What would Martin Luther say to pro-abortion Lutheran pastors?

>> For one thing, your digs at his several mistakes implies that Lutherans worship or idolize Luther or his writings in entirety like a demigod, which is not the case; <<

Well, no. I clearly stated that the reason I pointed out his errors is to understand the truth as to why the Catholic Church opposed him. I went out of my way to say that I consider many Lutherans better Christians (actually, I even said Catholics) than Pope Francis. But the weird thing is that Lutherans ... and other Protestants ... ARE very protective of Luther.

>> Secondly, slamming him as a man implies that no Catholic theologians were ever mistaken or prone to human error, which is also far from true. <<

How can you seriously write that when I called many Lutherans better Catholics than Pope Francis? But as a matter of fact, As monumental as their impact on Christendom, Catholicism, Western Civilization, etc., were, you DON’T see Catholics treating as saints folks like Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Emperor Constantine (who is a saint in the Eastern Churches), etc.

>> One of the core tenets of Lutheranism is “sola scriptura”— the Bible is the inspired work of God and is our ultimate source of authority. Not being a Greek or Hebrew scholar myself, I am not going to argue the excluded books with you. But I point this out to emphasize one of the major reforms of Luther, which is to focus the minds of believers not upon the priest caste or the traditions of theologians who are also mere mortals, however inspired they may be, but on the canon that has come down to us from Moses, David, the prophets, and the Apostles. <<

One of the main tenets that I mean to refute is that the Catholic Church believes anything outside of scripture to be necessary moral doctrine. The problem with sola scriptura is that the bible is an anthology with no self-definition. Luther demonstrated perfectly the inanity of sola scriptura when he denied the canonicity of books containing doctrines he disbelieved.

But the other insanity of sola scriptura is that words themselves are not self-defining or unambiguous. We could fight endlessly over which interpretation is correct, and I’ve done just that on Free Republic.

>> the canon that has come down to us from Moses, David, the prophets, and the Apostles. <<

Well, that’s just it. There are books plausibly written by the prophets and the Apostles which did NOT make it into scripture. St. Paul even references a couple of his letters which didn’t and which we know longer has. Amazingly, Jesus even cites AS AUTHENTIC books which didn’t make it into scripture. It took a couple centuries for the canon to “gel” into what it is today, and that’s precisely HOW Luther claimed he was justified. (As it turns out, some parts of the book of Daniel which he rejected ARE in the Qumran collection, while Chapter 13, which he accepts, is NOT; he actually based what he chose to include on what contained doctrine he didn’t like.)

“The above is intellectually dishonest and a sin against the Eighth Commandment.”

No, and you’re the only one being intellectually dishonest between the two of us. For what you just said to be true it would have to mean that Protestants “would be talking about how to use some of Martin Luther’s beliefs to help convert Protestants to become Catholics.” When you fail to show a single example of that ever happening - because it never has happened - you will show yourself (yet again) to be intellectually dishonest. What you’re claiming isn’t even rational. Why would a Protestant, and I’m not Protestant as everyone here knows, be trying to convert Protestants into Catholics at all? This is one of the reasons I always say you can’t make an argument. You literally say things that aren’t even rational.

“Not in any of your posts to me did you talk about Luther helping to convert protestants to becoming Catholic.”

Luther’s beliefs. I never did say that Luther tried to convert his fellow Protestants. That utterly bizarre claim is the sort of thing you would say. What I said is that Catholics can use Luther’s beliefs against abortion and birth control to help Protestants convert to the Catholic faith.

I made this abundantly clear in POST NUMBER 6 when I mentioned “the views against abortion and birth control held by Luther”. Again, you’re being intellectually dishonest. Many Protestants admire Luther, but it is some of his beliefs that can make them stop and think because they are so out of step with most modern Protestant understandings.

Go on, make up something else. Bearing false witness is what you do.

I am an LCMS Christian, a convert from evangelicalism. I listened to Issues Etc. and slowly became convinced of the Scriptural truths in true believing Lutheran Christianity. I have marched with Lutherans for Life many times in Austin, as well as attending with my wife the March for Life in DC numerous times. Worldwide there are many pro-life Lutherans, and many apostate Lutherans... just like every denomination including Catholics. To say Lutherans lift up Martin Luther too much, or to say Luther supported baby killing is ridiculous. Lutherans accept Luther where he aligns with Scripture, and reject him when he doesn’t. We are free to do that because of sola scriptura — no person defines for us what is true, no pope, no priest - Scripture defines our faith... and I believe the Book of Concord correctly teaches Scripture and his a faithful witness of Christ as defined by God’s Word. I thank God for the truth of the Lutheran faith.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.