Should we call Martin Luther a saint?

[Luther073082]

Just as the topic asks.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Oh good grief!

What's your point.

[Luther073082]

This is an off shoot of the "Is Martin Luther a prophet" thread. Just for fun. . .

[C.F.W. Walther]

This doesn't sound like fun. It sounds like a smear campaign

We all know some of Luther's practices were questionable but it's not necessary to bring up ONLY the negative parts. He was human like any other but he was greater than most of us.

We have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

[Luther073082]

Then vote yes. . . I know he was human, but to me the biggest thing as to prevent people from calling him "Saint Martin Luther" is his hatred of Jews.

And if you'll notice, I voted yes.

[dinkime]

saints, from what i understand, have done miracles -- writing the truth and keeping to Scripture is not a miracle...so to me, no

[C.F.W. Walther]

I don't see the point in participating in this...whatever. It's not what kind of person he was, it's what he did for the furtherance of God's kingdom and his impact on politics, governments, history and human religiosity.

To open up a seamy side of Luther serves no purpose. You propose to bring out the saintly side of Luther when in fact you bring out the negative.

[PowderedGold]

.

[Luther073082]

saints, from what i understand, have done miracles -- writing the truth and keeping to Scripture is not a miracle...so to me, no

Only by the current catholic definition. Most of the earliest saints where just called saints because people started calling them that. No one ever checked to see if they performed any miricles.

Wow Radido you are taking this way way way too seriously.

[PowderedGold]

I think the real issue here is: Should we call Mel Gibson a saint?

[Luther073082]

If you can find me some saints who wrote something so full of vitriolic hatred and malice, I'll consider that maybe he should be a saint.

"The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ . . .The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christian may never cease vengeance, and the Jews must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews. -- St. John Chrysotom-Patriarch of Constantinople known as the Bishop with the Golden Tongue.

Also

After Christianity became the state religion, (313) the Jews were treated as pariahs and became the scapegoats for all the ills of the society. Founding Fathers of the Church like St. Chrysotom and St. Ambrose of Milan (379-395 AD.), advocated Jewish persecution, teaching the gospel of hate:

http://www.kimel.net/antisem.html

"The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus. "
--- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Father of the Church.

[PowderedGold]

.

[Luther073082]

After much deliberation, I have decided that none of those men should be saints. In fact, I don't even believe in saints, so why am I even talking about this?

I don't belive in saints in the terms of completly sinless individuals of course not. . . the only person who was ever sinless was Christ.

However saint is just a term of honor IMO given to a person who has passed to Christ that have made major and irreplaceable contributions to the faith. Sort of like a "above and beyond the call of duty" for Christians.

The biggest problem with a lot of past Christians was while they made great contributions to the faith, they also held a strong hatred of the Jews. The question is if we can forgive this in beginning to call them a saint or not? Above all though and this is the kicker, we must also remember to take into the effects of the time they lived in. Lots of people hated Jews and tolerance was not something that was taught to really anyone at the time.

Does that make it not a sin? No of course not its still a sin, just as hatred of homosexuals is a sin even when the churchs around us often encourage it. The question is though is his sins of hatred big enough to overwrite the enormous contribution he made to the faith. (Many would reguard saving the faith from itself). Or does his legacy, namely a reformed church that attempts to operate within the bible as opposed to traditions out weigh his sins in order to be called a saint.

[Edial]

Martin NEVER expressed hatred towards the Jews, but towards the Judaics.

He loved the Jews.

MANY Christian leaders were extressing their dislike towards the Judaics at the times.

The nerve was still raw, the Judaic leaders at the time were clearly of the "synagogue of Satan" as defined in the Revelation that were trying to destroy the church and the Jewish Messianic congregations.

If anyone ever was persecuted by the "Pharisees" in today's Israel, they'll tell you that these guys are EXCELLENT at slander and manipulation of authorities.
They persecute their OWN Jewish people (the Messianic Jews).

Some of the extreme Sephardic Jews in Brooklyn section of New York hate Israel itself.
They do not recognize it.

Why? Because the formation of Israel means another prophecy concerning Jesus Christ fulfilled.

They ONLY thing that Martin and other Christian leaders are guilty of if that they have not learned the NT approach towards the enemies.

(And the Judaics were the enemies ...
RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, ... )

... the Christians at the time simply needed to learn the NT approach towards the enemies.

Not every Jew is a Judaic. There are even atheist Jews. There are also Judaics that were "born that way".

But there are "Pharisees" today that are pure enemies of the Gospel.

Thanks,
Ed

[Jenna]

It has been my understanding that a saint is simply a way of referring to our brothers and sister's in Christ. I don't have any other definition other than what I have gathered through context while reading through my bible. If that is the case, then I would consider Martin Luther to be a saint, as we all are.

[ludovica]

Then vote yes. . . I know he was human, but to me the biggest thing as to prevent people from calling him "Saint Martin Luther" is his hatred of Jews.

And if you'll notice, I voted yes. The vast majority of Christians hated Jews until relatively recent times if we are to be strictly honest about it.
Martin Luther was a product of the culture he was born into

[DaRev]

Luther didn't hate Jews. He hated the Jewish false religion that rejected Christ.

I think to have a poll where that is even an option in the Lutheran forum is in extremely bad taste.

Mods, could we have this thread deleted please?


Oh, and Luther most certainly is a saint, as are all who believe in Christ.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Luther didn't hate Jews. He hated the Jewish false religion that rejected Christ.

I think to have a poll where that is even an option in the Lutheran forum is in extremely bad taste.

Mods, could we have this thread deleted please?


Oh, and Luther most certainly is a saint, as are all who believe in Christ.
Yup.

I voted yes, because St. Martin of Wittenberg (or Eisleben, if you prefer) just sounds cool. Plus, we all call him Doctor of the Church, and all the other sixteen-some doctors were saints.

However, veneration of sainthood is something done by the church as a whole, and I don't think we, as a single sect, would look very ecumenical by raising our own standardbearer to sainthood while rejecting Sts. Teresa of Avila or John to the Cross, or not working for St. John of Geneva or St. Thomas of Canturbery.

[Lupinus]

Saint by what definition?

That he was a Christian man who did some really good things and is worthy of note? Yes.

I don't hold to the RCC view of miricles and such.

[C.F.W. Walther]

It has been my understanding that a saint is simply a way of referring to our brothers and sister's in Christ. I don't have any other definition other than what I have gathered through context while reading through my bible. If that is the case, then I would consider Martin Luther to be a saint, as we all are.You people aren't hearing what Jenna has said. It's biblical. Look it up and quit discussing a "GIVEN".

I agree with DaRev--this is nonsense.

[Edial]

It has been my understanding that a saint is simply a way of referring to our brothers and sister's in Christ. I don't have any other definition other than what I have gathered through context while reading through my bible. If that is the case, then I would consider Martin Luther to be a saint, as we all are.
Jenna is totally correct, Biblically speaking.

I am just venting.

Ed

[DaRev]

Rad, Ed, and I are in agreement again.

Amen! :amen: Come Lord Jesus!! :clap:

[Edial]

Rad, Ed, and I are in agreement again.

Amen! :amen: Come Lord Jesus!! :clap:
These are indeed extremely rare moments.

Here is a funny part.
We started agreeing mainly after 7-7-07.

Go figure ...

Ed

[xristos.anesti]

Many years,

I am not sure how you see saints - but in the East (for I.e.) the fact that Martin Luther was an alleged antisemite (I am not sure if he was - but from the question in this poll it seems so - please forgive if I am wrong) would not stop the church from asking for his intercession.

Many of the early church fathers were antisemites - this description of the XX and XXI centuries did not exist earlier. Sure, we can go back and judge people - it is easy - but, not many Christians were pro-Jewish - not many are even today - maybe in the US they are - but that unfortunately might not be the case elsewhere.

Anyway, without going into issues related to psychology of nations - Saints are not saints because they are perfect, or not antisemites - they are saints because the church "feels" that God has blessed them and that they struggled for the faith and God giving us - who are wanting to receive - blessing through their lives.

I am far from being a Lutheran - but from what I know of Martin Luther - in my honest opinion - I see no reason that one should not ask for his intercession - if one holds that there is such a thing.


I don't know - never tried it before - but I might just ask for his intercession tonight - you can never have enough friends in the Church Triumphant.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[C.F.W. Walther]

These are indeed extremely rare moments.

Here is a funny part.
We started agreeing mainly after 7-7-07.

Go figure ...

EdWell I know what I need but I can't say it on a forum with children on it.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Many years,

I am not sure how you see saints - but in the East (for I.e.) the fact that Martin Luther was an alleged antisemite (I am not sure if he was - but from the question in this poll it seems so - please forgive if I am wrong) would not stop the church from asking for his intercession.

Many of the early church fathers were antisemites - this description of the XX and XXI centuries did not exist earlier. Sure, we can go back and judge people - it is easy - but, not many Christians were pro-Jewish - not many are even today - maybe in the US they are - but that unfortunately might not be the case elsewhere.

Anyway, without going into issues related to psychology of nations - Saints are not saints because they are perfect, or not antisemites - they are saints because the church "feels" that God has blessed them and that they struggled for the faith and God giving us - who are wanting to receive - blessing through their lives.

I am far from being a Lutheran - but from what I know of Martin Luther - in my honest opinion - I see no reason that one should not ask for his intercession - if one holds that there is such a thing.


I don't know - never tried it before - but I might just ask for his intercession tonight - you can never have enough friends in the Church Triumphant.

Sorry if I offended anyone.You haven't offended anyone. It's really a non-issue with Lutherans.

I could really care less one way or the other.

[DaRev]

I just find it comical that the RCC has bantered around the idea of canonizing Luther, whom they deemed a heretic! ^_^ ^_^

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Many years,

I am not sure how you see saints - but in the East (for I.e.) the fact that Martin Luther was an alleged antisemite (I am not sure if he was - but from the question in this poll it seems so - please forgive if I am wrong) would not stop the church from asking for his intercession.

Many of the early church fathers were antisemites - this description of the XX and XXI centuries did not exist earlier. Sure, we can go back and judge people - it is easy - but, not many Christians were pro-Jewish - not many are even today - maybe in the US they are - but that unfortunately might not be the case elsewhere.

Anyway, without going into issues related to psychology of nations - Saints are not saints because they are perfect, or not antisemites - they are saints because the church "feels" that God has blessed them and that they struggled for the faith and God giving us - who are wanting to receive - blessing through their lives.

I am far from being a Lutheran - but from what I know of Martin Luther - in my honest opinion - I see no reason that one should not ask for his intercession - if one holds that there is such a thing.


I don't know - never tried it before - but I might just ask for his intercession tonight - you can never have enough friends in the Church Triumphant.

Sorry if I offended anyone.
Thank you for that kind and level-headed post.

[Luther073082]

I just find it comical that the RCC has bantered around the idea of canonizing Luther, whom they deemed a heretic! ^_^ ^_^


Have they really? I thought it was weird that they used "A mighty fortress is our God" as part of their worship litergy. Can they even do that considering they excommunicated him and he isn't even catholic? Didn't know the RCC could or would even consider cannonizing a non catholic.

Also guys I think you where reading too deep into this.

In the past prior to the middle ages, people where given the title "saint" just by a bunch of people calling them a saint. There was no process of cannonization or anything of the sort. And if I'm not mistaken they didn't at the time call upon them in prayers. They just gave them the title of respect "saint" as an honor for their controbutions to the faith.

My feeling was is if we should revive that tradition and just refer to him as Saint Martin Luther? And no I'm not suggesting we ask for his intercession. I'm not going to ask some silly saint to put in a good word to God for me, I'd rather just talk to God himself through Christ.

I wasn't trying to get biblical about this or dive deep into theology.

Not everything requires pulling out your study bible, the book of concord, Luther's large catheism, and the augustberg confession to pick apart. ;)

Have some fun guys.

[DaRev]

We don't consider it "fun" to make the type of remarks you did in your poll question. It is, to say the least, very offensive.

You think that's fun?

[Luther073082]

We don't consider it "fun" to make the type of remarks you did in your poll question. It is, to say the least, very offensive.

You think that's fun?

Yes because for all of Luther's contributions if we can't own up to the fact that the man had an axe to grind with the Jews then we are kidding ourselves.

I love Luther's writings on theology and scripture. They make you think and they have given us a great foundation. But honestly we can't sit here and paint a rosey picture of him and I think its better for us to just own up to the fact that he wasn't very fond of Jews.

Let us not forget his last published work was called "On the Jews and their lies" If we can't speak the truth about Luther and his anti-semitism or its just something we keep quiet and don't talk about like its a big secret everyone knows but no one discusses how in the world are we suppose to convince the world that we present the whole unbias truth about Christ?

Edit: And honestly I didn't know people would get offended on behalf of a man that lived 500 years ago. . . Lets be fair if I made fun of Leo X then no one would say anything about it, many might laugh along with me. But your offended on behalf of Luther about what is TRUE?

[DaRev]

What is true is that Luther had a hatred of the Jewish religion and their hatred of Christ. Luther did not have a hatred of the Jewish race. Get your facts straight.

[Luther073082]

What is true is that Luther had a hatred of the Jewish religion and their hatred of Christ. Luther did not have a hatred of the Jewish race. Get your facts straight.

Yes and he hated anyone who practiced that religion as well. Although I tend to wonder how one could consider the Jew's a "race". But don't let that sway you to not think that he hated REAL people and advocated REAL attacks.

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish.

The thing is there just isn't a defense for this . . . we can either own up to it and say "That was his time, and it was wrong" or we can try to pretend it didn't happen. Me I would rather try to own up to the whole truth no matter how much it might hurt.

And yes I'm sure they hated Christ at the same time too. Neither side was sinless in the struggles of the time period by any means. However since his writings survived for 500 years and we still study them today, we have to own up to the whole Martin Luther.

Take it easy Rev.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes and he hated anyone who practiced that religion as well. Although I tend to wonder how one could consider the Jew's a "race".

And yes I'm sure they hated Christ at the same time too. Neither side was sinless in the struggles of the time period by any means.

Take it easy Rev.
Actually, when he was young and in the early years of the Reformation, Luther was personal friends with three local rabbis.

'Race' was not a concept until after the Darwinism revolution and eugenics became popular science (much like today). The idea of races and ethnic groups is a modern construct; it would not have occured to Luther to hate Jews for their race any more than it would have occured to him to hate them for their DNA.

[Luther073082]

Actually, when he was young and in the early years of the Reformation, Luther was personal friends with three local rabbis.


Interesting, something certainly changed his mind though.

I mean he started calling the pope the anti-christ but its pretty clear that may have in fact been caused by the pope constantly trying to kill him.

I don't know what caused him to become so angry with the Jews however.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Interesting, something certainly changed his mind though.

I mean he started calling the pope the anti-christ but its pretty clear that may have in fact been caused by the pope constantly trying to kill him.

I don't know what caused him to become so angry with the Jews however.
Yes, stress from the Reformation was a big part of it. He became very depressed and bitter. At the end of his career, he considered himself a failure.

He also thought that the Jews would convert en masse because of his appeal to going back to the Jewish origins of Christianity. When they didn't, he became bitter about this as well- which, of course, contributed to his overall sense of failure.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has a rather even-handed article on him if you want to check it out online.

[Edial]

... Although I tend to wonder how one could consider the Jew's a "race". ...
Just a note.
Jewish is NOT a religion, Judaism is.

There are Jewish Christians, Jewish Judaics as well as Jewish Atheists.

Judaic teachers teach that Jewish is a religion and nothing else.

The millions of the Atheist Jews in the former Soviet Union laugh at their faces.

If you take an Atheist Jew and the Judaic Jew and the Christian Jew and look at them, one would see definite genetic identities, that of a race or nationality.

Thanks,
Ed

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yes because for all of Luther's contributions if we can't own up to the fact that the man had an axe to grind with the Jews then we are kidding ourselves.

I love Luther's writings on theology and scripture. They make you think and they have given us a great foundation. But honestly we can't sit here and paint a rosey picture of him and I think its better for us to just own up to the fact that he wasn't very fond of Jews.

Let us not forget his last published work was called "On the Jews and their lies" If we can't speak the truth about Luther and his anti-semitism or its just something we keep quiet and don't talk about like its a big secret everyone knows but no one discusses how in the world are we suppose to convince the world that we present the whole unbias truth about Christ?

Edit: And honestly I didn't know people would get offended on behalf of a man that lived 500 years ago. . . Lets be fair if I made fun of Leo X then no one would say anything about it, many might laugh along with me. But your offended on behalf of Luther about what is TRUE?You know you are bringing this all up like we've never read anything about Luther. You don't give us much credit. Lutherans in fact are a very learned group of people and maybe you should think of that when you bring this up. We already know all this and it is irrelevant to our faith. Besides that what has it to do with our salvation???

You're just stirring things up.

MODS DELETE THIS THREAD !! DaRev already asked you once before.

[Luther073082]

You know you are bringing this all up like we've never read anything about Luther. You don't give us much credit. Lutherans in fact are a very learned group of people and maybe you should think of that when you bring this up. We already know all this and it is irrelevant to our faith. Besides that what has it to do with our salvation???

You're just stirring things up.

MODS DELETE THIS THREAD !! DaRev already asked you once before.

And this bothers you why? I brought it up in the poll as IMO the only thing that would logically stop any protestant from referring to him as "Saint Martin Luther".

This isn't irrelivant I think its a good question and not every topic has to be focused on our salvation. This was I guess a poor attempt at fellowship because apparently some Lutheran's get mad if you mention that Luther hated Jews. The slings and arrows of the truth about a man who lived 500 years ago? Luther is one of my favorite people from history but studying history means you have to study the whole man, not just the parts you like.

I didn't explain it because I didn't feel I needed, to I assumed everyone knew and you did. Explain to me again why you are getting so offended by this?

Hatred or no hatred though I still think his contributions where irreplaceable so I personally think we should start referring to him in popular speech as "Saint Martin Luther". Thats how the earliest Saints got their title and I think we should revive this tradition.

Jewish is NOT a religion, Judaism is.


No Jewish is the people who follow Judaism. . . I do not consider Jewish a race but rather a people who follow Judaism. "Atheistic Jews" are atheists who celibrate Jewish holidays they are not Jews, they are atheists. Would you call an atheist who celibrates Christian holidays a "Atheistic Christian"?? Cause there are plenty of them, I used to be one.

Islam is a religion, its followers are Muslim.

As was earlier pointed out the idea that Jewish was a race didn't come about til after Darwin. (A bit of a hate monger himself)

Yes, stress from the Reformation was a big part of it. He became very depressed and bitter. At the end of his career, he considered himself a failure.

He also thought that the Jews would convert en masse because of his appeal to going back to the Jewish origins of Christianity. When they didn't, he became bitter about this as well- which, of course, contributed to his overall sense of failure.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has a rather even-handed article on him if you want to check it out online.

Oh that explains a lot thanks :thumbsup:

I knew most of his hate came at the end of his life and I always wondered what the cause was.

Sounds like a guy who always expected more from himself then he or anyone could ever possibly live up to. He created an entire reformed church based solely on scripture that still survives today, and yet he still wanted more.

[LilLamb219]

Luther073082, sounds as if you have a lot to learn about Luther. You can start by rereading what some of the posters have given to you in answer already as it seems it didn't get through the first time from your further responses.

Have you studied the history of that time? If not, make it a point to do so. It helps in understanding the mindset of the people and why they would have said certain things about other people.

Did you know that the Jews of that time called Christ a bastard child because Mary was unwed? Is that acceptable to you for an unChristian to blaspheme our Lord?

Do you really think that Luther himself expected to convert the Jews? Or would you like to hear that Luther believed that the Gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to convert and he was so excited to give the Jews the purity of the Gospel because he expected the Holy Spirit to use it to convert them. He knew that God's Word is a means of grace.

Should he be called a Saint? Well, just as others have pointed out to you, all Christians could be called Saints. So, to ask such a question makes one wonder if you understand how Lutherans believe about the saint/sinner understanding?

If you do understand the saint/sinner understanding that Lutherans believe, then why even bother with such a poll and discussion unless you wanted to try to ruffle some feathers around here? :scratch:

And this bothers you why? I brought it up in the poll as IMO the only thing that would logically stop any protestant from referring to him as "Saint Martin Luther".

This isn't irrelivant I think its a good question and not every topic has to be focused on our salvation. This was I guess a poor attempt at fellowship because apparently some Lutheran's get mad if you mention that Luther hated Jews. The slings and arrows of the truth about a man who lived 500 years ago? Luther is one of my favorite people from history but studying history means you have to study the whole man, not just the parts you like.

I didn't explain it because I didn't feel I needed, to I assumed everyone knew and you did. Explain to me again why you are getting so offended by this?

Hatred or no hatred though I still think his contributions where irreplaceable so I personally think we should start referring to him in popular speech as "Saint Martin Luther". Thats how the earliest Saints got their title and I think we should revive this tradition.



No Jewish is the people who follow Judaism. . . I do not consider Jewish a race but rather a people who follow Judaism. "Atheistic Jews" are atheists who celibrate Jewish holidays they are not Jews, they are atheists. Would you call an atheist who celibrates Christian holidays a "Atheistic Christian"?? Cause there are plenty of them, I used to be one.

Islam is a religion, its followers are Muslim.

As was earlier pointed out the idea that Jewish was a race didn't come about til after Darwin. (A bit of a hate monger himself)



Oh that explains a lot thanks :thumbsup:

I knew most of his hate came at the end of his life and I always wondered what the cause was.

Sounds like a guy who always expected more from himself then he or anyone could ever possibly live up to. He created an entire reformed church based solely on scripture that still survives today, and yet he still wanted more.

[Luther073082]

Luther073082, sounds as if you have a lot to learn about Luther. You can start by rereading what some of the posters have given to you in answer already as it seems it didn't get through the first time from your further responses.

Have you studied the history of that time? If not, make it a point to do so. It helps in understanding the mindset of the people and why they would have said certain things about other people.

Did you know that the Jews of that time called Christ a bastard child because Mary was unwed? Is that acceptable to you for an unChristian to blaspheme our Lord?

First of all if you look at my posts I said that neither side was sinless in their fights. Second of all I did mention twice that it had a lot to do with the time that Luther grew up in.

Personally part of this has to do with my wondering why protestants have not started referring to him as "Saint Martin Luther"


Do you really think that Luther himself expected to convert the Jews? Or would you like to hear that Luther believed that the Gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to convert and he was so excited to give the Jews the purity of the Gospel because he expected the Holy Spirit to use it to convert them. He knew that God's Word is a means of grace.

Should he be called a Saint? Well, just as others have pointed out to you, all Christians could be called Saints. So, to ask such a question makes one wonder if you understand how Lutherans believe about the saint/sinner understanding?

Why do we refer to SAINT Paul, SAINT Luke, SAINT Augustine. . . I know we are all saints and sinners but that isn't my point. Thats a theological position you are trying to erroniously apply to this.

Referring to someone a saint is an honor applied to them by popular speech after their death. If you really belive that applies here then I demand you call everyone passed to Christ a saint or stop calling him SAINT Paul. Its a double standard!

No he is SAINT Paul because Christendom wouldn't be anything now without him. He should be SAINT Martin Luther because without him we would still be buying indulgences from the Pope. I'm a saint and a sinner I know that, but no one is going to call me Saint Kirk after my death, because I havn't done squat for the faith as a whole compaired to Paul, Augustine, and Martin Luther.


If you do understand the saint/sinner understanding that Lutherans believe, then why even bother with such a poll and discussion unless you wanted to try to ruffle some feathers around here? :scratch:

Read above this is ridiculous. . .

Have some fun people, my Lord this was only a semi-serious question in the first place and you guys are making a big deal out of it. "Oh its offensive cause it reminds us that Luther hated the Jews." "Oh its not perfectly theological to call him a saint cause everyone is."

Again I reiterate, if you are upset because its not perfectly theological to call someone a saint then stop using the term "Saint Luke, and Saint Paul because even though they are in the bible and they did probably more for the faith in one day then most of us will do in our lifetime. . . Calling them saint is not a correct theological position.

[Luther073082]

Oh yeah and get rid of that ridiculous "All Saints Day" and call it "Passed to Christ day".

People called "Saints" by Protestants are quite simpily hero's of the faith. If Martin Luther is not a hero of the faith, then I don't know who is. . .

And the only big draw you can make against Luther being called in speech a saint was his hatred.

BTW I reiterate for like the third time. The title "Saint" means nothing other then we honor them for their contributions to the faith. No prayers of intercession or anything like that.

[LilLamb219]

You're assuming that I call Paul "St. Paul"...I don't.

[LilLamb219]

If you had read enough Luther, you would know that he would not agree with your reasonings to be called Saint as you put them (to honor him for his contribution to the faith). In fact, he'd have some pretty nasty things to say to you because he would INSIST that he deserves no honor and all honor and glory go to God.

If you want to start calling everyone (Christian) by the title of saint, then go for it. I won't stop you.

Oh yeah and get rid of that ridiculous "All Saints Day" and call it "Passed to Christ day".

People called "Saints" by Protestants are quite simpily hero's of the faith. If Martin Luther is not a hero of the faith, then I don't know who is. . .

And the only big draw you can make against Luther being called in speech a saint was his hatred.

BTW I reiterate for like the third time. The title "Saint" means nothing other then we honor them for their contributions to the faith. No prayers of intercession or anything like that.

[Luther073082]

If you had read enough Luther, you would know that he would not agree with your reasonings to be called Saint as you put them (to honor him for his contribution to the faith). In fact, he'd have some pretty nasty things to say to you because he would INSIST that he deserves no honor and all honor and glory go to God.

If you want to start calling everyone (Christian) by the title of saint, then go for it. I won't stop you.

Saint is not nearly the same term as Christ. Calling someone a Saint does not give them nearly the honor and glory of God. I honor people, I worship God there is a difference.

And of course no Saint is ever going to say that they should be called a saint. But find me a writing of Luther that says we should never call anyone a saint ever.

You're assuming that I call Paul "St. Paul"...I don't.

Ok what about Luke, John, Peter, Augustine . . . Are you telling me that you never call any hero of the faith "Saint" ever? Most Lutheran churchs I've been to make a point of saying "The Gospel according to SAINT John the 11th chapter"

In referring to Corinthians why do so many pastors say "In this Letter by Saint Paul"

Why is the local LCMS church here named SAINT Johns?

Well I'm sorry, but a lot of people do. I've heard both LCMS and ELCA pastors alike call him Saint Paul. I've never been to a WELS church though so its quite possible they don't.

I'm not saying its unacceptable to call him just "Paul" I'm saying that for most Christians its perfectly acceptable to call him Saint Paul. If you are telling me you go through life without ever calling anyone a saint ever then you are one in a million because most people I know use the term at one time or another for hero's of the faith.

[LilLamb219]

Did you read what I wrote? I said Luther wouldn't want to be called saint according to how you had written it...to honor him for his contribution to the faith.

[LilLamb219]

You make a LOT of assumptions in your writings which gets very frustrating and makes conversation to be more of a bother than a pleasure.

Saint is not nearly the same term as Christ. Calling someone a Saint does not give them nearly the honor and glory of God. I honor people, I worship God there is a difference.

And of course no Saint is ever going to say that they should be called a saint. But find me a writing of Luther that says we should never call anyone a saint ever.



Ok what about Luke, John, Peter, Augustine . . . Are you telling me that you never call any hero of the faith "Saint" ever? Most Lutheran churchs I've been to make a point of saying "The Gospel according to SAINT John the 11th chapter"

In referring to Corinthians why do so many pastors say "In this Letter by Saint Paul"

Why is the local LCMS church here named SAINT Johns?

Well I'm sorry, but a lot of people do. I've heard both LCMS and ELCA pastors alike call him Saint Paul. I've never been to a WELS church though so its quite possible they don't.

I'm not saying its unacceptable to call him just "Paul" I'm saying that for most Christians its perfectly acceptable to call him Saint Paul. If you are telling me you go through life without ever calling anyone a saint ever then you are one in a million because most people I know use the term at one time or another for hero's of the faith.

[Luther073082]

Did you read what I wrote? I said Luther wouldn't want to be called saint according to how you had written it...to honor him for his contribution to the faith.

And neither would Peter or John or Luke, or Augustine. . . If someone says they want to be called a saint it kind of diqualifies them on the basis of arrogence.

And what assumptions did I make in my writing? I was telling you that in my experience Saint is applied quite bit within the Lutheran Church and suddenly I'm being told here its a giant heresy to use the term.

I should make sure to write the president of the LCMS to inform him of the giant heresy of naming churchs after saints. I mean given there are hundreds if not thousands of LCMS churchs named after saints I would guess he probably never noticed.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Saint is not nearly the same term as Christ. Calling someone a Saint does not give them nearly the honor and glory of God. I honor people, I worship God there is a difference.

And of course no Saint is ever going to say that they should be called a saint. But find me a writing of Luther that says we should never call anyone a saint ever.



Ok what about Luke, John, Peter, Augustine . . . Are you telling me that you never call any hero of the faith "Saint" ever? Most Lutheran churchs I've been to make a point of saying "The Gospel according to SAINT John the 11th chapter"

In referring to Corinthians why do so many pastors say "In this Letter by Saint Paul"

Why is the local LCMS church here named SAINT Johns?

Well I'm sorry, but a lot of people do. I've heard both LCMS and ELCA pastors alike call him Saint Paul. I've never been to a WELS church though so its quite possible they don't.

I'm not saying its unacceptable to call him just "Paul" I'm saying that for most Christians its perfectly acceptable to call him Saint Paul. If you are telling me you go through life without ever calling anyone a saint ever then you are one in a million because most people I know use the term at one time or another for hero's of the faith.We are all saints. Period. Split hairs anyway you want.

Your ranting is tiresome. You haven't proven any point and the point you do want to prove is ridiculous. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

We don't ignore Luther's tantrum's. He was human like anyone else and not just a saint, but a saint and sinner.

I'm glad I didn't vote for you as a mod.

[Luther073082]

We are all saints. Period. Split hairs anyway you want.

Your ranting is tiresome. You haven't proven any point and the point you do want to prove is ridiculous. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

We don't ignore Luther's tantrum's. He was human like anyone else and not just a saint, but a saint and sinner.

I'm glad I didn't vote for you as a mod.

How is it splitting hairs to point out that if we use the term saint for only some people and not others how can you logically argue that we can not call other's saints as well when their mortal life seems to earn the term?

Honestly are you looking for a reason to be upset with the question?

And I'm glad you didn't vote for me as a mod either considering that I never actually asked or wanted to be a mod or was even a candidate to be a mod. In fact I was gone for most of Erwin's housecleaning.

[LilLamb219]

He does seem to argue for the sake of arguing, doesn't he?

[Luther073082]

He does seem to argue for the sake of arguing, doesn't he?

I'm not the one who threw a fit because someone else pointed out that because of his contributions perhaps Martin Luther does desrve to be popularly called a saint.

From what I gather your reasons for being upset are.

1. You reminded us that Luther actually had some faults
2. Its not perfect theology to call everyone a saint because we are all saints. (even though we name our churchs after saints and call old hero's of the faith saints)

I still don't know why so many people had a hissy fit about this question. Can you lay that out for me?

[LilLamb219]

There you go assuming again. I did not throw a fit. I am not upset. No one threw a hissy fit. We are frustrated by your continuation on this and wonder why you can't just read the things we've all written and try to understand instead of keeping up your arguing?

There have been requests to close this thread. Since I'm involved in the thread, I won't do it, but if you continue to argue as you're doing, then maybe another moderator will do so for the sake of harmony in our community.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Whose agenda are you pushing? Yours----or Christ?

You seem to pick and choose what you want to respond to. You've been hanging around too many non-denom people. They emphasize "nonsense" and so do you.

[josuabrown]

Martin Luther, you, me, and all followers of Christ are saints.

[DaRev]

If we ignore him, maybe he'll go away. He certainly doesn't want to engage in sensible conversation.

Matthew 10:14

[Luther073082]

Well we are obviously speaking a different language because I still don't see what your problem with the question was.

[DaRev]

Well, I'll say once more...

Luther didn't hate Jewish people. He hated the religion that they followed. There is a big difference.

For you to come into the Lutheran forum and to make a post that promotes the notion that Luther "hated Jews" shows extremely poor taste on your part.

[Luther073082]

But he did hate Jews. He hated the people that practiced Judaism.

Do I need to post a quote from "On the Jews and their lies" where he advocates burning their synogauges and enslaving them as a "mercy" again?

[LilLamb219]

A lot of people can post quotes from that but still not understand what Luther actually was hating.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think everybody here owes an apology.

I think Luther[assortednumbers] owes an apology for poor taste and lact of respect and tact, and a lot of others owe apologies for being overly defense and accusatory.

[DaRev]

I think the best way to do that is to delete the thread.

[Jenna]

I'm ready to start exercising my "ignore" button. :( I don't think that I've ever used that before, but I don't come to TCL to hear how much "Martin Luther hates Jews", or to argue something that is very biblical clear (title or "saint").

Maybe someone could help clarify for me why this thread hasn't been closed, as it seems to be in violation of our own forum rules? The thread seemed alright, so long as there was the possibility that our friend could be educated about the misaken impression of what constitutes a saint, but it certainly seems poor taste to come in here and trash Martin Luther. Even the poll options seem to point to this being a thread started in an effort to stir up trouble, not that of having a respectable discussion.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I think everybody here owes an apology.

I think Luther[assortednumbers] owes an apology for poor taste and lact of respect and tact, and a lot of others owe apologies for being overly defense and accusatory.It's called "instructional" and not overly defensive and accusatory.

[josuabrown]

I'm not Lutheran but Martin Luther did a great deal for Christianity. He translated the Bible into an understandable language. He revealed to millions of people that you don't have to work to for your salvation. He taught basic doctrines of scripture so all Germans would know. He challenged the authority of the most unholy man, the pope. However, his reforms did not go far enough.

[KEPLER]

We don't consider it "fun" to make the type of remarks you did in your poll question. It is, to say the least, very offensive.

You think that's fun?
It is not offensive unless he intended it to be offensive. I see no evidence that he intended to offend anyone. He is relatively new around these parts, and from his other posts I think we all realize that he is on the "up-side" of the learning curve. Cut him slack, and perhaps ask him to reword his poll?

Have we all become so steeped in political correctness??!! :doh:

[C.F.W. Walther]

It is not offensive unless he intended it to be offensive. I see no evidence that he intended to offend anyone. He is relatively new around these parts, and from his other posts I think we all realize that he is on the "up-side" of the learning curve. Cut him slack, and perhaps ask him to reword his poll?

Have we all become so steeped in political correctness??!! :doh:Political correctness and smear tactics for the sake of inane controversy are two different things.

Look at all his posts and tell me he doesn't have an "agenda". These are not question to "enlighten". These are questions to instill deception.

"I'm here as a Lutheran but I have these weird, reformed ides. But I'm still Lutheran. Solo Deception, Solo Controversial. That's Lutheran...isn't it"

[Melethiel]

This forum makes me sad. This is not the TCL I started posting in two years ago, where debates were encouraged and people didn't jump all over other posters for not being politically correct enough or "Lutheran" (of the Protestant flavor) enough.

-- Mel (who refers to Paul as ST. Paul)

[KEPLER]

Yes because for all of Luther's contributions if we can't own up to the fact that the man had an axe to grind with the Jews then we are kidding ourselves.

How would you define "owning up to it"? No one has tried to cover up his writings. The editors of the American Edition consciously chose to include the two tracts against the Jews specifically in order to prevent any accusations of whitewashing.

Lots of us have heard about it, Luther123456789. Journal articles and books have been written about it. (I suggest looking at a book by Mark U. Edwards titled, Luther's Last Battles, where he deals with this very subject.)

I love Luther's writings on theology and scripture. They make you think and they have given us a great foundation. But honestly we can't sit here and paint a rosey picture of him and I think its better for us to just own up to the fact that he wasn't very fond of Jews. See above.


First of all if you look at my posts I said that neither side was sinless in their fights. Second of all I did mention twice that it had a lot to do with the time that Luther grew up in.

Take a look at Erasmus's comments about Jews; they make Luther's look positively tame.

Why do we refer to SAINT Paul, SAINT Luke, SAINT Augustine. . . I know we are all saints and sinners but that isn't my point. Thats a theological position you are trying to erroniously apply to this.

Referring to someone a saint is an honor applied to them by popular speech after their death. If you really belive that applies here then I demand you call everyone passed to Christ a saint or stop calling him SAINT Paul. Its a double standard!

No he is SAINT Paul because Christendom wouldn't be anything now without him. He should be SAINT Martin Luther because without him we would still be buying indulgences from the Pope. I'm a saint and a sinner I know that, but no one is going to call me Saint Kirk after my death, because I havn't done squat for the faith as a whole compaired to Paul, Augustine, and Martin Luther.
You haven't been here for the many battles in this forum over Saints, so you don't realize that as soon as people hear that word around these parts, they just assume you're trying to convert them to Orthodoxy or something.

You're assuming that I call Paul "St. Paul"...I don't.

I do...it's right next to Minneapolis. :D

There you go assuming again. I did not throw a fit. I am not upset. No one threw a hissy fit.

Uh, yeah...Rad did. See his unnecessary reaction in post #2.

I think everybody here owes an apology.

I think Luther[assortednumbers] owes an apology for poor taste and lact of respect and tact, and a lot of others owe apologies for being overly defense and accusatory.

I'm not so sure it was poor taste as much as it was naïveté.

It's called "instructional" and not overly defensive and accusatory.
***points to the following post***
Oh good grief!

What's your point.
What exactly was "instructional" about that post, Rad?

Political correctness and smear tactics for the sake of inane controversy are two different things.

You're right, they are. Was he engaging in "smear tactics"? Did you ask him? (short answer: no, to both questions.)

The political correctness comes in when people start to whine about being offended and playing the victim (a common tactic of post-modern liberalism) and demanding that other people shut up. In other words, what you did.

This forum makes me sad. This is not the TCL I started posting in two years ago, where debates were encouraged and people didn't jump all over other posters for not being politically correct enough or "Lutheran" (of the Protestant flavor) enough.

-- Mel (who refers to Paul as ST. Paul)I agree, Mel. People used to have hair on their chests. Now everybody plays the "I'm a victim" game. Things were better back when we used to "put the best construction on things."

Luther073082's poll was most certainly a bit naïve, but it was not a "smear campaign" and he didn't deserve the dog-pile. People had their knickers in a twist about something else and they took it out on him.

[C.F.W. Walther]

You obviously haven't been around here enough to know that I don't whine or play the victim. Just the opposite. I call a spade a spade. I don't need to explain my conduct to you since you are looking for a scapegoat to blame and not the blither put out by Luther "numbers"

[KEPLER]

You obviously haven't been around here enough to know that I don't whine or play the victim.
Actually, I've been around here longer than you, Rad.

Just the opposite. I call a spade a spade. I don't need to explain my conduct to you since you are looking for a scapegoat to blame and not the blither put out by Luther "numbers"
Blame for what?

If you'll bother to read what I said to Luther######, you will see that I disagreed with him and corrected him.

You read what you wanted to read, not what he actually said.

Cheers,

Kepler

[C.F.W. Walther]

Actually, I've been around here longer than you, Rad.


Blame for what?

If you'll bother to read what I said to Luther######, you will see that I disagreed with him and corrected him.

You read what you wanted to read, not what he actually said.

Cheers,

KeplerI know how long you have been here and obviously you didn't read my post either. I said "been around here enough" not been around here long enough".

[KEPLER]

Heh; fair enough.

[LilLamb219]

I'd like to apologize to Luther073082 if I came across too harshly in my postings. I think the heat is getting to me and I didn't mean to pick on you at all.

That doesn't mean that I'm changing my mind on how I see things, it's just that I could have said it differently. Forgive me, I'm sorry.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'd like to apologize to Luther073082 if I came across too harshly in my postings. I think the heat is getting to me and I didn't mean to pick on you at all.

That doesn't mean that I'm changing my mind on how I see things, it's just that I could have said it differently. Forgive me, I'm sorry.
I would like to thank LilLamb for being conciliatory and apologetic without forgoing her convictions.

Perhaps we could all (Rad) take a lesson from this fine example.

[Jim47]

Things in this thread seem to have gotten out of hand, too many flames and too many false accusations of Luther.

Closing thread. Staff will have to determine if it is re-opened or not.