Did the church ever need Luther’s reformation. I understand the church must keep reforming but was Martin Luther’s reformation needed. if so or not. why?
No; it was a deformation, not a reformation.
go Into more context please.
type in " luther "
more than I can summarize in only a few words
I wonder if these verses from Acts, in which Gamaliel is quoted, could also be applied to Luther?
“Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.”
Short answer is no. Heresy is a rejection of God by one degree or another. That is not His will.
No. Heresy is uncharitable. Errors in the pastoral practice of the Church are not corrected by dogmatic errors.
The Church needed the very early version of Martin Luther before he went off the reservation. There was a lot of need for reform at the time. Luther did well in pointing it out but he did not stick around to see the Church get better.
That might be the best description of Martin Luther I’ve ever read!
was there anything thing the the early church would have agreed on with Martin Luther.
I’m sure there were factions within the early Church that would have agreed with Luther. I’m sure they agreed with him that the Church should not sell indulgences. I agree with that.
Thank you, I just comprehending why there isn’t a Lutheran rite. why his reformation was disagreed with.
I know a good priest who once said that “90% of what Luther said was either right or there was a legitimate thought behind it.” It was the other 10% that got Luther excommunicated and banished as a heretic.
If you read Luther’s 95 theses, most of them have to do with the selling of indulgences and other such acts contrary to the teaching of the early (and not so early) church fathers. The church did amend the practices of certain priests and teachers that were off the reservation so to speak.
Seems to me that Luther wasn’t necessary but Trent was. Would Trent have happened without Luther?
From what I read Trent would have happened. But Trent did not happen soon enough for Luther. Nor did it happen soon enough period.
Luther brought up good points, but to use E Michael Jones words, the Reformation was primarily a looting operation. So many princes/rulers used it an excuse for their own personal reasons and sense of jurisdiction away from Rome. Some of the theology was secondary… and it didn’t seem to matter much to other Reformers either! They all eventually disagreed with Luther too. They were Reformers of the original Reformer…and then came the real crazies, the Anabaptists… The Reformers of the Reformers of the Reformer. All preaching Sola Scriptura, funnily.
There is a doco on mlk on Netflix. Might pay to watch it.
And do a search for the Martin Luther anniversary on CAF and read the documents Don Ruggero posted.
I’ve never gotten up on any morning of my life and said: “You know? I need Martin Luther.”
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.