Martin Luther Not A Heretic?

[KnightofChrist]

Martin Luther was a heretic, he manipulated Holy Scripture so too change it to his interpretation. As well as the want to remove parts of the New Testament, and Old Testament.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1474698' date='Mar 9 2008, 07:15 PM']Martin Luther was a heretic, he manipulated Holy Scripture so too change it to his interpretation. As well as the want to remove parts of the New Testament, and Old Testament.[/quote]
In my opinion Luther was a theological nominalist.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Apotheoun

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1474698' date='Mar 9 2008, 10:15 PM']Martin Luther was a heretic, he manipulated Holy Scripture so too change it to his interpretation. As well as the want to remove parts of the New Testament, and Old Testament.[/quote]

However, was he a heretic at the time he was excommunicated?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1474679' date='Mar 9 2008, 09:36 PM']I did enough of that when I was a Protestant.[/quote]

What did you read as a Protestant? That word doesn't mean much, except a Christian who isn't Catholic or Orthodox.

[KnightofChrist]

It would seem he died a heretic. Heiko Oberman biography of Luther: Man Between God and the Devil:

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=vuES0JdltfcC&dq=heiko+oberman+man+between+god+andhe+devil&pg=PP1&ots=aFWL_-l6n-&sig=jLue3svnuCOirKIBjmjdnUJmaFs&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=tND&q=Heiko+Oberman+Man+Between+God+and+e+Devil&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA4,M1"]http://books.google.com/books?id=vuES0Jdlt...umbnail#PPA4,M1[/url]

[quote]Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and the doctrines you have preached?" Yes," replied the clear voice for the last time. On February 18, 1546, even as he lay dying in Eisleben, far from home, Martin Luther was not to be spared a final public test, not to be granted privacy even in this last, most personal hour. His longtime confidant Justus Jonas, now pastor in Halle, having hurriedly summoned witnesses to the bedside, shook the dying man by the arm to rouse his spirit for the final exertion. Luther had always prayed for a "peaceful hour": resisting Satan—the ultimate, bitterest enemy—through that trust in the Lord over life and death which is God's gift of liberation from the tyranny of sin. It transforms agony into no more than a brief blow.[/quote]

Edited March 10, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1474766' date='Mar 9 2008, 08:58 PM']What did you read as a Protestant? That word doesn't mean much, except a Christian who isn't Catholic or Orthodox.[/quote]
I read the writings of Calvin (his [i]Institutes[/i] and various homiletic writings), Luther (his writings on free will, commentaries on scripture, [i]On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church[/i], the [i]Schmalkald Articles[/i], etc.), Confessional texts from the Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions, Zwingli's [i]On Baptism, Rebaptism and Infant Baptism[/i], and the writings of other Protestant authors from the 16th century up to modern times. I also read texts from the Anglican tradition (both from the Latitudinarians and the Oxford Movement), having spent about two years as an Anglo-Catholic prior to my conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1987. Finally, beginning in the year 2001 I started reading Eastern Orthodox theologians, both ancient and modern, and this led to my request for transfer from the Roman Church to the Ruthenian Church, which was granted on Lazarus Saturday in 2005.

That said, in my opinion Luther was a theological nominalist, because his theology betrays a reductionist attitude that ultimately distorts the mystery of God, both in relation to the Trinity and the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, while his theory of justification is even more reprehensible, since it posits the false idea that the grace of God merely covers over a man's sins without actually having any ontological effect upon his existence. As a Byzantine Catholic I could never subscribe to such a theory, since the Eastern Fathers taught that man truly, and not in mere appearance, becomes divine by his participation in the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57062"]Rehabilitating Luther: A London Times Theory[/url]

The story isn't worth the ink that was used to print it. I will now make a bold prediction: nothing will come of this story.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1474848' date='Mar 10 2008, 01:14 AM']That said, in my opinion Luther was a theological nominalist, because his theology betrays a reductionist attitude that ultimately distorts the mystery of God, both in relation to the Trinity and the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, while his theory of justification is even more reprehensible, since it posits the false idea that the grace of God merely covers over a man's sins without actually having any ontological effect upon his existence. As a Byzantine Catholic I could never subscribe to such a theory, since the Eastern Fathers taught that man truly, and not in mere appearance, becomes divine by his participation in the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity.[/quote]

WOw, can I quote that?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is a transcript of a conversation I had with a professor back when I was a total n00b.

Me: That sounds pretty close to the views of the heretic Martin Luther.
Prof: <dumbfounded> ... <dramatic pause with blank stare> ...
Me: You don't agree?
Prof: Martin Luther was a great reformer!!
Me: ... Ok, so I guess I didn't get an A on that paper.

What should have happened:

Me: That sounds pretty close to the views of the heretic Martin Luther.
Prof: <dumbfounded> ... <dramatic pause with blank stare> ...
Me: You don't agree?
Prof: Martin Luther was a great reformer!!
Me: Martin Luther was an excommunicant!!
Prof: Why, *gaf* how dare you..
Me: No sir! How dare you!!
Prof: Get out of my office!
Me: With pleasure you unfortunate scalawag! And may God have mercy on your soul.

[N/A Gone]

I assume there is a great story behind that.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1474848' date='Mar 10 2008, 02:14 AM']I read the writings of Calvin (his [i]Institutes[/i] and various homiletic writings), Luther (his writings on free will, commentaries on scripture, [i]On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church[/i], the [i]Schmalkald Articles[/i], etc.), Confessional texts from the Lutheran and Presbyterian traditions, Zwingli's [i]On Baptism, Rebaptism and Infant Baptism[/i], and the writings of other Protestant authors from the 16th century up to modern times. I also read texts from the Anglican tradition (both from the Latitudinarians and the Oxford Movement), having spent about two years as an Anglo-Catholic prior to my conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1987. Finally, beginning in the year 2001 I started reading Eastern Orthodox theologians, both ancient and modern, and this led to my request for transfer from the Roman Church to the Ruthenian Church, which was granted on Lazarus Saturday in 2005.

That said, in my opinion Luther was a theological nominalist, because his theology betrays a reductionist attitude that ultimately distorts the mystery of God, both in relation to the Trinity and the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, while his theory of justification is even more reprehensible, since it posits the false idea that the grace of God merely covers over a man's sins without actually having any ontological effect upon his existence. As a Byzantine Catholic I could never subscribe to such a theory, since the Eastern Fathers taught that man truly, and not in mere appearance, becomes divine by his participation in the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity.[/quote]

Sounds like you know what you're talking about then. Seems like a lot of Catholics take their very limited experience of Protestantism at some snake-handling tent meeting and presume everyone from Lutherans to non-denominational Christians must be just like those folks because they're all Protestant. That's the impression I get anyway.

I'm curious why you find Calvinism boring? When I was praying about and contemplating on what I should believe as a Christian, I was torn primarily between Catholicism and Calvinism. From a Sola Scriptura point of view, Calvinism seemed to make the most sense, and was intellectual though simple at the same time. The primary question was whether Tradition should be on par with Scripture, and obviously that's what I found and therefore had to choose Catholicism.

Anyway, that's interesting what you say about Luther's theological nominalism. However, since this is dealing with justification, aren't Lutherans today in line with Catholicism since the common statement on justification was signed?

Edited March 13, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1476471' date='Mar 12 2008, 06:55 PM']I'm curious why you find Calvinism boring? When I was praying about and contemplating on what I should believe as a Christian, I was torn primarily between Catholicism and Calvinism.[/quote]
My views on Calvinism have been influenced greatly by my move into Eastern Christianity, which – in opposition to Calvinism – holds absolutely to the freedom of the natural will in man, and to the goodness of human nature even after the fall. In Byzantine theology there is no such thing as a "sin nature," because sin is unnatural, not natural.

Finally, as far as Calvinism being boring is concerned, I find it boring because it is rationalistic and its theology is over-systematized, which ends up drawing the faith down into the realm of diastemic conception, and – of course – its predestinarianism is truly disgusting to me.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1476471' date='Mar 12 2008, 06:55 PM']Anyway, that's interesting what you say about Luther's theological nominalism. However, since this is dealing with justification, aren't Lutherans today in line with Catholicism since the common statement on justification was signed?[/quote]
It depends on whether or not you believe that the "Joint Declaration on Justification" says anything of substance. Personally, I do not think that it does; and, in fact, I do not subscribe to any particular theory of "justification," because for me as an Eastern Christian man's salvation involves his assimilation to God through the uncreated divine energies, i.e., it involves his divinization, which is not reducible to any of the existing Western theories of "justification" imputed or infused.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Apotheoun

[N/A Gone]

I agree with you on calvinism, and from that much of Luther's theology, but Justification has various meanings from proto to western catholic

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm[/url]

I think Justification, or at least the concept it is attempting to explain works fine with a view of theosis. (and sanctification as that audience would use it)

correct me if I am wrong sir.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1476576' date='Mar 12 2008, 09:27 PM']I agree with you on calvinism, and from that much of Luther's theology, but Justification has various meanings from proto to western catholic

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm[/url]

I think Justification, or at least the concept it is attempting to explain works fine with a view of theosis. (and sanctification as that audience would use it)

correct me if I am wrong sir.[/quote]
The Greek patristic tradition holds that man is made [i]righteous[/i], and not simply declared [i]just[/i], by the grace of God. Moreover, there is no theory of "created" grace in the Eastern tradition; and so, the grace of God, which is poured out upon man through the mystery of the incarnation of the eternal Logos, gives man a real participation in God's own righteousness, i.e., in the very righteousness whereby God Himself is righteous.