Posted on 04/01/2017 7:10:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
As we approach the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, focus will return to the leader of that movement, Martin Luther. What kind of man was he, really? More specifically, what kind of Christian was he?
At a recent conference of R. C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, panelists Stephen Nichols and W. Robert Godfrey discussed “whether Martin Luther was guilty of anti-Semitism,” and there is good reason to raise this question.
As Nichols rightly points out, in 1523, Luther reached out with kindness and humility to the Jewish people, denouncing how the Church had treated them up to now with the hope that many would become Christians. Twenty years later, when that did not happen, and when Luther, now old and sick, had been exposed to some blasphemous, anti-Jesus writings penned by Jews in past generations, he wrote his infamous document Concerning the Jews and Their Lies.
In this mini-book, he told the German princes how to deal with “this damned, rejected race of Jews.”
First, their synagogues should be set on fire...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed....Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds...Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely for bidden to the Jews....Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury [charging interest on loans]....Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses...We ought to drive the rascally lazy bones out of our system....Therefore away with them....To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden-the Jews.
Yes, all this came from the pen of Martin Luther. (Brace yourself. There’s more to come.)
Of this despicable document, Nichols said that “Luther unleashes his rhetoric against the Jews and is very forceful in his rhetoric.” Very forceful? I’d call that a gross understatement.
Nichols continues:
Now we need to say that he was an equal opportunity offender. It wasn’t just—that rhetoric was not just reserved—for the Jews, he used the same rhetoric for the Papists, for the Anabaptists, for the nominal Christians, that he used for the Jews. But he was wrong. He spoke harshly, and I think he abused his influence that he had in speaking harshly. And so, we need to say that Luther was wrong in that. But this isn’t necessarily anti-Semitism, that’s really a 20th-century phenomenon.
Once again, I must take exception to these words, which minimize the horror of what Luther wrote.
Tragically, Adolph Hitler thought that Luther was a genius who figured out how dangerous the Jewish people were. And the date that many historians mark as the beginning of the Holocaust, Nov. 9, 1938, was the day that Hitler put Luther’s advice into practice, setting on fire and vandalizing Jewish synagogues, shops, and homes.
In that light, I cannot agree with Nichols in saying, “I think he abused his influence that he had in speaking harshly.” That, again, is a gross understatement, regardless of how ugly Luther’s rhetoric was towards other groups and regardless of how coarse the rhetoric of the day might have been. For a Christian leader, such writings must be renounced in the strongest possible terms, even with tears and wails.
Robert Godfrey, the other Ligonier panelist, commented:
Just to add one more thing . . . the one little that should be added is Luther, all his life, longed that Jews should be converted and join the church. Hitler never wanted Jews to join the Nazi party. That’s the difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. Luther wasn’t opposed to the Jews because of their blood. He was opposed to the Jews because of their religion. And he wanted them to join the Christian church. If you’re really anti-Semitic, you’re against Jews because of their blood and there’s nothing Jews can do about that. There’s not change they can make to make a difference. You’re absolutely right, Luther’s language should not be defended by us because it’s violent against the Jews. It was not against an ethnic people, as you said, but against a religion that he reacted so sharply.
Is Godfrey right? Yes and no. On the one hand, the real issue was the Jewish religion (specifically, from Luther’s point of view, Jewish unbelief in Jesus) as opposed to being Jewish in and of itself. On the other hand, there was a fine line between the two, as historian Eric W. Gritsch pointed out in his book, Martin Luther’s Antisemitism: Against His Better Judgment.
He writes,
There is even a hint of racism in Luther when he commented on the unsubstantiated rumor that Jews killed Christian children. This crime "still shines forth from their eyes and their skin. We are at fault in not slaying them [the Jews]." Such a declaration cannot be limited to a specific historical context. It is timeless and means "death to the Jews," whether it is uttered by Luther or Adolf Hitler. Moreover, Luther himself was willing to kill "a blaspheming Jew": "I would slap his face and, if I could, fling him to the ground and, in my anger, pierce him with my sword.”
So wrote Martin Luther. And I find little comfort in the fact that he wrote about others, like the peasants, in similarly dreadful terms: “On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained... etc.”
Returning to Luther and the Jews, quotes like this make it difficult to separate his theological Jew-hatred from his ethnic Jew-hatred:
A Jew or a Jewish heart is as hard as stone and iron and cannot be moved by any means. . . . In sum, they are the devil’s children damned to hell . . . . We cannot even convert the majority of Christians and have to be satisfied with a small number; it is therefore even less possible to convert these children of the devil! Although there are many who derive the crazy notion from the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans that all Jews must be converted, this is not so. St. Paul meant something quite different.
As a non-Catholic, Jewish believer in Jesus, I am indebted to Luther’s positive contributions and recognize the hellacious battle he fought with corrupt traditions. But I appeal to followers and admirers of Luther today: Please do not minimize the horror of what he wrote (against the Jews and others). Please don’t downplay all this as an example of Luther having “feet of clay” (in the words of Nichols).
There is a lot of blood on those clay feet – including Jewish blood.
Let’s own it with sadness and grief. To do otherwise is to be less than honest with the memory of Martin Luther.
ECF = Early Church Father
“There were some differences, this is true, but Augustine’s views were very different than what Rome was teaching during Luther’s time or even today.”
I see no reason why I should take your word for it. What will now happen - if I were to bet - is that you’ll choose something that you think St. Augustine talked about in an exclusively Protestant mode, right? Let’s see.
“For example, Augustine taught that only the Elect can enter into heaven, and the Elect are those who specially receive grace unto salvation, which is not based on any foreseen good works, but on God’s mercy alone.”
Here are several problems. Your Protestant view of St. Augustine does not even necessarily agree with other Protestant views of St. Augustine so what is it worth as a view? You can have a Calvinist and Arminian argue over St. Augustine and both can be wrong. Also, Catholics believe that those who received into Heaven are there because of God’s grace and mercy. It is not based on any of our “foreseen good works” or our own, but God’s grace which we receive as a freely given gift in our faithfulness and in cooperating with God’s works within us. When Protestants start claiming they follow St. Augustine and others don’t I just can’t take that seriously. And I don’t see how anyone could do something like read David Meconi’s books, The One Christ: St. Augustine’s Theology of Deification, and square up St. Augustine’s theology with any Protestant soteriology. I think Protestants merely adapt St. Augustine to their liking.
“Those who do not enter into heaven were either not given grace at all, or were only given a little grace, which they could use to go very far, but ultimately had to be cast out.”
Look, I don’t claim to know what brand of Protestantism you most often buy, but if it’s Calvinism I just take that seriously. Calvinism seems like a dour concoction of samplings from Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture and St. Augustine. You might want to look at “Where Augustine Goes Beyond Calvin” in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia edited by Allan Fitzgerald, John C. Cavadini (pages 118-119) just to get a taste of what I’m talking about it. Then immediately look at the section after that, “Where Calvin Went Beyond Augustine” (pages 119-120).
“This is not what Rome teaches today, as they teach—and even explicitly interpret verses Augustine used in opposite ways—a sort of universalism, where God grants grace, or at least offers, grace to all people. Augustine taught the exact opposite.”
I think the problem is your misunderstanding of St. Augustine and not any supposed Catholic misunderstanding of St. Augustine. Case in point: http://biblehub.com/library/pohle/grace_actual_and_habitual/section_3_the_universality_of.htm
Great big HUMPH as a vigorous flutter of feathers....
“Today they are Waldensians!”
No. They ceased being Waldensians when they became Calvinists in the 16th century. Then they became Methodists. This is why they talk about it themselves: http://www.studivaldesi.org/dizionario/evan_det.php?evan_id=173
“Your Pope recently asked for their forgiveness for persecuting and slaughtering them.”
This pope asks everyone for forgiveness - so much so that it is becoming meaningless. I wonder if the Waldensians will ask for forgiveness for their heresy in the Middle Ages, their heresy in the modern era and their support for gay marriage?
Not only are you beating a dead horse, but you’re beating the wrong dead horse. There’s only one possible and rational explanation:
No dead horse at all. The idols of Mary in practically every RCC church and possibly home say otherwise.
http://awaywithjoanna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/IMG_1905.jpg
Some Catholics even take their idolatry to another level.
Some catholics even admit to wearing the Miraculous Medal and the scapular.
The medal is promoting a false teaching that Mary was conceived without sin which is not supported by Scripture to which the Catholic Encyclopedia online admits. The message on the medal:
"O Mary! conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee! 1830"
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=2942
Mary was a sinner, as we all are, and did sin. If not, Paul would have carved out an exception for her in Romans. But he didn't.
The Scapular makes this false promise:
Whosoever dies clothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/pdf/brown_scapular.pdf
There is NOTHING in the NT that supports this lie. Nothing.
The picture on page 7 of the above website is typical of how Mary and Jesus are depicted in Roman Catholic art.
Mary is seated on a throne and a little Jesus is on her lap.
Two angels are at the foot of the throne.
Everything in this image shows Mary to be superior to Jesus.
https://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Our-Blessed-Mother/the-brown-scapular-of-our-lady-of-mount-carmel.html
Additional images of Catholics and their worship of Mary.
If one believes the apparitions of Mary they will believe the false promises of the apparition as well.
One of these is a blanket promise that is counter to the NT:
You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
Another false promise of the Rosary is this one:
The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
No where in the OT or NT are we ever to recommend ourselves to Mary. No where.
http://www.themostholyrosary.com/15promises.htm
We only find salvation through faith in Christ. No one else.
These are just some of the many reasons why Christians reject the RCC teachings regarding Mary.
You will of course deny it. But the evidence is in plain sight.
Hey Elsie...check out the pics!
“I never called them protestants, just so you know, since you don’t know “
Just so you know, I never said you did call them Protestants. They weren’t then, they are now - just in time for gay marriage apparently. Apparently the time between a heretical groups becomes a Protestant heretical groups and starts blessing gay marriage isn’t all that long as Christian history goes.
By the way, do you condemn the Waldensians for blessing gay marriages or do you support it as a fellow Protestant?
Beautiful Christian art!
And we still don’t worship idols.
But we know what Protestantism resorts to all the time:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
After being slaughtered by your peeps and popes, they weee glad for fellowship by the time the Reformation was sweeping Europe. They joined together with like-minded believers.
They still call themselves Waldensians.
That they were called heretics by a heretical church didn’t make them heretics. It made them persecuted and slaughtered.
1 Corinthians 11:2 - I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
Notice this is Apostolic tradition (what Paul taught), not mere "human" tradition.
Apostolic tradition is the soundest basis for determining what Scriptural (written) tradition even IS. The great Bible translator Jerome determined what books were to be included in Scripture by what books were in actual liturgical use by the Churches. Even if this contrasted with his own personal scholarly opinion, which was sometimes vehemently to the contrary.
I do think that Jaroslav Peliken put it most succinctly when he said, as regards the OT canon, that we can rely on A.D. Pharisee/tannaitic communities, councils and sources which were explicitly anti-Christian (e.g. the Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and his successors) --- or --- we can rely on Christian communities, councils and sources. As Jerome, finally (!), did.
This is factually incorrect. The Stato della Città del Vaticano has a seat at the United Nations.
The Catholic Church per se, has existed since Pentecost. Vatican City as presently constituted as a City-State was established by the Lateran Treaty in 1929.
When Vatican City ceases to exist (I suppose when the Muslim Cultural Enrichers lob a nuke at it, probably called "Abd Allah" or "Shaitan") the Catholic Church will still exist. And through eternity.
BIblical Hebrew and Greek do not have capital and small (majuscule and miniscule) letters. Duh.
“After being slaughtered by your peeps and popes, they weee glad for fellowship by the time the Reformation was sweeping Europe. They joined together with like-minded believers.”
No, actually they converted to Calvinism - which was different from what they believed at the time in many ways.
“They still call themselves Waldensians.”
And Methodists. They’re part of the Methodist church so why not? When they’re blessing gay marriages do you think they feel more Methodisty or Waldensiany?
“That they were called heretics by a heretical church didn’t make them heretics.”
Gee, you’re being so harsh to those Calvinists who called them heretics.
“It made them persecuted and slaughtered.”
And their reward for steadfastness in their heresy is gay marriage apparently. Protestantism leads to gay marriage?
Who run Bartertown? Master Blaster.
Who run Vatican City?
Cathars believed that the "Old Testament God" --—the creator of the physical world --- was Satan. Every material thing, including the human body, was, they said, created by this evil god; making more of it (e.g. procreation) was considered wicked, and forbidden. This was the antithesis to the monotheistic Catholic Church, whose fundamental principle was that there was only one God, who created all things visible and invisible, and which He declared good.
The persecution of the Albigensians was shameful -- much of it was indisputably murder. My only point is that they were not Protestants, unless "Protestant" is elasticized to mean "anybody believing any kind of dingbattery so long as it's not Catholic."
If you would try to actually define the key terms, we'd have something sensible to talk about.
Thank you.
How preposterous. Luther was no more a glutton than your average Catholic monk. Henry VIII didn't found a church--and would of remained Roman Catholic--had the Church done his annulment (as it had done countless monarch's annulments before.) The founders of Anglicanism (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer + 300+ more) were all cruelly burned to death by the fanatical Roman Catholic monarch bloody Mary.
Look at your Roman "Church" today--headed by a Marxist with the (supposed) authority of St. Peter. The key pro-abortion politicians in the USA are all Roman Catholic--with wide support by Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics have no room to talk about "purity," or fidelity to the faith. Sad, sad, sad.
It will be asked again, as it has before, for the Catholic to provide the rest of us with what the traditions are.
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.