A few highlights from Luther's 95 thesis...posted Oct. 31 1517 on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said Poenitentiam agite, He willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; no, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work diverse mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally the most offensive, for it makes the first to be last.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
2
Denk
Germany
OLD SKOOL
OCT 31, 2003 02:28 PM
He was a big believer and a big doubter, a combination that has beome very seldom nowadays.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and their followers developed and pushed for the ideas that are the foundation of what freedom we have: freedom of conscience and popular sovereignty. They deserve to be honored, despite their own excesses and the excesses of their followers.
I can hardly honour either of them, in the modern context. They may have helped convince some people of the extraneous nature of priests, but Luther was a flaming anti-semite and Calvin was just insane. They helped fracture christianiy into a thousand pieces, but its all still codswallop.
eecummings said:
I can hardly honour either of them, in the modern context. They may have helped convince some people of the extraneous nature of priests, but Luther was a flaming anti-semite and Calvin was just insane. They helped fracture christianiy into a thousand pieces, but its all still codswallop.
One can honor a historical figure without subscribing to, or even condoning, all of their political or philosophical views. For instance, it is possible to honor Wagner as a great composer and writer of operas without being a raging anti-Semite, or in any way condoning his anti-Semetic beliefs and writings.
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
***
Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as archthieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.
From Dr. Luther's writings. Several Lutheran Synods have had to somewhat uncomfortably deal with this.
eecummings said:
From Dr. Luther's writings. Several Lutheran Synods have had to somewhat uncomfortably deal with this.
I don't think anyone denied that Luther was, in fact, a flaming anti-Semite. However, kicking off the Reformation was an important enough that we can honor him for that without condoning his anti-Semitism.
I believe my fundamental anti-religious stance renders me so biased that I can not objectively comment on religious figures' contributions to human progress/understanding.
I can say that the breaking apart of Christianity into lots of little pieces is probably a good thing as far as human progress. The fracture, of course, resulted in further human misery and death, to be expected, I suppose.
I have always wondered how Anglicans reconcile themselves to the founding of a religion by a mysoginistic tyrant. Henry VIII's actions regarding his spouses were excessive, even by contemporaries' standards.
eecummings said:
I believe my fundamental anti-religious stance renders me so biased that I can not objectively comment on religious figures' contributions to human progress/understanding.
Well, let me bring what I am talking about right down to brass tacks -- without the concepts of freedom of conscience and popular sovereignty ground deep into both the legal system we live under and our fundamental views of the world, we couldn't have this conversation at all, even face to face. They're that important, and some of the historical credit for them goes to Luther and Calvin, and to their followers. Don't let your anti-religious bias blind you to that historical reality.
I can say that the breaking apart of Christianity into lots of little pieces is probably a good thing as far as human progress. The fracture, of course, resulted in further human misery and death, to be expected, I suppose.
In large part due to the violence of Rome's reaction to the rise of Protestantism, as it happens. The bloodshed that accompanied the Reformation helped set the stage for freedom of religion and the secularism of the modern Western world.
I have always wondered how Anglicans reconcile themselves to the founding of a religion by a mysoginistic tyrant. Henry VIII's actions regarding his spouses were excessive, even by contemporaries' standards.
The foundation of the Church of England was a political act, not a religious one. For several centuries following, the Anglican Church was just like the Catholic Church, except that it was run from Canterbury rather than Rome. Most of its religious development has had little, if anything, to do with the circumstances of its founding. Anglicans by and large are aware of that.
plonk said:
I don't think anyone denied that Luther was, in fact, a flaming anti-Semite. However, kicking off the Reformation was an important enough that we can honor him for that without condoning his anti-Semitism.
I don't want to defend any objectionable opinions held by Luther, nor make a judgement on the extent of your knowledge.
But it seems most people don't know anything about the social, economic, and religious context which brought about the reformation or about the perspective from which Luther wrote any of his works, but somewhere they heard the he was bad because he was an anti-semite and therefore they can easily write him off.
Obviously you know more about this than most and that anti-semitism is only one among many reasons for writing off Luther and most of religion. Can you tell me which writings of Luther those quotes come from and did you read the rest of that work?
I think taken in context these writings are less objectionable than they are made out to be. But that certainly doesn't make them right, I don't want to say it's OK. But Luther wasn't the first anti-semite, and certainly not the worst.
plonk said:
I don't think anyone denied that Luther was, in fact, a flaming anti-Semite. However, kicking off the Reformation was an important enough that we can honor him for that without condoning his anti-Semitism.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Actually, he didn't, but that's neither here nor there. It is possible to honor someone who, on balance, did far more good than evil (like Luther) even though he held some vile opinions.
'Vile opinions?' A powerful, influential man espoused violent antisemitism, causing incalculable suffering. Inexcusable.
His opinions were not, unfortunately, out of the mainstream of his day. They were more or less identical to the official position of the Catholic Church at the time, for instance.
A similar example: do you find that the beauty of the Sistine Chapel is reduced by the fact that the institution that commissioned it was at the same time engaging in vicious persecution of Jews, heretics, and assorted others?
plonk said:
His opinions were not, unfortunately, out of the mainstream of his day. They were more or less identical to the official position of the Catholic Church at the time, for instance.
So that makes it okay. And once again, I need to remind you that these are not just 'opinions,' but actual directives from an influential leader to violent actions toward Jews.
A similar example: do you find that the beauty of the Sistine Chapel is reduced by the fact that the institution that commissioned it was at the same time engaging in vicious persecution of Jews, heretics, and assorted others?
Not anymore than I can appreciate D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."
Protestantism only led to religious liberty in England and America, and only beacuse of the variety of sects. As Voltaire put it, "If there were but one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would have slit each others' throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace." Luther and Calvin wanted to fill the place of the Roman Church, not open up liberty to anyone, and sure as hell not the Jews. Both wanted to hang Copernicus, beating the Inquisition to the heliocentric menace by a good hundred years. Calvinism explicitly teaches that God created the vast majority of human souls not just knowing that they might well end up in hell, but in order that they might burn eternally and "glorify His sovereign justice." There is no religious cruelty and indifference to cruelty that people who accept that will not condone. Get some new heroes. Happy Halloween.
And what perfect, all-loving, liberating heroes would you suggest? Bhudda and Jesus perhaps? Is it not possible to make critical judgements about people's opinions and teachings to make use of the good and learn from the bad? If not, there aren't a whole lot of 'heroes' out there without any flaws.
eecummings said:
I have always wondered how Anglicans reconcile themselves to the founding of a religion by a mysoginistic tyrant. Henry VIII's actions regarding his spouses were excessive, even by contemporaries' standards.
Oh, it's easy. We just don't eat meat with the salad fork.
dagan said:
And what perfect, all-loving, liberating heroes would you suggest? Bhudda and Jesus perhaps? Is it not possible to make critical judgements about people's opinions and teachings to make use of the good and learn from the bad? If not, there aren't a whole lot of 'heroes' out there without any flaws.
A 'flaw.'
See, when I think of a person with a 'flaw,' I think of someone who chews with his mouth open. Not someone who advocates genocide.
dagan
Minneapolis, MN
March 2003
OCT 31, 2003 06:11 AM