It Appears Your FR Account Is Infected with the Martin-Luther-Virus
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/28/2017 3:25:17 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Flame war material. |
Posted on 06/28/2017 9:04:53 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Seeing the despotism exercised by the head of the Reformation in imposing his opinions, one might imagine that nothing should be more soundly and painstakingly elaborated than his new doctrine. Such conclusion is completely mistaken.
Martin Luther, reformer
His doctrine, dictated by personal whims and prejudices The false divine messenger, who ‘modestly’ preferred himself to all the Doctors of the Church and pretended to be inspired by the Holy Ghost since he received ‘his dogmas from heaven,’ in reality is insecure, regretful about his early teachings, contradictory and arbitrary. Whether he established dogmas or destroyed them, he was motivated by trivialities and personal prejudices. He changed his opinions like an actor changing his costumes. Here are some examples:
Conditional baptism - On May 12, 1531 Luther wrote to Wenzel Link about conditional baptism, affirming that “after careful consideration we have defined that it must simply be eliminated from the Church.” The next day, he changed his mind. Again ‘inspired,’ he wrote to Ossiandro: “I cannot condemn conditional baptism being given to children whose first baptism is doubtful” (1)
Power of the Catholic Church - In 1519 he wrote: “I fully confess the supreme power of the Roman Church; after Jesus Christ Our Lord, she should be preferred to everything on earth and heaven.” (2) This Church “is the one chosen by God; there can be no reason for anyone to break away from her and, entering into schism, separate himself from her unity.” (3) In 1520, in his Lutheran Epistle, he strongly praised Pope Leo X, saying that his courageous life placed him above any attack. (4)
However, in that same year Leo X would become the Antichrist and the Roman Church “a licentious den of thieves, the most depraved brothel, the kingdom of sin, death and hell.” (5)
Saints, purgatory, prayer for the dead - In 1519, two years after he publicly started to preach his Reformation, while defending himself from adversaries, he taught the cult of the saints, the existence of purgatory, praying for the deceased, the practice of fasting etc. (6) Some years later, he rejected all these doctrines as idolatry, superstition and fanaticism.
Indulgences - In 1541 he swore in Christ’s name that when he began to preach against Dominican Johann Tetzel, accusing him of selling indulgences, he did not even know what the word indulgence meant! (7) Notwithstanding, his criticism against those same indulgences - about which he knew nothing - had served as a pretext for him to attack Rome, disseminate his errors and preach the revolt! (8)
Luther’s own mission - Regarding the origin and ‘legitimacy’ of his mission, in a little more than 15 years Luther changed his views at least 14 times (9). Opportunism dictated his choices. To combat Catholics he would say one thing; to defend himself before his Protestant colleagues he would affirm another; he had yet other arguments to calm the turbulence in the new reformed communities. The actor had a well-stocked wardrobe, with costumes for a multitude of roles
It would not be difficult to continue this list of contradictions. There is almost no important dogma about which Luther did not completely change his views from time to time.
Changes motivated by irrational hatred
To understand Luther’s psychology, one must examine the motivation for his constant vacillations. Writing about Communion under one of two species in his liturgical essay called Formula Missae, he stated: “If a council would mandate or allow two species, to show our scorn we would receive only one or neither one
Manuscript, purgatory verses
A 15th-century English manuscript with Bible verses on Purgatory, which Luther eliminated on a whim nor the other, and we would anathematize those who, following that mandate, would receive both” (10).
On another occasion, he declared that he had decided to do away with the elevation of the host at mass just to show his contempt for the Papacy and that he had conserved the custom up until then just to scorn Andreas Karlstadt [another more radical Protestant who had already abandoned this practice] (11).
With similar vileness he wrote in 1523: “If it should happen that one, two, or a thousand and more councils would decide that ecclesiastics should marry, I, trusting in divine grace, would rather forgive the one who has two or three harlots throughout his life than the one who, following that conciliar decision, would take one legitimate wife forever” (12).
The same psychological bias against the hated papists appeared when he wrote: “Since they [the papists] think they are triumphing over one of my heresies, then let me propose another” (13).
What a mixture of vulgarity, licentiousness and duplicity in the supposed “evangelic reformer”!
One other fact should not be forgotten. It is the famous sacramental dispute that divided the innovators Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt into two irremediably separated camps, which started with this tavern scene. After a harangue by Luther, the two reformers entered Black Bear Inn in Jura, where Karlstadt declared he could no longer tolerate Luther’s opinion on the real presence. Luther scornfully challenged him to refute his position in writing and promised him a florin if he would do it. He took a coin from his pocket and Karlstadt accepted it.
The wine flowed; the contenders shook hands and drank to each other’s health. This was their declaration of war on August 22, 1523. Karlstadt, bidding Luther farewell, said: “I hope you will be smashed by a roller!” Returning the amiability, Luther replied: “May a thousand lighting bolts strike you before you leave town!”
From this episode Bossuet concluded: “This is the new gospel, these are the acts of the new apostles…” (14)
Changes inspired by the Devil
His reason for suppressing the mass appears to be more ‘supernatural.’ It was the victory of the Devil in a terrible dispute into which Luther had entered with him. Luther himself narrated the episode in detail and then concluded:
“This [surrender] should surprise no one since the logic of the Devil was delivered in such a blood-curdling voice that it nearly froze the blood in my veins. I understood then why some persons die in the night: It is because the Devil can kill and suffocate men, and even if he does not take those extremes, he can entangle them in his disputes with so many obstacles they can cause death: I have experienced this many times” (15).
Was Luther lying when he described this episode or was he telling the truth? If the latter is the case, what reliance can be put on a man whose teacher was the Father of Lies? Let the admirers of the reformer try to find a resolution for this dilemma…
The episode above is indicative of the important role the Devil played in the interior life of the heresiarch. Indeed, Satan never leaves him alone a moment. He follows him day and night, into both the church and the tavern. More than once Luther stated that his life was “a series of duels” with Satan. He slept with the Devil more often than with his Katerina.
He saw the Devil everywhere: in the cloud that passed, in the lightning that struck, in the thunder that roared, in the forests, waters, deserts, infesting the air and the fields. He saw devils hidden in serpents and lizards, monkeys and parrots, in the fly that rested on his book, even in the walnuts sent by an admirer. The Evil Spirit was the one who routinely resolved every difficult problem for him. To the Devil’s malefic action Luther attributed the moral disorders and social calamities unchained by his subversive doctrines (16).
This diabolic obsession that tortured the soul of the unfortunate renegade can be seen in all of Luther’s writings. Devils dominate in his style; one would say that some of his pages were written in Hell. In the essay against Duke Henry of Brunswick, the Devil is honored by being named 146 times; in the book on the councils he mentioned the Devil 15 times in four lines (17). He accused the adversaries of the Reformation of having “a satanist, super-satanist and hyper-satanist heart.” To Luther must be attributed the initiative of making a new genre of writing fashionable, one dominated by the Devil, whose tune all the other reformers would follow and sing.
Are these uncertainties, doctrinal contradictions, superficiality in inventing and destroying dogmas, and satanic arrogance and language befitting a messenger who proposes to restore Christianity?
I totally disagree.
Otherwise the articles are considered posts for thoughtful enlightenment.
>>>Show me where the word “Protestant” appears in the Declaration or the Constitution<<<
It’s in the Articles where it doesn’t give the pope or the RCC any authority in our government and it’s in the First Amendment where I can tell the pope to kiss my ass and he can’t do one single thing about it.
That’s where.
But you would be wrong.
Because Catholics are a protected class.
And lets be honest. Things are not going very well in Rome right now, so attacking Luther can take your mind off of things.
Things are still better on FR than the “bad” old days of the religion forum.
"...Luther is an intellectual giant, or, to use a word from Paul Althaus, an "ocean. "The danger of drowning in him, of not being able to come to grips with him satisfactorily, arises from his tremendous output, but no less from his own original style, which we are going to take up. It sounds banal, but cannot be left unsaid: Luther belongs in the first rank of men with extraordinary intellectual creativity.
He is in the full sense a genius, a man of massive power in things religious and a giant as well in theological interpretation.
Because of this, he has in many respects shaped the history of the world--even of our world today.”
- Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Jared Wicks, S.J, Editor. 1970, Loyola University Press) 4.
hat tip, daniel1212
It Appears Your FR Account Is Infected with the Martin-Luther-Virus
“WELS and CLC would disagree with you about which synod represents “committed Lutherans”. They make LCMS look like Liberals”
They make many Catholics looks like tree worshiping pagans.
Note, I am LCMS not WELS.
One rather enjoyable evening I wandered into a message board where a WELS member and a SSPX member were having a go. I am not sure who won, but they agreed all that didn’t belong to their parish were suspect.
It amazes me the Catholic penchant to wring their hands and gnash their teeth over the Reformation when they have Muslims trying to build mosques across from St. Peter’s Basilica and when Muslims are slaughtering Catholics all around the world.
But, yeah, Martin Luther liked to drink.
And let’s not mention that his liquor was probably the good stuff that the Benedictine monks made.
Tradition has been around a lot longer than the written word. Only Catholics and Orthodox have enough sense to admit it. There were believers in God thousands of years before the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible.
I'm not interested
You know, before the Catholic Martin Luther founded Protestantism there was a Jewish “Martin Luther” who broke away from Oral Tradition and “works righteousness” and founded his own religion as well. And his teaching was as full of contradictions as anyone’s. But something tells me any criticism of this particular “Luther” is beyond the pale here at Free Republic.
I had to re-read your post 2-3 times. I thought you were talking about Francis.
Luther did not tear Christianity apart. It was Catholicism.
I heard somewhere that King David (a man after God’s heart) committed adultery and had the woman’s husband killed. I heard elsewhere that he was often morose and filled with doubt.
I’ve heard also that some of the so-called “prophets of God” were often stubborn & disobedient.
etc. etc...
FWIW - sounds like Luther fits right in...
Gosh! Another Roman Rooster is running through the barnyard today - this time a female rooster!!!
God makes the sun rise.
The rooster crows.
Yet the wise rooster only announces what God has done,
knowing his purpose isn’t to supplant God.
God purposed in eternity past:
The Roman Rooster is a different sort of creature.
The Roman Rooster crows & crows, "Look at my glory! Look my greatness! Bow Before ME!"
And why? It is all written in the scrolls God gave him to read. Yet he claims credit for these while missing their message.
Yet he prefers to crow about traditions of pagan roosters and create idols and wear vestments that glorify himself and his earthly chicken coop as the greatest Coup - The Original Coup.
The catholics screamed of being continually attacked and the post was taken down by the mod in very short order, under the guise that the poster was trying to start a flame war.
This poster posts threads like this quite regularly.
Contradictions? Yeah. Christ spoke about those who see "contradictions"....
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
So. You or anyone else is free to criticize. Just know we Christians understand why someone would criticize.
There is no sensible arguments about a small-time priest, barely out of the seminary, that thought he was an authority on the Catholic Church. Luther was a little-known Catholic priest, with no authority whatsoever to question anything. It was his whacky followers that tore Christianity apart.
***
One: He is DOCTOR Luther. That means that he had PLENTY of seminary experience and beyond. Certainly a lot more than you.
Two: Ad hominem attacks, not only on Dr. Luther, but also on me. Is that the best you have? Is that ALL you have?
Three: You just broke the religion forum rules with your post. And FR rules on top of that.
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.
