Was Luther 100% right? 50% right? or 0% right?

5,205 Views | 45 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by PacifistAg
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Personal opinion is that he was about 50% right...

Thoughts?
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He was 100% right about not selling indulgences, but 0% right about murdering Jews.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He was right about a lot of the abuses of his day but wrong on the really big questions: Soteriology, authority, sacraments, the Church.

Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Right on the illegality of selling indulgences, wrong on the Church being the ***** of Babylon, wrong on the Pope being the antichrist, right on the Immaculate Conception, wrong on killing Jews and burning synagogues, wrong on saved by faith alone (1 Corinthians 13:13).
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobody born of a man or woman has ever been right about everything.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How many people you know born of a man?
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Righter than Thad or Seamaster.

As if the abuses weren't connected to soteriology...
Tamu_mgm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://chnetwork.org/journey-home/dr-david-anders-former-presbyterian/
Post removed:
by user
Tamu_mgm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would love to know your thoughts on what Dr. David Anders goes through in his personal conversion from my link above.
Post removed:
by user
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Luther was 100% right about the selling of indulgences, but he was 100% wrong on the Jews...
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure what your point is?

Should we start a thread to post all the horrible things Pope's did?

Nobody claims Luther was infallible, but this does little to further discussion.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
...and 100% right on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God...

Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Nobody claims Luther was infallible, but this does little to further discussion.
The purpose is to let everyone know that not all Catholics think Luther was all bad. He was right in some things, but very wrong in others. I truly wish that all Lutherans would adopt his love of Mary as their own mother, as beloved disciples of Jesus, as St. John did at the foot of the cross.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

How many people you know born of a man?
It's only 2019. Give it a few years.
Neon R
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How was he so wrong about the Jews?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marv C. World
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Neon R said:

How was he so wrong about the Jews?


His views were almost 100% the norm among everyone at the time. These views persisted among Christians until pretty much the end of the 1800s. In many areas this continued until the Civil Right's movement in the 60s. You essentially have to condemn 1900 years of Christianity in general if you condemn his views.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marv C. World said:

Neon R said:

How was he so wrong about the Jews?


His views were almost 100% the norm among everyone at the time. These views persisted among Christians until pretty much the end of the 1800s. In many areas this continued until the Civil Right's movement in the 60s. You essentially have to condemn 1900 years of Christianity in general if you condemn his views.
Is this representative of 1900 years of Christianity?

1) burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them
2) refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians (that is, kick them out and take their homes)
3) take away Jewish religious writings
4) forbid rabbis from preaching (on penalty of death)
5) to offer no protection to Jews on highways (murdering them is okay)
6) for usury to be prohibited and for all Jews' silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping, and given back to Jews who truly convert (that is, take their property)
7) give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, and spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow (looks a lot like concentration camps)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Many have noticed that Hitler basically implemented Luther's directions almost to a Tee.

If that's representative of 1900 years of Christianity, then we need to go back 1950 years to when the faith of a Jewish Messiah was being preached by Jewish men who believed that Messiah, which is basically 95% of the New Testament in the first century. Actually, not a bad idea to return to the original faith of the New Testament. That's what my congregation is doing.

Shalom.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And, if that violent antisemitism is truly representative of 1900 years of Church history, then yes we should condemn that such evil was pervasive for 1900 years. We know it's evil because it could not look more opposed to the life and teachings of Christ.

When the Nazis are drawing heavily upon your writings, then I have a hard time believing those writings are consistent with Christ.
Post removed:
by user
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Although it might not be fair to judge people in the past by the moral standards of today, it is very fair to judge Christians at any time in history by the moral standards of the Bible.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Every single Christian branch throughout history and today claims to be either a continuation, refounding, or renewal of the original Christian faith. As you said, that makes them fair game to be held to the moral standards of Jesus, the Apostles, and the earliest Christians
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

Although it might not be fair to judge people in the past by the moral standards of today, it is very fair to judge Christians at any time in history by the moral standards of the Bible.

Persecuting Jews just because they're Jews is clearly against everything Christ taught. Luther failed that standard to which he laid claim.

Of course, Luther was a man just like us, with both strengths and weaknesses. We should neither try to make Luther a demon for his weaknesses nor dedicate an entire denominations to his teachings.
FIFY.
Marv C. World
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

And, if that violent antisemitism is truly representative of 1900 years of Church history, then yes we should condemn that such evil was pervasive for 1900 years. We know it's evil because it could not look more opposed to the life and teachings of Christ.

When the Nazis are drawing heavily upon your writings, then I have a hard time believing those writings are consistent with Christ.


So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period? Come on now, ethnocentricity and religious supremacy was the norm in the world for everyone. Hatred of this kind does not come from no where. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been at each other's throats for the overwhelming majority of their existences. I don't understand why only Christians are criticized in this situation when clearly everyone is at fault.

The problem we have now is where does this tolerance end? I understand promoting peace everywhere among all people but how do we reconcile this with the belief that non-believers who have outright rejected Jesus go to Hell? We can promote peace all we want but it does not change the words of the Bible. Whether you believe it's an actual lake of fire with eternal torture or that it is a place where you will eternally be without God's presence doesn't really matter because ultimately it's all the same, non-believers do not go to Heaven.

Tolerance is great and all but if people are actively trying to lead people away from God through demonizing or attacking Christianity then how do you rectify that? Whether it be Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. if they are actively doing this after hearing of the good news then are they not an enemy of Christianity? They are actively leading people to reject Jesus and submit themselves to eternal damnation. How is this not evil? How is this not the work of Satan and his followers? Tolerance is great and all but the way it is now, tolerance means allowing the wrong side to win and lead people astray. Christianity is dying a slow death in the West so it's obviously working as well because Christians have decided as a whole to do nothing about any of this. We have Priests kissing the feet of people from other religions and Pastors actively promoting other religions. Is this not blasphemy? How should an average person who might convert view these things? If the religion won't even take any steps to save itself then is it really worth following?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We don't need to judge people of other faiths and creeds. What do you expect from people that don't have the example of a loving savior to follow? We should treat these people as either children who don't know any better or we should pity them if they refuse the peace we have.

The rest of your statement is pointed in the entirely wrong direction. It smacks of the modern emphasis on "winning" and "losing". You basically think other religions are "winning" and it makes you upset. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but Christianity is a religion of losers. Jesus had no positition, no power, no money, and no military. None of the Apostles had these things either. Jesus and the Apostles were all execuuted as condemned criminals. Through the eyes of the world, and the perspective you are showing, they were utter losers.

However, we know that's not the point. The Sermon on the Mount was all about how the "losers" are really the blessed. Jesus told us that we should expect to lose our possessions, our spouse, our children, our family, and even our lives by following Him, but that anything we lost would be gained a thousandfold in heaven. He even tells us to take up a cross.

Historically the Church has most met the ideals of Christ when persecuted, and the Church has least met those ideals when powerful in the world. This pattern has repeated itself over the world and throughout history. So if you are looking for a religion that "protects itself" and exudes power and influence on the world stage, then you've got the wrong religion.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period? Come on now, ethnocentricity and religious supremacy was the norm in the world for everyone. Hatred of this kind does not come from no where. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been at each other's throats for the overwhelming majority of their existences. I don't understand why only Christians are criticized in this situation when clearly everyone is at fault.
Who am I to judge those outside the church? Are we not to judge those inside? Yes, any violence is evil, but we do not repay evil with evil. We repay evil with good.
Quote:

The problem we have now is where does this tolerance end? I understand promoting peace everywhere among all people but how do we reconcile this with the belief that non-believers who have outright rejected Jesus go to Hell? We can promote peace all we want but it does not change the words of the Bible. Whether you believe it's an actual lake of fire with eternal torture or that it is a place where you will eternally be without God's presence doesn't really matter because ultimately it's all the same, non-believers do not go to Heaven.
First, I don't believe in the 'eternal conscious torment' view of hell. Second, we don't convert non-believers with the sword. We don't repay evil for evil. We change the world through the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. We do it the way the early church did...with self-sacrificial love. We love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. Regardless of one's view of "hell", it's not our job to speed someone's trip there. It's our job to love our enemies, and do good to them.

In fact, that a person may be on their way to an eternity in "hell" (whatever one thinks that is) is all the more reason to do no harm to them, even if it costs us our lives. I know where my eternity lies, and because of that confidence, I don't fear death. It's already been defeated. But those nonbelievers don't have that assurance, so it is far better that they live and have future opportunities to turn to the Father.
Quote:

Tolerance is great and all but if people are actively trying to lead people away from God through demonizing or attacking Christianity then how do you rectify that? Whether it be Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. if they are actively doing this after hearing of the good news then are they not an enemy of Christianity? They are actively leading people to reject Jesus and submit themselves to eternal damnation. How is this not evil? How is this not the work of Satan and his followers? Tolerance is great and all but the way it is now, tolerance means allowing the wrong side to win and lead people astray. Christianity is dying a slow death in the West so it's obviously working as well because Christians have decided as a whole to do nothing about any of this. We have Priests kissing the feet of people from other religions and Pastors actively promoting other religions. Is this not blasphemy? How should an average person who might convert view these things? If the religion won't even take any steps to save itself then is it really worth following?
How do we rectify that? By loving God, loving our neighbors, and loving our enemies. We present a radical alternative to the world that doesn't look like the evil they follow. We don't embrace a slightly different flavored evil. We fight evil the way Christ did, self-sacrificial love so deep that He prayed for the forgiveness of His murderers. When we are insulted, we do not insult in return. We love. That's how we're known as His children. Blasphemy should be addressed within the church, but again, who are we to judge those outside the church? Our goal isn't to "defeat" them, but to reflect Christ so strongly that our witness is used by God to draw them to Himself.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great post.

"Acquire the spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

We don't need to defend the faith from pagans or Jews in any other way except by dying to self and following Christ. We certainly don't need to do it through petitioning the government to harm others, steal from them, or persecute them.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spot on, brother!
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period?
I'm interested in seeing any of your examples of Christians deaths at the hands of Jews during this time period.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The ironic thing is that if the NT church had responded to persecution the way some seem here to argue they should, then they would have killed that Pharisee that was hunting them down before he took a trip to Damascus. The NT would be much shorter if they had.
Neon R
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win At Life said:

Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period?
I'm interested in seeing any of your examples of Christians deaths at the hands of Jews during this time period.

There are numerous examples. I believe in these modern times it's referred to as the "blood libel"
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Neon R said:

Win At Life said:

Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period?
I'm interested in seeing any of your examples of Christians deaths at the hands of Jews during this time period.

There are numerous examples. I believe in these modern times it's referred to as the "blood libel"

Is there actual evidence these actually occurred, because everything I'm finding presents them as nothing more than antisemitic myths created to justify expulsion or murder of Jews.
Neon R
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

Neon R said:

Win At Life said:

Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period?
I'm interested in seeing any of your examples of Christians deaths at the hands of Jews during this time period.

There are numerous examples. I believe in these modern times it's referred to as the "blood libel"

Is there actual evidence these actually occurred, because everything I'm finding presents them as nothing more than antisemitic myths created to justify expulsion or murder of Jews.

I'm not sure what you would like to see that would qualify as "evidence" in your opinion? I'm pretty sure most of these events had trials where evidence was produced
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Neon R said:

PacifistAg said:

Neon R said:

Win At Life said:

Quote:

So do we condemn the Jews for being equally antagonistic towards Christians for the same time period?
I'm interested in seeing any of your examples of Christians deaths at the hands of Jews during this time period.

There are numerous examples. I believe in these modern times it's referred to as the "blood libel"

Is there actual evidence these actually occurred, because everything I'm finding presents them as nothing more than antisemitic myths created to justify expulsion or murder of Jews.

I'm not sure what you would like to see that would qualify as "evidence" in your opinion? I'm pretty sure most of these events had trials where evidence was produced
Links to such evidence/trials? I know I read one where a Jewish man is said to have confessed, presumably so his life would be spared, but how much can we trust such confessions when grotesque torture during interrogations was far from uncommon in the middle ages. Is it evidence like this:



I'm genuinely curious if there's credible evidence. In the end, though, it wouldn't matter since we are not to repay evil with evil, but with good.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.