Misreading Paul through Luther

[Episkopos]

I got the idea of this thread through a post in another thread that suggested that Paul was a false teacher.

I don't see that. I don't believe that.

What I see is that nonspiritual people can misread Paul as catering to the flesh. And the champion of all champions of carnal religious men with a beef...is Luther.

So then people are indoctrinated into Luther's version of Paul.

Paul can indeed be difficult to understand...and there is a reason for that. Paul was defending Gentiles against Jews who sought to make new Christian converts into Jews.

Paul wanted to show that the law itself had no power in it...and that grace was a power from God to actually fulfill the law.

So I would like to hear the arguments for Paul being false (whereas I will show that in fact it is Luther that is false)

 

[Episkopos]

2 Pet. 3:16 as also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

What Luther suggested...very seductively...is that the gospel...the good news...was good for the flesh. Whereas the gospel is meant to only be "good news" for they who love God and the truth.

In times past there was no way for men to combat their own evil natures. Until Christ. And even afterward people continued to try handling the sin nature on their own...living like hermits in caves and on top of poles. ("polish" Christians?)

But enter grace...the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now Luther would have us to believe that grace was a free pass for the flesh...a believing flesh...to no longer be under the curse of the law; that the wages of sin was no longer to be death for they who adopted his belief about beliefs. And the poor peasantry...who had no learning or any understanding of spiritual things...swallowed the lies enthusiastically. It gave these access to a sinful grace...a sinful holiness and a sinful salvation. Was this not good news for the sinner? Had God really given up on making people holy? It seemed almost too good to be true...well, almost. Add in the printing press and the beginnings of mass media...and the very volume of the lie made it seem to be true. So the lie was accepted as a "reformation" of bible truth into something that served the people so that they could feel "saved" while remaining every bit the sinner they always were. And the unstable and unlearned continue to do so to this very day.

So it remains to ascertain if Luther was deceiving people on purpose or was he just the agent through whom the devil worked his deception?

 

[Episkopos]

Luther was the "high priest" of Nazism (National Socialism)...in that Hitler carried out all Luther's directives against the Jewish people.


"On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word anti-Judaic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther (1483-1546).

Luther's attitude toward the Jews took different forms during his lifetime. In his earlier period, until 1537 or not much earlier, he wanted to convert Jews to Lutheranism (Protestant Christianity), but failed. In his later period when he wrote this particular treatise, he denounced them and urged their persecution.[1]

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]

The book may have had an impact on creating antisemitic Germanic thought through the Middle Ages.[6] During World War II, copies of the book were held up by Nazis at rallies, and the prevailing scholarly consensus is that it had a significant impact on the Holocaust.[7] Since then, the book has been denounced by many Lutheran churches.[8]

Now a rational person would not see Luther as being a man of God...but rather an agent of the devil. And yet the carnal mind and fallen sinners still yearn to listen to him explain the gospel to them.

It is a case of undermining the truth through a misreading of Paul by a religious maniac.

 

[Episkopos]

It has been said that we are not to try reading Jesus through Paul, but rather Paul through Jesus. And I think that is wise.

But how many realize just how influenced people are by Luther?

Luther sought to break down the truth and be rid of the unknown variables that constitute the truth....so as to reduce a living faith to a human belief.

Even all the "alones" (like faith alone) ...are very misleading. They destroy the proper balance offered to us by the whole counsel of God.

And that is a very foolish thing to do. Who are we trying to fool? Ourselves? Mission accomplished.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

It has been said that we are not to try reading Jesus through Paul, but rather Paul through Jesus. And I think that is wise.

But how many realize just how influenced people are by Luther?

Luther sought to break down the truth and be rid of the unknown variables that constitute the truth....so as to reduce a living faith to a human belief.

Even all the "alones" (like faith alone) ...are very misleading. They destroy the proper balance offered to us by the whole counsel of God.

And that is a very foolish thing to do. Who are we trying to fool? Ourselves? Mission accomplished.

2 Pet. 3:16 "as also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

1) Peter equates what Paul wrote to 'scriptures'. What Paul wrote therefore is just as inspired as what the prophets of the OT wrote down. Luther was not a prophet of God, neither he nor his writings were of Divine inspiration or origin.

2) all inspired writing from God is "truth", including Paul's writings (John 17:17). All Bible verses fit together perfectly, there is no contradictions. Therefore when one (Luther) tries to force a personal theological bias (faith only) into one verse, then that creates alterations, distortions to other verses. False teachings rarely affect one verse, but many. For example, how can John 3:16 teach belief only saves (not perish) when Luke 13:3 makes repentance just as essential, necessary as believing to being saved (not perishing)? Can belief only saved the impenitent person? No. How can "worketh not" (Romans 4:5) eliminate Abraham from doing ANY works when in fact he did do works (Hebrews 11:8,17) and was justified by those works?

 

[Renniks]

Luther sought to break down the truth and be rid of the unknown variables that constitute the truth....so as to reduce a living faith to a human belief.

Luther was right to rebel against a church that taught salvation by works and money. Did he go too far the other way, or is it only that some misunderstand him? And why do you have a grudge against him? He did something to expose corruption, when most didn't have the courage. He weren't perfect, but no one is.

 

[marks]

Luther was right to rebel against a church that taught salvation by works and money. Did he go too far the other way, or is it only that some misunderstand him? And why do you have a grudge against him? He did something to expose corruption, when most didn't have the courage. He weren't perfect, but no one is.

Those who desire to have their own righteousness of works oppose those who preach the righteousness of faith in Christ. It's just like Hagar and Sarah.

It's sad, but there it is.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Did he go too far the other way,

That's what he did.

 

[DNB]

I think that Paul was absolutely brilliant. His wisdom, his relentless efforts despite the danger and persecution that constantly followed him, and his care for the Churches (even while abandoned and in prison, he would not stop concerning himself with their needs and salvation). Paul was exceptional, and shared the same pedigree as of the other 12 Apostles, he was called and tutored by Christ himself. And, he worked harder than them all. He was even given a thorn in his side for the amount and extent of revelation that he received (man caught up to the 3rd heaven). Plus, next to Luke, he wrote the most of our New Testament.

Galatians 1:11-17
1:11. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ...15. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16. to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

1 Corinthians 15:10
15:10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

2 Corinthians 12:7-7
12:7. Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!

Luther, on the other hand, was also courageous as he, single-handedly, stood up against the ruthless and imperialistic-type Roman Catholic Church. I believe that he felt that he would be condemned at the Diet of Worms, if he did not recant his thesis against them. For this, the five solas, and his denunciations of the papacy and all its tradition, heresies and abuses, I do commend him.
But, after that, I think that both his character, and views on other issues, might make one question his actual salvation.

 

[Episkopos]

I think that Paul was absolutely brilliant. His wisdom, his relentless efforts despite the danger and persecution that constantly followed him, and his care for the Churches (even while abandoned and in prison, he would not stop concerning himself with their needs and salvation). Paul was exceptional, and shared the same pedigree as of the other 12 Apostles, he was called and tutored by Christ himself. And, he worked harder than them all. He was even given a thorn in his side for the amount and extent of revelation that he received (man caught up to the 3rd heaven). Plus, next to Luke, he wrote the most of our New Testament.

Galatians 1:11-17
1:11. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ...15. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16. to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

1 Corinthians 15:10
15:10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

2 Corinthians 12:7-7
12:7. Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!

Luther, on the other hand, was also courageous as he, single-handedly, stood up against the ruthless and imperialistic-type Roman Catholic Church. I believe that he felt that he would be condemned at the Diet of Worms, if he did not recant his thesis against them. For this, the five solas, and his denunciations of the papacy and all its tradition, heresies and abuses, I do commend him.
But, after that, I think that both his character, and views on other issues, would make one question his actual salvation.

I think that Paul was actually TOO brilliant for most people to understand. He is speaking so specifically...like John also does...that you already have to understand spiritual things to be able to tell what he's saying. He makes seemingly stand-alone points when he's really making distinctions by comparison.

Luther on the other hand was very canny. He knew he had support and protection from the German princes...and he used that to his advantage. I do think he was genuinely concerned for his own salvation...but that's the flesh at work anyway. So his torment was ended when he assured himself that he was already doing all he could....by just looking at things differently.

So he threw out not just the errors of the church....but also it's very high standard.

Now, everybody is a saint. Whereas before only they who lived in the anointing power of Christ were deemed so. And even then...the church had to recognize them.

So we have the very human tendency of taking things either too far...or not far enough.

Luther was just human...and not even called of God to do what he did. The printing press magnified his efforts to seem like they were more authoritive than they were. So then a frustrated monk got his way...he could feel affirmed and vindicated in his lack of spiritual life with God. And all who are looking for a religious affirmation based on their beliefs....can turn to him (but not to God).

Luther offers another gospel....an easy gospel, where no seeking of God need take place. You just have to accept certain doctrines and you're "saved".

Can you say...the great delusion?

 

[Renniks]

Luther was just human...and not even called of God to do what he did. The printing press magnified his efforts to seem like they were more authoritive than they were. So then a frustrated monk got his way...he could feel affirmed and vindicated in his lack of spiritual life with God. And all who are looking for a religious affirmation based on their beliefs....can turn to him (but not to God).

Lol, you claim to know who is called by God? You speak for God, do you?

 

[Episkopos]

Lol, you claim to know who is called by God? You speak for God, do you?

You trust in Luther? He speaks for God? Is Luther in your bible?

Any discernment at all will easily see the lack of spiritual life in Luther. He was an opinionated man that could see the corruption around him...and called it out. (very practical) But he was also a terrible monk....opening up the scriptures to a private interpretation...that caught on because it is easy and religious and affirms a man who walks in the flesh.

 

[Renniks]

You trust in Luther? He speaks for God? Is Luther in your bible?

Any discernment at all will easily see the lack of spiritual life in Luther. He was an opinionated man that could see the corruption around him...and called it out. (very practical) But he was also a terrible monk....opening up the scriptures to a private interpretation...that caught on because it is easy and religious and affirms a man who walks in the flesh.

Opening up the scripture to the individual is exactly what was needed, when the corrupt church distorted the Word to keep people in bondage, the opposite of what Jesus said he came to do.

 

[Episkopos]

Opening up the scripture to the individual is exactly what was needed, when the corrupt church distorted the Word to keep people in bondage, the opposite of what Jesus said he came to do.

But in letting the fox out of the barn the weasels snuck in.

 

[DNB]

I think that Paul was actually TOO brilliant for most people to understand. He is speaking so specifically...like John also does...that you already have to understand spiritual things to be able to tell what he's saying. He makes seemingly stand-alone points when he's really making distinctions by comparison.

Yes, indubitably!

Luther on the other hand was very canny. He knew he had support and protection from the German princes...and he used that to his advantage. I do think he was genuinely concerned for his own salvation...but that's the flesh at work anyway. So his torment was ended when he assured himself that he was already doing all he could....by just looking at things differently.

But, in the beginning of his conversion, Luther was as ascetic, dogmatic and fastidious as any other monk out there. I believe, by this, that he therefore had a passion to please God at any cost, and was not looking for the path of least resistance, nor a compromised soteriology?
I believe that any medieval theologian, and prior, had extremely radical views, despite how devout, profound or orthodox that they can be on other issues. So, I expect that level of inconsistency from any exegete or scholar, modern day or historical.

Luther was just human...and not even called of God to do what he did. The printing press magnified his efforts to seem like they were more authoritative than they were. So then a frustrated monk got his way...he could feel affirmed and vindicated in his lack of spiritual life with God. And all who are looking for a religious affirmation based on their beliefs....can turn to him (but not to God).

Yes, of course, none of them, as far as I'm concerned had a direct ordination from God, not one. There's enough errors in both their beliefs and behaviours, to quite easily substantiate that.
Interesting point about the printing press, I do believe that many of the patristic period theologians did subscribe to the paramount significance of Grace and Faith. But, maybe you're right, Luther received the limelight, indirectly due to the technological advancements of his era?

 

[Episkopos]

Opening up the scripture to the individual is exactly what was needed, when the corrupt church distorted the Word to keep people in bondage, the opposite of what Jesus said he came to do.

No doubt. But this also opened the door to private interpretations...and very popular false interpretations based on what people WANT to hear. Just look at the state of the modern church and how powerless it is to move any kind of principality....so much so that most evangelicals have joined the world in their political parties. Most have given up on spiritual means....seeing this as ineffective. Wow...the church and the world have become one entity.

 

[Episkopos]

2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Now I'm no fan of the RCC...but the above isn't possible without the "reformation" opening up the possibility. So above is the true biblical legacy of the reformation...for they with understanding.

 

[Renniks]

But in letting the fox out of the barn the weasels snuck in.

2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Now I'm no fan of the RCC...but the above isn't possible without the "reformation" opening up the possibility. So above is the true biblical legacy of the reformation...for they with understanding.

Doesn't your statement here indicate that y you believe the doctrine of the RCC to be the only sound doctrine? I suspect there's just as much false teaching in the RCC as in Protestant churches.
.

 

[Episkopos]

Doesn't your statement here indicate that y you believe the doctrine of the RCC to be the only sound doctrine? I suspect there's just as much false teaching in the RCC as in Protestant churches.
.

Of course. All human institutions are a deviation from the will of God...into something sustainable by the religious capacities of mortal men.

We have an unending history of trying to seize the initiative away from God and put it in the hands of men with grandiose ideas of what they are capable of of themselves.

 

[Renniks]

Of course. All human institutions are a deviation from the will of God...into something sustainable by the religious capacities of mortal men.

We have an unending history of trying to seize the initiative away from God and put it in the hands of men with grandiose ideas of what they are capable of of themselves.

All institutions, you mean like the church? So there's no true church? I've found lots of true believers among various denominations.