A Lutheran Roadblock

[Lamb]

Romans 11:23,25 KJV
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, (v.23) shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

It appears the reason they are in unbelief is due to the inflicted blindness (v25) explained by Paul as a mystery.

I'm sure Luther was aware of that during his tirade.

If that Jew in Luther's day died in unbelief...he was not saved. Do you agree with that or disagree?

 

[prism]

If that Jew in Luther's day died in unbelief...he was not saved. Do you agree with that or disagree?

yes, and?
(same as all people dying in unbelief)

 

[Lamb]

yes, and?
(same as all people dying in unbelief)

Maybe you should explain where you were going with post #40 then?

 

[prism]

Maybe you should explain where you were going with post #40 then?

Romans 11:23,25 KJV
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, (v.23) shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

It appears the reason they are in unbelief is due to the inflicted blindness (v25) explained by Paul as a mystery.

I'm sure Luther was aware of that during his tirade

If Luther had read that partial blindness would come upon Israel maybe he wouldn't have had such high expectations of the Jews when he introduced his new Gospel (compared to Rome's), thus sparing him his focused anger against the Jews.

 

[Lamb]

If Luther had read that partial blindness would come upon Israel maybe he wouldn't have had such high expectations of the Jews when he introduced his new Gospel (compared to Rome's), thus sparing him his focused anger against the Jews.

Turning away from faith in the Savior is man's fault and man deserves damnation because of it.

 

[Forgiven1]

Romans 11 23-25 is talking about those who come to believe will be grafted in. Those of the Jewish faith had hardened their hearts to God. They remain in that state. Luther saw that they remained hardened in their hearts.

For many of us, what Luther wrote is not a roadblock as you say. Could he have written it in a less harsh way? Yes. That wasn't Luther though. On the other hand, sometimes people need to hear harshness about their unbelief.

Prism: I am not sure where your faith lies. You do seem to come across that those of us who are Lutheran should turn away from our belief because of this writing of Luther's. We Lutherans have this brought to our attention many times. What Luther wrote about the Jews seems to be a roadblock for you though. This is fine. You don't have to be Lutheran to be a redeemed child of God.

 

[prism]

Turning away from faith in the Savior is man's fault and man deserves damnation because of it.

That doesn't change the fact of this part of God's Word...

Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

This may have been their own fault as a nation (part of God's chastisement)...or are you saying the Jews deserved Luther's tongue lashing more than the Gentiles despite Romans 3:9?...

Romans 3:9 KJV
What then? are we better than they ? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

[prism]

Romans 11 23-25 is talking about those who come to believe will be grafted in. Those of the Jewish faith had hardened their hearts to God. They remain in that state. Luther saw that they remained hardened in their hearts.

For many of us, what Luther wrote is not a roadblock as you say. Could he have written it in a less harsh way? Yes. That wasn't Luther though. On the other hand, sometimes people need to hear harshness about their unbelief.

Prism: I am not sure where your faith lies. You do seem to come across that those of us who are Lutheran should turn away from our belief because of this writing of Luther's. We Lutherans have this brought to our attention many times. What Luther wrote about the Jews seems to be a roadblock for you though. This is fine. You don't have to be Lutheran to be a redeemed child of God.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Lamb..."are you saying the Jews deserved Luther's tongue lashing more than the Gentiles despite Romans 3:9?

I have no desire that Lutherans should turn from their faith (I am saddened when I see Lutheran pastors going back to Rome or hopping over to Eastern Orthodox, especially when Lutherans hold the 5 keys (the 5 Solas) of the Reformation.

Where does my faith lay?...Primarily, on a bloody cross outside Jerusalem some 2000 years ago; secondarily, somewhere between Geneva and Wittenberg. lol

 

[Lamb]

That doesn't change the fact of this part of God's Word...

Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

This may have been their own fault as a nation (part of God's chastisement)...or are you saying the Jews deserved Luther's tongue lashing more than the Gentiles despite Romans 3:9?...

Romans 3:9 KJV
What then? are we better than they ? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

You're asking a modern day person to try to explain the thinking of someone from the 1500s. You'll never get a fully acceptable response. We didn't live in those times in order to relate to what was going on.

 

[Josiah]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Lamb..."are you saying the Jews deserved Luther's tongue lashing more than the Gentiles despite Romans 3:9?

@prism


Again....

1. Luther's very strong, polemic language was very typical of the day and by no means limited to just this singular man. But I agree, by our uber, hyper "PC" standard, it is disgusting. No one known to me in 2024 defends the language and tone used. Not me, not anyone. He should have been politically correct. He should have been nice. He should have sounded like Mr. Rogers. That would have been better.

2. His frustration and rebuke was directed to a RELIGION - not a RACE. It was the Jewish RELIGION he opposed, not the Jewish RACE. Hitler (on purpose) confused the two.... and sadly after him, lots of people have followed his example.

3. Like all Christians until recently, Luther believed that Christianity is true and should be accepted.... and other religions are false and should be rejected and opposed. Like all Christians until very recently, he was opposed to those who denied the Christian Gospel and the Savior Jesus Christ. In Luther's day, people believed in truth and Christians believed that Christianity was true and those rejecting it thus were wrong. I realize this seems weird, offensive and absurd to some today.




.

 

[prism]

You're asking a modern day person to try to explain the thinking of someone from the 1500s. You'll never get a fully acceptable response. We didn't live in those times in order to relate to what was going on.

Yes, but even Luther would agree that biblical principles are timeless.

 

[prism]

1. Luther's very strong, polemic language was very typical of the day and by no means limited to just this singular man. But I agree, by our uber, hyper "PC" standard, it is disgusting. No one known to me in 2024 defends the language and tone used. Not me, not anyone. He should have been politically correct. He should have been nice. He should have sounded like Mr. Rogers. That would have been better.

I can easily relate to Luther's et al polemic methods. I have often been accused of being 'insensitive', 'unloving' etc...but so was Jesus in Mt. 23.

2. His frustration and rebuke was directed to a RELIGION - not a RACE. It was the Jewish RELIGION he opposed, not the Jewish RACE. Hitler (on purpose) confused the two.... and sadly after him, lots of people have followed his example.

Again, he could have saved himself the frustration by taking serious Rom 11:25.

3. Like all Christians until recently, Luther believed that Christianity is true and should be accepted.... and other religions are false and should be rejected and opposed. Like all Christians until very recently, he was opposed to those who denied the Christian Gospel and the Savior Jesus Christ. In Luther's day, people believed in truth and Christians believed that Christianity was true and those rejecting it thus were wrong. I realize this seems weird, offensive and absurd to some today.

See my last comment above regarding Rom 11:25.
Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

[Lamb]

I can easily relate to Luther's et al polemic methods. I have often been accused of being 'insensitive', 'unloving' etc...but so was Jesus in Mt. 23.

Again, he could have saved himself the frustration by taking serious Rom 11:25.

See my last comment above regarding Rom 11:25.
Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

You make it sound like no Jews will come to Christ before the Gentiles are done coming in, the way you're throwing around that verse? So throwing that verse to indicate Luther shouldn't have said anything about the Jews at all is really fruitless. There have been Jews who come to Christ since the cross/resurrection and will continue to do so until His return. Luther was aggravated that they rejected the Savior. He didn't like the smack that they talked about our Lord. As we keep telling you, his speech was similar to the type of language used by others during that time period.

 

[prism]

You make it sound like no Jews will come to Christ before the Gentiles are done coming in, the way you're throwing around that verse? So throwing that verse to indicate Luther shouldn't have said anything about the Jews at all is really fruitless. There have been Jews who come to Christ since the cross/resurrection and will continue to do so until His return. Luther was aggravated that they rejected the Savior. He didn't like the smack that they talked about our Lord. As we keep telling you, his speech was similar to the type of language used by others during that time period.

It has nothing to do with making me sound as if no Jews would come to faith. (Please don't turn this on to me.) Luther knew the Apostles and first disciples were all Jews. The text says 'partial blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles'. Luther, who wrote a commentary on Romans should have known about Rom 11:25 and not raise his expectations concerning the Jews. The text does not mention, 'a partial blindness happening to the Gentiles...not this..
Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to the Gentiles, until the fulness of the Jews be come in.

The mystery appears to be some sort of chastisement to the Jews, most likely for their general rejection of their Messiah.

Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We should not be wise in our own conceits in anyone who refuses to come to Christ, as it was only by God's grace that we came (and Luther)

 

[Lamb]

It has nothing to do with making me sound as if no Jews would come to faith. (Please don't turn this on to me.) Luther knew the Apostles and first disciples were all Jews. The text says 'partial blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles'. Luther, who wrote a commentary on Romans should have known about Rom 11:25 and not raise his expectations concerning the Jews. The text does not mention, 'a partial blindness happening to the Gentiles...not this..
Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to the Gentiles, until the fulness of the Jews be come in.

The mystery appears to be some sort of chastisement to the Jews, most likely for their general rejection of their Messiah.

Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We should not be wise in our own conceits in anyone who refuses to come to Christ, as it was only by God's grace that we came (and Luther)

Perhaps, instead of copying and pasting the verse over and over, you could explain better why you think that verse matters?

As a Lutheran, that verse does not alter our doctrine in any way. Man damns himself because of rejection of the Savior, and God is not responsible for that. There is no conceit in making that proclamation since we believe that we "cannot by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit calls us by the Gospel, enlightens us with His gift, sanctifies us and keeps us in the true faith. There is no conceit in that either since it's the Holy Spirit's work.

So also explain why you keep using the term conceit, when there in none to be found?

 

[prism]

Perhaps, instead of copying and pasting the verse over and over, you could explain better why you think that verse matters?

As a Lutheran, that verse does not alter our doctrine in any way. Man damns himself because of rejection of the Savior, and God is not responsible for that. There is no conceit in making that proclamation since we believe that we "cannot by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit calls us by the Gospel, enlightens us with His gift, sanctifies us and keeps us in the true faith. There is no conceit in that either since it's the Holy Spirit's work.

So also explain why you keep using the term conceit, when there in none to be found?

In short, to reject His Word is to reject the Savior revealed in the Word, and God is not responsible for that.

 

[Lamb]

In short, to reject His Word is to reject the Savior revealed in the Word, and God is not responsible for that.

Since we see way too many different denominations, we also have to accept the fact that not everyone interprets the Word properly.

 

[prism]

Since we see way too many different denominations, we also have to accept the fact that not everyone interprets the Word properly.

That sounds like Rome's answer to Luther. Luther, most likely would have most likely responded, "God's Word is God's Word regardless of man's interpretation".

 

[Lamb]

That sounds like Rome's answer to Luther. Luther, most likely would have most likely responded, "God's Word is God's Word regardless of man's interpretation".

God's Word is God's Word, but man is sinful and none of us have it 100% correct.

So, let's get back to why you think the verse you kept repeating is important to the thread?

 

[Josiah]

@prism

Friend, I'm not SURE I'm getting your point, but it seems to ME you are agreeing that Luther was not anti-Semitic (against the Jewish RACE) - as he is often accused of, following Hitler misuse) but rather (like virtually all Christians until very recently) anti-Jewish RELIGION - a religion that denies Christ and the Christian Gospel. THAT'S the issue before us. And it seems to ME, we're in agreement there.



.