The Reformers were just men.

[st. Worm]

mark777:

I'm not interested in repeating all this again with YOU. I have dealt with everything you have brought up on the OSAS thread and others can judge the content. You have shown to me that you dishonestly quote others and apply meaning that the writer doesn't intend - just to win an argument. I think your aim was to hyjack this thread by making wild accusations and misquoting me. I do not believe God wishes me to continue with you under these conditions. Feel free to do so if you wish.

Mark

SW:

You asked me a question and I provided an answer. Now you blow up in a temper tantrum? Chill out man.

[Mark777]

Noted.

[EricH]

Just to add some perspective to all this. Understand I am not a Lutheran. But I sense there is a recent movement to villify Luther based on his alleged anti-semitism. Some things to note:

A wholistic reading of Luthers writings reveals he did have an exalted view of the Jewish people.

One of his best friends was Jewish. Luther loved him as a brother

Luther firmly believed that once Jews heard the gospel of grace he was preaching they would repent in droves.It did not happen. Towards the end of his life, Luther became imbittered. He was angry that he was marginalized, he was angry at the Jews for not hearing his gospel, he was angry with Calvin. Luther proceeded into a long and dark period where he basically hated everyone and everything. Most if his antisemitic remarks happened during this time, as did numerous other tyrades against other individuals and institutions.

We should not judge his theology and his ministry on the sole basis of what happened near the end of his life. I would not want my life to be quantified by a bad period I had been through

[st. Worm]

Butero,

There is a special greatness to men like Luther and even Calvin in that they did not have the resources that men today have at their fingertips. They blazed trails. Luther and Calvin did not have the great commentaries and catechisms such as the ones they wrote to guide them and teach them. They were extremely learned in all areas of theology including the biblical languages and they wrote prolifically (no word processors either).

Further and especially in the case of Luther they stood for biblical truth and faced death for doing so. How many of Luther's critics here would risk being burned at the stake for proclaiming a doctrine? I would guess not many. If you are not happy with your church you merely drive down the street to the next one. They and some others have stood the test of time. We do not worship them and we acknowledge their sin and imperfection but it takes a special blindness to dismiss them as ordinary or not important even today.

sw

[st. Worm]

Butero,

I think everyone should test what they are taught with the Scriptures but to say that all are equally trained or gifted to interpret the Bible is I think a true error. I belong to a church that has codified in a Confession their doctrines. The pastors go through a rigorous process of education and training. Their callings are confirmed. We believe the Confessions reflect what the Bible teaches. That does not mean the Confessions are themselves the same as Scripture but we believe they are accurate and true. The men who put them together did not do so on a lark. If they can be proven wrong then the option is there to change them but it will not be done with great ease and it requires a large burden of proof be met. But at least we do not get blown around like the wind to every new fad doctrine that comes down the road. I think that is the great danger to our faith today. That is why you can tune into TBN and watch heretic after heretic unashamedly preaching his heresy.

In summation, only the Bible is inerrant and all believers should study God's Word but that does not mean all interpretations are equal and that does not mean truth is up for grabs each time we open the Bible.

blessings,

sw

[Ovedya]

All of the Old Testament patriarchs and all of the New Testament apostles were also "just men." And for all their faults God nevertheless chose them to receive His revelation and to carry out His economy.

[Mark777]

Butero: "As for their dedication, that is without question. Also, since they did pave the way for us to have the written Word of God in our own possession today, and we are no longer forced to rely on the RCC to tell us what it says, I do not dismiss them as ordinary or not important. I just look at their main importance as being that we can know the Bible for ourselves, not the doctrinal conclusions they came to."

Mark777: I agree fully. This was my intent for this thread. The weakness of most church people I know is that they do not know much at all. We should. To study the Scriptures should be the most important thing in our lives. My brother and I have learned Koine Greek - always improving - and are attempting Hebrew. What else do we do with our live that would mean more - besides witnessing about Jesus? Luther and others are a part of our heritage for sure - but I think we each have a responsibility to learn as much as possible in order to give a good account of the Way.

Mark

[Ovedya]

All of the Old Testament patriarchs and all of the New Testament apostles were also "just men." And for all their faults God nevertheless chose them to receive His revelation and to carry out His economy.

Nobody is discounting that, but at the same time, we do not put the same weight upon all the writings of the patriarchs and apostles as we do the 66 books that make up the Biblical cannon. The Bible is the Word of God. All other writings, regardless of who wrote them are just the conclusions of men. Yes, some are more educated than others but still they are just men. I hope you are not trying to compare the writings of Luther to the writings contained in the Bible?

Well first of all the writings of the apostles comprise the canon of the New Testament.

Secondly, no, I am not comparing the writings of Luther, or any Reformer, with the canon of the Bible. However, that does not mean that those writings were not integral to the carrying out of God's economy.

I believe that that the writers of the Bible, through their writings, established foundation upon which the apostles and the patriarchs of our common faith carried out God's economy on the earth. This continued through the Reformers also. And the fact that these were all men equally, with the same frail humanity, does not diminish the fact that all received the revelation of God, by which they carried out the Lord's ministry.

As far as Luther goes, sure he was wrong about the Jews. But I recall verses in which Paul considered himself the foremost of sinners because of his persecution of the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6). Even Paul considered himself righteous before the law and blameless, and because of his zeal for the traditions of his fathers he became an instrument of the church's destruction (Acts 22:4; Gal. 1:14; 1 Tim. 1:13). So I tend to cut Luther a little slack for being wrong about the Jews, because I know that he could have been no worse that brother Paul, who delivered up many saints for their death.

[st. Worm]

butero quote:

I am just saying they were just men that came to certain conclusions when they studied the Bible and we shouldn't revere them so much that we accept the error blindly with the truth they taught.

sw:

I can think of no individual man that I agree with completely on doctrine so in that sense I too believe all men have interpreted the Bible imperfectly. The Book of Concord although based on Luther's general theology was not written completely by Luther. The Westminster Confession of Faith though Calvinistic in nature was not written until Calvin was long dead. The point is here is that most great statements or confessions are not the teaching of one man but instead organized or written by a council of men. I still think this is preferable to arriving at a church and having no idea what they actually believe and teach and that is subject to change on a weekly basis. The only thing even remotely indicating what they believe is perhaps a small statement of purpose or faith and often those are very vague. Yes, its hard to change our confession but that is more a safeguard than a weakness.

sw

[Smalcald]

Well if you believe that Luther's writings, particularly his confessions of faith accurately summarize the scriptures, and accurately summarize what Christ taught, and then I think they should be given weight. But of course they are not the Word of God, they are simply doctrines detailing what those of us Christians who are part of this faith community believe and why. They also act as a protector from heresy, indeed can act as great helps in protecting the Gospels from error and from bad interpretations.

Modern writers can be important also. But there is great value in stability, God has not changed, there are no new Gospels, there are no new revelations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians have been worshipping for 1900 years consistently, sometimes going off track sometimes lumbering along okay. But if we had had no doctrine, and if doctrine itself were not at some level guided by the Holy Spirit, Christianity long ago would have succumbed to the numerous heresies which have plagued it since the resurrection of Christ. Gnosticm for example (which is now back again) or a denial of the basics such as the Trinity or the divinity of Christ.

But regardless if a church wants to follow and walk together with other congregations, I feel that there is great danger in simply making things up as we go along, without very specific guidelines for what is proper doctrine. Doctrine should never be based on an individual preacher, but should be based on a specific doctrine that has stood the test of time, that is independent of what one person decides that morning God revealed to them.

I know exactly what the congregation I worship with publicly believes, in great detail, even if some of the people go astray, even if we get a nutty pastor, there is no mystery about what will be preached or about what we all believe. The pastor serves the congregation and the doctrine, not the inverse. How can we take communion together, a public statement of total unanimity of belief, if we don't even know what we all believe?

Sound doctrine is a necessary but NOT a sufficient condition for a Christian congregation. All of the very good sound doctrine in the world will not help anything if people in their heart don't really believe it, don't really have faith, and don't have the Holy Spirit.