WTBTS "uses" heroes of church history only when it suits them to make a point

by AuntBee 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • brotherdan
    brotherdan

    Also, to call Luther an outright anti-semite is to not understand the full story. For example in 1523, Luther accused Catholics of being unfair to Jews and treating them “as if they were dogs,” thus making it difficult for Jews to convert. “I would request and advise that one deal gently with them [the Jews],” he wrote. “ … If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.”

    Fifteen years later, however, rumors of Jewish efforts to convert Christians upset him, and he wrote a treatise venting his frustration. In it, Luther concluded that converting Jews had become hopeless.

    Was he wrong (EXTREMELY WRONG) in this treatise? Very much so. Luther did not, however, hold Jews responsible for the death of Christ. As he wrote in a hymn, “We dare not blame … the band of Jews; ours is the shame.” And he felt that at least a few Jews might be won for Christ.

    Luther was not an anti-Semite in the racist sense. His arguments against Jews were theological, not biological. Not until a French cultural anthropologist in the nineteenth century held that humankind consisted of “Semites” and “Aryans,” were Semites considered inferior.

    Luther was but a frustrated biblical scholar who fell victim to what his friend Philipp Melanchthon called the “rabies of theologians”: drawing conclusions based on speculations about the hidden will of God. Luther erred because he presumed to know God’s will.

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    I discussed something similar to this before concerning Russell and his beliefs that he went to his grave with. Beliefs that witnesses do not share today, and yet witnesses today consider Russell a 'brother.'

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/201620/1/Where-would-Brother-Russell-be-at-now-according-to-current-light

    Acknowledging Designs point, I remember at church one of the pastor's told a bit of a story regarding Luther. Basically honoring him as one of the leaders of the Protestant movement that we are a part of today. While I do not disagree with that point, a little known fact about him is that he tried to remove several books from the Bible. If he were successful, how would Christianity look today?

    When I tell my wife these things and begin questioning the things we are suppose to hold as Truth TM . She actually said to me, "Get behind me Satan!"

    She says I am confused by looking at what all is out there when I am searching for 'truth.' Yet my wife fails to realize that her religious leaders (and mine) are exactly the same. When I point out that Russell did the same thing she just says, "Russell was taking truths that he found from various religions and combining them together." Hmmm, I wonder, why is so much of what he taught no longer a part of witness doctrines today? Oh, I forgot, new light... Ah, I get it now.

    Too bad religious people don't allow the same latitude to any other person who is sincerely looking for truth.

  • Gayle
    Gayle

    AuntBee,,thank you for the reference there. The WTS sure picks, in part, want they want to endorse for themselves. They half-quote all the time. They quote with half-quotes of doctors to manipulate regarding their blood issue. They do that with education authorities to support their denial for higher education. They quote with half-quotes of any kind of authority or non-authority to seemingly support many of their untruths.

  • palmtree67
    palmtree67

    And yet, in this day and age, they disfellowship any "bold champions of God's Word.

  • brotherdan
    brotherdan

    Luther did at one point attempt to remove the books of Hebrew, James, Jude, and Revelation. Why? The simple answer is that they didn't seem to him to fit into the overall theology that he held to. But it is fruitless to fight against Gods Word. It is eternal.

    But it is wrong to claim that Luther actually removed the books from his canon. In fact, he completed his own translation of the Bible in 1522 and it contained the complete NT that we know today. Even after Luther finished his translation, he continually revised it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated.

    Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:

    “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”

    Hence, this is one of the most common arguments that has been used to discredit Luther. But a thorough study of Luther shows that he did not exercise authoritarian control over the canon. He was wrong in many of his teachings about some of what he taught, but he was striving to be a borean and test all things. (1Thess 5:21)

  • garyneal
    garyneal
    And yet, in this day and age, they disfellowship any "bold champions of God's Word."

    Religions in the past have done far worse to bold champions of God's Word. When my wife points out that I am 'influenced by Satan' I just respond with, "The phariseas and sadduccess also accused Jesus of having a demon inside Him."

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    In the end though, men like Luther will always be remembered as champions of Gods Word, while men like Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, and Franz will be remembered as destroyers of it.

    In the end, I believe their memory will be lumped in with all malice done in the name of Christianity.

    The endearing and practical aspects of Christ's message have been lost. Allthough, some will always continue the Christian life of loving your neighbor and being charitable to others, but they will always have to live their life in the shadow of all the evil that has been done "in the name of Christ."

    -Sab

  • tec
    tec

    Good response, Gary.

  • garyneal
    garyneal
    Hence, this is one of the most common arguments that has been used to discredit Luther. But a thorough study of Luther shows that he did not exercise authoritarian control over the canon.

    I'm not attempting to discredit Luther, just pointing out that people in people in various religions have had a lot of their own ideas and yet they were considered brother, saint, etc.. Problem is, when people who are not in such 'lofty' positions find themselves questioning, they're sometimes demonized (as is the case I just described with my wife).

  • brotherdan
    brotherdan
    I'm not attempting to discredit Luther

    I'm sorry. I wasn't saying that you were. It's just a common argument I've heard over the years. In fact, many of Luthers arguments about some of those book seem very valid. An interesting argument that he has against the book of Jude is one that I've had for years. He discusses the fact that Jude contains events that are not referred to anywhere else in the Bible. Jude also quotes from so-called heretical books like the book of Enoch and others. I really feel that Luther was trying to do the right thing. And in so doing he showed that he is a sinner just like the rest of us.

    And no, Sab, I don't think that Luther will be remembered as someone that destroyed the Christian faith. He fought for it in the face of what he saw as heresy.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit