Posted on 06/30/2017 4:43:54 PM PDT by Gamecock
The year 2017 is the year of Martin Luther—or at least it should be. Nearly 500 years ago on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed (or “mailed,” for some historians debate this point) his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church.
Even so, Luther didn’t become a full-fledged protestor of the church in that single moment. It took him about eight years (1513-1521) to challenge and hammer out a more robust understanding of the gospel.
Have you ever wondered what Martin Luther was reading during this crucial time in his life? Maybe I’m just a nerd, but I thought at least someone else might be interested in what Luther was reading during his slow, but steady, transition out of the medieval church and into the world of reformation.
Remember, Luther’s goal wasn’t to invent or start an entirely new church. His goal was to reform the church and call her to repentance and faith in the abiding Word of God.
Here are four books Martin Luther read that made him question everything:
1. The Psalms Luther spent time studying and lecturing through the Psalms in the Bible. He began to realize that the Bible teaches we are not generally sinful, we are totally sinful. Here, Luther had the beginnings of what theologians later would refer to as “total depravity,” meaning that we are sinful in our thoughts, words, and deeds.
2. Romans After that, Luther lectured through Paul’s letter to the Romans. He came across Romans 1:17, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” The last part of this verse is a direct quotation from Habakkuk 2:4.
Luther began to see something that he never saw before. He began to see the doctrine of imputation—that we are declared right before God not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of another. He began to understand that the righteousness of God that was such a terror to him as a priest (because it told him that he was unholy and unworthy), was actually the righteousness from God that told him he was holy and worthy. God gives this right standing by faith alone. It is a righteousness that is received as a gift and not earned.
3. Galatians It wasn’t until Luther started lecturing through Galatians that he began to realize that faith does not justify us before God. Faith is merely an instrument that God uses. Faith is a tool by which we embrace Jesus Christ as he is offered to us in the gospel.
Faith is, as John Murry once said, “extrospective.” It looks outward—not inward—to embrace the God who gives himself. In other words, faith is only an empty hand. It justifies because it grabs hold of the Jesus who justifies (Rom. 3:26).
4. Hebrews The last book that turned a medieval priest into a true Reformer was the letter to the Hebrews. Luther began to embrace an entirely different understanding of how the Old and New Testaments relate to one another. He realized that the law is not simply the Old Testament and the gospel is the New Testament, but that the gospel of God can be seen as preached throughout both Old and New Testaments.
The same Jesus of the same gospel was offered freely to both Jew and Gentile alike, throughout the whole Bible. Sure, there was a greater and fuller proclamation of that message, such that it went out to the whole world instead of only Israel and their close neighbors—but the gospel was preached nonetheless!
In short, reading and studying the Bible is what ultimately made Martin Luther “protest” the medieval church. Luther was convinced that the Bible was worth listening to. So this year we celebrate the anniversary of a “recovery of the bright light of the gospel.” To God alone be all the glory (Soli Deo Gloria).
“A dirty vessel isn’t leading anything”
I give you the Vatican, circa 1517
His poor and anti Semitic views of the Jews are glaring.
There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome after Paul's death, and if you are saying the Catholic Church was founded upon Peter, please provide evidence that Peter had any ministry outside of Jerusalem, or that he would ever have “preached where another man had preached, i.e. Paul, because Paul was “anointed to preach to the Gentiles” and NOT Peter, of whom Paul had to reprimand for mistakes he was making with Hebrews, in Rome.
Christ symbolically gave keys of the kingdom to Peter for the fact that the Father gave supernatural revelation to Peter about the nature of who Christ was.
The revelatory gift displayed in Peter is the same gift given to all believers at Pentecost, and it is Peter himself who cites the Book of Joel "and in those days I will pour out my Spirt on my maidservants and my manservants... who will have dreams and visions... (from the Holy Spirit) etc.
Peter says that Pentecost is the fulfillment of the Book of Joel, which is the same revelatory power that revealed to him who Jesus was, when Christ commended him.
The keys of the kingdom were given to all who would ask Christ for the free gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and Peter's understanding of what Pentecost was at the time it occurs validates this.
And Christ did confer the authority of “binding and loosing” on Peter, which is similar to the spiritual authority of Moses in judging grievances of the Hebrews, based upon Peter's supernatural revelation of His personhood a few verses before.
However, right after this, Jesus rebukes Satan in addressing Peter's errant sentimentality of not wanting Christ to go to the Cross.
This is more problematic for Catholics, because it shows that Peter was not infallible in his person, or his personal words, as Catholics erroneously presume Peter was the first Pope.
What Christ anointed Peter was with the old testament gift of binding and loosing which has to do with understanding the Law and judging according to it; Peter's decree upon Sapphira and Ananias was done in this authority, which had a great effect on the Jewish converts to Christ, those Jews who constituted the early Church in Jerusalem.
I understand how some would question Luther, but Luther was not one of the Twelve who, legally were first hand witnesses to Christ in the flesh and His earthy ministry, who wrote the New Testament. Peter is NOT happy with the idolatry of him as the First (infallible) Pope, with all the willy nilly OT Levite priesthood prescriptions thrown in to the RCC.
Luther never elevated himself to any great position; he needed to excise all the counterfeit damning theology of the RCC church, all for the benefit of mankind. But he was not infallible.
“And who made Luther smarter and more accurate than the persons Christ conferred authority on some 1,400 years prior?”
***
Who said anything about Luther being SMARTER? Though I will have to say that the man had to be pretty darn smart, considering that he had a doctorate in a time when that kind of thing was a lot more difficult to achieve than today, AND could read the Bible in five different languages, three of which were the original languages of Scripture.
But ‘smarts’ don’t matter. Truth does.
It’s just that Luther discovered the truth that Jesus and the Apostles originally taught. And in doing so, exposed the lies that Rome was telling the world.
And then Rome tried to kill him because of that.
You’d think that if the frauds in Rome were as awesome as you thought, they’d have a better answer than to react like an SJW who was just told that Hillary is a criminal.
You wanna prove that Dr. Luther is wrong, then argue from Scripture, not some talking point derived from the fallacies of argument by age and argument by authority.
God always uses his Word to speak to hearts that are open to Him.
Nothing to do with being smarter - though he was smart.
As for more accurate, a large portion of Catholic teaching that came from paganism isn't in the Scriptures.
I argue from logic. Can you tell me where , in the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church any of Luther’s accusations were taught?
I think people, including Luther think much of what as spoken as opinion by some Catholics were authentic and infallible teachings when they were not.
In addition, many Lutherans, as entire congregations, have joined the Catholic Church after study. And modern Lutheran leaders along with Catholic ones are getting close to unity again after study.
If we want to know what is authentic teaching of the Catholic Cburch, the teachings of Ecumenical Councils and the official Catechisms in the Church need to be consulted.
Those are good insights, Pastor. I just want to add that, for me, Hebrews was a major key to bridging the NT and OT worlds and set me off into a new spiritual journey to places I had never known existed.
Hence, I can understand how it may have affected Luther.
I also feel that entering the mind of God (in a spiritual sense) and experiencing the light of Jesus within is not an act of faith, as much as an act of trust. Our cognitive reasoning can be a good thing, of course . . . but it may also be the genesis of the “knowledge” of good and evil which Satan has been selling since the beginning of man. I feel that to experience grace and righteousness we have to let that go and trust in God and his son Jesus, and in none of the works of man.
Please give one example of paganism? Scripture itself speaks about more, which is not written.
P.S. Rome does not kill, although Priests may.
One of them has to be the HOLY BIBLE!
That was an amazing insight Luther received. Though I believe that this was the gist of the gospel understood by the Apostles and passed down through them to their disciples, it got lost somewhere along the way. Man's merit and his personal righteousness established through his good works, avoidance of sin, reception of grace-infusing sacraments and his fidelity to the "church" became the way man could grab hold of the grace of God that brings salvation. It was this false gospel - this accursed gospel - that God exposed through Luther and the other Reformers before and after him. It truly is a wondrous thing to contemplate the grace of God - it takes more than a lifetime to ever grasp it all. Grace is undeserved, unmerited, unearned and NEVER based on what we do for God. It is the very reason why NO ONE can boast.
Your misunderstanding about Catholicism are many.
All educated Catholics realize Pope’s are not infallible, except in limited circumstances. And you are correct Paul’s chiding of Peter demonstrates that.
And indeed, Luther was not infallible, but see my post about Lutherans now joining the RCC.
Praying to departed saints - pagan
Idols, statues, medals - pagan
Holy water - pagan
Sacramental earned merit - pagan
Monstrance - pagan
Vestments - pagan
Etc, etc
None of it ever practiced by an Apostle, taught by an Apostle, never in evidence before 100 ad. Modeled after pagan religions to placate them as they were forced into Rome’s Christianity.
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes in history have been responsible for killing personally as well as ordering slaughter. Collectively, what would you propose to call them, if not Rome? The Papacy? The Hierarchy? The Magisterium?
If you’re not interested in anything Luther has to offer, then why did you read this thread and bother to comment?
Additionally, Luther MARRIED a woman after he had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church and was no longer a priest. He didn’t do anything immoral. There are STILL priests that leave their orders so they can marry and they remain Roman Catholics. I think rather than Luther having “a sex problem”, it’s Catholics who have a Luther Derangement problem. Get over it!
How so? This should be interesting.
Didn’t Henry VIII threaten to kill Martin Luther? I know he was not a fan. The way some people think they were in cahoots with each other is a riot!
Please correct my mistakes, and I say this with all humility out of wanting to know more on the topic.
What I wrote is what my research showed.
The Twelve had a special dispensation and special anointing. And while many try to say that they are Latter day Apostles on par with Peter and Paul, like Joseph Smith or NAR charismatics, this is just not so.
No one who lives today can claim to be a witness of Christ in His ministry on earth; no one who lives today has written or was partakers of how the NT was written.
Luther, in my opinion, wanted to excise error. While that is a worthy Christian stance, it does not put his thoughts or words on par with the New Testament in terms of it’s “logos” power as being “the Word made flesh”.
Correct me if wrong, and thank you for responding.
Hear here! Here is wisdom.
Well and truly stated.
So, are you saying that Martin Luther's 95 Theses points were all just a big misunderstanding? You realize, I hope, that he was the dean and professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, a Dominican and that he was quite familiar with all the authentic teachings of the Catholic church?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.