/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6354046]

Why do people around here hate Luther so much? All the shitty Burger protestant denominations, including baptists, come from the English Dissenters, not Luther. Lutherans are nothing like those protestants, Lutherans have bishops and vestments, drink wine rather than grape juice for communion, and never touch Christian rock. And sola scriptura, at least in Lutheranism, has nothing to do with fundamentalism (no Lutheran church in the Lutheran World Federation takes most of the Bible literally), but rather salvation: that everything you need for salvation can be found within scripture (which is very different from suggesting interpretation of scripture isn't facilitated by experts), and anything someone else says you need on top of that isn't actually required for salvation. That doesn't mean traditions are shit, Lutherans love traditions, they just say they aren't required for salvation.

[Anonymous No.6354075]

>>6354046

Because instead of trying to reform the church from the inside he broke off and set precedent for all of the other Protestant movements. Besudes, the one thing that really got him to nail those theses was the fact that a lot of priests in Rome didn't believe in Transubstantiation -- and yet today, the Lutherans believe transubstantiation is a fake Catholic voodoo thing

Also Sola Scriptura is retarded

[Anonymous No.6354081]

[Anonymous No.6354084]

>>6354075
>Because instead of trying to reform the church from the inside he broke off and set precedent for all of the other Protestant movements.

But he did try internal reform, he died a Catholic. It was other people who took his ideology and ran with it (creating Lutheranism as a distinct sect)

[Anonymous No.6354090]

Orthodox Lutherans are alright. As long as they acknowledge the Real Presence they're much closer than most of Christian sects.

[Anonymous No.6354095]

>>6354084

He stopped being catholic and stopped trying to work on things internally the minute he hammered the first nail

[Anonymous No.6354097]

>>6354075
But he DID try to reform it from the inside. The Church told him to withdraw all of his statements, or face imprisonment. He chose prison. He wouldn't have left the Church, except they persecuted him, and his rescuers wanted a schism.

Transubstantiation is hardly his major complain, the 95 Theses are mainly about indulgences ("The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences"). Luther didn't even expect the Church to abolish them, but he said at the very least they should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than the automatic procedure.

Luther had a lot of issues, but none he wanted to spit over, he'd rather the Church have remained intact. The issue of Indulgences was really the thing he refused to budge from for moral reasons.

[Anonymous No.6354099]

>>6354095
But that was his attempt at internal reform

[Anonymous No.6354102]

>>6354046
Because he's an antisemite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vom_Schem_Hamphoras

[Anonymous No.6354103]

>>6354095
>he stopped trying to reform the minute he actually brought up ideas for reform

[Anonymous No.6354104]

>>6354099

Okay but he was a fag so I win

[Anonymous No.6354107]

>>6354102
I seriously doubt that's why /lit/ hates him, considering that plays zero role in Lutheranism.

[Anonymous No.6354113]

>>6354104
Oh

[Anonymous No.6354114]

>>6354081
Were indulgences the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit?

[Anonymous No.6354130]

>>6354081
Wait but Luther didn't void any of that stuff and never claimed guidance from the holy spirit above the Catholic Church

Or is it just bait

[Anonymous No.6354131]

>>6354075
>Also Sola Scriptura is retarded
Care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.6354141]

>>6354046
>Why do people around here hate Luther so much?
Because radical armed anabaptism is justified in the spirit.

Kill all knights. Kill all priests.

[Anonymous No.6354143]

>>6354141
>radical armed anabaptism
Is this a thing?

Please let this be a thing

[Anonymous No.6354150]

>>6354143
Daily reminder that Anabaptists were originally opposed to private property, the ones around today are all revisionists.

[Anonymous No.6354154]

>>6354131

Christ gave Peter and his descendents the wheel, and until Luther the church was run on Tradition. In fact the new testament is literally just the first 50-100 years of catholic tradition neatly organized for priests to read

The Catholic church has the only authority to make any calls on the bible or on jesus's will

[Anonymous No.6354155]

>>6354143
Read Luther Blisset's _Q_ or Engels' _German Peasants War_.

With the dethroning of the Church, ordinary believers noticed that the Spirit was everywhere and that reason too was everywhere. They created anti-property interpretations that made sense in their own lives in the context of Christ's messages.

And then the knights and priests came. So they armed.

The reason why modern communist Anabaptists are pacifists is less Jesus' words and more that all the armed anabaptists were murderised by all of Europe.

[Anonymous No.6354162]

>>6354154
New Testament is actually Orthodox tradition, not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.6354183]

>>6354154
>the NT is written in Latin

[Anonymous No.6354187]

>>6354154
>Christ gave Peter and his descendents the wheel, and until Luther the church was run on Tradition.
Lutherans value apostolic succession, dude. They get their line from independent Catholic churches.

[Anonymous No.6354188]

>>6354162
Can we say that the Orthodox and Catholic Church are the separated true church, and full authority will return once they unite again?

This is the only position that is possible for me to hold, I don't know if there are any else.

[Anonymous No.6354194]

>>6354188
Uh, you subscribe to branch theory, then? Pretty sure that's a heresy in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

[Anonymous No.6354232]

>>6354194
Alright cool, I didn't know it was a formulated position.
I'd be vary about including Anglicans though.

[Anonymous No.6354251]

>>6354107
>considering that plays zero role in Lutheranism.

topkek, implying centuries of German Protestantism isn't one of the reasons it was so easy for Hitler to blame everything on the Jews.

[Anonymous No.6354271]

>>6354232
Because they have female clergy?

You know the Catholic Church will too within a hundred years, right? I'm sure the current Pope would set that up except it would cause a massive schism.

[Anonymous No.6354276]

>>6354251
Uh, no. The word "ghetto" is Italian, after all. Next you'll be telling me that Russians got their antisemitism from Luther.

[Anonymous No.6354284]

>>6354251
The catholics also hated the jews m8
So did everybody

[Anonymous No.6354288]

>>6354276
>The word "ghetto" is Italian, after all

Relevant how?

>Next you'll be telling me that Russians got their antisemitism from Luther.

Christianity is anti-semitic by definition, as it is founded upon a claim that Jews are responsible for Christ's death. Luther just enunciated that same thing with more vigor and flaming hatred.

It's impossible to talk about anti-semitism without mentioning the history of Christianity, which includes people like Martin Luther.

[Anonymous No.6354294]

>>6354276
Now that is shitposting.

Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians

[Anonymous No.6354299]

>>6354271
>You know the Catholic Church will too within a hundred years, right?

No it won't, it has been affirmed explicitly.
And it's pretty bad to play the "doctrine will change" game, you could do that with a lot of things. Oh, masturbation won't be a sin in a hundred years!

In any case, it has nothing to do with female clergy but Anglicans subscribing to Protestant doctrine that I think make no sense.

[Anonymous No.6354300]

>>6354294
Shall we do an experiment? Spam some pics of German Christians on /pol/ and see if it catches on.

[Anonymous No.6354306]

>>6354288
Relevant because it dates to around Luther's time to refer to an island off of Italy where Jews were sent.

>Christianity is anti-semitic by definition, as it is founded upon a claim that Jews are responsible for Christ's death.
Jews are responsible for Christ's death, how is that antisemitism? Galatians 3:28, m8. Also see the Incident at Antioch: Christians looked down on Gentiles until Paul turned them around.
Christianity is anti-semitic by definition, as it is founded upon a claim that Jews are responsible for Christ's death.

[Anonymous No.6354311]

>>6354300
I would have a chuckle, verily

[Anonymous No.6354313]

>>6354294
Hurr durr, slavery in the U.S. was also widely marketed to protestants, .that doesn't mean people in the U.S. only became racists with protestantism.

[Anonymous No.6354315]

>NT is anti-semitic
>Talmud isn't anti-every other race

[Anonymous No.6354319]

>>6354306
It is anti-semitic because it is historically questionable. The only record of the Jews wanting Christ condemned to death is in the Bible, and unfortunately The Bible is not an authority on history.

The Mormons had a similar foundational claim too, that black people were the Sons of Ham, and thus were lesser than whites.

[Anonymous No.6354320]

>>6354311
Ok, I'll hijack a thread.

[Anonymous No.6354322]

>>6354315
NT isn't antisemitic. Jews killed Christ, that doesn't mean all Jews did and forever unto all their generations, that's fucking stupid, all of the Apostles were Jewish, and Peter denied Christ thrice. Paul actively persecuted Christians as a Jew.

[Anonymous No.6354327]

>>6354114
oh pls

>be catholic
>be a kid
>go to church with grandma
>she gives me half of her money when offers
>one day grandma died
>go to church alone
>since then put in the offers my half plus grandma half
>pray for her

muuh indulgence

[Anonymous No.6354328]

>>6354319
Bible is legit. It might have some bullshit inserted, but we know how much bullshit gets inserted with the progressive of time by writers like Herodotus and Livy. At least three generations have to pass before certain distortions will actually pass muster.

The Bible doesn't claim Jews are a lessor race though, did you not just read the verse I put up? Did you not just read about the Incident at Antioch?

[Anonymous No.6354331]

>>6354327
Ah, are you doing that to get her out of Purgatory?

[Anonymous No.6354332]

>>6354322
>Jews killed Christ, that doesn't mean all Jews did and forever unto all their generations

Pretty sure genealogical sin is foundational metaphysics in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.6354337]

protestant work ethic

[Anonymous No.6354339]

>>6354332
No, it is in Judaism. The new covenant explicit says children will no longer be held accountable for the sins of their fathers.

Jeremiah 31:29-31

[Anonymous No.6354347]

>>6354313
There's a correlation between, but it's not that easy.

[Anonymous No.6354351]

>>6354331
If she is there, yes.

[Anonymous No.6354358]

>>6354311
>>>/pol/43356907
I'm bad at shitposting, would you like to help?

[Anonymous No.6354361]

>>6354339
>The new covenant

Why is this copout always used? Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it, and I think it's really ironic how Christians just pick and choose which parts he wasn't going to fulfill.

[Anonymous No.6354364]

>>6354358
Certainly, it's my specialty

[Anonymous No.6354386]

>>6354361
The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Law. What exactly do you think "fulfillment" means? It means he satisfies the Old Law

Romans 10:4

[Anonymous No.6354393]

>>6354351
So if you put enough into the plate for her to get out of Purgatory, and her soul leaves, and then you grab the money and take it out of the plate, does she go back immediately?

[Anonymous No.6354401]

The scripture itself that Luther puts such an emphasis on is the product of the Early Church. It's their interpretation of Jesus Christ entrenched in polemics against rival interpretations and historical context. How is that superior to a living tradition? Luther looked at the Church in his time in dismay and disgust. How, then, did he see in the Early Church anything but the same corruption, mismanagement and ignorance?

I don't know Lutheranism very well, quite frankly. I'm genuinely curious. Did Luther think Jesus wrote the Bible himself or something?

[Anonymous No.6354415]

>>6354401
Most Lutherans in the Lutheran World Federation actually maintain apostolic succession. Those who don't have it are getting it through independent Catholic churches.

I don't think you understand that sola scriptura isn't saying the Bible doesn't need any interpretation to understand, just that you can't add requirements for salvation ON TOP of what it says is required in the Bible.

Luther mainly looked on indulgences with disgust. He said himself the Catholic Church was fine up until a certain point. His goal was to reform it to then, not to abolish everything about it. He only started a different church after he was sent to prison for heresy and then rescued by German barons, because by then Luther felt hopeless about reform.

[Anonymous No.6354437]

>>6354364
Thank's a lot. I just hope the Polizei won't raid me :/

[Anonymous No.6354458]

>>6354393
If she was alive, she would continue to put her offer and pray, I'm doing it even in her place. There isn't "a quota to reach". (In my church half of the offer goes in african missions the other half is for common maintenance). Prayers are something, but aren't all. A christian has also to do actions, my grandma can't do actions now, I put money for actions in her name, thats all.

[Anonymous No.6354470]

>>6354415
if, then, the only distinction between Luther and a good, Catholic boy is that Luther didn't like indulgences, it's hardly worth considering Lutheranism a separate system of thought. It isn't worth hating. It's irrelevant. It's a minor disagreement. That, however, can't be it, as Luther does represent a massive break with Catholicism. Surely, also, one can't just simply disagree with Catholic practice, as Papal infallibility is a major part of Catholicism. To deny it, is to deny Christ by denying his representative and to deny the living tradition itself. How, then, could current Lutherans claim apostolic succession and why would there even be a need for them when the practice of indulgences ended?

[Anonymous No.6354471]

>>6354437
Like they aren't Nazis themselves...

[Anonymous No.6354473]

>>6354415
See

>The words inerrant and infallible can be understood in ways that lead to interpretations of the Scriptures that are contrary to the Scriptures and what they teach. These terms imply a precision alien to the minds of the authors of the Scriptures and their own use of the Scriptures. These terms can be used to divert attention from the message of salvation and the instruction in righteousness which are the key themes of the Scriptures. They may encourage artificial harmonizations rather than serious wrestling with the implications of scriptural statements which seems to disagree. They may lead people to think that if there is one proven error in the Bible, however minor, the whole teaching is subject to doubt. Therefore, we recommend that the words inerrant and infallible not be included.
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugELCA.pdf

[Anonymous No.6354493]

>>6354470
It wasn't a minor disagreement, it was a major disagreement. Once Luther was forced to split, he added all his disagreements in, but if indulgences were addressed he probably would have put those aside.

The main thing block Lutherans and Catholics from reconciling today is female ordination, which Lutherans have. In 2000, Lutherans achieved fulled communion with the Anglican communion, which was possible because both have female ordination.

Papal infallibility is a major part, but it was only codified in the 19th Century, long atter Luther. Its condifcation caused several parishes to split from the Catholic Church (these parishes banned together in the the Union of Utrecht; they have worked with Lutherans and Anglicans for while, and now have full communion with both.

>ow, then, could current Lutherans claim apostolic succession and why would there even be a need for them when the practice of indulgences ended?
Apostolic succession has to do with the line of ordination of bishops, it doesn't matter about the Pope. Even Catholics recognize this, since they consider Orthodox orders valid.

>why would there even be a need for them when the practice of indulgences ended?
What the hell do indulgences to do with apostolic succession?

[Anonymous No.6354556]

>>6354493
Luther, then, you say, only really fervently disagreed with indulgences. That's a rather minor thing, honestly, and probably a lot of people found it a dubious practice, but it becomes a major thing when one insists against it beyond the authority of the Pope. You cannot contend with Christ's representative on Earth over any issue, great or small, and act like the issue is at the heart of it and not your contending against with Christ's representative. The Pope is the cornerstone of the Catholic Church, and it's not merely indulgences, as you are saying, but that Luther challenged the cornerstone of the whole structure.

[Anonymous No.6354562]

>>6354556
Challenging anything would be challenging the cornerstone by that criteria.

In Luther's time, bishops and priests got a cut of all indulgences they gathered. It was corrupt and greedy as fuck. Luther appealed to the Pope to change it.

[Anonymous No.6354588]

>>6354556
>That's a rather minor thing, honestly, and probably a lot of people found it a dubious practice, but it becomes a major thing when one insists against it beyond the authority of the Pope. You cannot contend with Christ's representative on Earth over any issue, great or small, and act like the issue is at the heart of it and not your contending against with Christ's representative.
This makes no sense. The Pope never invoced Papal infallibility in the case of indulgences (I don't even think he could back then), therefore they were not an infallible doctrine in the Pope's official capacity. If they were, the Catholic Church could never have abolished them. The Catholic Church did, ergo the Pope was in error, which Pope's can be unless they invoke Papal infallibility in a specific instance. Just because the Pope is Christ's representative, doesn't mean he is a flawless representative.

[Anonymous No.6354598]

>>6354562
Challenging the Pope's say so would be challenging the cornerstone, yes. It's like if Jesus were telling you how you can get to Heaven, and you said, "well, no, actually, Jesus, I disagree with you there." The Pope is Christ's representative on Earth. If Luther had asked the Pope and the Pope had granted the banning of indulgences, that would have been perfectly fine. I'm unclear on my history, honestly, but judging by the fact Luther was arrested and persecuted, I am pretty sure that is not what happened.

It isn't about indulgences. It's about disagreeing with the Pope.

[Anonymous No.6354623]

If the only issue at the core of it is that of indulgences and indulgences no longer exist, Catholicism is obviously the superior choice to Lutheranism.

[Anonymous No.6354931]

>>6354598
The Pope is Christ's representation on earth, that doesn't mean Christ approves of everything the Pope does and says.

>>6354623
Why?

[Anonymous No.6354957]

>>6354315
It's anti-Pharisee at best.

[Anonymous No.6354966]

>>6354315
>OT isn't anti every other race

[Anonymous No.6354992]

>>6354046
One has to take a Protestant perspective in order to have anything approaching an intellectually defensible Christianity, but Lutheranism, Calvinism, and most of the other Protestant sects still suck.

[Anonymous No.6355036]

>>6354992
I can understand why you dislike Calvinism, but what's your beef with Lutheranism?

[Anonymous No.6355246]

>>6354623
Well actually indulgences do sort of exist still. It's just that nowadays they're used much more justly. You can sell indulgences to build cathedrals, for example. That's a proper use of indulgences.

And at any rate, the Church is well within its rights to sell indulgences because the Church was given authority to forgive sins by Christ. "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." The Church can hand out forgiveness of sins in whatever means and manner it finds proper and just. This is an extension of Augustine's argument that the Sacraments are holy, and confer grace, even if the priests that administer them are themselves unjust and sinful. In their capacity as priests, Christ works through them, and so the transference of grace is not tainted. It's the same with indulgences.

[Anonymous No.6355254]

>>6354046
I don't hate him, I just think he's presented as hero that he was not. He's also attributed exegetical abilities that go far beyond what any pope has claimed for himself. He also could not take criticism, and a lot of his writings are just long diatribes against his opponents.

That said, there are some real gems of Lutheran piety (such as Kierkegaard)

>>6354493
I think his legitimate complaints were dealt with during Trent.

>the main thing block Lutherans and Catholics from reconciling today is female ordination

It's definitely a problem. Have Lutherans accepted the propitiatory nature of the mass? This was a major issue at the time of reformation.

[Anonymous No.6355302]

>>6355036
I think the two are very intimately related. Luther kept a lot of tradition (even to the point of allowing statues and a high-view of Mary), but his justification for doing so was fairly weak.

Many Calvinists will say that Luther didn't follow his solae to their logical conclusion, which is Calvinism.

[Anonymous No.6355362]

>>6355246
>moneychangers in the temple
>in Christ's name

>>6355254
Lutheran doctrine doesn't, but it doesn't deny it either. Luther isn't considered the word of God by Lutherans, and in recent times they basically left that up to individual interpretation rather than codifying it.

>>6355302
The last Calvinist I talked to said Lutheranism is a Devil's religion because they have vestments.

Church culture is really enough for Lutherans to keep a lot of tradition. If they didn't want traditions, they'd be some other generic protestant denomination.

[Anonymous No.6355412]

>>6355362
Are, ok. This would be something Lutherans would have to accept as dogma. I know the 39 Articles are dead against it, but I'm not sure what Luther's opinion was. It's good you don't deny it.

>The last Calvinist I talked to said Lutheranism is a Devil's religion because they have vestments.

LOL. what denomination?

>Church culture is really enough for Lutherans to keep a lot of tradition.

Are you LCMS I've heard they use the Roman gradual. Is that true?

[Anonymous No.6356109]

>>6355412
I forget what denomination he said, but a lot of Calvinists are fundamentalist clowns. PCUSA are okay. Well, basically any mainline Protestant church is okay, even mainline baptists, but all other protestant churches are shit.

No, I'm ELCA. I don't know LCMS's policy on that, but I do know we are definitely moving in that direction as a whole, and many congregations have adapted the Roman gradual. The push for tradition is big movement in Lutheranism, and its making headway.

[Anonymous No.6356149]

>>6354361
I love when people who don't know shit about Christianity talk about it.

The Law is in full effect, as Christ demonstrates. The Ten Commandments are the law, which can be shortened to two - there is no need for hundreds of laws to govern every single action. This is the New Covenant.

>“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."

>"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

>Jesus was asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

[Anonymous No.6356390]

This protestant shit is so confusing.

Which ones believe in predestination? Because that's a rad religion.

[Anonymous No.6356395]

>>6356390
That was Calvinism on the whole, not no more.

The only 'religion' that believes in that predestination shit now (that I know of) is the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Anonymous No.6357987]

>>6356390
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

[Anonymous No.6358504]

>>6354102
You're right, he was a pretty good chap.

[Anonymous No.6359398]

>>6356390
Why?