Martin Luther and Arius


#1

Here is another question that should get some discussion going

Is there any good reason that Martin Luther should be considered any diffrent than Arius, Marcion, Nestorius, and Valentinius? Why or why not?


#2

Didn’t some of those four mentioned repent and return to Mother Church? If so, I’d place them above Martin Luther.

Notworthy


#3

Well, they are all fathers of heresy, and while Luther’s impact was more destructive (Arius’ lasted 800 years but eventually died), i don’t think he should be regarded as any worse because i don’t honestly believe he thought stuff would turn out that way. I’m almost positive he’d have kept his mouth shut if he’d known. :thumbsup:


#4

Well theres a Protestant Girl that I like (which has me a bit confused inside) and I dislike him for starting the source of my woes so I dislike him more than the other heritics (not to denote their wrongness or anything).
But, on an objective veiwing I couldn’t see why he should be held any higher or lower than any of the others (though I am not a historian/theologian that knows enough to make an educated determinate on this, just me)


#5

But isn’t that the point, Martin Luther was a heretic and he taught heresy, so how can we convey this truth to protestants?


#6

[quote=But for Grace]But isn’t that the point, Martin Luther was a heretic and he taught heresy, so how can we convey this truth to protestants?
[/quote]

teach “Bible Christians” the bible?


#7

I’m confused by this question and the responses I’m seeing. On what grounds should Martin Luther be placed in the same vein as Arius, Marcion, and other avowed heresiarchs? What essential of the faith did Luther deny? He does not deny the Holy Trinity, nor the full divinity of Christ, nor the two natures of Christ, etc. He affirms the decisions of the early Councils, such as Nicea and Chalcedon…he upholds the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, the atoning death of Christ on the cross, and the bodily resurrection. What essential of the gospel has he denied?

To be sure, there are numerous issues that a Catholic will never be able to agree with Luther on, but having said that, has not Pope Benedict even spoken favorably of Luther on several points and regarded him as a theologian of true merit, even if he disagrees with him on some points? Pope Benedict’s statements when speaking with Lutherans in Germany seem to indicate that he does not consider Luther to have been a heretic.


#8

[quote="jmneumann, post:7, topic:37249"]
I'm confused by this question and the responses I'm seeing. On what grounds should Martin Luther be placed in the same vein as Arius, Marcion, and other avowed heresiarchs? What essential of the faith did Luther deny? He does not deny the Holy Trinity, nor the full divinity of Christ, nor the two natures of Christ, etc. He affirms the decisions of the early Councils, such as Nicea and Chalcedon...he upholds the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, the atoning death of Christ on the cross, and the bodily resurrection. What essential of the gospel has he denied?

To be sure, there are numerous issues that a Catholic will never be able to agree with Luther on, but having said that, has not Pope Benedict even spoken favorably of Luther on several points and regarded him as a theologian of true merit, even if he disagrees with him on some points? Pope Benedict's statements when speaking with Lutherans in Germany seem to indicate that he does not consider Luther to have been a heretic.

[/quote]

For example:

He rejected all the Sacraments except Baptism and the Eucharist.
He rejected that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
He rejected that Christ is present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine.
He believed in sola scriptura
He believed in being saved by faith alone
He rejected Confession to a priest

etc etc etc


#9

Hmm, ok, I was curious what the complaints were.

A couple of corrections though...Luther did not deny confession to a priest; he argued for it.

By faith alone, he actually includes works if you read him in full...it's just complicated.

He still argued for the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, only in a very different manner than the Catholic Church would.

Also, sola Scriptura is often misunderstood. While Luther certainly maintained that the Word of God in Scripture was the final authority for all theology, and possessed an authority over even the Church, he did not deny tradition altogether; for example, he had high regard for the Creeds, Councils, and many of the historic voices of the Church, especially Augustine. He felt the Church had lost the emphasis of Augustine's voice in particular at some points.

But to return to my question, what essential(s) of the **gospel] did Luther deny? These are all aspects of dogma, yes, but what core fact of the gospel of Christ did he deny in order to be considered a heretic in the same vein as Arius? For Arius denied more than the tradition of the Church: he denied the deity of Christ himself.

Moreover, what of Pope Benedict's far more lenient stance on Luther? Why does the Pope not consider Luther a heretic?****


#10

Arius denied Jesus’ divinity outright while Marcion and Valentinus were into Gnosticism/dualism. Those three were certainly deeper into heresy than Luther.


#11

Agreed. As a Protestant, I have very few problems with Martin Luther (while I, of course, have tremendous issues with the other three, whom I would in no way consider to be Christian whatsoever). I don't expect Catholics to look favorably upon Luther (though Pope Benedict's stance has been impressive to me), nor am I overly concerned for Catholics to become Protestants; rather, my hope is that (in the spirit of Vatican II for instance) Catholics will be able to affirm that Protestants are thoroughly Christian, and that Protestants (as some of the ecumenical movements have done) will increasingly move toward viewing Catholics as every bit as Christian as they are.

My hope is furthermore that, despite some significant theological differences, Catholics and Protestants, and even the Orthodox will be able to come around one table together--that table being the core faith in the Holy Trinity and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the fundamentals of the gospel. In spite of our differences, my hope is that in some sense of cooperation the unity of the church might be restored. In his own day, St. Paul wanted to see this happen between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who were then divided; now I want to see it happen between the three primary divisions of the Christian Church today.


#12

Quite the contrary – the following is from Luther’s Large Catechism:

In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God’s commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat.

Hope this makes his position clear.


#13

[quote="gcnuss, post:12, topic:37249"]
Quite the contrary -- the following is from Luther's Large Catechism:

Hope this makes his position clear.

[/quote]

Thanks for your response. Did Luther believe baptism was not only necessary but sufficient for salvation or if not sufficient how would the baptised be saved?


#14

Sometimes Confession was considered a kind of "third sacrament"
He didn’t.
He didn’t (although his understanding was still flawed).
Yep
Yep
Sorta.


He didn’t deny the Trinity or divinity/manhood/natures of Christ, so I’d say above them.


#15

[quote="Swiss_Guy, post:14, topic:37249"]
Sometimes Confession was considered a kind of "third sacrament"
He didn't.
He didn't (although his understanding was still flawed).
Yep
Yep
Sorta.


He didn't deny the Trinity or divinity/manhood/natures of Christ, so I'd say above them.

[/quote]

Luther did reject transubstantiation. He believed in consubstantiation.


#16

[quote="jmneumann, post:9, topic:37249"]
But to return to my question, what essential(s) of the **gospel] did Luther deny? These are all aspects of dogma, yes, but what core fact of the gospel of Christ did he deny in order to be considered a heretic in the same vein as Arius? For Arius denied more than the tradition of the Church: he denied the deity of Christ himself.

Moreover, what of Pope Benedict's far more lenient stance on Luther? Why does the Pope not consider Luther a heretic?****

I have heard this question before and I don’t understand…

What are “the essentials” and who decides which ones are essential and which ones are not? Are the essentials really good enough?:shrug:

Arians & Jehovah Witnesses “believe” in Jesus but not as God therefore you would consider then non-Christian no?

All Protestant groups believe baptism is essential but yet all cannot agree on age of this sacrament.

At the marriage feast in Cana, Jesus’ followers “began” to believe in him. When Peter declared Jesus “the messiah” this showed another level of belief. When Peter tells Jesus "to whom shall we go” referring to the eating of his flesh when others were leaving, shows even another level of belief. At what time was his message complete and that they understood him fully?

Peace!!!

[/quote]


#17

[quote="thistle, post:15, topic:37249"]
Luther did reject transubstantiation. He believed in consubstantiation.

[/quote]

Luther (and Lutheranism) have never taught that Christ's Body and Blood are present through consubstantiation. Our teaching is that the means by which his Body and Blood are present is a mystery.

From Luther's Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

Hope this helps in explaining the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament.


#18

He taught Christians to be Bible Self Interpret Christians instead of The Church, The Pillar and Foundation of Truth Christians, thus making all these self made christian denominations with their own version of doctrines and bible translations.

[quote="Montie_Claunch, post:6, topic:37249"]
teach "Bible Christians" the bible?

[/quote]


#19

[quote="jmneumann, post:7, topic:37249"]
I'm confused by this question and the responses I'm seeing. On what grounds should Martin Luther be placed in the same vein as Arius, Marcion, and other avowed heresiarchs? What essential of the faith did Luther deny? He does not deny the Holy Trinity, nor the full divinity of Christ, nor the two natures of Christ, etc. He affirms the decisions of the early Councils, such as Nicea and Chalcedon...he upholds the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Virgin birth, the atoning death of Christ on the cross, and the bodily resurrection. What essential of the gospel has he denied?

To be sure, there are numerous issues that a Catholic will never be able to agree with Luther on, but having said that, has not Pope Benedict even spoken favorably of Luther on several points and regarded him as a theologian of true merit, even if he disagrees with him on some points? Pope Benedict's statements when speaking with Lutherans in Germany seem to indicate that he does not consider Luther to have been a heretic.

[/quote]

He denied apostolic succession too.........but I think his biggest contribution is Sola Scriptura...and the confusion it has brought to Protestants.

And I would say.....disobedience.....1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”


#20

[quote="jmneumann, post:9, topic:37249"]
Hmm, ok, I was curious what the complaints were.

A couple of corrections though...Luther did not deny confession to a priest; he argued for it.

From what I learned from Lutherans...he was wishy-washy...and thus more confusion. There are Lutherans who practice it and there are those who are against it.

By faith alone, he actually includes works if you read him in full...it's just complicated.

Yes...he made it much more complicated, and a bone of contention.

He still argued for the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, only in a very different manner than the Catholic Church would.

Yes...but why would his view take precedence over that of a 1500 year old understanding?

Also, sola Scriptura is often misunderstood.

Yes...if he had a Magisterium...then it would not have been misunderstood.

While Luther certainly maintained that the Word of God in Scripture was the final authority for all theology, and possessed an authority over even the Church, he did not deny tradition altogether; for example, he had high regard for the Creeds, Councils, and many of the historic voices of the Church, especially Augustine.

How could Scripture be over the Church?

Moreover, what of Pope Benedict's far more lenient stance on Luther? Why does the Pope not consider Luther a heretic?

I think you may have a misunderstanding here. If you have a link...can you provide the actual words of Pope Benedict?

[/quote]


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.