Martin Luther was so wrong!

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not a supporter of Luther, However he did a reasonable translation.
Probably as good as the Latin translation of the time.

Priests when teaching, took passages from the Latin Bible and reworded them into the vernacular.
I doubt there was much consistency priest to priest and country to country.

Luther remained a Catholic in outlook and belief and remained a priest.( though a rebel)
However Calvin was another story and caused a far deeper split.

 

[LoTrobador]

He did interpret the Bible for everyone to read it, it was just that he planned for everyone to read it and understand it the way that he did, but obviously the Lutheran Church is not the only Protestant Church, and that means that Luther failed to get everyone on the same page about how the Catholic Church was doing things that the Bible didn't advocate

I don't think he somehow specifically intended people to interpret the Scripture the way he did; rather, believing the Bible is the word of God, inspired by God Himself, intended by God Himself to be read - and understood! - by every single person - monk, baker, scholar, maid, priest, prince, farmer, regardless of education (how many Apostles and early Christians were learned men?) or social status - in the Church troughout the history, I think he genuinely believed the Bible can be understood as God intended it to be understood, and that he did unterstand it, and that every Christian can understand it.

And I did not know that he intended to remain celibate that's a very interesting piece of information, Thank you for furthering my knowledge.

You're welcome, it's just that I don't think the history of Reformation could be reduced to Luther saying "Hurry up with this Augsburg Confession of yours, Phil, some people here want to get married!".

However, his method of reformation, to me at least, was a little flawed, because he wanted everyone to read the Bible so they could see things his way on their own instead of him having to tell people and they just listen.

Then it seems he thought people were genuinely able to interpret the Scripture the way the text itself speaks, without seeing them as somehow intellectually inferior, inable to comprehend the Bible's message, in constant need of being told how and what to think, inable to make up their minds on their own.

All I'm really trying to say, is that Luther may have thought people would see things his way, but he was extremely naive (to put it nicely) to think that was the case.

Well, putting aside the discussion on the internal consistency and Scriptural basis for the sola Scriptura itself, it's not like Luther came out of nowhere with this idea; he wasn't first to postulate such view, and he had theological traditions to base it on. Moreover, it wasn't like he came up with an interpretation radically different from any other historical interpretations - the German Reformers used passages from Augustine, Greek Fathers, Byzantine liturgy to show that the Evangelical interpretation wasn't completely without any history, that centuries before the Reformation the Bible was interpreted the way they did interpret it later.

So I wouldn't say Luther thought it's his own, personal interpretation, and that everyone else was wrong, but now - after the publishing of Luther's Bible - they can understand it properly, or that people have to agree specifically with him. He didn't see himself as the supreme authority, incapable of any mistakes and misunderstandings, but he had his interpretation, and earlier interpretations similar or arguably identical to his own, so I don't think it was "naive" of him to conclude that if others before him came to particular interpretation and he came to the same interpretation, others after him would come to the same interpretation as well. (Plus, given his view on the human reason and generally human condition, I wouldn't say he was too optimistic or idealistic.)

 

[LoTrobador]

Luther remained a Catholic in outlook and belief and remained a priest.( though a rebel)
However Calvin was another story and caused a far deeper split.

I think that's a really important thing - Luther (and German Reformers) did not want to somehow break off with the Church, Latin theological tradition or the rest of Christianity; he wanted to reform the existing institutions (under the "Babylonian captivity"), and he referred to Ancient and early Medieval sources and theologians from within the Catholic tradition to support his views and reforms. He thought of himself as a Catholic - albeit not the "Roman" one - and sought for the continuity, not for the creation of something completely new.

As for Calvin and other Reformers, they even had a different view on what the sola Scriptura is supposed to mean, so I think the Reformation movements that did not subscribe to the Agusburg Confession had completely different foundations than the German Reformation.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Yeah Calvin and Zwingli and Knox were all a little more radical than Luther was, and i can't be too hard on Protestantism because it has survived these last almost 500 years...

 

[LoTrobador]

Yeah Calvin and Zwingli and Knox were all a little more radical than Luther was, and i can't be too hard on Protestantism because it has survived these last almost 500 years...

Arguably even longer, should Pre-Reformation be included in such count - Waldensians exist since late 12th century, Lollards - who eventually became a part of the English Reformation - since 14th century, and Hussites (influenced by Wycliffe trough Hus) since early 15th century.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, you've made some good points and you've made some bad points.

when luther called for the reformation of the Catholic Church when he saw the corruption and abuse of indulgences, he was right. The church was in bad shape and the fact that they tried to kill him doesnt help their case...

That was your first good point.

However, after Prince Frederick "kidnapped" Luther, Luther translated the Bible to German. There is a couple of problems with this. 1) It cannot be translated directly from Greek because there are many important words that can be translated differently and Luther made sure that he translated all of them into a form that supported his theology.

True.

2) Luther believed that the translation of the Bible to the language of his peoplewould make it so that everyone could read the Bible and see that his interpretation was more right than the Catholic understanding. He was very naive to think this, because people think in different ways and if given freedom to interpret the Bible freely, then everyone is going to have different biblical understandings.

True again. On the other hand, who is to say that the Catholic translation was correct (aside from Catholics, of course)?

Luther also had a serious problem with the way that he called people heretics. For instance: Luther said that in an effort to reform universities, that all works by Aristotle should be banned for their heretical non-Christian sayings and biliefs. Luther is an idiot who was trying to get attention when he said this, because when Aristotle was alive, Christianity didnt exist yet, so of course his teachings weren't Christian.

I agree.

And my final point, if Luther believes the bible should be interpreted in a more literal sense then how the Catholic Church interprets it, why does he believe in the Holy Trinity?

Probably for the same reason that all of traditional Christianity does. They see Christianity in 325 A.D. as being essentially the same as Christianity two hundred twenty-five years earlier. Huge mistake.

It is not once mentioned in the Bible and yet without it he wouldn't be Christian, so Luther contradicts his own teachings by having a belief not listed in the Bible.

Wow! So Christ's Apostles weren't Christian, huh? Nor apparently was anyone else who was a disciple of Jesus Christ prior to when the Nicene Creed was written. A Christian does not need to accept a Creed written by the hand of feuding bishops called together by a political leader for the purpose of strengthing the empire he ruled over. A Christian needs to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as the only means by which man can be reconciled to God.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. I enjoy debating with Catholics. They generally play fair and are respectful in their approach.

 

[LoTrobador]

Probably for the same reason that all of traditional Christianity does. They see Christianity in 325 A.D. as being essentially the same as Christianity two hundred twenty-five years earlier.

If by "traditional Christianity" the Trinitarian Christianity is to be ment, then I've actually seen some traditional Christian (particularly Protestant) criticisms of the "Constantinian Church", as having a doctrine different than the Apostolic Church (albeit the doctrine of the Trinity being seen as orthodox). Plus, Arius' views did have a following significant enough to cause a major controversy; not to mention earlier non-Trinitarian movements.

A Christian does not need to accept a Creed written by the hand of feuding bishops called together by a political leader for the purpose of strengthing the empire he ruled over.

Which is interesting, I think, as the Emperor Constantine himself was baptised 12 years after the Council of Nicaea by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a supporter of Arius (who consecrated Ulfilas, an Arian missionary of Goths, to the episcopacy), and was succeeded by his son, an (Semi-)Arian Emperor Constantius II.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Lol, LoTrobador you have entered a new time period of discussion which i have an extremely limited knowledge of.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Wow! So Christ's Apostles weren't Christian, huh? Nor apparently was anyone else who was a disciple of Jesus Christ prior to when the Nicene Creed was written. A Christian does not need to accept a Creed written by the hand of feuding bishops called together by a political leader for the purpose of strengthing the empire he ruled over. A Christian needs to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as the only means by which man can be reconciled to God.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make there, i was more trying to say that it is silly that Luther believes in the Trinity, because he believed in a much more literal interpretation of the Bible and it says nothing about a Holy Trinity in the Bible.

The fact that it was written in doctrine at Nicaea further shows that Luther's belief in the trinity is a little weird, because if it was written by a corrupt Church council called together by a politician who wanted to strengthen his mighty empire, then wouldn't Luther have particularly not liked the idea of the Trinity?

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I am not a supporter of Luther, However he did a reasonable translation.
Probably as good as the Latin translation of the time.

I must disagree with this, seeing as the Latin translation was the same way as the Greek version, when converted to a newer language, words have more than one connotation.

Also, the Latin translation was written and then unchanged. But since Luther translated his Lutheran Bible in German, and I believe it was Eusibius of Caesarea translated the Bible to German in a Catholic sense, obviously there are major disagreements on how to translate the ancient languages.

 

[Katzpur]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make there, i was more trying to say that it is silly that Luther believes in the Trinity, because he believed in a much more literal interpretation of the Bible and it says nothing about a Holy Trinity in the Bible.

The fact that it was written in doctrine at Nicaea further shows that Luther's belief in the trinity is a little weird, because if it was written by a corrupt Church council called together by a politician who wanted to strengthen his mighty empire, then wouldn't Luther have particularly not liked the idea of the Trinity?

I see what you mean, and it's a good point. I just think that a belief in the Trinity must have been so deeply ingrained in Luther's theological background that I suspect he never even considered questioning it. Besides, even if he did, that would have been such a radical departure from orthodoxy that it might have caused people to disregard his other points dissension. Does that make sense?

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Yeah I guess it is very possible that he was so familiar with the trinity that he wouldn't have even thought of disregarding it

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I see what you mean, and it's a good point. I just think that a belief in the Trinity must have been so deeply ingrained in Luther's theological background that I suspect he never even considered questioning it. Besides, even if he did, that would have been such a radical departure from orthodoxy that it might have caused people to disregard his other points dissension. Does that make sense?

He was a Catholic and to dispute the Trinity was a heresy punishable by death.
Luther did not dispute Basic Catholic beliefs.
He would have been well aware of the teachings of Arius and Unitarian thought. The "Trinity" was a "rationalization" of the facts in the Bible that he was obviously comfortable with.

 

[LoTrobador]

Lol, LoTrobador you have entered a new time period of discussion which i have an extremely limited knowledge of.

It's a fascinating period of the Christian Church history, though.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make there, i was more trying to say that it is silly that Luther believes in the Trinity, because he believed in a much more literal interpretation of the Bible and it says nothing about a Holy Trinity in the Bible.

I wouldn't say he believed in a literal interpretation; simple, "plain", but not necessarily literal. And he thought of some Biblical passages as speaking of Three Divine Persons, so it's not that he saw the Scriptures as saying nothing about the Trinity, even if the term itself does not appear (an interesting article: Luther Condemned the Word "Trinity"?).

Also, he did not disregard the Church theology as a whole, but wanted to remove those teachings, that in his opinion did contradict the Scriptures (while I think more Calvinist approach was to remove teachings that were not directly derived from the Scriptures), of which the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't one.

But since Luther translated his Lutheran Bible in German, and I believe it was Eusibius of Caesarea translated the Bible to German in a Catholic sense, obviously there are major disagreements on how to translate the ancient languages.

I don't think it was Eusebius of Caesarea, and as for other translations - cf. German Bible translations on Wikipedia.

 

[dawny0826]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make there, i was more trying to say that it is silly that Luther believes in the Trinity, because he believed in a much more literal interpretation of the Bible and it says nothing about a Holy Trinity in the Bible.

The fact that it was written in doctrine at Nicaea further shows that Luther's belief in the trinity is a little weird, because if it was written by a corrupt Church council called together by a politician who wanted to strengthen his mighty empire, then wouldn't Luther have particularly not liked the idea of the Trinity?

But it's implied. The Trinity is an implied concept. Surely, as a Catholic, you agree.

Truthfully, I question often, if Luther was in the wrong but when all is said and done, I don't think it really matters whether he was or not. The Catholic bible isn't much different from most bibles. The message is the same. Life is found in Christ.

Whether wrong or not, what's done is done. The result, there are a greater number of paths to Christ. The destination is the same, is it not?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Catholic Church at that time and even more so since, has attacked Luther Using false examples of his "heretical" beliefs.
This was far easier for them to do, than defend against his attacks on the Church's corrupt practices.
These attacks on his beliefs have been continued to this day, using those earlier falsehoods as references.

It is far easier to condemn Calvin for holding Heretical beliefs.

 

[DarkSun]

I'm not too experienced with the "Holy trinity" idea, so I can't argue with you about this one, but since the Bible often uses the phrase "the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" such a viewpoint could be entertained. And it is a common theological viewpoint in many branches of Christianity.

There is no direct scriptural evidence for the Holy Trinity. He's right. That doctrine was invented by the Church at a later date.

But I disagree with the rest of his points.

 

[Smoke]

if Luther believes the bible should be interpreted in a more literal sense then how the Catholic Church interprets it, why does he believe in the Holy Trinity? It is not once mentioned in the Bible and yet without it he wouldn't be Christian, so Luther contradicts his own teachings by having a belief not listed in the Bible.

Trinitarians recognize that the term doesn't occur in the Bible, but they believe the teaching is to be found there. It's a matter of interpretation.

However, I can't convince myself that Luther really believed in sola scriptura anyway. He clearly wanted to tailor the Bible to his own beliefs -- by omitting certain books and "correcting" certain readings -- and he didn't actually rely on the scriptures for all of his own beliefs. I don't see that as a bad thing. Sola scriptura is an absurd doctrine and disproves itself. It cannot possibly be true.

 

[Katzpur]

However, I can't convince myself that Luther really believed in sola scriptura anyway. He clearly wanted to tailor the Bible to his own beliefs -- by omitting certain books and "correcting" certain readings -- and he didn't actually rely on the scriptures for all of his own beliefs. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Yes, but if you toss out the ones that don't support your case, what are you accomplishing?

Sola scriptura is an absurd doctrine and disproves itself. It cannot possibly be true.

Of course it is, but what were the alternatives? Catholics deny that there was any further revelation following the deaths of the Apostles, and yet certain doctrines were established hundreds of years later. Based on what? Tradition. That's all fine and good if the traditions were founded upon the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, but clearly most of them weren't. Catholicism in 2000 A.D. includes doctrines (clearly established by holy tradition) that certainly didn't exist in 1000 A.D. Doctrines that were an official part of Catholicism in 1000 A.D. were unknown to Christians in 100 A.D. What I've never understood is how, if God no longer speaks to a living prophet, and if revelation ceased, God continues to direct the Catholic Church today. Either He's still talking, still giving direction, still clarifying doctrine or He isn't. If He is, why don't Catholic simply say so? Why don't they insist that God speaks to the Pope through revelation in exactly the same way as He spoke to Christ's Apostles in the years immediately following His death? Otherwise, why don't they acknowledge that their holy traditions are simply the work of uninspired, albeit well-meaning human beings?

 

[LoTrobador]

What I've never understood is how, if God no longer speaks to a living prophet, and if revelation ceased, God continues to direct the Catholic Church today. Either He's still talking, still giving direction, still clarifying doctrine or He isn't. If He is, why don't Catholic simply say so?

Actually, that's what the Catholics do believe and say. The Catholic Church believes, that the Holy Spirit is still speaking to the Church, still giving Her direction and guidance, still "clarifying the doctrine" and doesn't let the Church err - albeit not in the way it has been happening in the time of Public Revelation.