BibelnvorLuther.pdf
Now, THAT, is a cool link. You're getting rep'd for that.


Not only this pope's translation was terrible, but others also, which was one of the reasons for some authorities to forbid the reading and translating of the bible altogether. We should not forget that even countries like Spain which never were influenced by the Reformation got a bible in the vernacular ...

That's exactly where I'm coming from.

Yes, that is partly true. But the Reformers were of course one of the parties in a conflict, and some of their writings we can still read were clearly polemical rather then balanced (which of course is true for the other side as well). Subjugation of course is one of thes polemical words. We from our perspective see this as a major fault of mediaeval Catholicism, but as we see from the early Luther, scripture reading just did not matter for them. In their understanding the celebration of the holy liturgy was much more important (and that included the reading of scripture). In their view they did not withhold anything important of the faithful. It is easy for us to say now that they supressed the most important bit of Christianity, but that is only because our understanding of Christianity is now very much shaped by the Reformation and its theology. Which means basically that we judge the Catholic hierarchy mainly by measures that we have set up later and which they did not have a chance to know at all.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

[ContraMundum]

You sad man! ;)

Hey- I'm not that sad! I do have a copy of Melancthon's Loci for balance. (and I have Chemnitz's too, for the counter-balance!)

I do not have my stuff here at the moment, but I will later get back to you to point you to some enlightening passages! If it is the complete works, it will certainly comprise the gems I've mentioned like "Wider Hans Worst" or even "Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet"??

Well, those works are of course there. I've always found those things very outrageous and extravagant- and often very, very funny.

(For those unfamiliar with German, those two works are best translated in English as : "Against Jack Sausage" and "Against the Papacy in Rome, founded by the Devil"- his last work if I remember correctly.)

I like the early Luther far more than the later. Most "Confessional" types are the opposite.

Well, I have studied Theology at a German Lutheran University (Hamburg), I hope that counts ... ;)


I s'pose. :)

Question- do they teach a lot of Barth in those places? I've always wondered why my German pastor friend is so Neo-Orthodox.

How about Helmut Theilicke? You gotta like him.

Apart from the "Lutherus absconditus" (may he exist or not :) ) I even do not like the visible Luther. I do not like his anthropology (it is far too negative in my understanding), I do not like his understanding of forensic justification (where is the efficacy of grace??), I do not like his understanding of sanctification (does it even exist??), I do not like his undertanding of the sacraments, I do not like his church politics... In all this I would rather go for the balanced formulations of the Council of Trent or even for Calvin whom I think to be a much better theologian... :bow:

The reasons you cite are a little polemically stated, but that's ok. I was asked over at the Lutheran forum why I left Lutheranism altogether and I promised some guys I'd answer them privately. You've touched on one very important reason- no doctrine of sanctification. I've really got to write to those guys....

As for Trent- you can have that. It's rubbish and double talk to me. I think Chemnitz' Examen had some very good points about that, but really, they didn't reform enough- but they can't, can they? That would be too much like admitting to sins.

I do not even like his rejection of the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures. If I had to name a thing in Luther that I like than it may be his radical understanding of the division between earthly and spiritual power ("Lehre von den zwei Gewalten"), as the claim for earthly and political power by the popes was one of the worst developments of the middle ages. But then - what happened in Lutheranism in Germany immediately after the Reformation? There was a combination of spiritual and earthly power again when the princes became the heads of the Lutheran churches. A situation that remained until 1918!

Yes, I don't like the way it went in Germany, but then again, it went better in Sweden (later at least, but not recently) and in other places. It should be noted, for the audience of this forum, that the main reason the US Lutherans are so driven to "confessional" Lutheranism is because the founders of Lutheranism in the US who came from Germany were in fact those who felt they were being persecuted for being "true" Lutherans, and refused to join the new unified church. The left a legacy that is pretty weird- in their history you have Christians that won't even pray together to sort out a mutual problem regarding thier own unity, and all kinds of things like that. On the other hand, they did bring a lot of orthodoxy and the love of the scriptures with them. I could go on but this is badly off topic. I think the Augustana Synod (not founded by German refugees) would have been a nice place to be.

[Bonifatius]

Hey- I'm not that sad! I do have a copy of Melancthon's Loci for balance. (and I have Chemnitz's too, for the counter-balance!)

That sounds very good. :thumbsup: I often use Leonhard Hutter's "Compendium Locorum Theologicorum" as a reference work for Lutheran Orthodoxy and found it very reliable!


Question- do they teach a lot of Barth in those places? I've always wondered why my German pastor friend is so Neo-Orthodox.

Well, Barth still has this taste of being "Reformed" rather than "Lutheran". Barth seems to be more popular in certain conservative churches and funny enough in free church circles rather than in liberal State church Lutheranism. Thielicke is more popular especially in Hamburg because he used to teach there before he went to the States.

You've touched on one very important reason- no doctrine of sanctification.

That is one of the reasons why I have such a high regard of the Venerable John Wesley! I think Wesley got the balance right in getting the good out of Luther (justification by faith) while not making the same mistakes! ;) His soteriology and balance of justification and sanctification is the best I am currently aware of...

Best
Boni

[karen freeinchristman]

You guys are too intelligent for your own good! ;)

[ContraMundum]

That sounds very good. :thumbsup: I often use Leonhard Hutter's "Compendium Locorum Theologicorum" as a reference work for Lutheran Orthodoxy and found it very reliable!

Hey- I can't get a hold of that- is it still in print? If so, in what languages?

Well, Barth still has this taste of being "Reformed" rather than "Lutheran". Barth seems to be more popular in certain conservative churches and funny enough in free church circles rather than in liberal State church Lutheranism. Thielicke is more popular especially in Hamburg because he used to teach there before he went to the States.

I thought that might be the case.

As an aside- is pentecostalism popular in Germany?

That is one of the reasons why I have such a high regard of the Venerable John Wesley! I think Wesley got the balance right in getting the good out of Luther (justification by faith) while not making the same mistakes! ;) His soteriology and balance of justification and sanctification is the best I am currently aware of...

Best
Boni

All Hail! :amen:

(Too bad some of Wesley's sucessors are so wacky though...but that's another story...for another forum...which one I don't know)

[junegillam]

You guys are too intelligent for your own good! ;)
yes, Karen, it is indeed MIND boggling to read all the information and documented views here--and, it shows me it was to be helpful down the line to have those two years of German!

june

[Bonifatius]

Hey- I can't get a hold of that- is it still in print? If so, in what languages?
No, I am afraid it has been oup for a long time. I have got a German/Latin edition, but that is photocopied version.


As an aside- is pentecostalism popular in Germany?


It is popular, but not as much as in the UK or the US as far as I can see.

Best
Boni