That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

by Deputy Dog 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pahpa

  Deputy Dog

  I think anyone reading Luther's writings against the Jews and Peasants would find his intentions very clear. Luther was a religious leader. His words influenced his followers. One can not blame the Catholic Church for his deep personal feelings as expressed in his writings. He was not timid in condemning many of the church's doctrines. It is obvious that he had ulterior motives when he spewed out his vitriol against those he hated...including the Pope and church leaders. He had thrown in his lot with the princes who supported him and with his members upon whom he depended.

  The point is that he ignored Christ's teaching to love one's enemies and forgive those tresspassing against you. You may agree with Luther that violence and murder is a solution. But in doing so, you transgress those principles that Christ taught his followers. Luther should have known better!
• 

  StAnn

  Deputy Dog -- you got me on Sola Scriptura. I forgot about that one. However, I credit a lot of Luther's problems to the fact that he didn't have access to a lot of the actual writings of the Early Church Fathers, for instance, because of the time period in which he lived. In other words, in may ways, he was poorly catechised. That is the fault of the Church. Luther's fault was that he was prideful. Yes, authority is the issue, you are correct. That's why I became Catholic. It was so weird that, in the ELCA, they would have meetings every year and VOTE about what their beliefs were. I mean, God doesn't change. Truth doesn't change. The Church isn't a democracy.

  Even the Lutherans admitted that the Catholic Church was the church Jesus founded, which is why I'm there now. They have their problems, it's true, but I believe this is where the authority lies.

  If you want to continue this conversation, lots hope over to Catholic Answers Forums. I don't want to bore the others here.
• 

  StAnn

  Deputy Dog - BTW, who ever said Luther was right?
• 

  StAnn

  Pahpa, yes, the Catholic Church really does believe it is the church founded by Christ, that the Pope is the vicar of christ, and that it and the Orthodox churches are the only ones in apostolic succession. Jesus Christ didn't start a huge group of conflicting churches. He started one. Schism is always considered sin and unity is the best solution. However, the Catholic Church isn't going to change what it teaches in order to woo back the schismatics. It has to be faithful to Christ.

  Regarding the history of the Church, read a book called "Triumph" by Crocker, see what you think.

  And don't expect perfection from anything on this Earth. If there are people involved, there is going to be imperfection and scandal. The Church started with scandal, i.e., Judas betrayed Christ and then Peter denied him. But Jesus saw Peter's quality and he was redeemed. Fortunately, the early christians chose to focus on Peter and not on Judas. Christ chose flawed and broken people to work with Him and, frankly, no one on this Earth isn't flawed and broken. I think expecting perfection from religious people is a holdover from the JW insistence on perfection. Just because people do things that are wrong, even in the name of religion, doesn't mean God is bad, if people choose to do things their way and not His way.
• 

  Pahpa

  StAnn

  It is clear from Scripture that Christ and the apostles foretold the corruption and the fragmentation of the church. History confirms that this is exactly what happened. By the time of Constantine the Catholic church compromised with the secular powers and sought to build an earthly empire of its own. The break in the Catholic church between the Orthodox and Roman churches was precisely over whose authority had precedence. This controversary continues to this day. And each claim to have apostolic authority on their side.

  In contrast, Jesus foretold that true Christians would remain scattered as wheat among tares until he would return again. Only then would they be gathered together under the leadership of Christ. The church's deplorable record of persecution, torture and murder is far more than just human imperfection. It is the evidence that the church did not follow Christ's teachings and that it lacked the "love" that Jesus said would identify his people.
• 

  Narkissos

  It is clear from Scripture that Christ and the apostles foretold the corruption and the fragmentation of the church.

  Risky statement.

  Imo all the NT allusions to "false teachers" among Christians are made from the perspective of the emerging "great Church" (or early Catholic church) and their clear agenda is to expel divergent teachers from the church and silence their teachings (this is particularly clear in the Pastorals, Jude and 2 Peter). I can see no "prophetical" hint that this authoritarian strategy would fail.

  It is quite ironical that "heretics" of all subsequent ages have been consistently successful in turning this originally proto-Catholic argument (Jesus/the apostles foretold that "heresies" would come up, so we are right to fight against dissenting views) against the Catholic Church (Jesus/the apostles foretold that "heresies" would come up, and in fact they were successful in corrupting the church, so we are right to leave it and reinvent "original Christianity").

  In contrast, Jesus foretold that true Christians would remain scattered as wheat among tares until he would return again.

  Wheat among tares or tares among wheat, that is the question.
• 

  Pahpa

  Nark

  Clearly John's messages to the seven churches (Revelation) are evidence of the breakdown in the early church by the end of the first century. By the fourth century, one only has to compare the paganized rituals and beliefs of the compromised church to the simplicity and purity of the apostolic church to discern just how far removed it was from the early Christian organization. There is no doubt that sincere Christians remained as "wheat" among those "tares" in those corrupted churches. But the gathering of them would not be until Christ's return.

  Historically, the course that the Catholic church (Roman and Orthodox) took was not a christian one, If we judge these churches by their "fruits" it is not difficult for even a person with average intelligence to see just how far they strayed from the teachings of Christ.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Clearly John's messages to the seven churches (Revelation) are evidence of the breakdown in the early church by the end of the first century.

  Well, if churches with problems and in need of spiritual guidance are evidence of a breakdown in Christianity, then it has never been fixed, and never will be until the End. What were Paul's letters to the different churches? Or Peter's general epistles? Or James'?

  By the fourth century, one only has to compare the paganized rituals and beliefs of the compromised church to the simplicity and purity of the apostolic church to discern just how far removed it was from the early Christian organization.

  How do you know what the early Church was like. What is your source of information?

  Also, was the form for the Church set in stone from the get-go or was it something that could grow and evolve like a living thing?

  Burn
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Pahpa

  The point is that he ignored Christ's teaching to love one's enemies and forgive those tresspassing against you. You may agree with Luther that violence and murder is a solution. But in doing so, you transgress those principles that Christ taught his followers. Luther should have known better!

  I don't believe "murder" is a solution. That was the very fact that Luther was making. I'd like to ask you, How would you stop a band of thugs who were robbing, pillaging and murdering? And they're doing these things in your name!

  Don't forget that justice was handled far differently then, compared to today. It was every citizen's duty to help maintain order back then. This was not a fight against Luther's personal enemies. This was a crime against society which Luther addressed with this statement:

  Rebellion is not simply vile murder, but is like a great fire that kindles and devastates a country; it fills the land with murder and bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and destroys everything, like the greatest calamity.

  Having experience in law enforcement, I know that killing is often necessary in stopping this type of activity when thugs choose to defy police and threaten the lives of others.

  StAnn

  However, I credit a lot of Luther's problems to the fact that he didn't have access to a lot of the actual writings of the Early Church Fathers, for instance, because of the time period in which he lived. In other words, in may ways, he was poorly catechised.

  Yea, looking at his record, it looks like he was " poorly catechised"

  In 1507, he was ordained to the priesthood

  In 1508 began teaching theology at the University of Wittenburg.

  He received a Bachelor's degree in Biblical studies on March 9, 1508

  October 19, 1512 he was awarded his Doctor of Theology

  October 21, 1512 was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible

  How were you catechised?

  Yes, authority is the issue, you are correct. That's why I became Catholic..

  If Luther wasn't a heretic. The "Roman Catholic Church" had and still has NO authority!

  Even the Lutherans admitted that the Catholic Church was the church Jesus founded, which is why I'm there now.

  That depends on what you mean by " Catholic" Church. If by Catholic you mean universal, the "Roman Catholic Church" became apostate long before Luthers day and still is. I attend a reformed Baptist church and I believe I'm a member of "The Church" (universal/Catholic). I'm sure most Lutherans believe the same.

  Deputy Dog - BTW, who ever said Luther was right?

  Didn't you read the article on the link I posted? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece If Luther wasn't a heretic, by defalt he was... Nark

  Wheat among tares or tares among wheat, that is the question.

  You hit the nail on the head!