questions about Martin Luther

[kimber1]

okay first let me start off by saying i mean no ill will towards anyone, just a desire to learn things from y'alls perspective. some of you may know that i'm still a baby Catholic; not yet confirmed in the Church.
obviously i've heard the Catholic POV about Luther. i want to hear y'alls side so i can form a more rounded opinion for myself.

now last time i tried this it didn't end prettily and i would appreciate no attacks at me and will extend the same grace to you. just because i have the Catholic icon doens't make me the enemy and i have friends who are Baptist, Lutheran, and Catholic and we respect the fact that we have different beliefs. that's all i ask here.

i just want to know basically why Luther did what he did, what his true intentions were, what did he really want the outcome to be and so on. teach me about him so i can understand better. i've read the 95 thesis and admit it is confusing to me.

again, i hope that we can engage in a civil conversation about this without it getting out of hand.
peace be with you

 

[JMRE5150]

I absolutely walk into this with Kim hand in hand, as a gesture of mutual respect for her beliefs, and her desire to at the very least take an unbiased step towards learning about our Martin Luther.

Please do your best to understand and remember she is extending a hand of friendship for the simple fact that she understands we are all Christians, and seeks to learn more. Does this mean by any stretch of the imagination that we are here to convert her to Lutheranism? Absolutely not. But after Kim and I have talked in IM's from time to time, she is alittle curious after hearing a Lutheran perspective (and not the "Luther hated the Catholics and the Pope! extreme version), she just seeks to get to the bottom of a torn relationship that has twisted and turned into slants and rants against both sides.

Please show her courtesy, because like I said earlier, I walk into this thread with her as a Lutheran, so if you bash her or her beliefs, you might as well bash me.

Your friend in Christ,
Robb

Also, I would like to add that some Lutheran's consider the Pope as the AntiChrist. Please refrain from that conversation at all. This thread is about Martin Luther the man, and what he stood for.
Do you realize that many Catholics are led to believe that Martin Luther had multiple personalities and was a madman? Well, lets not give Kim here a reason to believe that obsurdity is true.

Lets tell her about the love Luther initially had for the Church and the Pope, and how devoted to God he was.

Lets explain to her the state of the times back then, and how (amongst other things) indulgence letters were at the center of this controversy behind Luther.

Do it with love, and lets teach her, please.

 

[ChiRho]

Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the Reformation when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church. That document contained an attack on papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials.

But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.

And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith--the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.


Luther, who through the church's excommunication was practically declared a heretic, was invited to Worms by the Emperor who had been pressured by a few princes. Both the church and Emperor wanted Luther to recant his teachings while he was there. The princes who supported Luther hoped that through the forthcoming events the political power of Rome over Germany would be weakend.
Luther's powerful sovereign, Elector Friedrich the Wise of Saxon demanded that Luther not be outlawed and imprisoned without a hearing.


The Trip to Worms
Luther began his trip to Worms on April 2, 1521. The journey to the Imperial Diet did not embody the repentance the church had hoped for. The journey to Worms was more like a victory march; Luther was welcomed enthusiastically in all of the towns he went through.
He preached in Erfurt, Gotha and Eisenach. He arrived in Worms on April 16 and was also cheered and welcomed by the people.


Luther's Appearance at the Imperial Diet
Luther's appearance at the Imperial Diet was described as objective, clever and well thought out. He had to appear before the Emperor twice; each time he was clearly told to take back his teachings. Luther didn't see any proof against his theses or views which would move him to recant: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."
The infamous saying "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise." do not come from Luther.




I am Finished!
After he left the negotiations room, he said "I am finished." And he was for the time finished; Luther was dismissed, and not arrested because he had a letter of safe conduct (Schutzbrief) which guaranteed him 21 days of safe travel through the land. He headed home on April 25.
When Luther and the princes who supported him left Worms, the emperor imposed an Imperial Act (Wormser Edikt): Luther is declared an outlaw (he may be killed by anyone without threat of punishment).
On the trip home, Elector Friedrich the Wise allowed Luther to be kidnapped on May 4 (Luther knew about it beforehand). This took place on the one hand to guarantee Luther's safety and on the other hand to let him disappear from the scene for a short while; there were even rumors of Luther's death. This action also helped the Elector not to endanger himself because he could have been held liable for protecting an outlaw and heretic.

Luther was taken to the secluded Wartburg and the Reformation had time to stabilize and strengthen itself.

(WELS site)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[JMRE5150]

Awesome post on some very important facts, my friend. Well said.


This lays the historical foundation for this discussion, for sure.
Kim, I hope this info is helpful. It may contain some things that aren't heresay that may shed some light on Martin as a man, and what some important highlights into his life.

Keep the good info coming, my dear friends. This is good stuff.

Robb

 

[kimber1]

okay so this emporer who kept demanding for Luther to take back his teachings, what power did he have? was he supported by the pope?

*edited to add- woah i just read that again. the emporer actually approved of his murder???? that it was okay to do this heinous act and not get in trouble????????????

 

[ChiRho]

The Emporer, was the Pope's hand-maiden. LOL.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[kimber1]

no i'm actually being serious in asking that question. who was the Pope at the time and what authority did this emporer have and was he backed by teh Pope at the time?

 

[Proud Papist]

the emporer actually approved of his murder???? that it was okay to do this heinous act and not get in trouble????????????

In that day and age the murder/execution of a "heretic" was neither a crime or sin...we've made progress....

 

[ChiRho]

no i'm actually being serious in asking that question. who was the Pope at the time and what authority did this emporer have and was he backed by teh Pope at the time?

Leo X was the Pope at the time and he excommunicated Luther. The Emporer, as a Roman Catholic, was put under immense pressure to rid the Church of this "little drunk monk" that seemed to cause way more problems for Rome, then what Leo had predicted was possible. The Emporer was Charles V.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[kimber1]

okay so basically though Luther never intended for things to turn out the way they did though correct? i mean i know he was a Catholic and from what i've been told a pretty devoiut one at that. his main gripe was the abuses he felt in the sale of indulgences right? (which BTW i think the thought that buying anyone out of purgatory is wrong as i believe all Catholics believe as well) but it was somehting that went totally wrong am i right?

 

[ChiRho]

okay so basically though Luther never intended for things to turn out the way they did though correct? i mean i know he was a Catholic and from what i've been told a pretty devoiut one at that. his main gripe was the abuses he felt in the sale of indulgences right? (which BTW i think the thought that buying anyone out of purgatory is wrong as i believe all Catholics believe as well) but it was somehting that went totally wrong am i right?

But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.

And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith--the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[kimber1]

okay bear with me here, naturally i've been taught that Luther wantd to take certain books out of the Bible. some made it some remianed in. can someone explain the why's and how's of this?

 

[ChiRho]

okay bear with me here, naturally i've been taught that Luther wantd to take certain books out of the Bible. some made it some remianed in. can someone explain the why's and how's of this?

Apocrypha
Q. What is the Lutheran Church's position or teaching regarding the Apocrypha as found in Roman Catholic Bibles?


A. Martin Luther regarded the Apocrypha as "useful historical" writings which Christians should be familiar with and which should even be read in public worship from time to time. But neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture.

Book of Revelation

Q. You say the Bible is completely without error, but the Founder of Lutheranism, Martin Luther, thought the book of Revelation was not. Please explain.

A. Luther's opinion regarding the canonicity and value of the "disputed books" (a category including Revelation) in the biblical canon is well known. But his personal opinion on the canonicity of these books has no bearing on his conviction that the canonical Scriptures are to be accepted as God's Word and are normative for all that is to be

taught and practiced in the church. Luther expressed various opinions regarding the canonicity of certain books of the New Testament, including Revelation, and this is of historical interest.

But his commitment to the infallibility of the divine revelation given in the Scriptures remained unwavering. Luther himself was well aware of the history of the development of the biblical canon, including the historic distinction between what were called the "antilegomena" (books "spoken against") and the "homologoumena" (books unanimously attested as apostolic) [See articles on "antilegomena" and "canon" in the Christian Cyclopedia. Significantly, Luther's opinions regarding James and Revelation, for example, did not prevent him from revering these books and teaching from them as God's Word; in fact the Scripture lesson read in Lutheran churches in Luther's time on the Feast of the Reformation was from Revelation.

 

[ChiRho]

Antilegomena
(Gk. “spoken against”). Certain books of the NT on which there was no unanimity but some uncertainty in the early ch. regarding their canonicity. Distinguished from homologoumena (Gk. “universally accepted”). Because certain false teachers and other unauthorized persons tried to have their writings introd. into Christian congs. (cf. 2 Th 2:2), it was necessary for Christians to be alert, lest false gospels or letters be acknowledged, esp. by being ascribed to true apostles or disciples of apostles. It was due chiefly to this special vigilance that the following books were not accepted by the ch. everywhere before the latter part of the 4th c.: Ja, Jude, 2 and 3 Jn, 2 Ptr, Heb and Rv The author of Heb is not definitely known; the identity of the James who is the author of the letter was not altogether certain, and the content of the letter was misunderstood; 2 and 3 Jn are addressed to private persons and were not made accessible to larger circles; 2 Ptr was most likely written shortly before the death of the author and had no definite addressees; Jude is very short and has a very circumscribed message; and the Rv was under suspicion because of its nature. Over against these objections it is to be noted that all these books are mentioned at a very early date, some of them referred to as early as the beginning of the 2d c. as apostolic writings, and all of them finally accepted by the ch. in the course of the 4th c. Doubts have been expressed about some of them even by orthodox Luth. teachers, but in almost every case the clear apostolic doctrine, the depth of the admonitions and of the whole presentation, and the high prophetic insight into future events speak strongly in their favor. Most of the objections raised in recent cents. have been satisfactorily met by earnest searchers after the truth. See also Canon, Bible, 5, 6.

For gen. information see references under Canon, Bible; for the position of Luth. dogmaticians see C. F. Walther, “Ist derjenige für einen Ketzer oder gefährlichen Irrlehrer zu erklären, welcher nicht alle in dem Convolut des Neuen Testamentes befindlichen Bücher für kanonisch hält und erklärt?” L. u. W., II (1856), 204–216.

 

[kimber1]

thanks for your answers i think i have some studying to do as it seems to me know he was jsut completely misunderstood and never really anticiapated the outcome and things went spiralling out of control.

 

[Markh]

Was Luther translating the bible into German or something?

 

[JMRE5150]

Was Luther translating the bible into German or something?

Actually, to non-Lutherans, historically this was really Luther's crowning achievement. He translated the bible into German, helping spread the Word to the common folk.
Of course he did so much more, especially to us Lutherans.

Robb

 

[Lexluther]

thanks for your answers i think i have some studying to do as it seems to me know he was jsut completely misunderstood and never really anticiapated the outcome and things went spiralling out of control.

I think that is definitely true to a large extent. He never wanted bloodshed and the splitting of the church, that much is certain. However, he did desire great and far reaching change within the church. The Gospels and the word of God were more important to him than most other things, and to see them fulfilled in the people of the church Luther was willing to risk and sacrifice quite a lot. One did not challenge the Pope without expecting reprecussions; he must have had a fairly good idea of what he was getting into. Indeed, most of the worst surprises were what people did on Luther's behalf. Nevertheless, I don't think he would have chosen to do differently, had he known exactly what would happen.

 

[A. believer]

thanks for your answers i think i have some studying to do as it seems to me know he was jsut completely misunderstood and never really anticiapated the outcome and things went spiralling out of control.

Hi Kimber,

I'm not a Lutheran, but I think that trying to gain a better understanding of Luther is important for both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Here are a few links that I think you'll find a lot of good information on. The first two were written by James Swan, a Lutheran seminarian, on the history of the Roman Catholic view of Luther. Part 1 deals with the history of the propaganda smear campaign against Luther, and part 2 deals with current Roman Catholic scholarship on Luther, which is an attempt to look at him much more fairly, but from a Roman Catholic perspective. The current Roman Catholic virulent anti-Luther stuff you see on websites--the stuff that people cite when they say things like, "When I found out the truth about Martin Luther, I just couldn't be 'intellectually honest' and remain a Protestant," is based on some of this stuff, and particularly, I believe on Grisar.

And the third link is from Tim Enloe's website, an ecumenical Protestant who attempts to put Luther into context by showing how the Reformation was not just the "revolutionary" out of nowhere who decided he wanted to remake Christianity. He attempts to show the historic connection with the past of Martin Luther's attempts to address papal tyranny.

RC Understanding of Luther, Pt. I

RC Understanding of Luther, Pt. II

One Hundred Years Before Luther

Happy reading!