Happy Reformation Day

philologos

Although today is Halloween, today is also Reformation Day. The Reformation is to me perhaps the most significant event in world Christianity since the Apostles. If you go to services in the vernacular language, if you read the Bible for personal reading, a lot of these practices came about as a result of the Reformation in Europe.

Luther, Calvin, and others challenged corruption within Christianity, and without them I don't think Christianity would be in as good a place today.

Feel free to discuss

Benny_Cake

Sly, Phil, very sly!

I'll leave this here for now, as long as it doesn't become a Catholic vs Protestant debate, in which case - to the megathread with it!

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Although today is Halloween, today is also Reformation Day. The Reformation is to me perhaps the most significant event in world Christianity since the Apostles. If you go to services in the vernacular language, if you read the Bible for personal reading, a lot of these practices came about as a result of the Reformation in Europe.

Luther, Calvin, and others challenged corruption within Christianity, and without them I don't think Christianity would be in as good a place today.

Feel free to discuss

I think we owe a huge debt to Luther even as I do not agree with many of his opinions.

Luther's actions profoundly changed Europe and the world forever when he directly and successfully challenged Rome and thanks to Gutenburg's press he could not be silenced.

He, albeit unintentionally, opened the information floodgates and ushered in a period of dramatic social and political change leading to concepts of the rights of the individual.

Manach

An act that shattered the intellectual powerhouse and mindset that represented the dynamic continent of Europe and directly lead both to the cult of self and the various "isms" that have made Europe a battleground since then - at least IMHO .

lmaopml

Halloween, is the Eve when Catholics celebrate 'All Saints Day'! - and it's connected to 'harvest' and thanksgiving too -

In Catholic theology the 'New Jerusalem' is not something that is only a thing of the future - It's a veritable 'reality'!

I think Phil, you are dying for to 'debate' somewhere with someone about this, and ye know what, you deserve to be answered plainly too, but please don't carry the crazy baggage!

Did you know that Eucharistic means 'Thanksgiving' - This has been celebrated from earliest times, the 'Fathers' speak of it.

The very best of wishes to you in Jesus Christ as we celebrate our Christianity - hopefully not so seperate but together too?

Tonight I will celebrate all those who 'love' Christ - no matter whom.

Peregrinus

Surely this has to be one of those “it was the best of times; it was the worst of times” things? On the one hand, the Reformation led to all the good things that Phil points to, and to more good things besides (including, as George Pell rather provocatively says, the counter-Reformation). On the other hand it fractured the church, triggered a series of devastating wars and launched a period of several centuries (which we are still living through) in which Western Christians have largely defined and understood themselves and their faith in negative, oppositional, confrontational terms against other Christians. And it distracted attention from, and perhaps even tended to validate, other corruptions and abuses which were common to both the Protestant and the Catholic traditions - like, say, antisemitism

Could we have had all the good things of the Reformation without the some of the bad, if some of the personalities involved had been different? I’ll leave that one for the historians to grapple with.

philologos

The Reformation for me is one of the most significant things that happened within Christianity particularly Luther's rediscovery of justification in Romans namely that there is nothing whatsoever we can do to earn our salvation. Luther wanted to reform from within but unfortunately the authorities weren't willing to budge. In a way if the Roman Catholic states had tolerated Protestantism in Europe those wars would have never started.

All the Reformers were interested was in salvaging Biblical truth that was long forgotten, and to bring attention to it. The martyrdom of many who stood up for it (see Foxes Book of Martyrs) and wars were only the result of the reaction to Protestantism in Europe. Loving the Reformation isn't baggage, it's because I love the Gospel not because I love baggage and conflicts.

These guys were in many cases put to death for proclaiming Biblical truth. I regard them as heroes who truly did live as the Apostles did.

Manach: how could focusing on the Bible and giving glory to Jesus be a cult of self?

Peregrinus

I think it would be a bit glib to say that Luther is resonsible only for good outcomes of the Reformation, and if there were bad outcomes that is because of failings on the part of "the authorities". There's no reason why history has to have unfolded that way, and assuming or asserting that it did feeds directly into the oppositional, confrontational mindset that I see as one of the bad outcomes of the Reformation.

Luther's only human, and the very qualities which we see as steadfastness and fidelity in one context we can see as stubbornness and pig-headedness in another. When any relationship - including a relationship of communion - breaks down, there's a natural tendency for those involved to blame the others. But the truth is that relationships - and particularly relationships of communion - are by definition mutual, and if they break down then it's likely that all parties involved have contributed to that in some way. Certainly, if the church authorities had been more humble, more open, more generous and in short more Christian in their response to Luther's protests at an earlier stage, a great deal of grief might have been avoided. But it doesn't follow that there is nothing that Luther or his followers did at any stage that didn't compound matters.

I think, though, we should try to avoid remembering the Reformation by thinking largely about who was most to blame in the episode. No doubt, so far as the negative aspects of the Reformation are concerned, there is plenty of blame to go around. But maybe the point about the negative outcomes of the Reformation is not to blame somebody for them, but to learn something from them.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it would be a bit glib to say that Luther is resonsible only for good outcomes of the Reformation, and if there were bad outcomes that is because of failings on the part of "the authorities". There's no reason why history has to have unfolded that way, and assuming or asserting that it did feeds directly into the oppositional, confrontational mindset that I see as one of the bad outcomes of the Reformation.

Luther's only human, and the very qualities which we see as steadfastness and fidelity in one context we can see as stubbornness and pig-headedness in another. When any relationship - including a relationship of communion - breaks down, there's a natural tendency for those involved to blame the others. But the truth is that relationships - and particularly relationships of communion - are by definition mutual, and if they break down then it's likely that all parties involved have contributed to that in some way. Certainly, if the church authorities had been more humble, more open, more generous and in short more Christian in their response to Luther's protests at an earlier stage, a great deal of grief might have been avoided. But it doesn't follow that there is nothing that Luther or his followers did at any stage that didn't compound matters.

I think, though, we should try to avoid remembering the Reformation by thinking largely about who was most to blame in the episode. No doubt, so far as the negative aspects of the Reformation are concerned, there is plenty of blame to go around. But maybe the point about the negative outcomes of the Reformation is not to blame somebody for them, but to learn something from them.

I agree that Luther is only a person. He's no more infallible than any other person (the Pope included). I recognise he was very anti-semetic, but what he wrote brought a lot of good in terms of the Reformation.

The reality is The Reformation itself did not cause a war, the response did. Being stubborn and uncompromising in respect to God's word in Scripture is a trait I admire. I think Luther did the right thing by sticking to his guns.

I don't believe there was anything negative about making the Bible open source, teaching in the vernacular, allowing clergy to marry, teaching the clear doctrine of substitutionary atonement for all to understand, challenging the sale of indulgences and so on. The only regret was that it became politicised.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

. . . I don't believe there was anything negative about making the Bible open source, teaching in the vernacular, allowing clergy to marry, teaching the clear doctrine of substitutionary atonement for all to understand, challenging the sale of indulgences and so on. The only regret was that it became politicised.

I couldn't say that that was my only regret. The negative effects on Christian communion were deep and lasting.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

I couldn't say that that was my only regret. The negative effects on Christian communion were deep and lasting.

The regret is surely the fact that the reformation had become so necessary? Everything else is an offshoot.

PDN

Without getting involved in the doctrinal rights and wrongs, the Reformation was a step in the right direction in that it opened the door for people to begin to make free and informed choices about their religious faith. Such a process would, however, take a long time to reach fruition. When I think of my own beliefs - in the 16th Century I would have been just as likely to be executed by Luther's followers as an Anabaptist than by the Roman Catholic Church.

Luther himself was a pretty unpleasant character who delighted in throwing insults at his opponents, and was just as prone as them to indulging in some really nasty anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, by opening the door for people to think for themselves (apparently viewed as a negative by at least one poster in this thread :eek: ) Luther was instrumental, albeit unwittingly, in a process that has culminated in the tolerance and intellectual freedom we enjoy today.

Just one example of this - when Galileo wrote his "Discourse on Two New Sciences" it stood no chance of being published in Italy, or indeed anywhere else where the Church's ban extended. No problem, since the Reformation had created areas where printers were not hindered by such a ban. His friends smuggled the manuscript out to the Netherlands and so the cause of science could advance more freely.

It is also somewhat misleading to say that the Reformation was the cause of religious wars - as if religious wars were not already being waged. Prior to the Reformation there were religious wars - in the form of Crusades against heretics. What happened with the Reformation was that now there was a group that could actually fight back rather than a one-sided slaughter.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I couldn't say that that was my only regret. The negative effects on Christian communion were deep and lasting.

I don't think the negative effects so much came from the Reformation rather than the response to the Reformation. What in and of itself about the teachings that resulted from the Reformation itself were negative effects which were "deep and lasting" or was this a result of the response to it?

It's an interesting question.

J C

The Reformation was certainly ahead of it's time ... it took the Roman Catholic Church over 4 centuries (with Vatican II) to implement some of its 'far sighted' reforms, like the use of the vernacular in church services ... and allowing the personal reading and interpretation of the Bible.

... of course, Vatican II didn't implement all of the Reformation principles ... like the use of indulgences and doctrinal policies about purgatory, Catholic devotion to Mary, "The Mother of God", the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, mandatory clerical celibacy, including monasticism, and the regal authority of the Pope.
... will we have to wait another few hundred years for the rest of the Reformation to be adopted by the Roman Catholic Church???!!!:)
... or maybe it's a lot closer than most people think ... because this is what some avant garde Roman Catholics tell me!!!:eek:

I suppose it's no co-incidence that Reformation Day is on the eve of All Saints Day !!!

... either way ... my very best wishes to all Saved Christians out there, within both the Roman Catholic ... and the Reformed Churches !!

... and to all the unsaved, out there, I also send my love ... and that of Jesus Christ to you too.

J C

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the negative effects so much came from the Reformation rather than the response to the Reformation. What in and of itself about the teachings that resulted from the Reformation itself were negative effects which were "deep and lasting" or was this a result of the response to it?

It's an interesting question.

There was right ... and wrong ... on both sides ... and one thing is certain ... Jesus Christ never asked anybody to kill for him.

... we are to love one another ... as He loves us.:)

PDN

J C wrote: »

I suppose it's no co-incidence that Reformation Day is on the eve of All Saints Day !!!

The only person who could answer that question would be Luther himself. Reformation Day is celebrated on that day because it was on the 31st of October that Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

J C

PDN wrote: »

The only person who could answer that question would be Luther himself. Reformation Day is celebrated on that day because it was on the 31st of October that Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

Like I say ... it probably was no co-incidence !!:)

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the negative effects so much came from the Reformation rather than the response to the Reformation. What in and of itself about the teachings that resulted from the Reformation itself were negative effects which were "deep and lasting" or was this a result of the response to it?

It's an interesting question.

A very interesting question.

Couple of thoughts, in no particular order.

Perhaps one of the reasons the Reformation played out in such a nasty and divisive way was because of the intertwined nature of church and state. To become influential in the church was to exercise substantial civil power, so all differences over faith inevitably were also power struggles. This was corrupt, of course, but sadly it’s a form of corruption which the Lutherans did not challenge; they wholeheartedly embraced it.

The Anabaptists, as PDN points out, did challenge it, but not immediately; it took them some time to get to that point, and perhaps they were helped there by their own disastrous experience of persecution at the hands of the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Calvinists. (And perhaps they were also helped their by the catastrophic outcome of the one occasion when they did get to exercise state power, in Münster). It’s to their lasting credit, of course, that they did arrive at the insight that a Christian should eschew the exercise of state power for gospel purposes, but by the time they did the Protestant reformation had already come to be dominated by Lutheran and Calvinist perspectives. If they’d got there a bit earlier, and if they had been a larger voice in the Reformation, perhaps it would have played out in an altogether more satisfactory way. Or, in other words, if Luther had not been quite such a dominant, forceful, impressive personality, perhaps the Reformation would have recognised the corrupting nature of state power, an insight which would I think have been to the enormous benefit of Christianity. (And which still would, to be honest.)

That, of course, is not strictly speaking a problem which stems from a teaching of the Reformation. It’s a problem which stems from the fact that the Reformation didn’t emphasis this insight as much as it might have, and perhaps should have.

A second and unrelated thought: one of the differences between the Catholic and Protestant traditions, even today, is the emphasis that Catholicism lays on organic, formal, institutional unity versus Protestant indifference to institutional unity. It’s frequently pointed out that Protestant Christianity is divided (or “splintered”, if you take a certain view of the question) into tens of thousands of distinct churches, denominations, etc., in marked contrast to Catholicism. Catholics often voice this as a criticism; Protestants acknowledge the truth of the claim, but don’t see it as problematic. From the Protestant perspective, organic or institutional unity is unnecessary; the unity of baptism is all that the church needs.

It seems to me that, because of the confrontational way that we have defined and understood ourselves as Christians, both traditions have entrenched themselves into comparatively extreme versions of their own views on this point. The Catholic church is not only still formally a single structure, but it is a much more centrally-controlled, top-down structure than it used to be before the Reformation. Its response to the Protestant challenge to the need for institutional unity has been to affirm the need for an ever stronger institutional unity. And, conversely, on the Protestant side, the rejection of the Catholic perspective on what communion should exist between Christians has led to an often “low” view of communion, in the sense of real relationships which bind the church together. Protestant congregations are not accountable to one another to the extent that perhaps they should be. In short, I think there’s been a polarising here which has not made for the best possible outcome for the universal church.

Is this because of the Protestant emphasis on the unmediated relationship between the individual Christian and Christ, which can tend to sideline the significance of the church as the body of Christ, or because of the Catholic response to it? Well, that’s a difficult thing to disentangle, and I suspect attempts to answer that question probably tell you more about the doctrinal position of the person offering the answer than they do about the history of the Reformation.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

Like I say ... it probably was no co-incidence !!

The date of 31 October is not a coincidence, but the causation is probably not what you suspect.

We don’t know for certain that Luther did post his theses on the church door on 31 October 1517, or indeed that he posted them there at all. The first assertion that he did so is not made until 1546, twenty-nine years later, and it’s made by someone who wasn’t in Wittenberg at the time, and can’t have been a witness.

What we do know is that on that date Luther sent his theses to the Archbishop of Mainz. We can be sure of this because, I believe, the letter still survives, in the diocesan archives.

And, given that, it’s entirely plausible that he would have posted his theses on the church door at the same time. Church doors in Wittenberg (and elsewhere) served as noticeboards. The conventional way of advertising an academic disputation was to pin up a notice setting out the thesis to be disputed. Luther was a professor at the university; he would have been very familiar with this practice, and it would have ensured that his dispute was going to be public, not private.

The significance of 31 October is this; 31 October 1517 was a Saturday; the following day was not only All Saints’ Day, but it was a Sunday. And the Castle church, where Luther is said to have pinned his notice, was dedicated to All Saints. It was going to see a large attendance, and Luther’s notice would receive maximum attention before, as must have been foreseeable, the Archbishop had it torn down. (There’s no historical suggestion that he did have it torn down, but the possibility that he would as soon as he received the letter from Luther must have crossed Luther’s mind.)

It’s unlike that the date was chosen because Luther wished to challenge the practice of venerating the saints; the 95 theses make no reference to this practice, and it wasn’t until much later that Luther did challenge it. Thesis 58 in fact affirms “the merits of Christ and the saints” for the benefit of believers; his challenge is to the notion that the church can dole them out, so to speak, through the medium of indulgences. In many ways the theses are quite a conservative document, accepting not only the merits of the saints but also the reality of purgatory and the efficacy of prayer for the unredeemed dead. So the choice of 31 October would have seemed a particularly pointed one at the time. It only seems so to us because we know the positions that Luther was later to adopt.

philologos

J C wrote: »

There was right ... and wrong ... on both sides ... and one thing is certain ... Jesus Christ never asked anybody to kill for him.

... we are to love one another ... as He loves us.:)

The Reformation teaching in and of itself didn't kill anybody. People with political aims and motives did because of its response. The Reformation provided huge benefits to Christians, I'd say even the Roman Catholic church benefited from it.

I'd also hazard a guess that even quoting that passage from an English Bible would have been extremely difficult if not impossible if it wasn't for the Reformation.

I agree entirely with you on state sponsored killing and persecution.

philologos

Peregrinus: in short I think the unity point is quite simple. The RCC puts its own position and authority above the Bible. Reformed / Protestant churches put the Bible first the tradition second. Both value church but unity should only be achieved in so far as it doesn't compromise the Gospel. I'm all for rallying around what is in common.

Your main objection now seems to be that Protestants didn't do enough to resolve the church / state issue, but that's a really unfair criticism I think especially when other Protestants took the reforms further as you've mentioned and the RCC were happy to do nothing. However I'd argue that indirectly by emphasising the Bible the Reformation did bring passages like Romans 13 to light.

Edit: I think we need to reform constantly assessing our churches in light of Jesus and God's inspired word in Scripture.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

The Reformation teaching in and of itself didn't kill anybody. People with political aims and motives did because of its response. The Reformation provided huge benefits to Christians, I'd say even the Roman Catholic church benefited from it.

Well, the Catholic teachings in and of themselves didn’t kill anybody either. Teachings don’t kill; people do. We can’t pretend that only Catholics killed people, or that only Catholics had political aims and motives.

philologos wrote: »

I'd also hazard a guess that even quoting that passage from an English Bible would have been extremely difficult if not impossible if it wasn't for the Reformation.

I think you’d hazard wrongly. There were numerous translations of the scriptures, or parts of them, into English and other vernaculars from centuries before the Reformation.

They weren’t widely distributed, it’s true, but that was at largely because the printing press hadn’t been invented. The question of distributing them (or, for that matter, of suppressing their distribution) never really arose. Manuscript copies existed, and there was no bar on anyone wealthy enough from acquiring one, but very few people were wealthy enough.

The reformer’s contribution was not so much the translation of the bible as its wide promotion and circulation, taking advantage of the printing press. The Catholic objection was not so much to the promotion of vernacular bibles, as to what they saw as tendentious errors in the translations produced by reformers. The response was to commission and circulate Catholic translations into English, the principal of which (the Douay-Rheims translation) was completed between 1582 and 1609, and so predates the King James Bible.

Luther, famously, translated the Bible into German, but he was not the first to do so. The Mentel Bible was published in 1466 (before Luther was born) and was reprinted many times. Before the Mentel Bible there were German translations in the 1300s (though they, of course, were never printed). According to Wikipedia, there were at least 18 different translations of the bible into German before Luther, 90 different translations of the Gospel and 14 Psalters. Luther’s translation, of course, became far and a way the most influential, but it was by no means the first.

I think it’s a mistake to see the wide circulation of vernacular editions of the scripture as an outcome of the Reformation. It might be closer to the truth to see the Reformation, at least in part, as an outcome of wide circulation of vernacular editions of the scriptures. The wide circulation itself was an outcome not of ideology but of technology; the printing press.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Your main objection now seems to be that Protestants didn't do enough to resolve the church / state issue, but that's a really unfair criticism I think especially when other Protestants took the reforms further as you've mentioned and the RCC were happy to do nothing. However I'd argue that indirectly by emphasising the Bible the Reformation did bring passages like Romans 13 to light.

I didn't mean to criticise Protestants on the church/state issue; it's more that I see the way the Reformation unfolded as missing an opportunity to identify and tackle this particular corruption. That's a matter more for regret than for blame, I think, but if we must apportion blame then i agree with you that we cannot apportion it just to the Lutherans and the Calvinists. The Catholics identified (or accepted others' identification of) and tackled a great many corruptions in the counter-Reformation, but not this one.

philologos

I don't think I did hazard wrongly even if what you did say is true, it would have been extremely difficult to get one for your own use, possibly extremely expensive.
As for your claim that the Reformers made many errors in translation, I don't believe for a second that the Doubay Reims which isn't even translated from the original languages could be taken more seriously. By the by you also probably know as well as I do that the KJV wasn't the first English Reformation Bible.

The wide circulation was probably the result of the Reformers belief that the service should be in the vernacular and that people should have access to the Bible for themselves.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I don't think I did hazard wrongly even if what you did say is true, it would have been extremely difficult to get one for your own use, possibly extremely expensive.

It was difficult and expensive to get hold of a vernacular bible before the invention of the printing press. After the invention of the printing press it was great deal easier. The Reformation ensued.

My point is that the Reformation did not inaugurate the wide circualtion of vernacular translations of the scriptures; it was more the other way around. Hence even if there had been no Reformation, it's wrong to assume that we would not be able today to quote from the scriptures in the vernacular. To arrive at that conclusion, you'd have to assume that the printing press had never been invented.

philologos wrote: »

As for your claim that the Reformers made many errors in translation. . .

No, no. That's not my claim. It was the claim made by the church authorities at the time. I do not endorse it.

philologos wrote: »

. . . I don't believe for a second that the Doubay Reims which isn't even translated from the original languages could be taken more seriously. By the by you also probably know as well as I do that the KJV wasn't the first English Reformation Bible.

Sure. It was one of a flurry of bible translations that followed the invention of printing; one of the most important, but by no means the first. And the fact that the DR came before it doesn't mean that it was a better translation, or even a particularly good one. I mention it just to show that the Catholics as well as the Reformers were engaged in this flurry of translation and printing. The notion that it was only the reformers who took advantage of the printing press in this way would be a mistake.

philologos wrote: »

The wide circulation was probably the result of the Reformers belief that the service should be in the vernacular and that people should have access to the Bible for themselves.

Undoubtedly the reformers encouraged this, and helped to create the market for bibles. But the very first book printed on a press, well before the Reformation, was the Gutenberg bible. That was in Latin, of course, but the Mentel Bible, in German, was only about ten years later, and it went through numerous editions. The truth is that the bible was far and away the book that interested people the most, even before the Reformation, and commercially-minded printers were going to print it, in Latin and in the vernacular, not out of any great evangelical fervour but because they knew they could sell it in large numbers.

lmaopml

Alister McGrath, Anglican historian, debunks this caricature of the Church at the time of the Reformation...

The tidal wave of studies of local archives and private correspondence has confirmed the suspicions of an early generation of scholars - that it is unacceptable to determine the state of the Pre-reformation Church through the eyes of it's leading critics, such as Luther and Calvin. It is increasingly clear that attempts to depict the late medieval Church as morally and theologically corrupt,
unpopular and near terminal decline cannot be sustained by the evidence available.

As in every period the Church possessed strengths and weaknesses, and sought to consolidate the former and address the latter. It is now clear that Catholic reforming movements were not a response to criticisms of the Protestant reformers, but were deeply enmeshed within the pre-reformation Church - where paradoxically, they created an appetite for reform, that laid the ground for Protestantism in some respects.


The desire to reform the Church is not new to Luther - it was absolutely a part of her history since Christ the Word Incarnate instituted her. She is constantly reforming sinners, and is also full up with them too -

..but she doesn't compromise, even for sinners.

totus tuus

lmaopml wrote: »

The desire to reform the Church is not new to Luther - it was absolutely a part of her history since Christ the Word Incarnate instituted her. She is constantly reforming sinners, and is also full up with them too -

..but she doesn't compromise, even for sinners.

Indeed. In the 12th Century, St. Hildegard Von Bingen broke with tradition and challenged the Church, and she was also threatened with excommunication. She was a healer, mystic and prophet who fought against injustice.

Siuin

philologos wrote: »

Luther, Calvin, and others challenged corruption within Christianity, and without them I don't think Christianity would be in as good a place today.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think we owe a huge debt to Luther even as I do not agree with many of his opinions.

Like his blatant and rabid anti-Semitism?
Yeah. Gives food for thought as to what the supposed peace and love of Christianity has really amounted to...

philologos

Siuin wrote: »

Like his blatant and rabid anti-Semitism?
Yeah. Gives food for thought as to what the supposed peace and love of Christianity has really amounted to...

If you had actually read the posts in this thread before posting you'd have seen that this was already mentioned in previous pages.

Siuin

philologos wrote: »

If you had actually read the posts in this thread before posting you'd have seen that this was already mentioned in previous pages.

No harm in bringing it to your attention again. Unless of course it's something you're ashamed of?

Peregrinus

Siuin wrote: »

No harm in bringing it to your attention again.

There's also not much use in bringing it to our attention again, unless you have a point to make about it. Are you saying that because Luther's position on Jews was repellent, therefore nothing he said or did on any subject at all can have been of any value at all and therefore the Reformation was wholly without merit? Or are you trying to make some other point?

Siuin

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's also not much use in bringing it to our attention again, unless you have a point to make about it. Are you saying that because Luther's position on Jews was repellent, therefore nothing he said or did on any subject at all can have been of any value at all and therefore the Reformation was wholly without merit? Or are you trying to make some other point?

I am saying, as both a Jew and a person of conscience, that I find it extremely distasteful that Christians would continue to laud a figure who virtually made his career villifying the Jews and advocating their murder, turning countless people against them with his disgusting writings.

PDN

Siuin wrote: »

I am saying, as both a Jew and a person of conscience, that I find it extremely distasteful that Christians would continue to laud a figure who virtually made his career villifying the Jews and advocating their murder, turning countless people against them with his disgusting writings.

Luther's anti-semitic rants, while abhorrent, occurred towards the end of his life.

It is patently untrue to claim that he 'made his career' vilifying the Jews.

Siuin

PDN wrote: »

Luther's anti-semitic rants, while abhorrent, occurred towards the end of his life.

It is patently untrue to claim that he 'made his career' vilifying the Jews.

He was not confined to mere 'rants' - he published an array of anti-Semitic works, lobbied for laws denying rights to Jews and provided a foundation for the Nazis to build upon. You'd need to be extremely naive to think that the influence of Luther's anti-Semitic rhetoric died with him. And now to celebrate such a man as a religious figure? Absolutely disgusting. Then again, Christianity - be it Protestant or Catholic - has a long and prolific history of wronging the Jews, so it's hardly surprising that those here see nothing in supporting a person who could easily be viewed as a forerunner to Hitler.

Benny_Cake

Siuin wrote: »

He was not confined to mere 'rants' - he published an array of anti-Semitic works, lobbied for laws denying rights to Jews and provided a foundation for the Nazis to build upon. You'd need to be extremely naive to think that the influence of Luther's anti-Semitic rhetoric died with him. And now to celebrate such a man as a religious figure? Absolutely disgusting. Then again, Christianity - be it Protestant or Catholic - has a long and prolific history of wronging the Jews, so it's hardly surprising that those here see nothing in supporting a person who could easily be viewed as a forerunner to Hitler.

I don't think that anyone here has denied that Luther's antisemitism was a reprehensible flaw on his character and record (his toadying up to the nobles during the Peasant's war being another). Even the various churches which bear his name have admitted to that, and disassociated themselves from his viewpoints on this matter. Many Lutheran churches currently enjoy excellent relations with the Jewish people. At the same time, he is a very significant figure in Christian history and provided that we don't seek to diminish or deny the stain of anti-Semitism on his character, we need to be able to take a step back and look and the other aspects of his life and beliefs.

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think that anyone here has denied that Luther's antisemitism was a reprehensible flaw on his character and record (his toadying up to the nobles during the Peasant's war being another). Even the various churches which bear his name have admitted to that, and disassociated themselves from his viewpoints on this matter. Many Lutheran churches currently enjoy excellent relations with the Jewish people. At the same time, he is a very significant figure in Christian history and provided that we don't seek to diminish or deny the stain of anti-Semitism on his character, we need to be able to take a step back and look and the other aspects of his life and beliefs.

Protestants generally don't claim the Reformers (or any man) was perfect. What is claimed is that he made a lot of thoroughly good reforms / restorations to the church.

Siuin

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think that anyone here has denied that Luther's antisemitism was a reprehensible flaw on his character and record (his toadying up to the nobles during the Peasant's war being another). Even the various churches which bear his name have admitted to that, and disassociated themselves from his viewpoints on this matter. Many Lutheran churches currently enjoy excellent relations with the Jewish people. At the same time, he is a very significant figure in Christian history and provided that we don't seek to diminish or deny the stain of anti-Semitism on his character, we need to be able to take a step back and look and the other aspects of his life and beliefs.

How anyone could possibly put aside such a grave aspect of a person's character while accepting everything else they have done is completely beyond me. The Lutheran church only decided to renounce Luther's anti-Semitic diatribe in the 1980s, which I think pretty much says it all.

Siuin

philologos wrote: »

Protestants generally don't claim the Reformers (or any man) was perfect. What is claimed is that he made a lot of thoroughly good reforms / restorations to the church.

There's a difference between 'being perfect' and stating that Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." Their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, their rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labour or expelled for all time. He also advocated their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them"

Peregrinus

There’s a definite gradation in Luther’s writing on the Jews, from That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew in 1523 to On the Jews and their Lies twenty years later. The former is (by the standards of the day) practically philosemitic, making the points that the Jews are blood relatives of Jesus Christ, that Christians should deal kindly and gently with them “in a brotherly fashion” and should be guided “not by papal law but by the law of Christian love”, and that Christians are not the moral superiors of Jews. Unfortunately it’s the latter work, which is basically pretty vile, that we all remember. His last recorded sermon, within a week of his death, ended with anti-Semitic peroration. The Nazis made extensive (though, it has to be said, selective) use of Luther's writings on Jews and Judaism.

What’s the explanation for this decline into bigotry? We can only speculate. Possibly Luther was your classic angry old man. There is a view that he became more bigoted and intolerant (and not just against the Jew - you should read what he has to say about the Turk) as his health deteriorated sharply. For the last ten years of his life he was in constant pain from kidney stones, arthritis, a ruptured eardrum and angina. There’s also a view that he may have been borderline mentally ill in his final years - probably depressive, and possibly neurotic. His reputatation for scatology, and for explosive fits of rage, also dates from this period of his life.

None of this is to excuse Luther, or gloss over this aspect of his work. He probably did a good deal to ensure that Christian anti-Semitism was carried over with little question or challenge into reformed Christianity. But, appalling as this aspect of Luther’s heritage may be, the fact is that it is not the entirety of his heritage.

We can no more disregard this aspect of Luther and his work than we can disregard every other aspect, and focus only on this.

Siuin

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s a definite gradation in Luther’s writing on the Jews, from That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew in 1523 to On the Jews and their Lies twenty years later. The former is (by the standards of the day) practically philosemitic, making the points that the Jews are blood relatives of Jesus Christ, that Christians should deal kindly and gently with them “in a brotherly fashion” and should be guided “not by papal law but by the law of Christian love”, and that Christians are not the moral superiors of Jews. Unfortunately it’s the latter work, which is basically pretty vile, that we all remember. His last recorded sermon, within a week of his death, ended with anti-Semitic peroration. The Nazis made extensive (though, it has to be said, selective) use of Luther's writings on Jews and Judaism.

What’s the explanation for this decline into bigotry? We can only speculate. Possibly Luther was your classic angry old man. There is a view that he became more bigoted and intolerant (and not just against the Jew - you should read what he has to say about the Turk) as his health deteriorated sharply. For the last ten years of his life he was in constant pain from kidney stones, arthritis, a ruptured eardrum and angina. There’s also a view that he may have been borderline mentally ill in his final years - probably depressive, and possibly neurotic. His reputatation for scatology, and for explosive fits of rage, also dates from this period of his life.

None of this is to excuse Luther, or gloss over this aspect of his work. He probably did a good deal to ensure that Christian anti-Semitism was carried over with little question or challenge into reformed Christianity. But, appalling as this aspect of Luther’s heritage may be, the fact is that it is not the entirety of his heritage.

We can no more disregard this aspect of Luther and his work than we can disregard every other aspect, and focus only on this.

If this is the man that people choose to herald as their beacon of moral guidance and integrity, then I have great pity for such misguided individuals.

philologos

Siuin wrote: »

There's a difference between 'being perfect' and stating that Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." Their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, their rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labour or expelled for all time. He also advocated their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them"

We've acknowledged this already very clearly Siuin. What I'm claiming is that the Reformation brought a lot of positive reforms to the church which was hugely corrupt at that time and that's worth celebrating.

That issue has been tackled with already. Also I've brought up other Reformers as well.

If you want to discuss Christianity and anti-Semitism please do this in another thread rather than derailing this one.

Benny_Cake

Siuin wrote: »

If this is the man that people choose to herald as their beacon of moral guidance and integrity, then I have great pity for such misguided individuals.

It is Luther's reforms and church practises that people would admire and seek to emulate, the man himself is far from perfect. It is similar to the way that Americans admire Thomas Jefferson as a founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence, despite the fact that he was also a slaveowner. History is messy like that.

JimiTime

Siuin wrote: »

If this is the man that people choose to herald as their beacon of moral guidance and integrity, then I have great pity for such misguided individuals.

Theres this guy I know about. He was a King. He had favour with God, a peaceful kingdom, riches, wisdom, wives etc.
Then there was this other guy, who was a humble man. He had one wife whom he loved, and he served the king loyally.
Now, the King had all one could wish for. However, he coveted the humble mans wife. So this king who had so much, decided to bed this mans wife, and then sent this man to the front lines of war so that he would lose his life, and the king would have his wife for himself. Surely we wouldn't revere such a man would we?

Guess who?

Oh and btw, no-one heralds Luther, not here anyway, as a 'beacon of moral guidance and integrity'.

PDN

Perhaps a bit of perspective is in order, given Siuin's effort to hijack the thread?

The issue here in this thread is not whether Luther was a nice person or not. He wasn't a particularly nice person by the standards of 500 years ago, let alone by the standards we would hold people to today. And, despite Siuin's claims, I don't see anyone here holding Luther up as "their beacon of moral guidance and integrity". So it would be helpful if we could dispense with that kind of stuff, return to the realm of truthfulness, and discuss the subject of the thread.

Nor is the issue whether we agree with Luther's doctrinal position or not. If that were so then this discussion would obviously belong in the Protestant/Catholic Megathread.

The issue is whether the Reformation is something that has produced positive results, and is therefore worth celebrating. That is a very separate issue from Luther's personal character. For example, I can celebrate the Renaissance as something that was positive without thereby endorsing the lifestyles and opinions of the Medici's or of Leonardo da Vinci.

I would argue that the Reformation's key contribution to history, and one we should all be thankful for, was that it opened the door (probably unintentionally) for the kind of plurality where people can make their own minds up about what is true or not. Totalitarian systems, both political and religious, stifle this intellectual freedom. The Reformation, by reducing groupthink, helped pave the way for innovation in many areas.

Siuin

PDN wrote: »

Perhaps a bit of perspective is in order, given Siuin's effort to hijack the thread?

The issue here in this thread is not whether Luther was a nice person or not. He wasn't a particularly nice person by the standards of 500 years ago, let alone by the standards we would hold people to today. And, despite Siuin's claims, I don't see anyone here holding Luther up as "their beacon of moral guidance and integrity". So it would be helpful if we could dispense with that kind of stuff, return to the realm of truthfulness, and discuss the subject of the thread.

Nor is the issue whether we agree with Luther's doctrinal position or not. If that were so then this discussion would obviously belong in the Protestant/Catholic Megathread.

The issue is whether the Reformation is something that has produced positive results, and is therefore worth celebrating. That is a very separate issue from Luther's personal character. For example, I can celebrate the Renaissance as something that was positive without thereby endorsing the lifestyles and opinions of the Medici's or of Leonardo da Vinci.

I would argue that the Reformation's key contribution to history, and one we should all be thankful for, was that it opened the door (probably unintentionally) for the kind of plurality where people can make their own minds up about what is true or not. Totalitarian systems, both political and religious, stifle this intellectual freedom. The Reformation, by reducing groupthink, helped pave the way for innovation in many areas.

Oh be my guest and laud the actions of a man who propagated the murder of an entire religious group and was a virile anti-Semite and disgusting human being. However, don't expect people to respect the nonsense you peddle if you base your faith on the teachings of such a warped human being.

JimiTime

Siuin wrote: »

Oh be my guest and laud the actions of a man who propagated the murder of an entire religious group and was a virile anti-Semite and disgusting human being. However, don't expect people to respect the nonsense you peddle if you base your faith on the teachings of such a warped human being.

I don't actually believe you're a troll, which just leaves one other option, and I've too many infractions to say what that option is.

BTW, what do you think of that selfish, adulterous murderer I described earlier. You'd never revere such a person would you? We'd disregard anything he ever done obviously, because he seems like such a monster wouldn't we?

PDN

Siuin wrote: »

Oh be my guest and laud the actions of a man who propagated the murder of an entire religious group and was a virile anti-Semite and disgusting human being. However, don't expect people to respect the nonsense you peddle if you base your faith on the teachings of such a warped human being.

I base my faith on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on Luther. :rolleyes:

If you don't actually want to engage in the discussion that is taking place here why don't you go and troll somewhere else?

Siuin

PDN wrote: »

I base my faith on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on Luther. :rolleyes:

If you don't actually want to engage in the discussion that is taking place here why don't you go and troll somewhere else?

Well aren't you simply marvelous. Continue to tout for your anti-Semitic loon- there won't be any love lost, that's for sure.

philologos

Siuin wrote: »

Well aren't you simply marvelous. Continue to tout for your anti-Semitic loon- there won't be any love lost, that's for sure.

I've asked you very kindly to let us discuss the Reformation. I'm happy to discuss anti-Semitism in Christian denominations with you on another thread. We've also made clear that Luther was anti-Semitic. The point is whether the Reformation (both inside and outside of Germany) was ultimately good. I think this also requires discussing doctrine.

PDN

Siuin wrote: »

Well aren't you simply marvelous. Continue to tout for your anti-Semitic loon- there won't be any love lost, that's for sure.

Why are you persisting in lying? I've touted for nobody, I don't hold Luther up as a beacon of moral guidance or integrity, I don't base my faith on his teachings, and I was the one who initially pointed out in this thread how unpleasant his anti-semitism was.

You're not helping your case by your basic lack of truthfulness and your evident desire to pick a fight.

Siuin

philologos wrote: »

I've asked you very kindly to let us discuss the Reformation.

Work away- just don't expect everyone to sit back and ignore the fact that the reformation was the brainchild of a completely warped individual.