[JoeT777]

In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I'll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It's not intended to delve into Luther's theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

[Fr_Chuck]

No, from all of my study, Martain Luther merely wanted to debate and perhaps make changes in some of the abuses of the Church at that time. Many that did need to be made.

It was the Church in fact that made the situation worst by sentencing him to death.

This was of course a perfect political opportunity for the princes of Germany at the time. Luther was very popular and a public figure ( sort of reference him to a modern day civil right leader) who the common person saw as their friend.

Luther in fact, at least in my opinon was more of a tool or pawn in the political climate of the time. He was used as a figure head of a moveemnt to overthrown the political power of Rome in their areas.

Since without the polictical change the religioous change would not have been allowed.

He was really given no choice than to break away and the move to establish a new church around him was more formed by the political climate than any religious one.

[revdrgade]

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to excommunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.

[JoeT777]

All:

In 1517 Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses defying the Church. In less than a year Luther indicates what appears to be dominant motives for his actions. This defiance was shown to be present as early as 1518. In a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. He wrote, “To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Don't make the mistake in thinking this is just one example of such rhetoric. What then are we to make of a man who set out to “uproot” ecclesiastical laws, regulations, and theology? Are we to assume that the Roman Catholic theological base was so unstable as to need a re-write by Luther? Or, does this look more like the actions of a radical bent on destroying the current authority?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.

Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to exco mmunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

The discord wasn’t the Augsburg Confession; Augsburg was to be the solution, which Luther ultimately walked away from.

The Protestant draft of the Confession was rejected by Emperor Charles V in September 1530. Some considerable time was given by the Emperor for the Protestants to consider a rejoinder more in keeping with Rome. A confidant of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, wrote a response which was immediately rejected. Luther, knowing that continued resistance would be a schism, defiantly wrote to the Emperor in his response, “The Augsburg Confession must endure…Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned. Still less might Emperor, Popes, or bishops sit in judgment on it. The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.“

The net result was 117 years of Protestant/Catholic wars, from 1535 to 1651(?). Much of the wars was not whether Protestant’s should be forced to practice Catholicism, but rather whether Catholics could continue to worship, keep their monasteries and cloisters. In much of the Protestant countries, including England, these properties were taken from Catholics at the point of a sword.

Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off of their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

I agree there was much about the politics of the day. But, the majority of it was aimed at Charles V and the Empire.

The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.

If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?


JoeT

[revdrgade]

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.

If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?
JoeT

Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

[sndbay]

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

[sndbay]

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

[JoeT777]

Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The arguments here aren't logical. They presume that Luther was raised in a different understanding of Church; and we know he wasn't.

Let's dispense with the issue of “Church” or Ecclesia. First in the sense that Sndbay wishes us to envision a building, a cold place of stone and wood. The Church of Luther wasn't anything like this. For 1517-years prior to the posting The 95 Theses and in the ensuing years since, Church had a much deeper meaning.

The Church, the Roman Church, is the Messianic Kingdom predicted in the Old Testament. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. The house of God of Jacob will teach His ways. (Micah 4:1 C.f. 4:2). The fulfilled prophecy of a people girding Her superstructure, not simply building of steel and concrete. Constituted by Christ this Temple is most venerable (Matt 12:6). A kingdom whose founder, and foundation is Christ, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt 4:23 see also 9:35; 13:17 Mark 1:14 etc. etc.) A church whose difficult understanding are not hidden, pronounced to the world its open message of salvation (C.f. Matt 13:11). Adorned, not with bare walls and cold illations of self-salvific elitism, rather a humble acceptance of Christ's cross and the obligation to march that cross forward, obedient to the faith of all nations (C.f. Roman 1:5) Instead of the self-appointed leaders of this Church are recipients of a hierarchical organization formed by Christ (C.f. Matt 16:18). Her patristic nature guides the rules over the Kingdom of God as vicar for Christ judging justly (Matt 18:17). This Church, Luther's abandoned spouse, was provisioned for orderly succession through its fist Vicar, Peter (C.f. Matt 16:18) that will prevail against hell, as well as Luther. In unity this Church was placed high on the mountain to be seen by all, a beacon of salvation for all, not just for Luther's pre-elected Saints. Not a candle hidden under a basket, rather a faith that illuminates inwardly as well as outwardly, like a lighthouse beacon. The Church abandoned by Luther is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) Luther's pre-schism Church was one of principled authority, governing the flock, (C.f. Matt 18:18 and John 21:17.) This is, and was at one time for Luther, the One Church that served through the ministering of the sacraments and teacher of revealed truth, infallible. This and more describes the Church that was to be Luther's, the one he deserted for his intellect and a book.

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?

Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

[sndbay]

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?

First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.

Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

Joe,

We have differences of opinon, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

What I veiw that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Chirst the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

[JoeT777]

First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.
Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

Agreed, Christ is the head.

[QUOTE=sndbay;1489502] Joe,

We have differences of opinion, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

The differences aren’t as great as might think they are.

What I view that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Christ the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

All the evil that exists in the world doesn’t change God’s Truth. To argue, as you’ve done here, that abandoning the Kingdom because there is evil in the world; doesn’t really make much sense.

This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

The Church didn’t see destruction, it can’t be destroyed. But what was harmed by the schism was entire populations; as it were lulled (or forced) away from the safety of the Kingdom’s walls. Christianity isn’t a foreign teaching, and the Church is incapable of turning its back on Christ. I too think they learned something; relativism and rationalism.

It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

You may remember Christ’s comments to the Pharisees. He chastised them and corrected them. Yet, he bowed to the authority of the Sanhedrin. The corruption you refer to here is invented as justification for the Luther revolt. The world was no less corrupt in Christ’s time nor is it any less corrupt today.

Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

Is God’s word any less true today than it was in Moses’ day? But, I’m not suggesting that we follow the Old Testament law. What I’ve referred to is God’s promise to Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The Kingdom didn’t end with Moses, his successor, Joshua took the nation into a promised land.

We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

Agreed, but this song was sung by a Kingdom.

Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Agreed.

************************************************** ************

I don’t understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

[sndbay]

I don't understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether or not Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

It goes back to what I agree with in the following posted quote....

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

And we should realize deception and false apostles can pop up amount any denomination. What better place for satan to place his twisted ways, and attempt his evilness. Remember the attempts Christ, Himself stood against.

2 Cr 11:13-15 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

[revdrgade]

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become."

[he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]

"To the Greeks in Christ's day an ekklesia was an assembly of people set apart to govern the affairs of a state or nation--in essence, a parliament or congress. To the Romans, it was a group of people sent into a conquered region to alter the culture until it became like Rome. Realizing this was the ideal way to control their empire, they infiltrated government, social structure, language, schools, etc., until the people talked, thought , and acted like Romans."

Authority in Prayer Praying With Power and Purpose by Dutch Sheets (Bethany House)

Pastor Sheets believes that we, the church, need to know the authority which Jesus gave us to change our world for their good instead of being pew oriented.

[JoeT777]

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become." [he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]

Revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl. III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It's fully understood and realized that 'after' Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand 'Church', the question put forward was whether Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther's schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven't you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

[sndbay]

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

[Athos]

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

[De Maria]

In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether or not Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I’ll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It’s not intended to delve into Luther’s theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

I want to honor your intent Joe, but it seems to me that Martin came to desire schism and the destruction of the Catholic Church because of his theological conclusions.

I have to assume good faith in Martin Luther, because that is what he claimed and I can't read his heart. However, we can all see that ultimately, he became confused.

And after all, he was human. He opened Pandora's box and could not close it again. Any of us, put in his shoes, would become fearful for our eternal destination at that point. Thus, perhaps, why he claimed that he never intended rebellion. And yet his earlier letters tell the opposite tale.

[De Maria]

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a man who publicly broke his vows to God a great man. The vices which are historically recorded of Luther, were never virtues.

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

No. Although I believe that Luther was convinced of his conclusions. I see nothing there for which he should be respected. In my opinion, it is those who worship him as a hero who have built up a structure of lies to protect his character. Let's take one simple example. The famous incident of slewfoot and the inkwell. What was actually slung back and forth between Luther and Satan? Hint: It wasn't ink.

[De Maria]

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

The United States is organized in a system such as the Church. But it isn't in its two party system. The Church is a Kingdom, not a democratic republic.

The United States is organized in a system such as the Divine organization of the Church in that we also have a Scripture, the Constitution, which can only be interpreted by one authority. The Supreme Court.

The Catholic Church is God's Supreme Court for the interpretation of Scripture.

[De Maria]

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.