Full Version: Martin Luther, Reformation
Saw a PBS or History Channel show on Martin Luther a few weeks back, and it said that ML was only trying to reform the Catholic Church, which didn't want to be reformed, so the ultimate result of his efforts was the founding of Protestantism, but that it was never his intent to do that.
ML never tried to address the general public in these issues, but the words got out, and were accepted and interpreted incorrectly (not in accordance with ML's intent) by the masses. Then came the Peasant War in which 100,000 peasants were killed. But the cat was out of the bag, and I think it was a major step in getting church out of government.
Was ML an accidental reformist? Or did he know what he was doing?
Here is a link to Martin Luther quotes that are not very favorable to him.
http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml
ML never tried to address the general public in these issues, but the words got out, and were accepted and interpreted incorrectly (not in accordance with ML's intent) by the masses. Then came the Peasant War in which 100,000 peasants were killed. But the cat was out of the bag, and I think it was a major step in getting church out of government.
Was ML an accidental reformist? Or did he know what he was doing?
Here is a link to Martin Luther quotes that are not very favorable to him.
http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml
QUOTE
Was ML an accidental reformist? Or did he know what he was doing?
That's a very good question. My personal opinion is that he just got fed up with the Papal doctrine's abuse of the Scripture and of the common man.
QUOTE
Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the Reformation when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church. That document contained an attack on papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials.
But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.
And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith--the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.
But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.
And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith--the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.
http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence...ther/Luther.htm
I think the very things he stood up against are still evident in the Catholic Church today, look at the Boston diesis.
As far as the quotes on your link, I wouldn't doubt he said those things. The Protestant Church DID burn witches at the stake and the Bible did talk about demon possession. A lot of the views reflected there were commonly held at the time.
As far as "did he know what he was doing?" I'm sure he did, but just not on the scale it turned out to be on.
Luther did not set out to challenge papal authority in fact he belived that it was threatened by abuses. Luther was saying that indulgences applied only to this life you dont spring people out of purgatory with them. Rightiousness (merit)in the New Testement is easily, and often, described in monetary terms. It led to a real confusion between practical rightiousness and legal tender, literally. Rome held, and still does that saints do so many good works (merit) that they are far in excess of salvations requirements. These are kept in what is refered to as the treasury of merit and Luther was confronting what he felt was an abuse of the doctrine, "They preach human folly who pretend that as soon as money in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory" (Thesis 27). On October 31, 1517 Luther nailed his Nintey-Nine Thesis to the Castle church in Wittenberg. This was no vandalism he was posting it to a kind of community bulletin board. He also posted it in Latin instead of German indicating he was stating a theological discussion among clerics not trying to create a stir among the masses. What happened is that because of the printing press withing two weeks in had been translated into German and circulated across Germany in virtually every town. Actually it was the work of his well meaning but overzealous students that sparked the Protestant Reformation.
One of the accidents of the whole thing was justification by faith 'alone'. It has allways been understood by Christians that your salvation is a free gift still you are required to invest the grace of God in building the church. Justification is the begining where all debt (sin) is remitted (paid) and grace in excess of what is necessary for salvation is applied to the work of sanctification ( perfection ultimatly required). He said that the Bible alone was authoritive which would have been fine had Rome been able to keep it to themselves. However Protestant reformers translated into the languages of common people and the priesthood of all belivers took on whole new meaning. Its ironic, the Protestant reformation was more about the printing press then the message being posted on a bulletin board. Luther was just trying to start a debate not a Civil war, but thats what happened. So be carefull what you post on here, you never know what it might lead to, especially if you challenge the resident clerical authority.
One of the accidents of the whole thing was justification by faith 'alone'. It has allways been understood by Christians that your salvation is a free gift still you are required to invest the grace of God in building the church. Justification is the begining where all debt (sin) is remitted (paid) and grace in excess of what is necessary for salvation is applied to the work of sanctification ( perfection ultimatly required). He said that the Bible alone was authoritive which would have been fine had Rome been able to keep it to themselves. However Protestant reformers translated into the languages of common people and the priesthood of all belivers took on whole new meaning. Its ironic, the Protestant reformation was more about the printing press then the message being posted on a bulletin board. Luther was just trying to start a debate not a Civil war, but thats what happened. So be carefull what you post on here, you never know what it might lead to, especially if you challenge the resident clerical authority.
QUOTE
especially if you challenge the resident clerical authority.
ummh, who would that be?
Just a joke Bill dont read anything into it 
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Aug 2 2003, 05:23 PM)
Just a joke Bill dont read anything into it
Well, it isn't me, cause I am too lazy to study THAT much, and it can't be thee, as it was 95, not 99.
Um, I think it was Ninety-Five Theses, AP - and none of them were remotely connected to the sort of thing which has been going on in the Archdiocese of Boston, BJ (they were all related to letters of indulgence). 
To answer Bill's questions (Was ML an accidental reformist? Or did he know what he was doing?), I think he knew what he was doing in attempting to reform some very real problems within the Catholic Church. I doubt he had any idea that his actions would contribute to the Reformation as a widespread and tragic schism. Had he known that his actions in Wittenburg on the night of October 31, 1517, would eventually lead to producing millions of Protestant heretics, Brother Martin might have swallowed his outrage, returned to his cell, and indulged in a bit more self-flagellation.
To answer Bill's questions (Was ML an accidental reformist? Or did he know what he was doing?), I think he knew what he was doing in attempting to reform some very real problems within the Catholic Church. I doubt he had any idea that his actions would contribute to the Reformation as a widespread and tragic schism. Had he known that his actions in Wittenburg on the night of October 31, 1517, would eventually lead to producing millions of Protestant heretics, Brother Martin might have swallowed his outrage, returned to his cell, and indulged in a bit more self-flagellation.
Am I supposed to be the "resident clerical authority"?
When I was in RCIA (a class for people becoming Catholic), my spiritual advisor, a deacon, said that in this day and age Martin Luther might have been considered a saint, because he meant the Church well and wanted to reform it.
I think politics entered in. I don't remember if it was the House of Guelph or the House of Gibbeline which decided that this might be a good way to wrest power from the Roman Catholic Church and so housed Fr. Luther. Wertz, do you know?
This is from the Large Catechism of Martin Luther, a link I can thank Billy Jean for introducing, regarding bad priests administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/w...erg-luther.html
While Luther would doubtless be very angry about what has gone on in the Boston Archdiocese, he would nevertheless still consider the sacraments administered by these priests valid.
(Edited to include Billy Jean's link)
When I was in RCIA (a class for people becoming Catholic), my spiritual advisor, a deacon, said that in this day and age Martin Luther might have been considered a saint, because he meant the Church well and wanted to reform it.
I think politics entered in. I don't remember if it was the House of Guelph or the House of Gibbeline which decided that this might be a good way to wrest power from the Roman Catholic Church and so housed Fr. Luther. Wertz, do you know?
This is from the Large Catechism of Martin Luther, a link I can thank Billy Jean for introducing, regarding bad priests administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/w...erg-luther.html
QUOTE
Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which men are troubled at the present time, such as this one: Whether even a wicked priest can minister at, and dispense, the Sacrament, and whatever other questions like this there may be. For here we conclude and say: Even though a knave takes or distributes the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who [receives or] administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be misused. For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you receive My body and blood, but: Take, eat and drink; this is By body and blood. Likewise: Do this (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take) . That is as much as to say, No matter whether you are worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. Only note and remember this well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all errors and deception that have ever come or may yet come.
While Luther would doubtless be very angry about what has gone on in the Boston Archdiocese, he would nevertheless still consider the sacraments administered by these priests valid.
(Edited to include Billy Jean's link)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 2 2003, 10:36 PM)
I think politics entered in. I don't remember if it was the House of Guelph or the House of Gibbeline which decided that this might be a good way to wrest power from the Roman Catholic Church and so housed Fr. Luther. Wertz, do you know?
I don't know offhand. But politics certianly entered in. The secular ambitions of the German princes definitely exploited Luther's spiritual and dogmatic concerns in bringing about the Protestant Reformation. Indeed it was probably more of a political movement than a religious one at the outset.
Martin Luther had no more awareness of the fact that he was fundamentally changing our views about Christianity, than Jesus was aware of the fact that his actions and words would spawn a brand new religion seperate from Judaism.
QUOTE
Martin Luther had no more awareness of the fact that he was fundamentally changing our views about Christianity, than Jesus was aware of the fact that his actions and words would spawn a brand new religion seperate from Judaism.
Martin Luther was merely a man and thought he was standing up to the institution's status quo, just trying to get Christians back on the fundementals of the religion. Jesus on the other hand introduced a whole new way of understanding God and knew exactly what He was doing.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.