A Lutheran Roadblock

[Forgiven1]

I am sure the original title was the same but in German or Latin. But the source is what you linked to.

 

[Lamb]

It just doesn't give the source that Paul McCain translated it from Luther as far as I can see. (which isn't very far).
I ask, because Luther changed from the subjective/mystical (as this (sermon?) to more objective/non mystical around 1517-1518.

Luther changed his opinion on numerous things throughout his life. It's why, when people bring up a quote from Luther, I have to ask some questions such as, when was it written, to whom and what was the context?

Just because Luther believed in something at one point in his life, does not mean that Lutherans have believed it. There is no Lutheran roadblock.

 

[Forgiven1]

People change their opinion or views on many things. Everyone does it. Or it would be a rare person who doesn't. I am sure you have too. Why would Luther have to be singled out. At the risk of taking this political, we hear about politicians changing their view on various subjects. That doesn't mean anyone who changes their view was lying then or lying now. For whatever reason, the opinion on the subject changed or evolved with more information or life experiences.

There is only one person ever who lived who focused on their purpose and didn't change and that was Jesus.

If we dug into many theologians of protestantism, I am sure we can find changes in opinions. Luther was a prolific writer and because of that, we can see how his thoughts evolved.

Should we discount all of Luther because he was a devout follower of Rome before he read and studied the Bible? Your line of thinking says we should.

Again, Lutherans of today do not find any changes of thought Herr Luther had as a roadblock. They only would if it went totally against Scripture.

The only people this is a roadblock for are those who want to discredit Herr Luther and Lutherans in general.

 

[prism]

Again, Lutherans of today do not find any changes of thought Herr Luther had as a roadblock. They only would if it went totally against Scripture

I wouldn't exactly say that Luther was in accord with Scripture when I read...
Matthew 5:43-44 ESV
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
or
Genesis 12:2-3 ESV
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Should we discount all of Luther because he was a devout follower of Rome before he read and studied the Bible? Your line of thinking says we should

It's true people change their opinions as they grow, but imho Luther grew worse in his older age and again he most likely came under the influence of the Antisemite (Anton Margaritha), I mentioned in post #9.

Luther was a prolific writer and because of that, we can see how his thoughts evolved

Most of Luther's works weren't writings but are sermons.

 

[Forgiven1]

How do you reconcile the verses about with the instructions Jesus gave to the disciples sending them out in Matthew 10:14 - 15 where he sees the disciples to the lost sheep of Israel.


'14 And if anyone willnot receive you or listen to your words, lshake off the dust from your feet whenyou leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, mit will be more bearable onthe day of judgment for nthe land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." ESV

I would say that after all those years of loving the neighbors and praying for them that he decided it was time to "shake the dust from his feet and leave."

There are a lot that Luther wrote that were not sermons.

Prism, I feel that you are looking for a roadblock to Lutheranism. It seems you found it and will not understand how many of us do not find it as such.

 

[prism]

How do you reconcile the verses about with the instructions Jesus gave to the disciples sending them out in Matthew 10:14 - 15 where he sees the disciples to the lost sheep of Israel.


'14 And if anyone willnot receive you or listen to your words, lshake off the dust from your feet whenyou leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, mit will be more bearable onthe day of judgment for nthe land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." ESV

I would say that after all those years of loving the neighbors and praying for them that he decided it was time to "shake the dust from his feet and leave."

Did Luther 'shake the dust off his feet over years and years of trying but failing to convert the Turks?

There are a lot that Luther wrote that were not sermons.

sure, but most of the written volumes (55+) are sermons.

Prism, I feel that you are looking for a roadblock to Lutheranism. It seems you found it and will not understand how many of us do not find it as such.

Is that where your 'feelings' take you? I started this thread with a simple question, "How do Lutherans here get over the hurdle of Luther's diatribe "The Jews and Their Lies", especially working from his lens of Law/Gospel? I wasn't looking for a roadblock to Lutheranism, I find many able theologians in Lutheranism, such as Gerhard, Chemnitz, Walther, Pieper. etc. (no roadblocks there).
It was an honest and curious question, that's all

 

[Lamb]

Is that where your 'feelings' take you? I started this thread with a simple question, "How do Lutherans here get over the hurdle of Luther's diatribe "The Jews and Their Lies", especially working from his lens of Law/Gospel? I wasn't looking for a roadblock to Lutheranism, I find many able theologians in Lutheranism, such as Gerhard, Chemnitz, Walther, Pieper. etc. (no roadblocks there).
It was an honest and curious question, that's all

And the Lutherans here gave you answers...Lutherans have told you that we don't worship Luther, nor do we follow his every word. Yet you didn't accept that.

 

[Josiah]

I started this thread with a simple question, "How do Lutherans here get over the hurdle of Luther's diatribe "The Jews and Their Lies", especially working from his lens of Law/Gospel? I wasn't looking for a roadblock to Lutheranism, I find many able theologians in Lutheranism, such as Gerhard, Chemnitz, Walther, Pieper. etc. (no roadblocks there).
It was an honest and curious question, that's all

@prism

Friend, I think most of us gave an honest reply.


Again...

1. Luther was NOT antisemitic, as has been often claimed since World War II. Like virtually 100% of Christians until extreme relativism took over much of Christianity, Luther was against all RELIGIONS that denied Christ and repudiated the Christian Gospel. He voices that at both Judaism and Islam (never mentioning Jainism or Shinto etc. simply because they weren't an issue in Europe at the time). He is anti Jewish RELIGION, not anti Jewish RACE. No one NEEDS to defend his antisemiticism because he had none.

2. No one defends or wants to defend his language and tone in rejecting non-Christian religions. True - both the language and tone were very common in his day, things were the opposite of our very "PC" "Mr Rogers-ism" of today, but it's offensive to us and I expressed my opinion (as a Lutheran) that it was terrible and made matters WORSE. Luther's POINT was acceptable, the WAY he expressed it was not. It's understandable given the day and place (context!!!) but nonetheless horrible. THAT Lutherans don't defend and don't want to defend.

3. One could infuse Predestination into the discussion but Luther never used Predestination in that way (that's a latter-day Calvinist abuse). Luther sees it as every Christians call to present the Gospel and every persons call to accept it. From his perspective, Christians had done their part in presenting the Gospel ... some were persistently, stubbornly rejecting and repudiating it. Yeah, Calvinists would get mad at GOD for this but Luther got mad at them. But "mad" was not the appropriate thing; it came from his deep frustration and desire for others to be saved.

4. This is no "roadblock." No need for Lutherans to "rally behind" Luther. We universally reject his language and tone. Conservative Lutherans anyway (those that reject universalism and extreme relativism) agree with his point: it's wrong to deny, reject and repudiate Christianity - people should embrace it but we reject the then very typical language and tone he employed to say this. And of course, Lutherans have no desire to defend Luther anyway. He is not the source and norm for Lutheranism, we don't follow him. We have no more need to "rally around him" than Americans need to rally behind George Washington or Thomas Jefferson... or the English to do so with William the Conqueror.


Thank you.


Blessings on your Lenten journey


- Josiah



.

 

[prism]

3. One could infuse Predestination into the discussion but Luther never used Predestination in that way (that's a latter-day Calvinist abuse). Luther sees it as every Christians call to present the Gospel and every persons call to accept it. From his perspective, Christians had done their part in presenting the Gospel ... some were persistently, stubbornly rejecting and repudiating it. Yeah, Calvinists would get mad at GOD for this but Luther got mad at them. But "mad" was not the appropriate thing; it came from his deep frustration and desire for others to be saved.

Not sure why you 'infused' this topic into this thread. Was it supposed to serve as an example?

 

[prism]

And the Lutherans here gave you answers...Lutherans have told you that we don't worship Luther, nor do we follow his every word. Yet you didn't accept that.

..and so they did, but it still didn't alleviate my concern. Yes, I realize Lutherans follow the BOC (1580), not Luther...yet I don't know of any Lutheran writings that opposed Luther's teachings.
Have any Lutherans of 'standing' (Preus, Sasse, Eyster etc. ) called out Luther on his "Jews and Their Lies"? I would be encouraged if it was so.

 

[Josiah]

Have any Lutherans of 'standing' (Preus, Sasse, Eyster etc. ) called out Luther on his "Jews and Their Lies"? I would be encouraged if it was so.

Friend,

I strongly suggest that the Lutherans you referenced and likely every single Lutheran until quite recently did not "call out" Luther on this point simple because they agreed with him (conservative Lutherans STILL do). People who deny Christ and repudiate the Gospel are wrong and they are not saved; their religion is to be opposed and rejected.

I realize, @prism that lots of Christians TODAY believe that "all paths lead to heaven" and/or that all are saved if they are sincere in whatever they believe and try and/or that Truth is a phantom and no one can know anything. BUT Luther was not among those. And until quite recently, most Lutherans weren't either. Luther believed in Truth. So do conservative Lutherans today. Luther believed that there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved but that of Jesus. That there is salvation in no other. That Christianity is TRUE and all other religions are FALSE, that Christianity should be embraced and all other religion rejected and repudiated. May seem "old fashioned" to many today but that's what Luther held.... pretty much all Christians did until quite recently... conservative Lutherans still do.


Blessings on your Lenten journey.


- Josiah


.

 

[prism]

I strongly suggest that the Lutherans you referenced and likely every single Lutheran until quite recently did not "call out" Luther on this point simple because they agreed with him (conservative Lutherans STILL do). People who deny Christ and repudiate the Gospel are wrong and they are not saved; their religion is to be opposed and rejected.

I understand that, I just hope they at least didn't agree with Luther on his book about the Jews. I was hoping they would at least repudiate it. Surely they weren't ignorant of the book .

 

[Josiah]

I understand that, I just hope they at least didn't agree with Luther on his book about the Jews. I was hoping they would at least repudiate it. Surely they weren't ignorant of the book .

IMO, I find it very, very likely that there was no repudiation of the book because they agreed with his point. Many Lutherans STILL do (including me). Simple.

Those who would reject his point likely hold that either 1) Truth doesn't matter or even exists. 2) ALL are saved regardless of their religion as long as they are sincere and try really hard. 3) All paths lead to salvation, nothing special about Jesus or the Cross or the Gospel or Christianity. So, ALL feelings are equally valid and equally lead to heaven (if there is such a thing). They would reject his point. But I don't. I don't think most conservative Lutherans do. I think his point was correct: Truth exist, it's wrong to deny Christ and repudiate the Gospel, those that do ain't going to heaven, there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved except Jesus. Jesus IS the Way and the Truth and the Life. Jesus. Not the denial and repudiation of Jesus.



.

 

[prism]

IMO, I find it very, very likely that there was no repudiation of the book because they agreed with his point. Many Lutherans STILL do (including me). Simple.

Those who would reject his point likely hold that either 1) Truth doesn't matter or even exists. 2) ALL are saved regardless of their religion as long as they are sincere and try really hard. 3) All paths lead to salvation, nothing special about Jesus or the Cross or the Gospel or Christianity. So, ALL feelings are equally valid and equally lead to heaven (if there is such a thing). They would reject his point. But I don't. I don't think most conservative Lutherans do. I think his point was correct: Truth exist, it's wrong to deny Christ and repudiate the Gospel, those that do ain't going to heaven, there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved except Jesus. Jesus IS the Way and the Truth and the Life. Jesus. Not the denial and repudiation of Jesus.



.

Perhaps if someone from the 'conservative' / 'confessional' Lutheran camp had spoken up and exposed the matter, it would have pre-empted Hitler's blather about "Luther would have been in agreement" rhetoric.

 

[Forgiven1]

Perhaps if someone from the 'conservative' / 'confessional' Lutheran camp had spoken up and exposed the matter, it would have pre-empted Hitler's blather about "Luther would have been in agreement" rhetoric.

Doubt it.

 

[Josiah]

Perhaps if someone from the 'conservative' / 'confessional' Lutheran camp had spoken up and exposed the matter, it would have pre-empted Hitler's blather about "Luther would have been in agreement" rhetoric.

I don't think Hitler listened to or gave a rip what any Lutheran or Christian thought. Or wrote. Or meant. ONLY if he could twist it in his sick, perverse way to gain power.


.

 

[Lamb]

Perhaps if someone from the 'conservative' / 'confessional' Lutheran camp had spoken up and exposed the matter, it would have pre-empted Hitler's blather about "Luther would have been in agreement" rhetoric.

Don't blame anyone else for what Hitler did except for Hitler himself. He's responsible for his own actions.

 

[prism]

Doubt it.

I don't think Hitler listened to or gave a rip what any Lutheran or Christian thought. Or wrote. Or meant. ONLY if he could twist it in his sick, perverse way to gain power.


.

Don't blame anyone else for what Hitler did except for Hitler himself. He's responsible for his own actions.

Ok, looks like I'm outnumbered. I guess Hitler was ordained/predestined to be Hitler, (sigh)

 

[Lamb]

Ok, looks like I'm outnumbered. I guess Hitler was ordained/predestined to be Hitler, (sigh)

What do you mean outnumbered when you were asking for Lutheran opinions? Did you really want Lutheran opinions?

 

[Josiah]

Ok, looks like I'm outnumbered. I guess Hitler was ordained/predestined to be Hitler, (sigh)

LOL

Predestination only applies to Justification