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.
“So today’s Protestant churches are heretics, but the Orthodox are not?”
Churches are not heretics. People are heretics. (Churches or sects can hold heretical beliefs, of course.) Protestants who are born and raised as Protestants really should not be called heretics, but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in something that is heterodox/heretical in itself.
The definition of heresy that appears in the CCC says this: “HERESY: The obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (2089; cf. 465).”
Protestants born into Protestantism could not fairly be said to be obstinate in the way that terms is applied to those who have really earned the label “heretic”. That doesn’t make the heresy any less heretical.
At the very basic level the same can be applied to the Eastern Orthodox - although what exactly would some even denote as heretical that is held by all Eastern Orthodox? Don’t forget the Eastern Orthodox often don’t even agree with one another. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20246
We could use a LOT of it, actually.
Sure you did.
Even now you have a little statue of her in your front yard, and a long list of titles that you refer to her by.
Yet another phrase that is NOT found in the Bible that Rome assembled; but has come into use later.
Luke 1:39-45 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
39 And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.
40 And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
Or words of the bible...
Yup; and still trying to get the same ol' spin to stick to the wall.
I never see a Non-C Arguer with a serious commitment to ferret out the content of this Biblically required Tradition, or even commit to find out how to find it!
I learned after just ONE snipe hunt that the walk home was a LONG one.
Mystagogia describes the ancient custom of spending the first week of Easter experiencing the depths of the truths accepted in Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist.
Nah...
Mystagogia describes the ancient custom of spending the first week of Easter experiencing the depths of the Catholic teaching about Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist.
It has never worked in the past ten years; why do you think that NOW 'Mary' will help you out?
Better; I think; to follow what the book that Rome assembled teaches:
Matthew 18:19
“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
Get one of your pew mates to agree with you about me; not some fictitious ';Mary' that Rome has created.
And
3 John 1:13-14 - "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face."
Prideful Catholics; so SURE that the ECFs did a GOOD job in filling in the gaps of teaching in the book that Rome assembled.
Poor Catholics; so SURE that the ECFs did a BAD job in filling in the gaps of teaching in the book that Rome assembled; that their Dear Mary; the Untier of Knots; has had to make NUMEROUS appearances on Earth to add even MORE stuff that evidently got left out; too!
Disciples of John the Evangelist
OK, is there another reasonably way? How about looking at the local churches St. John and his disciples founded, and find out what teachings and practices they have faithfully transmitted through the earliest centuries as of Apostolic origin?
I'll bite; just what DID these guys write about the FALSE teachiungs and practices evidenced in the first three chapters of that final book that JOHN wrote?
What do they say about them?
I'm sure you have the data at your fingertips that you will share with your Noobies at Easter; Right?
Call no man father...
Rome says that...
The 15 promises
(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)
| 1 | Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces. |
| 2. | I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. |
| 3. | The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies |
| 4. | It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means. |
| 5. | The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish. |
| 6. | Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life. |
| 7. | Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church. |
| 8. | Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise. |
| 9. | I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. |
| 10. | The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven. |
| 11. | You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary. |
| 12. | All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities. |
| 13. | I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death |
| 14. | All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ. |
| 15. | Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination. |
I do not know if you have any formal schooling, but you apparently do not understand the word “explain.” Giving a bunch of web links is not an explanation.
As suspected, you have no clear idea of what you are alleging.
Your tin foil hat awaits you.
Incorrect. Those whom you pictured are Anglican bishops, therefore they are the handiwork of Henry VIII. While the Evangenlical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has gone down the progressive tube along with the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod still does not even allow women pastors. It is the orthodox branch of the Lutherian churches.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
You're welcome.
Just WHO are they disagreeing with?
Some Catholics do worship Mary, sadly.We also however believe that He knows how weak and sinful we are and so he gave us his mother (Jn. 19:25).
Catholics idolize Mary.
Catholics have turned Mary into a Demigoddess.
Christ gave responsibility for Mary to the Apostle John. That is specifically what the text says. It does not say any other believer was given responsibility for Mary, nor was she given as the mother of any other believer.He also gave us the saints to be our guides
Nowhere in Scripture are the saints our guides.we believe that he gave us the sacraments to strengthen us.
Nowhere in Scripture are sacraments given to strengthen believers.
He did t even give the scripture. He gave us the church.
“He did t even give the scripture. He gave us the church.”
It is difficult to even know where to begin to respond to a post this far removed from Christianity.
I’m not often amazed by a post. Yours is astounding.
Christ didn’t die on the cross to create a church.
He died to pay the penalty for sin, that mankind might have eternal life.
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.