well then show me...don't just tell me Lula.  You made a charge, I countered it with Luther's own words and you came back with this above statement.  That's it?

Besides, I've talked to you personally and you've showed no love for Lulther.  You become quite animated when his name comes up.  I can give you site after Catholic site where they bash Luther.  So, I don't think I'm judging wrongly Lula.   I actually can give you examples where Catholic theologians have come to Luther's defense in spite of what their Catholic bretheren believe.   So there are a few honest Catholic theologians who are interested in facts.

You didn't show me any historical fact.  You made an accusation of which I backed up with the words of LUther himself documented.  Where's the beef?

be honest.  Of course you are.  You have gotten off subject here to go after Luther. 

You could say that about most men.  We are not to follow men but Christ.  While I've never been a Lutheran or much of a follower of Him, I do recognize the hand of God in his life and see that God set him aside for a purpose.   If it wasn't for Luther you and I would not be discussing the bible today.  We wouldn't even be in possession of one, except in secret. 

 

 

LULA POSTS:

 I think I have .....at first you said to Leauki that 

Leauki, I think you misunderstand. God NEVER allows poloygamy. Then or now.

and then you accepted my explaination,   God did allow polygamy...He didn't sanction it per se, but allowed it.

 

by  posting: Yes, you're right. God allowed it. I should have said God did not sanction it.

We are in agreement saying  

I see you are having double posting problems as well.

 

Yes, this has been going on with each reply I give for some reason. 

yes, where we are NOT in agreement is when you said it was part of the Old Law.  That part I disagreed with. 

 

 

Read my post # 33 again. I made no false or hateful charges against Luther. It's a matter of historical record that Luther sanctioned bigamy in order to retain the political influence of Philip of Hesse for the advancement of his Reformation.  God can only give dispensations from His own Laws as He did with the Patriarchs and kings of the OT when He tolerated the practice of polygamy.

My comments regarding  Luther's marriage to the nun (which I think are true) and which you took umbrage aren't my ideas, but were taken from a citation from  Luther's Work, Vol. 2, pg. 40.

[

Note the date. How can this possibly be a response to the charge of  Luther's advocating polygamy of Philip of Hesse when that didn't occur until 1539-40?

What you cite may have well been what Luther said in 1529, but some time between then and 1539-40,  the time he needed Philip of Hesse's diplomatic and military help to affect the process of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther's excuse for  sanctioning polygamy was to ostensibly prevent Philip of Hesse from lapsing into adultery and furthermoe according to Grisar, Luther iv. 51, and Verres, Luther, 315, Luther urged Philip to keep the matter secret and adivised him to deny the matter publicly, for "what harm would it do if a man told a good, lusty lie, (eine gute starke Luge) in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian churches?" 

Luther really wanted to keep this prince Philip of Hesse attached to the Lutheran cause. Unfortunately, Philip's polygamous marriage in 1540, while it had support from the Reformers, alienated other princes of states which proved disastrous in the long run. After Philip had confiscated monestaries, and raided other Church properties, and imposed  new religious church-state ordinances upon the people, he ended up imprisoned.

The Church with St.Peter as its first Pope and Catholicism was founded by Christ in 33AD at Pentecost.  Protestantism and the thousands of churches that flow from it was founded by Luther in 1517.  

  

Where does St.Peter disagree the CC is the interpreter of Scripture?  

 

LULA POSTS:

KFC POSTS:

KFC,

It's a historical fact that 1---Luther et al sanctioned bigamy for Philip of Hesse and 2...that Luther  married a nun (who btw may have been pregnant at least according to a letter to Luther from Desiderius Erasmus,  he wrote he felt the marriage was timely as he heard the child was born 10 days afterward).

Well, please remember, I'm not the one who first brought up Luther and polygamy..

and yes, I will always defend myself and the Church  when I think I've been falsely charged with hating someone...hate the sin, not the sinner. I think you will agree with that.

  

 

now, you're muddying the water even more with another "historical fact?"   Where are you getting your information?  Have you ever read anything unbiased about Luther....say historically accurate?   Be honest Lula.  Are you relying on Catholic history only?  Here's another view.....and I'm not saying Luther didn't get into it with Philip but it's not nearly how you're making it to be.

Luther's final comment on the whole Philip of Hesse mess was:

Luther's final comment was that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell."(Here I Stand, 292-293).

From the link I supplied earlier with more on the subject;

Catholics fail to mention that Luther repelled bigamous thoughts in Philip of Hesse fourteen years before the Landgrave took Margaret von der Saal. The evidence was found in the state archives at Kassel, now at Marburg, in a fragment of a letter which Niedner published in the Zeitschrift fuer historische Theologie, 1852, No. 2, p. 265. The letter is dated November 28, 1526; Philip's bigamous marriage took place March 9, 1540. In this letter Luther says to Philip: "As regards the other matter, my faithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offense would be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but most diligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we have no word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a belief that such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Let heathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers had many wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham and Jacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtained the wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as an inheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument to convince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word that makes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For where there was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more than one wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason I cannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularly since you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as, for instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived of her for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people such marriages I know not" (21a, 900 f.) This letter effected that the Landgrave did not carry out his intention, but failing, nevertheless, to lead a chaste life, he did not commune, except once in extreme illness, because of his accusing conscience." ( Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917, 103-104)

and more for Catholics to take warning in their charge against Luther:

Ought not this remark of the Landgrave caution Luther's Catholic critics to be very careful in what they say about the heinousness of Luther's offense in granting a dispensation from a moral precept? Have they really no such thing as a "dispensation" at Rome? Has not the married relationship come up for "dispensation" in the chancelleries of the Vatican innumerable times? Has not one of the canonized saints of Rome, St. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife was sterile? Was not concubinage still recognized by law in the sixteenth century in Ireland? Did not King Diarmid have two legitimate wives and two concubines? Andhe was a Catholic. What have Catholics to say in rejoinder to Sir Henry Maine's assertion that the Canon Law of their Church brought about numerous sexual inequalities? Or to Joseph MacCabe's statement that not until 1060 was there any authoritative mandate of the Church against polygamy, and that even after this prohibition there were numerous instances of concubinage and polygamic marriages in Christian communities? Or to Hallam in his Middle Ages, where he reports concubinage in Europe? Or to Lea, who proves that this evil wasnot confined to the laity? (See Gallighan, Women under Polygamy, pp. 43. 292. 295. 303. 330. 339.) ( Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917, 106)

there's enough blame to go around.  No matter what Luther or the CC taught at one time or another.  Polygamy and divorce was not what God intended for families. 

 

 

 

[quote]now, you're muddying the water even more with another "historical fact?" Where are you getting your information?

Luther's marriage to a nun caused a scandal in Europe.  

I'm not claiming that what Erasmus wrote is historical fact. You'll see I wrote "may" have been pregnant according to a letter from Desiderius Erasmus. I'm not claiming that's a historical fact....just another tidbit about Luther whose marriage to a nun casued a great scandal in Europe in those days.

Luther is your man, not mine....

Tell me something wonderfully good and historically accurate about Luther....

 

 

 

I could ask the same question of you....matter of fact I will....Have you ever read or been told anything other than from Protestant sources about  St. Peter being the first Pope? Like historical writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors?

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, KFC. I don't buy it. Words are one thing but it's deeds that count.

First a mention of Luther's own words...See what's highlighted....that's Luther giving Philip a pass...he writes don't do it UNLESS.... and he gives him a way out....in case of leprousy...OR luther says in the case the husband were deprived for some other reason...well, what does that mean? Just about anything doesn't it?

Who gave Luther the power to dispensate anyone to commit to the practice of Polygamy? No one. 

It's deeds that count....and after Philip went ahead and committed polygamy, whether on Luther's et al advice or not,  Luther of all people should have condemned him up one side and down the other....there is no historical evidence that I can find of him doing so....

Oh, but you are a follower of Luther....most assuredly you are....you believe in his doctrines and follow his protest movement...

In 1520, Luther wrote 3 pamphlets....in what he thought would be a program of reforming the Catholic Church.

In "An Appeal to the Nobility of the German Nation", Luther (doing away with the Catholic priesthood) asserted the full and sufficient priesthood of every believer...and he called upon the State princes to put into effect the reforms the papal councils refused....and they did and that is what you now follow....

In "Prelate Concerning the Babylonian Captivity of the Chruch", Luther proposed his revolutionary doctrine reducing Christ's establishments of the 7 Sacraments to two or three if you count Marriage.  He threw out the Sacrifice of the Mass which had been practiced for 16 centuries and established his own Christian service.

 "In the Liberty of a Christian", Luther extolled his own doctrine, justification by faith alone, which was a manufacture between  his decrees  and the Holy Bible. Before he wrote these three pamphlets, Luther wrote his own translation of Sacred Scripture which omitted  7 OT Books.  He tampered with the text of Romans 3:28,  adding the word to make it read "For we account a man to be justified by faith alone without the works of the law." So here we have the great champion of Scripture adulterating the very Word of God which he was supposed to hold so sacred.

Yes, the falsification was later corrected, but nevertheless was indelibly fixed in Protestant oral tradition. Luther's spiritual descendants (of which you are one) now interpret "faith alone" as Christian doctrine when in fact refers to this invention of Luther.

I'm not positive but it may be that Luther is also responsible for the central Protestant tenet of Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith the pillar and mainstay of truth. This of course cannot be supported Scripturally.  

More like they represent the fractured churches.

*yawn* Your posts are too long, ladies. You're not going to convince each other.

But I guess that, as long as you're having fun, keep it up. There's just so much other fun stuff to do on JU that's not religion or politics related.

ya I agree SC.  I really didn't want to get into a Luther debate with a Catholic!!!

I love you LULA you know that......but hey we're gonna have to agree to disagree on Luther and anything related to the authority of the CC.   We are definitely on opposite sides of this debate.  I would side with Luther and you would not.  That does not mean I agree with all that Luther said or did.  He was a man of faults not unlike men of the scriptures, but I do believe he was sincerely following God even if it cost him. 

 

Invention of Luther? You've said this so many times to me I'm hoping I can put this to rest. This is nothing more than one Catholic parroting another Lula. Here's the truth. (Sorry SC...couldn't let this one go.)

Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28
This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28
Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).


To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

SAN CHONINO POSTS:

Thanks, SC. Rest assured......I'm having fun posting on JU and when it isn't fun any more, I'll stop.

I love you too, KFC.. and fully respect you as my sister in Christ.  So any one who's looking for a cat fight will be disappointed.

Having said that.....since you're Protestant and I'm Catholic and regarding are vast differences over  Christian doctrine, there is guaranteed to be serious and yes SC.... lenghty discussion. This is good becasue the effort to understand one another should include critical study if the cause of truth is to be served and ever before us.   

This reminds me of something I read in a  conversion story of an Anglican to Catholic priest and he wrote....that  "Protestantism is, by definition, a reaction against something, and that something is the Catholic Church."

    

 

I'll buy that.  Who gave us the title?  

I do know for a fact that it's the Catholics who use the term "Protestant"  The Protestants don't.   They usually say they are Christian or Mormon or Baptist or 7th Day Adventist etc.   I only hear the term "Protestant" from the Catholics. 

 

 

Lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

KFC, there was no such thing as "justification by faith alone" until Luther dreamed it up. So yes, Luther invented it. He manufactured it. He came up with his own doctrine...which is known as justification by faith alone...He did so by changing what St.Paul wrote in Sacred Scripture, by indignantly adding the word "alone".

KFC POSTS:

KFC, let's be clear.....Luther didn't just "use" the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Had that been all that he had done, this doctrinal controversy wouldn't exist. We know without doubt  that Luther translated his own version of the German Bible and added the word "alone" to St.Paul's God inspired Epistle. 

This reasoning of Luther's that you provided and all the reasoning in the world from anyone else for that matter can never make this right. St.Paul never once used this phrase "faith alone". He used the word "Faith" many times,  but not once did he ever couple it with "alone" or "only". He never once taught justification by faith alone for that would have created an acute and obvious direct contradiction in Scripture with St. James 2:24.

For Luther, "justification by faith alone" became his own truth. He elevaated it to such a height that it also became the criterion for determining the canon of Scripture. That's why he wanted to throw out the Book of James which contains 2:24. The Holy Spirit prohibited St.Paul from using the phrase faith alone, while He allowed St.James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary by inspiring him with the words, "not by faith alone."

So the burden of proof rests upon you who believes that Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone is true doctrine. We know that Scripture deliberately uses the converse phrase, "not by faith alone" and therefore I can only conclude that Luther's expression, justification by faith alone, and subsequent doctrine is not the correct way to teach how man is justified before God. Besides,  Scripture teaches that St.Paul..."wrote to you the wisdom given to him" 2St.Peter 3:16. Wouldn't you agree that this God given wisdom which prevented St. Paul from writing the phrase "faith alone" is wisdom that is as good for us as it was for him?