Rethinking Martin Luther

When I first read the New Testament, I had no knowledge of the Protestant vs Catholic debate. I had no real knowledge of Christianity in general.

This meant that I was able to read the NT with no biases.

Well, after learning more about Catholics and Protestants, I realized that I had come to the same conclusions as Martin Luther.

Weird, huh?

Not at all :smiley:

How much would you be interested in paying me for a rock-solid, legally sound title to he Brooklyn Bridge?

No one reads anything without biases.

Well, after learning more about Catholics and Protestants, I realized that I had come to the same conclusions as Martin Luther.

Weird, huh?

Not in the least. You live in a culture shaped (for better and worse, and in ways he would never have guessed) by Luther. It would be very weird if you read the NT and did not have some disposition to read it in ways similar to his in certain respects.


I’m not Lutheran and my personal theology differs from Luther on some points but I have to say that Luther the man was quite a remarkable thinker. Not everything Luther taught and believed was original as the church authorities during one of his trials called him “The Saxon Hus” because he was in agreement with what Hus taught 100 yers earlier. Luther though was a product of Roman Catholic schooling. He was given the assignment to teach the Bible in a University setting and he took to the project with zeal. His preperation and teaching of the Bible opened his eyes to the abuses of the clergy with regard to the sale of indulgences. The rest is as they say, history.

Read some of Luhers books and or sermons. They are fresh, timeless and Bible based.

I agree. We cannot read anything without bias. The wise person is aware of their biases, but they are still present.

Wow. More proof that the Bible Alone is not formally sufficient.

Good thing Jesus left us an infallible Church instead of an inerrant book; that way, we got both.

Not really.

Huh :confused: I bought that bridge off a guy in a pub in on the west coast of Ireland. :mad:

Thank You !! I have read some of Luthers Sermons. If others would read them with an open mind their eyes may be opened as well. People are creatures of habit they believe what ever they are told because Father O’Rielly said So. There was Coruption in the Church at Luther’s Time and the Coruption remains today.

How is an organization made up of fallible men made infallible? Are you saying that the Church is above the Word when you say “instead of an inerrant book”. Please clarify.


You are correct that there is corruption in “The Church” today. We need to be clear, though, that the corruption of the Reformation era is of the Reformation era. While there is corruption in the Church, it is not just the Catholic Church, but ours as well, and all others.


Through the promises of Christ: He will never leave his bride and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Further, the apostles are given the power to bind and lose .

Are you saying that the Church is above the Word when you say “instead of an inerrant book”.

The church (catholic church) is the only unerrant power on earth to correctly interpret the word of God.

Thank you. Sorry I’m a little slow…lol

You and me both.
How does will not prevail come to mean will never err?


Its just like “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” you’re gonna take your lumps from weapons but they will not overtake you in the long run. Ask all the soldiers that have died defending Holy Israel. Weapons worked but they would never overtake (prosper)

To be error free is on the same plane as God and on that plane I will state way clear of lol. I’m a wreck in his sight…lol

John 16

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak.

Now, that seems to me like Jesus is saying to those he appointed to form his church that the Holy Spirit would over a period of time reveal things to them and their successors - Jesus says he has many things yet to say and that the spirit over a period of time would reveal them. Ive garnered enough information to know that there were some seriously wacked out popes, but in the matter of faith and morals, I dont think the church itself has ever erred because of Jesus’ promise. This ties in with the development of doctrine within the church, as oppose to the introduction of new dogma’s etc - something Ive struggled a lot with.

I’m a real Lutherphile. I love reading his works and find him enigmatic. I find him courageous, sincere, exceptionally brilliant, and an insightful writer.

But I disagree with him to a large degree on several issues…

Why would the Lord leave a Church to flounder for 1,500 years until a Reformation?
Why would Christ allow His Church to be sacerdotal and based on holy orders for 1,500 years only to convert “back” to a priesthood of all believers?
Why would apostolic succession be so crucial, so central to authority and holy orders for 1,500 years only to no longer be a must?
Why would the works equation that is obviously a major part of Orthodoxy and Catholicism be thrown out in favor of faith-alone, grace-alone after over a millenium
Why would the notion of the Church being the authority suddenly shift completely to the Scriptures alone when this was never true for 1,500 years? The Church didn’t even have the NT cannon for hundreds of years in their current form? Authority was from the Church, not scripture?
Why would one man think himself wiser than all the saints, bishops, cardinals, popes, great doctors of the faith, etc.?

The Catholic is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Even though the Pope and bishops themselves are fallible individuals, when they come together, say in a council, any teaching or doctrine that comes from them is infallible because they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

the infallibility of the Church does not depend on the holiness of the individuals in the Church.

Christ had to give His Church on earth infallibility; otherwise, He would have left her in open contradiction. (Just take a look at the Protestant world to see what I mean!)

Where does He do that?

but the people who read the New Testament in the century it was written, came to different conclusions than Martin Luther :slight_smile:

maybe we need the Church to interpret Scripture after all?

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