Luther's 95 Theses
Posted on 06/08/2014 1:59:17 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
In 2017, we will witness the 500th anniversary of one of the most important, influential and regrettable events in Church history: the Protestant Reformation, or the Protestant Rebellion, as some prefer to call it. Indeed, the latter term would suit me better, too. But, being German, I am used to the former expression and should I ever refer to said event as die protestantische Rebellion, people would think me some sort of radical. On that thought, perhaps it is worth noting that rebels are often quite radical themselves, which is one thing we can definitely say of the so-called "Reformers". To mark this anniversary, the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) has planned a number of events, beginning with a "Lutheran Decade" from 2008 to 2017. Each year has it’s own theme in the form of "The Reformation and…", i.e. Education, Freedom, Music, Tolerance, Politics and others.
The decade will culminate in the celebratory year of 2017, to which the President of the Evangelical "Church" in Germany (EKD), Nikolaus Schneider, has even invited Pope Francis. But, really, how likely is it His Holiness will hop on a plane and join in the celebration of someone his predecessor excommunicated? One might ask, is there any room for Catholics to take part in some sort of event? This is the question that is circulating in the mother country of the Reformation: Germany. The Most Reverend Gerhard Feige, Bishop of Magdeburg, is the Bishops' Conference's representative for ecumenical affairs. He has dedicated a lot of thought and time to the question how Catholics should view this event.
It begins with the name: Do we call it an anniversary, something that could imply happiness, or a commemoration of an event that has wrought such great damage upon the Body of Christ, His holy Bride, the Catholic Church? The German bishops have chosen the latter term. There is still confusion on the whole thing, though: The EKD is not being very clear on what exactly they want to celebrate. One hears catchy words such as "diversity", "conscience", and the like stuck onto the Reformation in their talk, but never do we hear of heresy, schism or even the antisemitism of Luther and his ilk. Indeed, who in his right mind would celebrate the chaos and harm inflicted on the Church by the so-called "Reformers"? Not even the Protestants organizing the event dare to say thus. Yet, one gets the impression that the whole event is not actually interested in critically evaluating the past, or their theology for that matter, but rather praising it as the dawn of an era of "tolerance" and "liberty".
Could this be any further from the truth? Professor Heinz Schilling of Berlin, a member of the advisory board for the anniversary, stated in an interview that Luther was "everything but tolerant" and criticized the EKD as "quite understandably not interested in any of the research’s findings". He went even further and said that the organizers made themselves appear "laughable among scholars" by claiming what they do. Margot Käßmann, who is the anniversary’s ambassador and a former Lutheran "bishop", once claimed that it was thanks to Luther that her sect had female "bishops". The professor criticizes this as yet another inaccuracy and something that Luther certainly did not envision. Is it any wonder, then, that the EKD has not come out clearly and said what the entire occasion is about for them, as the bishops have repeatedly bewailed, if even their own board members see through their catchy slogans?
What about us Catholics? Is there any way in which we can join our separated brethren in their commemoration? I argue: no. Some will disagree, but to me, the Reformation is intrinsically connected to fracture in the Body of Christ, heresy and the resulting total chaos. I could never join any such "commemoration", even if one doesn't call it an "anniversary" for the sake of appeasing Catholics. When have we ever "commemorated" the schism of 1054, or any heresy, for that matter? I believe we would do great harm to the effort of achieving Christian unity by taking part in any way. It obscures the borders between Catholicism and Protestantism, confuses people, and may even cause scandal.
The aforementioned Margot Käßmann suggested the following kind of participation of Catholics and Protestants: Each group could begin a pilgrimage on their own route, and reach one common destination. She would also like the program to achieve that all people learn "that 31 October is Reformation Day and not Halloween", to which Bishop Feige of Magdeburg replied "and the eve of All Saints". But the problem I see with Käßmann’s proposal is this: Although the idea might seem nice, it suggests that Protestantism and Catholicism are somehow equals. They most definitely are not. And certainly not according to Luther himself! Catholics know that their Church is the Church Christ the Lord founded on St. Peter, and Protestantism's very name already suggests otherwise. The Reformers made that point very clear. From a Catholic point of view, a heretical movement that splits the Church cannot be of equal worth as the One True Faith. Just think how we would have fought Arianism if such had been our position! This is not to say that Protestants aren't Christians, of course, but we must realize that Protestantism is not what our Lord willed us to have or believe: Catholicism is. Thus, two equal pilgrimages reaching one destination à la Käßmann would cause scandal and confusion. I assume she does not want it to symbolize the way we might some day find unity, but rather the common destination means Christ. But that is precisely the point: The Catholic Church is the ark of salvation, the Body and Bride of Christ, and She alone has "the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). She is Christ in this world apart from Whom "no one comes to the Father" (John 14:6). Protestantism has distorted those words of eternal life fundamentally, and thus cannot be on equal footing with Holy Mother Church. If Christ is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" apart from Whom there is no salvation, then so is the Catholic Church, for She is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24).
Thus, let me emphasize again: Celebrating the Reformation, or even commemorating it with Protestants, will blur the sharp line between the One True Church and those communities that came from the Protestant Reformation. It will scandalize and, actually, almost certainly make Christian unity harder to achieve. For in pretending Protestantism is somehow equally valid or of the same dignity as Catholicism, we take away the very reason for Christian unity: to be united in the one Church that our Lord left us, founded on Peter in the person of the Roman Pontiff.
Therefore, I hope the German bishops decide not to participate – however unlikely that is. It remains to be seen whether the ecumenical progress in achieving unity hoped for will come about. Let us pray, that 2017 will bring to many people's attention the Truth of Catholicism and the scandal that the separation of Christians is, fostering in them the desire for unity with Christ in His Bride, which is Holy Church.
Luther's 95 Theses
—
Follow Phillip on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to Matthew Olson's YouTube videos.
Ok, that's a reasonable statement; but then what obligations would that put on me?
Bill Gates has been 'highly honored' by bringing forth to the masses of the world the PC; but I don't have a picture of him on my desktop screen or CC every e-mail I send out, to him also.
I reserve that adoration to AlGore, Inventor of the Internet...
Yes; they do.
Old heresies really never go away; do they...
So will the ones who DO have it in their account.
The book is clear: ALL will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
And ALL will be judged.
•And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
•And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God...
Dictionary? In which language? Latin? Greek? Russian? Syriac? Catholic and Orthodox churches define prayer differnt from the worship of God and have recognized the difference for2000 years.
The English dictionary gives several definitions, including the Protestant one, but which dictonary?
we define it differently,
Naming Mary *mother of God* does.
Was the Holy Spirit wrong in how HE inspired Scripture? HE named her *mother of Jesus*. Are Catholics now going to accuse the Holy Spirit of heresy because He didn't name Mary like they think He ought to have?
The argument that *Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God therefore Mary is the mother of God*, leads to the following conclusions using the same (for lack of a better term) *logic*:
If Mary is the mother of God and the Father is God, then Mary is the mother of God the Father.
If Mary is the mother of God and the Holy Spirit is God, then Mary is the mother of God the Holy Spirit.
That puts Mary above the Godhead, makes Mary deity, makes her the mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, making them created, finite beings with beginning.
It totally messes up all kinds of theology.
Do Catholics EVER think through what they have been spoon fed for their entire lives, cause it sure doesn't look that way with the arguments they use.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
In Scripture, the Holy Spirit calls her *mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Scripture is clear in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
And that's the problem. Catholicism redefines everything.
That's right. That term is also not in Scripture.
So where did it come from?
God does not count our sin against us, but rather he imputes, or credits to our account, the perfect, holy, righteous life that Jesus lived while He was here on earth.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 4:1-12 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 4:20-25 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
The righteousness of Christ has been given to those who are trusting in Him and not their works.
People will be judged by their works, just like they want to be, but if they don't have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account, they cannot ever get into heaven.
The works I'm going to be judged by are Christ's works because they have been credited to my account. God forgave me and has chosen to not count my sin against me.
It's His CHOICE to treat born again believers that way.
Words mean things...
Ya think?!?!?!
The term in English follows Greek and Latin usage as found in the Athanasian Creed and other texts of the early church:
Do you confess Jesus is "God the Son" and Mary is the "mother of Emmanuel (which the Holy Spirit explicitly interprets as God with us)."
Then she isn’t the “mother of God”.
Was Jesus a man prior to being born of Mary?
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
The phrase “like as we are” wouldn’t mean anything if Jesus wasn’t “like as we are”. God can not be tempted “like as we are”.
There is no way we can understand how Jesus was both God and man at the same time but if He was not “like as we are” without being God He wouldn’t have been tempted “like as we are”.
Except we will be there “in Jesus name”. That means that just like when someone gives power of attorney the Judge sees the one who gave the power of attorney when that person who was given power of attorney stands before him.
Mary is the mother of Jesus, just as Scripture declares.
The Catholic church is wrong for changing her God given title, no matter what excuse they use for doing so.
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.