Replies

So what really is your point? TJATL was a bad thing to write? Noted and agreed. That TJATL was the only anti-Semitic literature available? That the Nazi's wouldn't have persecuted the Jews had it not been for Luther? That TJATL was so compelling it drove poor innocent Hitler to be come a monster? TJATL redeems Hitler and his ilk because it was all Luther's fault?

I suspect the last, but mindreading isn't allowed. The Book of Concord was enacted in 1577. Not surprisingly, TJATL wasn't a part of it. Official systemic anti-Semitism was gone in 1577, when will the Catholic church be shed of it?

So what really is your point? TJATL was a bad thing to write? Noted and agreed.

harleyD posed the question " What's to say that God didn't appoint Martin Luther in much the same way?" with reference to apostolic succession. My point is that Martin Luther, by his own words and fruit, proved otherwise. You can make the same case for Judas Iscariot or any evil pope, cardinal, or bishop, none of which extinguishes a true seed and remnant of apostolic succession (always other alternative candidates who are godly). Alternatively you could argue that once the original Jewish Apostles passed, the Gentiles who took over irretrievably corrupted the churchs unto this day, making up a new religion, and reforming it for every generation in a futile attempt to return to the genuine churches of the first one or two centuries. But no, Martin Luther proved himself to be a false Christian apostle.