Posted on 05/04/2008 8:52:49 AM PDT by restornu
CTR
I think Luther also waxed quite antisemitic in his later, uh...theology.
“Luther found it necessary to base his authority on the Bible.”
Yeah, that’s always a bad idea.
(bigtime sarcasm)
Luther suggested that John’s vision could not be understood nor its precepts observed. While that may be true to later generations, it is likely that the people in the seven churches to which the book was addressed understood it. Luther’s declaration that “Christ is neither taught nor known in it” is clearly wrong, as anyone who has read Revelation can attest. Indeed, the preface to the book clearly testifies of Christ:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:1-6)
Christ is named 18 times in the book of Revelation, in addition to the passages where he is depicted as the “Lamb of God,” the title attributed to him by both John the Baptist (John 1:36) and Peter (1 Peter 1:19). Indeed, it is in John’s revelation that we find one of Christ’s important titles, “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13).
Luther removed James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from their normal places and relegated them to the end of the New Testament, as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books. In his New Testament table of contents, he numbered books 1-23 and then placed the four rejected ones without numbers. Tyndale followed Luther’s order in his English translation, as did Coverdale in 1535. The Great Bible of 1519 put Hebrews and James back in their original positions, and this is the order kept in the King James Version, which was based on the Great Bible.
Luther was not the only reformer to reject portions of the Bible. Ulrich Zwingle opposed the book of Revelation, while Calvin denounced it as unintelligible and forbad his pastors at Geneva to attempt to interpret it.
Though later Protestants rejected the twelve books of the Apocrypha found in Catholic Bibles, they were included in Luther’s Bible. In the 1534 edition, he called them “books not on a level with Holy Writ and yet profitable and good to read.”12 He removed all of them from the Old Testament and placed them in a special section after the Old Testament, just as he moved questionable New Testament books to the end of that collection. The Apocrypha were included in the first (1611) edition of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and were included in some editions as late as the 19th century. Even today, Cambridge University, which has long been the official publisher of the KJV or “authorized version,” publishes the KJV version of the Apocrypha in a separate volume.
In view of the intense criticisms leveled against Latter-day Saint beliefs about the scriptures and revelation, it is somewhat ironic that Joseph Smith’s view of the Bible accords rather well with that of Luther. In addition to the declaration in Article of Faith 8 (”We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”), the prophet declared, “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (History of the Church 6:57).
“Luther found it necessary to base his authority on the Bible.”
Yeah, that’s always a bad idea.
(bigtime sarcasm)
***
Some times one should read the article instead of a knee jerk response!
The quote was pretty far down in the article that I did read. The rest of it wasn’t impressive.
Can you honestly tell us why you posted this?
I get the impression that rather than evangelize or correct Christians your faith see's as errant, your intent seems to be to foment divisiveness and conflict.
In 1520, Luther wrote his “Treatise on Good Works,” in which he acknowledged that the Spirit guides us into good works, but also stresses their importance. He begins the treatise with these words: “We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God’s commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew 19, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’”
Though the treatise deals with a variety of works expected of Christians, Luther wrote that “The first and highest, the most precious of all good works is faith in Christ.” In this, he agrees with Joseph Smith, who wrote that the first principle of the gospel was “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Article of Faith 4).14
Though both Martin Luther and Joseph Smith stressed the importance and primacy of faith in Christ, both also taught that baptism was essential for the forgiveness of sins and for salvation. In his Larger Catechism, Part Fourth (”Of Baptism”), Luther wrote, “I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved.” He added, “And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted:15 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.” His Small Catechism, Part IV (”Holy Baptism”), II, agrees
Oh my not into sharing your toys today!:)
“Though both Martin Luther and Joseph Smith”
Martin Luther was a man of God. If I give my opinion of Smith I would likely be given at least a timeout, if not an outright ban. There is no caomparison of the two men except that they walked upright.
Copied and pasted from FAIR?
Based upon his study of the Bible, Martin Luther concluded as early as 1522 that "Abraham did not commit adultery by leading a decent life with his second wife also. Abraham was a true Christian.16 His example dare not be condemned. It is true, one dare not make any laws out of the behavior of our forefathers, but one may not make sin out of their example."17 Luther's views were supported by his colleagues, notably Philip Melanchthon18 and Martin Bucer (whose writings influenced Calvin and who later helped Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, in the Protestant reform of the Church of England).19
In 1522, Henry VIII, king of England, wrote a book denouncing Luther's reforms and defending the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. For this action, the pope bestowed on him the title "Defender of the Faith." The friendship between England and Rome was not to endure, however. Henry had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn and sought to have the church grant an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, on grounds that she had been the wife of his deceased brother Arthur and that all of their children had been stillborn. Pope Clement VIII drafted an order directing the king to reject his "concubine," Anne, or face excommunication or even an interdict against his entire kingdom.
In January 1533, Henry secretly married Anne and thus became a polygamist. His actions may have been prompted by a letter that Melanchthon wrote to the king in August 1531:
Am I to assume if King Henry vIII wife could not give him an heir it is better to kill her than Polygamy!
“Though both Martin Luther and Joseph Smith”
Martin Luther was a man of God. If I give my opinion of Smith I would likely be given at least a timeout, if not an outright ban. There is no caomparison of the two men except that they walked upright.
Let’s clarify that more!:)
It would be wrong to conclude that Martin Luther was a “Mormon” or that he saw everything the same way Joseph Smith did, but it is equally wrong to think that Luther’s beliefs and teachings were identical to those found among modern Evangelical Christians.
Frequently called the “father of the Reformation,” Luther retained many Catholic views that other Protestants rejected. For example, in 1545 he described the Eucharist as the “adorable Sacrament,” prompting Calvin to accuse him of “raising up an idol in God’s temple,” and of being “half-papist.”
In a letter addressed to Melanchthon, he wrote that “It was very dangerous to assume that the Church which had existed for so many centuries . . . should not have taught the true doctrine of the Sacraments.”
Luther considered Reformers such as Zwingli and Oecolampadius to be “damned . . . out of the Church . . . offspring of hell . . . heretics,” because they acknowledged the Eucharist to be merely symbolic rather than literally becoming the flesh and blood of Christ.
Were the real Martin Luther to stand up today, he would not recognize some of the dogmatic issues imposed on the Reformation by some later adherents of Protestantism.
You mean that child-marrying peepstone-gazing bank-frauding money-digging False-Prophet who started the LDS and FLDS and RLDS churches? That Smith?
I'm betting you can criticize him mildly and not get banned. The forum has become much less protective of the sensitive feelings of LDS Posters lately. Whereas a year ago a statement like that would have caused my post to disappear, these days the mods are much more open to allowing criticism of the LDS Church than they were in the past.
This doesn't mean that they won't pull a thread or a post that somehow offends a Mormon, but the bar has been raised. I do believe however that there are a few (I think a handful) of Mormons who constantly annoy the mods by pushing the abuse button every time they see a post like this one. I'm sure this post will be brought to the attention of the mods shortly.
There is no comparison of the two men except that they walked upright.
I'm not so sure about that one. Joseph Smith was a snake in the grass.
Please be my guess say all you want about Prophet Joseph Smtih we all will be held accountable for our words!
That's not ironic at all, but inevitable. Everyone making up their own thing as they go? Growth rates could help but be exponential.
“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.”
Note that He took only ONE rib, not 5 or 6.
LOL you sound like Adam and Steve
“LOL you sound like Adam and Steve”
I don’t know them, are they in the mormon bible?
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.