Martin Luther was so wrong!

[oogagoogaboo]

He was a Catholic and to dispute the Trinity was a heresy punishable by death.
Luther did not dispute Basic Catholic beliefs.

Ummm... are you kidding me? They were going to kill him for the things he said.

He was "kidnapped" by Prince Frederick to protect him from the Church.

The Peace of Nuremburg, signed by the Emperor, is the reason why Lutheranism was allowed in Germany and Catholicism wasn't enforced.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

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

I do agree. My problem is that Luther wanted a much more literal interpretation than what Catholicism used. Things that were implied were not acceptable, they had to be specifically mentioned.

The Catholics however use a loose interpretation, and so the implied Trinity is very easily accepted.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

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

Yeah it was the same unit in my religion class that we learned about him and John Eck, but i meant Eck.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ummm... are you kidding me? They were going to kill him for the things he said.

He was "kidnapped" by Prince Frederick to protect him from the Church.

The Peace of Nuremburg, signed by the Emperor, is the reason why Lutheranism was allowed in Germany and Catholicism wasn't enforced.

Not kidding you at all... read my post No36 .. that was the real reason the church went after him.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I realize that. He was saying things that the Church found to be heretical, so they in turn cited him as a heretic and they were going to kill him.

Thats what I said...

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I agree that Luther was wrong theologically, though in a certain sense, not morally. Why he was wrong will probably never be settled on an internet forum.

Suffice to say, I believe he was sorely wrong on sola scriptura . Despite Catholic problems with its Magisterium and Orthodox problems with Sacred Tradition, I think sola scriptura results in a gradual impoverishment of the Christian religion because it takes away the living, dynamic element of the transmission of faith.

Also, I don't agree with his position on faith and reason, with his "reason is a whore".

 

[LittleNipper]

I agree that Luther was wrong theologically, though in a certain sense, not morally. Why he was wrong will probably never be settled on an internet forum.

Suffice to say, I believe he was sorely wrong on sola scriptura . Despite Catholic problems with its Magisterium and Orthodox problems with Sacred Tradition, I think sola scriptura results in a gradual impoverishment of the Christian religion because it takes away the living, dynamic element of the transmission of faith.

Also, I don't agree with his position on faith and reason, with his "reason is a whore".

Christianity isn't sola scripture without the believer's influence. The example of believers is what can influence an individual to accept the teachings of the Bible and the saving grace found in CHRIST JESUS. BUT the Bible becomes the standard for what constitutes doctrine, fact, and correct reasoning. The Bible provides the only insight into what is a true believer. A "denomination" can only determine who fits the mold for that "denomination."

 

[logician]

. The Bible provides the only insight into what is a true believer. A "denomination" can only determine who fits the mold for that "denomination."

Really, then who is a true believer?

 

[Carol G.]

Correct me if
i'm wrong (and I mean that!) but didn't Martin Luther continue to believe in transubstantiation and reverence for Mary to his death? If so, how did those beliefs get cast aside? It seems that ML objected mainly to indulgences and papal authoriy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Correct me if
i'm wrong (and I mean that!) but didn't Martin Luther continue to believe in transubstantiation and reverence for Mary to his death? If so, how did those beliefs get cast aside? It seems that ML objected mainly to indulgences and papal authoriy.

I am sure you are right... However once he had opened the door to the fact that the "church" could be wrong, the floodgates were opened.
People like Calvin soon moved the goal posts into an anti Catholic rather than a reformed Catholic position.

The "Chuch" had come to an untenable position, and the protesters knew it. The rest is history.

It is very east to come to a non Marian position, as there is no basis for it in the Bible, except that she was Jesus Mother. The perpetual vergin and mother of God views are unsupported.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

I don't believe that there are many (if any) passages in the Bible that use that phrase. If you can find one, please post it.

Not that that means that the doctrine of the Trinity is in error. There are many passages that allude to God in Three Persons.

But I'm just saying - I don't believe you will find the phrase, "...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" anywhere in the Bible. Nor will you find the phrase "God in Three Persons" or "Trinity."

 

[LoTrobador]

I don't believe that there are many (if any) passages in the Bible that use that phrase. If you can find one, please post it.

I think it appears in only one passage, Matthew 28:19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

the fact that it doesnt appear, backs up my point, because if he wanted a literal understanding of a book that doesnt even mention the trinity why does he believe it?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think it appears in only one passage, Matthew 28:19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

That phrase seems rather odd as a translation. especially since the concept of the Trinity had not been invented yet.
Those last two verses in Matthew are some what contentious and were probably later additions.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

I dont know if that is intended to help me but i will use it to my advantage, because I think that if they were later additions and they shoudlnt even be there then there is absolutely no reason why Luther should have a literal understanding of this book and still believe in the trinity... there is just no reason i can see for that...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is no reason to believe that Luther did have a literal understanding of the Bible. He certainly believed that people should be able to read it in their own language, and come to their own understandings.
However he was a Catholic and believed as other Catholics did.

Any one reading the Bible has to confront the question of the "ONE GOD" and how God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit can fit within this concept.

The Early Church were faced with the same problem and after much infighting, came up with the Trinity Concept. It was not an easy decision and Arius could easily have won.

Had Luther taken the view that Arius was correct, Protestants to day might have been Arian or some other Unitarian form.

However his view on the Trinity followed the mainstream belief of the Church, so it did not become an issue at that time.

In the 17th and 18th centuries Unitarianism and free thought once again became a major area of conflict within Christianity. And even today Non Trinitarian churches are flourishing... The Jehovah Witnesses, the Christian Unitarians, the Latter Day Saints, and the small Non Subscribing Presbyterians are all examples of non trinitarian beliefs.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

yeah but he did leave the church and i know that he didnt necessarily want a new church but he didnt fight to oppose the Lutheran church from rising up... and i believe there is a reason to think he wanted a literal understanding because of Sola Sciptura. If scripture alone is what will give us faith and save us then shouldnt we need to believe that the Bible is true? As a Catholic I certainly believe that the main Jesus teachings are truth, but most of the Bible to me is figurative and I am told to interpret that in a way that helps us. But if scripture is the only thing we need then I would hope that my scripture is fact... So i think he did want a literal understanding

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

yeah but he did leave the church and i know that he didnt necessarily want a new church but he didnt fight to oppose the Lutheran church from rising up... and i believe there is a reason to think he wanted a literal understanding because of Sola Sciptura. If scripture alone is what will give us faith and save us then shouldnt we need to believe that the Bible is true? As a Catholic I certainly believe that the main Jesus teachings are truth, but most of the Bible to me is figurative and I am told to interpret that in a way that helps us. But if scripture is the only thing we need then I would hope that my scripture is fact... So i think he did want a literal understanding

What Luther belied at the beginning of his fight, what he came to believe. and what the Lutheran church now believe, are three different things.
Luther did not want to leave the Catholic church he was excommunicated.

There is a huge difference between believing that the Bible can provide all that is needed for faith , sola scriptura and the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. Though some protestant churches confuse the three.

Most Protestant churches believe as You do and interpret the Bible to derive their faith. And like the Catholics, they have "Official Interpretations" that they teach and pass down.

Those that follow the Calvinist tradition Have extremely fixed beliefs and views on salvation, sin and predestination. None of which were derived from Luther.

When you compare the Early Church Fathers,and theologians of later centuries, even up to he present day. What stands out for me is the consistent quality of the thoughts and arguments. We have progressed not one iota, in our ability to find truth in the the scriptures.

However today we have far greater resources for comparing facts and theories and a greater understanding of the languages as used in those scriptures, than we had for many centuries following the Church fathers.

That being said, I have no reason to believe that we have somehow lost the ability to re-interpret matters of faith. Or that we may be in any way inferior in our faith than the Fathers. Most churches disagree on at least some issues and maintain that their own interpretations are essential for salvation.

This is of course a quite untenable viewpoint, as it is evident that No church has remained with out change through History, what ever the official line might be.

Churches like all organisations, and organisms must change to survive.
This truth is evident in the history of Christendom.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

Yes he was excommunicated, but then again he did try and go against the most powerful organization in the world... Also even though I agree the church was corrupt and in need of reform, as you can clearly see, I support the condemnation of Luther as a heretic... Thus I support his excommunicaton, and one main reason is that Luther didnt come around until the 1500's... How had people gone that long and he was the first one to think, "you know, maybe we are reading this wrong..." I seriously doubt that...

Im pretty sure that sola scriptura does say that the bible is all we need for faith and salvation... and I cant imagine that if that is true then the words in the book arent the truth too.

ok, i think that Calvin should just be avoided in this discussion, because he ended up even being disagreed with by his followers... well except the puritans but in my opinion the puritans are ridiculous but thats a personal bias from my language arts classes cause i hate their literature...

anyway, yes i would agree the consistency of thought is astounding , however as you probably know i disagree with almost all other denominations on one thing, and that is transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation which although only one characteristic, I believe it is the most important thing about my faith, as i profess that the change on the altar results in my consuming the literal body and blood of the Lord

 

[oogagoogaboo]

and when i say Calvin was disagreed with by his followers, i specifically cite Jacobus Arminius by the way