• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Martin Luther/Adolf Hitler

Cathode

Well-Known Member
What happens if you reject the oral teachings of the Apostles and just take their writings alone?

Well, you have to replace the oral teachings of the Apostles with your fallible opinion.

The Oral teachings of the Apostles explain the written teaching of the Apostles, that’s why Paul says to hold fast to both.

Protestants rejected the oral teachings of the Apostles and replaced it with their fallible human interpretations of scripture.
That is why they are conflicting in interpretation and doctrine not just with the Catholic Apostolic Church, but with each other.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Luther’s immense hatred for the Jews, is all you need to know that he was evil and not of God.
Well, I wonder where he learned that from.
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 ordered that All Jews living in Christian lands who refused to convert should wear distinctive Jewish clothing and live in ghettos. The anti-Semitic attitude of the Church had already led to the expulsion of all Jews from England in 1209. This was not reversed until the time of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell. Jews were expelled from France in 1306.
Many Jews fled to Moslem Spain where they were better treated than by the Church of Rome. As the Roman Catholics steadily took back parts of Spain, there were massacres of Jews in 1391 and they were expelled from there in 1496 when the R.C. monarchy was fully established. Other Jews took refuge in Germany, but there was continual oppression there also. In Strasburg in 1349, a 'Christian' (i.e. Roman Catholic) mob marched every Jew it could find, around 2,000, to the city's cemetery and burned to death every Jew who refused to convert.
At the time of the Black Death, the rumour was spread that Jews were responsible for the plague, and in many European cities there were lynchings and massacres.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
“Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. With one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed, and we’re only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on.” Adolf Hitler
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Germany was 40% Roman Catholic and Pope Pius XI signed a concordat with Hitler when he came to power in 1933, giving him international recognition, and pulling the rug from under any parish priest who might have spoken against Fascism.
 

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Before the scriptures, what were the Apostles doing.

Preaching.

Preaching what.

Preaching the word of God.

So the Word of God isn’t just written, it’s spoken.

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 1 Thess 2:15

So we are meant to hold to both oral and written teachings of the Apostles, not just their writings alone.
Your response avoids addressing my question.
 

Rye

Active Member
In light of these facts of history, why is Luther held in such high-esteem among conservative Christian spokesmen?

I wouldn’t say that he is held in such high-esteem in the sense that he’s looked up to as some kind of role model. Even he would condemn how far left his own denomination, the Lutherans, have become.

What we can appreciate is the way he stood up to the Roman Catholic Church, a church state government that called for his execution, yet he never recanted.

Yes, his antisemitic rhetoric is an ugly stain on his legacy, at the same time his shortcomings are something that we can all learn from.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Well, I wonder where he learned that from.
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 ordered that All Jews living in Christian lands who refused to convert should wear distinctive Jewish clothing and live in ghettos. The anti-Semitic attitude of the Church had already led to the expulsion of all Jews from England in 1209. This was not reversed until the time of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell. Jews were expelled from France in 1306.
Many Jews fled to Moslem Spain where they were better treated than by the Church of Rome. As the Roman Catholics steadily took back parts of Spain, there were massacres of Jews in 1391 and they were expelled from there in 1496 when the R.C. monarchy was fully established. Other Jews took refuge in Germany, but there was continual oppression there also. In Strasburg in 1349, a 'Christian' (i.e. Roman Catholic) mob marched every Jew it could find, around 2,000, to the city's cemetery and burned to death every Jew who refused to convert.
At the time of the Black Death, the rumour was spread that Jews were responsible for the plague, and in many European cities there were lynchings and massacres.

Jews and Saracens were told to wear distinctive clothes, because of the Crusades. This was like internment of the Japanese and German US citizens during ww2. They were separated so the general population would not interact with them, or be influenced by them during the time of war.

The Inquisition was not interested other faiths, only those people that were purportedly Catholic. If people were pretending to be Catholic to ingratiate themselves, this did attract the attention of the Inquisition.

In Strasburg in 1349, a 'Christian' (i.e. Roman Catholic) mob marched every Jew it could find, around 2,000, to the city's cemetery and burned to death every Jew who refused to convert.

The Strasburg massacre was political. Your dishonesty calling it a Roman Catholic mob, Catholicism was the main religion of the day but all this was political violence, not church sanctioned persecution. Be honest.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Germany was 40% Roman Catholic and Pope Pius XI signed a concordat with Hitler when he came to power in 1933, giving him international recognition, and pulling the rug from under any parish priest who might have spoken against Fascism.

The Concordat was to prevent German government involvement in church matters, or government using church clerics to support political matters.

The Jews did not want the Pope to openly condemn the fascists, the Dutch bishops did that and were all put in concentration camps along with countless Catholics who were rescuing the Jews.
Pius xii realised he was dealing with a monster with all the continental power in his hands. Speaking out only killed more people.
So he did the next best thing, which was to rescue as many Jews as possible using neutrality as a cover. He ordered every monastery and convent or church property to be used to aid Jews, Gypsies and allied airmen to escape the Nazis.

Look what Rabbi Lapide said.

“.the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000, Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.... These figures, small as they are in comparison with our six million martyrs whose fate is beyond consolation, exceed by far those saved by all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined”

Britain had already rejected 1500 Jews and America wouldn’t take any either. This was a dark time when all the continent was under absolute Nazi rule.

Very interesting, Rabbi Lapide goes on:

“Were I a Catholic, perhaps I should have expected the Pope, as the avowed representative of Christ on earth, to speak out for justice and against murder - irrespective of the consequences. But as a Jew, I view the Church and the Papacy as human institutions, as frail and fallible as all the rest of us. Frail and fallible, Pius had choices thrust upon him time and time again, which would have made a lesser man falter. The 261st Pope was, after all, merely the First Catholic, heir to many prejudices of his predecessors and shortcomings of his 500 million fellow believers. The primary guilt for the slaughter of a third of my people is that of the Nazis who perpetrated the holocaust. But the secondary guilt lies in the universal failure of Christendom to try and avert or, at least, mitigate the disaster; to live up to its own ethical and moral principles, when conscience cried out Save! whilst expediency counselled aloofness. Accomplices are all those countless millions who knew my brothers were dying, but yet chose not to see, refused to help and kept their peace. Only against the background of such monumental egotism, within the context of millennial Christian anti Judaism , can one begin to appraise the Pope's wartime record. When armed force ruled well-nigh omnipotent, and morality was at its lowest ebb, Pius XII commanded none of the former and could only appeal to the latter, in confronting, with bare hands, the full might of evil. A sounding protest, which might turn out to be self-thwarting - or quiet, piecemeal rescue? Loud words - or prudent deeds? The dilemma must have been sheer agony, for which ever course he chose, horrible consequences were inevitable. Unable to cure the sickness of an entire civilization, and unwilling to bear the brunt of Hitler's fury, the Pope, unlike many far mightier than he, alleviated, relieved, retrieved, appealed, petitioned - and saved as best he could by his own lights. Who, but a prophet or a martyr could have done much more?”

The Pope chose “prudent deeds” over “loud words” which would have cost many more lives.

Watch the film The Scarlet and the Black starring Gregory Peck, it gives a reasonable account of the times.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
[Pro 30:5-6 KJV] 5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Do you really believe: "Scripture alone is false, proven by scripture."??!!

“Scripture alone” is false, proven by scripture. Yes.

The Oral teaching of the Apostles is also the Word of God, preached by The Spirit, that preaching is God breathed and remains in the Church.

That’s why “ scripture alone “ is false.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jews and Saracens were told to wear distinctive clothes, because of the Crusades. This was like internment of the Japanese and German US citizens during ww2. They were separated so the general population would not interact with them, or be influenced by them during the time of war.
The Crusades were supposed to be against the Moslems, not the Jews.
The Inquisition was not interested other faiths, only those people that were purportedly Catholic. If people were pretending to be Catholic to ingratiate themselves, this did attract the attention of the Inquisition.
This is more rubbish. What about the slaughter of the Albigensians, which was also called a 'crusade' by pope Innocent III Between 1202 and 1229, tens of thousands of these people were put to the sword - men, women and children. These people did not call themselves Roman Catholic. They rejected the Church of Rome.


The Strasburg massacre was political. Your dishonesty calling it a Roman Catholic mob, Catholicism was the main religion of the day but all this was political violence, not church sanctioned persecution. Be honest.
There was nothing political about it. People blamed the Jews for the Black Death, and there were pogroms in various cities; it is just that the one in Strasbourg was the worst. In fairness I should add that pope Clement VI condemned it. But if the massacre was political, how come the Jews were ordered to become 'Christians' or die?
But I can go on further if you like. In 1555, Pope Paul IV ordered the creation of a ghetto in Rome. The ghetto was a poor area of the city where Jews were forced to live. It was surrounded by walls and could only be entered through gates which were locked at night. When Jews left the ghetto to visit other parts of the city, they had to wear special yellow markings on their clothes. Every year, the Jewish community had to pay a special tax to the pope for permission to continue living in the ghetto. The Jews were also forced to listen to Christian sermons every Saturday. Paul IV claimed that it was “senseless and inappropriate” to let Jews live among Christians because their “own guilt has condemned them to eternal slavery”
 
Last edited:

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Concordat was to prevent German government involvement in church matters, or government using church clerics to support political matters.
I'm sure it was, but the point is that the concordat was made in 1933 as soon as Hitler came to power, five years before Kristallnacht in 1938 when persecution of the Jews really took off. It gave Hitler respectability at that early stage and meant that any Roman Catholics who opposed Hitler were acting against their denomination.
Many people of several races did what they could to save Jews, including Nicholas Winton 'Britain's Schindler': The man who saved 669 children from the Nazis about whom a film has recently been made, and of course the Ten Boom family in Holland. Read 'The Hiding Place' by Corrie Ten Boom.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was, but the point is that the concordat was made in 1933 as soon as Hitler came to power, five years before Kristallnacht in 1938 when persecution of the Jews really took off. It gave Hitler respectability at that early stage and meant that any Roman Catholics who opposed Hitler were acting against their denomination.
Many people of several races did what they could to save Jews, including Nicholas Winton 'Britain's Schindler': The man who saved 669 children from the Nazis about whom a film has recently been made, and of course the Ten Boom family in Holland. Read 'The Hiding Place' by Corrie Ten Boom.

Garbage, It did not give Hitler respectability at all. It meant Catholic clergy couldn’t be forced to support the Nazis.
Cardinal Pacelli was a known enemy of the Nazis, he made 55 protests against the Nazis whilst a Cardinal, and wrote much of the anti Nazi encyclical of 1937. He also wrote against the Italian fascists and atheist communists and American antisemites.

“It is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites." Cardinal Pacelli.

The Nazis were the only ones that refused to attend Pope Pius XII coronation, they hated him and knew him as an enemy.

The Crusades were supposed to be against the Moslems, not the Jews.

This is more rubbish. What about the slaughter of the Albigensians, which was also called a 'crusade' by pope Innocent III Between 1202 and 1229, tens of thousands of these people were put to the sword - men, women and children. These people did not call themselves Roman Catholic. They rejected the Church of Rome.

The Albigensians were violent heretics like the first mad dog anabaptists, some very evil people among them.
This wasn’t a time of the pluralism we have today, heresies were always violent.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Garbage, It did not give Hitler respectability at all. It meant Catholic clergy couldn’t be forced to support the Nazis.
Cardinal Pacelli was a known enemy of the Nazis, he made 55 protests against the Nazis whilst a Cardinal, and wrote much of the anti Nazi encyclical of 1937. He also wrote against the Italian fascists and atheist communists and American antisemites.

“It is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites." Cardinal Pacelli.

The Nazis were the only ones that refused to attend Pope Pius XII coronation, they hated him and knew him as an enemy.



The Albigensians were violent heretics like the first mad dog anabaptists, some very evil people among them.
This wasn’t a time of the pluralism we have today, heresies were always violent.
So wars, persecution and Distruction is the end result of any group not supporting Roman Catholism. How can anyone carrying a Christian identity support such a blood thirsty group? Luther and the Anabaptists do indeed have blood on there hands however they are pikers in contrast to Roman Catholics in the day.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member

"Undeniably, the Nazis used Luther’s writings as they rose to power and initiated the Holocaust. In his famous book, Mein Kampf, published in 1925, Adolf Hitler praised Martin Luther as “a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer.”


"The Darker Side of Martin Luther Abstract In 1543 Luther published his infamous On the Jews and Their Lies. His main arguments can be divided into four major parts. In the first part, Luther attacked what he considered the Jews’ “false boasts,” mainly their lineage and covenant of circumcision. In the second part, he debated key biblical passages. Third, he focused on the grossest medieval superstitions concerning the Jews are the focus of the third part. The fourth, and final, part included Luther’s recommendations for actions concerning the Jews. For the purposes of this paper, the fourth part of this treatise will be primarily examined. It contains the most evidence for Luther’s anti-Semitic views, and the Nazis quoted Luther most often from this section."

In light of these facts of history, why is Luther held in such high-esteem among conservative Christian spokesmen?
Due to him being ised by God to be one of the main actors used by God bring the Reformation into Christianity of the time, being willing to stand up under threat of death to apostate Rome, for the sake of the true Gospel
 

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What did the "Reformation" reform? How does Reformed Theology(RT) differ from non-RT? As an example, what are the doctrinal differences between reformed and non-reformed Episcopal churches?

I view RT as a "bucket of worms"! By that, I mean it is confusing and anything goes - very liberal theology.

How does a non-repentant sinner become a child of God according to RT?

R. C. Sproul made the statement: "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology."

Reformed theology’s doctrine of God and its emphasis on all of His attributes at every point in the unfolding of salvation sets it apart from other Christian understandings of the Lord. And our doctrine of God is drawn from Genesis through Revelation, from the Old Testament as much as from the New Testament. Why, therefore, wouldn’t we soak up the whole counsel of God and read both testaments with great devotion?

The statement above becomes questionable when Martin Luther wanted to exclude a number of New Testament books from his translation. He included them as a separate group as an addendum is my understanding.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
What did the "Reformation" reform? How does Reformed Theology(RT) differ from non-RT? As an example, what are the doctrinal differences between reformed and non-reformed Episcopal churches?

I view RT as a "bucket of worms"! By that, I mean it is confusing and anything goes - very liberal theology.

How does a non-repentant sinner become a child of God according to RT?

R. C. Sproul made the statement: "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology."

Reformed theology’s doctrine of God and its emphasis on all of His attributes at every point in the unfolding of salvation sets it apart from other Christian understandings of the Lord. And our doctrine of God is drawn from Genesis through Revelation, from the Old Testament as much as from the New Testament. Why, therefore, wouldn’t we soak up the whole counsel of God and read both testaments with great devotion?

The statement above becomes questionable when Martin Luther wanted to exclude a number of New Testament books from his translation. He included them as a separate group as an addendum is my understanding.
Per doctrine of Progressive revelations, all things in the bible inspired to us, but not all for us, as much of the OT Old Covenant now superceded by the New now
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
What did the "Reformation" reform? How does Reformed Theology(RT) differ from non-RT? As an example, what are the doctrinal differences between reformed and non-reformed Episcopal churches?

I view RT as a "bucket of worms"! By that, I mean it is confusing and anything goes - very liberal theology.

How does a non-repentant sinner become a child of God according to RT?

R. C. Sproul made the statement: "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology."

Reformed theology’s doctrine of God and its emphasis on all of His attributes at every point in the unfolding of salvation sets it apart from other Christian understandings of the Lord. And our doctrine of God is drawn from Genesis through Revelation, from the Old Testament as much as from the New Testament. Why, therefore, wouldn’t we soak up the whole counsel of God and read both testaments with great devotion?

The statement above becomes questionable when Martin Luther wanted to exclude a number of New Testament books from his translation. He included them as a separate group as an addendum is my understanding.

“ Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology.”

Funny how the reforming hasn’t stopped but the Bible remains the same.

What you call a bucket of worms, I call a dogs breakfast.

I’m amazed. You are a real thinker. You are the first person on the site to see the issue I have been banging on about or at least acknowledge it.

I say I am Catholic, instantly you know what I believe. You say you hold to Reformed Theology, I don’t know what the hell you believe.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
“ Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology.”

Funny how the reforming hasn’t stopped but the Bible remains the same.

What you call a bucket of worms, I call a dogs breakfast.

I’m amazed. You are a real thinker. You are first person on the site to see the issue I have been banging on about or at least acknowledge it.

I say I am Catholic, instantly you know what I believe. You say you hold to Reformed Theology, I don’t know what the hell you believe.
Reformed theology built upon Bible only, whi;e Catholic built upon false pillars church traditions, false statement from papacy, and non inspired non canonical books of their bible
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Reformed theology built upon Bible only, whi;e Catholic built upon false pillars church traditions, false statement from papacy, and non inspired non canonical books of their bible

Reformed theology is built on subjective human interpretations of scripture.

Every appeal to scripture is an appeal to someone’s interpretation of scripture.

The question is, whose interpretation of scripture has Authority.

William Lane Craig says we should be very careful not reject the theological determinations of the early ecumenical Councils, but he adds the Protestant line, unless it diverges from scripture.

Diverges from whose interpretation of Scripture? Each individual? The problem remains like a fat hairy stinking mammoth in the room.

This is where subjective relativist Protestantism bashes it’s head against the wall. There is no objective truth, there is no final arbiter in RT, no Pope, they are sheep without a shepherd appointed by Christ. They have pasture as they have scripture, but they are still sheep without an authoritive shepherd.

You don’t need a different Bible to be deceived by a different gospel, just a different interpretation of the Bible.

Why should we follow the Authority of the ecumenical Councils? Because they are gatherings of the entire Church universal. All the heads of all the Churches everywhere. Jesus promised the guidance in all truth to the Church, the entire church can not be entirely deceived.

So judge by universal belief as your starting point. What interpretations of scripture were universally believed by the whole Church.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What did the "Reformation" reform? How does Reformed Theology(RT) differ from non-RT? As an example, what are the doctrinal differences between reformed and non-reformed Episcopal churches?
Short of spending hours writing a great screed that you won't bother to read, Reformed Theology is theology reformed according to the word of God, '...that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped' (2 Cor. 3:17)and 'that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written' (1 Cor, 4:6). The great Reformed confessions lead with (for example), 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience (Westminster Confession, !689 Baptist Confession 1:1). But the question then arises, what does the Holy Scripture teach? The J.W.s, Mormons, Roman Catholics and other cults will say that they follow Scripture. The Reformed confessions go into great detail explaining the teaching of the Scripture, and it is up to you to read them through carefully before dismissing them. Reformed Episcopal churches also had Statements of Faith, for instance, the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England that bound it to the Scriptures. Unfortunately, some time in the 20th Century, the Articles were quietly dumped and the C of E, despite some very fine individual churches, is pretty much apostate.
I view RT as a "bucket of worms"! By that, I mean it is confusing and anything goes - very liberal theology.
What 'liberal theology' are you thinking of? I can't answer you unless you provide something to answer, but I can assure you that 'anything' does not go.
How does a non-repentant sinner become a child of God according to RT?
By repenting, and trusting in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation (eg. Mark 1:15).
R. C. Sproul made the statement: "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology."

Reformed theology’s doctrine of God and its emphasis on all of His attributes at every point in the unfolding of salvation sets it apart from other Christian understandings of the Lord. And our doctrine of God is drawn from Genesis through Revelation, from the Old Testament as much as from the New Testament. Why, therefore, wouldn’t we soak up the whole counsel of God and read both testaments with great devotion?

The statement above becomes questionable when Martin Luther wanted to exclude a number of New Testament books from his translation. He included them as a separate group as an addendum is my understanding.
Even the Lutheran Churches do not exclude the Book of James from the Canon. SFAIK, every Reformed denomination accepts the 66 book canon of Scripture. Luther was a man, and like all men he was fallible, but he was used of God to kick-start the Reformation. But I am a Baptist, and I follow Luther no further than he followed the Bible. Sproul was a Presbyterian, but I am sure he would say the same as I concerning Luther.
 
Top