Introduction to the Protestant Reformation: Martin Luther

[@hermanreeves7856]

Anyone else watching this for a school assignment?

[@noramcnabb1361]

I’m watching for my Church in World theology class

[@Adagia]

@@noramcnabb1361 lmao Hi Nora

[@ianshapiro5601]

Art History

[@Lotus86-t5d]

History

[@airmaxy7377]

ap world

[@smarthistory-art-history]

Luther's anti-Semitism was most famously expressed late in his life. In fact, some scholars have accused Luther's legacy of laying the ground work for the rise of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps we should have included this, but we were after a focused introduction to the Reformation.

[@Erlo3]

I’m pretty “fussy” about church history-alert to any errors and quick to pounce when historians are inaccurate. But this series of videos is very solid (I’ll point out a few tiny mistakes or omissions later) Furthermore, I’m very fond of these videos on the Protestant Reformation not only because they’re ACCURATE but also because they’re CONCISE (they use time efficiently) and use VISUALS very well The only downside: my students say these videos are more informative and interesting than I am!

[@LostInLeiden]

This is brilliant, thank you

[@raymondmulholland2156]

As with the first video, well done overall, but there are some clarifications I would like to make. Of minor importance, I want to point out that the term "Protestant Reformation" is a contradiction of terms. In the end, Martin Luther and others did not reform the Church, they left it. The true reformation took place at the end of this time, and it was by Catholics who stayed with it and made the changes to the Church itself. Not in the Catechism, but in the implementation of the Catechism. Like Luther, the most significant reformations were accomplished by monks. Of a more serious note, Martin Luther seems to ignore things that Jesus said about good works and in this respect he is gravely mistaken. It is indeed a gift, but it is not a passive thing. Christians are demanded by Jesus to do good things. I could give examples by the score, but I want to quote the Gospel of John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (NAB) Jesus Himself clearly states that to believe (or have faith) in Him means to obey Him, and He calls us to do good deeds throughout the Gospels and this is further testified in all the letters. I don't know what Martin Luther thought of that specifically, but his emphasis on faith over good deeds is essentially the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism today.

[@davidpeters938]

Luther did not leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out (excommunicated). Had you asked Luther late in his life, "Dr. Luther, to what church do you belong?" he would have responded, "I'm Catholic, of course!" If you were to object, "But Dr. Luther, the pope has kicked you out of the Catholic Church!" he would have said: "No, I am still a faithful Catholic. The pope and his followers left Catholicism centuries ago!" Luther always perceived himself as a faithful member of the Catholic Church, and he viewed the "papists" as apostates.

[@raymondmulholland2156]

@@davidpeters938 The Catholic Church was very much an imperfect organization at the time and I admire his courage in standing up to the corruption. But his actions exceeded merely the corruptions of the church and challenged interpretations of the Gospel that were created by the first apostles themselves! Whether Luther considered himself a Catholic or not is immaterial, if one does not believe in the Catholic teachings, one is not really a Catholic. For Luther to claim that he was a Catholic while several centuries of Popes were not is quite a bold statement to make. His views on the Bible alone really brings to question his insights. The Catholic Bible was first canonized in 393 AD, so he was claiming that 1,100 years of Catholics were living in apostasy, which would have accounted for perhaps 75% of Christian history. But Luther was certain that he was right because the Jews removed several books from the Torah. This was because, at the time, no existing copies of certain books were known to be written in the ancient languages as one would expect. By being looked upon as "not historically authentic", they were no longer considered divinely inspired. As things turned out, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls validated the Catholic Churches' faith in their authenticity when the teachings in the ancient languages were found. But perhaps more important than that is the legacy Luther left behind. The books from the New Testament he wished to remove (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) remain, as even his own followers would not follow him on this. Rather than be "universal" (which is what Catholic means), the Lutheran church as 140 local and regional denominations, and his actions encouraged even more division. In the US alone, there are 35,000 independent and non-denominational churches (Religious Congregations and Membership Study of 2010) , and, depending on what criteria the different surveyors did, between 600 and 2000 denominational churches in the US. This is very much against what Jesus prayed for just before he was betrayed (see John 17: 11-12 and 20-23). Luther was given every opportunity to bring himself in alignment with the Catholic Churches' teachings and he refused. He left the leadership no choice but to excommunicate him. If I had an employee who would rather call me stupid than help me improve the business, I would fire him too. Rather than stay on track and reverse the abuses in the Church, he chose instead to go his own way and make religion up as he went along. Biblical law only required 2 witnesses to testify to the fact. Luther has 35,600+ flavors of Christianity in the US alone to testify to the damage he did.

[@richfrench288]

He didn’t have every chance, he was simply told to change or be excommunicated. There was no debate. Luther had a law- gospel distinction that would be helpful for those who think he was anti good works.

[@raymondmulholland8303]

@@richfrench288 Pope Leo X issued Luther a Papal Bull in 1520 called Exsurge Domine, which, claimed that 41 of the famous 95 thesis were wrong. So even the pope agreed, at face value, that more than half of Luther's critiques were at least legitimate and likely correct. The massive reform in the practice of indulgences shows that this was not just empty words on part of the Church. In 1651, Luther was summoned to Worms and was challenged if a collection of works were his, and if he would recant any of them. Luther asked for an additional day to respond, and was given one. Luther came back and claimed that everything he said was scriptural. So, out of 25 major works identified, Luther refused to back down on a single point. Remember, this was shortly after the Pope agreed to 54 of the 95 problems Luther found with the Church. In response to Luther's refusal to admit he was wrong with anything, he was then reminded that every heresy in the history of the Church, including Pelagius and Arius, were based on scripture. In other words, it is not enough to simply rely on scripture, but one needs to understand what the writers of scripture meant. Indeed, I would point out that most of the epistles give evidence of the authors correcting misunderstandings their followers had of their words, so this problem goes all the way back to the day of Pentecost. And Luther still failed to admit to a single error in his reasoning. Perhaps the Church was a little heavy handed, but to say that Luther was a victim in all this is far from the truth. To say there was no "debate" is as much Luther's fault as the Church's, perhaps even more so. Luther was challenging over 1600 years of tradition. While that does not necessarily make the Church right, it does mean Luther needs to have an air-tight argument to justify why a drastic change needs to happen. Personal preference is far from an "air-tight argument." As for the "law-gospel" distinction, I find this point interesting but irrelevant. If this is indeed part of the Lutheran catechism, they need to do a MUCH better job explaining it to their own congregations. Even after most Lutheran churches signed the JDDJ (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification) with the Catholic Church, many Lutherans still call Catholic teachings on salvation "heretical."

[@richfrench288]

@@raymondmulholland8303 johann von eck simply told Luther to recant. You seem to have a bit of a rosy view of how popes went about debates. I suppose your going to tell me the Jan Hus also had every chance? Also Luther most certainly was not going against 1600 years of tradition. Your dates are a little off, not that it matters. Either way that was a really long reply to me simply saying he was never going to get every chance.

[@staceyqueen3808]

Wonderful!

[@Sasha0927]

Dang, the order of the videos could be lined up in sequence, lol... I went from the first to the last which is hella deep (and possibly a clever God reference), but confusing. 😅 Dr. Zucker's used car salesman shade got me. Never know what to expect from his side commentaries, lol. I get variation from interpretation, but certain basic tenants of the faith should be honored above all details. When your interpretation gets in the way of the unity and love that Christ desires for us, that's the bigger issue. Paul warned against it, but here we are with 295275098525 denominations and "warrior popes." "Nobody's eating worms, lol." Speak for yourself~ 😌 I loved the images of Christ enthroned and... on the cross with the Holy Spirit granting salvation toward the end, lol. Since they're untitled. GO, doggone Martin Luther! The Word of God is clear enough.

[@daviddsilva5391]

LOVELY INFORMATION ON CHRISTIAN REFORMATION

[@Mr.QuantumC0re]

What do you mean protestant reformation lol.

[@muthias4582]

Thank you lord for coming back in and bring back the gospel if not for your servants' courage, both the rich and poor alike, during this time I along with so many would not have accepted you and became your friends.

[@KevlarSammy]

Why not just have one person talk? My adhd can’t handle this.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

It's a conversational format. Please try again and it may help to pause the video periodically. Some people find it helps to take notes along the way. We are offering a great deal of information quickly so take your time.

[@Ferrus91]

I don't mean to cavil, but Latin was the international language of academia at the time as well as the church and formed the basis for education. Most of those who could read knew some Latin, often much, and certainly all intellectuals could read and write it. The issue was chiefly that the bible could not be read [i]to[/i] the general population who could not speak Latin.

[@peterrefermat8999]

"Most of those who could read knew some Latin, often much, and certainly all intellectuals could read and write it" Most people in this time certainly could not read and were not "intellectuals".

[@julianarroyo4261]

Gret vidio i inyoyed it a lott

[@joshazprozaz4733]

Here is the paradox: individual interpretation of the bible leads to 40,000 protestant denominations who not only disagree with the Catholic teaching/understanding, but also disagree with each other on key questions, such as baptism, the trinity, literal interpretation of the bible, liturgical or non-liturgical worship, ordaining women, gay marriage, abortion, contraception etc. I guess it raises the question, did Jesus come to be understood in one way, and by one church, or did he come to be understood in 40,000 ways, which contradict each other? Here is an analogy. If reading Shakespeare, would we want some context of the Shakespeare-era, and what Shakespeare intended in his teachings? Or should we decide for ourselves what Shakespeare intended, and even call Shakespeare (the writer) wrong? Why in the world would a book explain itself? It doesn't... Protestantism equals 40,000 denominations of contradicting interpretations in only 500 years. Instead, I'd want some context by the actual writers of the book who were devout Catholics. Or the people who choose which books would form the canon (and which did not meet the criteria to be in it) who were also Catholic. The Catholic church created the first Christian traditions, the first/authentic Christian church and the first/authentic Christian bible by some thousands of years. Should we completely do away with the people who wrote the bible, and who were the apostles, and who lived with Jesus? The people who were Martyred in order to grow our faith? Who fought off the heretics who said Jesus was not divine and did not die on the Cross? Who were slaughtered by invader after invader who threatened our faiths existence in Europe, including the Muslim and Mongol conquests? Or the Roman persecution or the Goth invaders in its earlier years of the church? Jesus created only One Catholic and Apostolic Church with the first Bishop (Pope) of Rome, Peter (not Martin Luther 1500 later). Matthew "And I tell you, you are Peter (Rock), and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The key is that Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic (language) name Cephas (rock), which is translated into Greek as Peter, and in english as Rock. And Jesus never used a plural when mentioning the church the Peter/Rock who he built it on. Various written sources in the first century confirm a Catholic church, such as the Letter from St Igantius of Antioch. And Roman opponents of Christianity also confirmed the life of Jesus (Titus Flavious "Josephus"), and the growth of the Catholic community (Pliny 112 AD). Jesus mentions the real presence of Himself in the Eucharist in the Catholic church in the gospel of John "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your fathers, who ate the manna and died, the one who eats this bread will live forever.” The fact that many of His followers were horrified by this statement and turned on him because of it suggests he did not say 'my symbolic blood' but rather 'my real blood'. Jesus made Himself the Lamb of God, and the sacrifice. And more: 1 Timothy "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth". What Church? Why no plural? What church existed when this was written. Who wrote it? Yes.... the Catholic church. 2 Thesselonians "Stand firm and hold to the traditions by oral statement or written". This is important because although the gospels had been used in the (Catholic) church, the official canon was a few centuries after Christs death. The Bible was formed based on letters and oral tradition passed down. It was done so in order tobe both distributed to the Masses (albeit expensive to do so), and to reiterate the real teachings of Christianity against heretic oppression, including gnosticism. Jesus speaking on the Law (i.e. Jewish Oral law/tradition), He makes two things clear: i.e. he is not changing it but fulfilling it. But also that he is following Law, which was predominantly known and passed down ORALLY. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." And how about this straight of Malachi. Malachi 1'10 "Why does one of you not close the doors and so stop the pointless lighting of fires on my altar? I am not pleased with you, says Yahweh Sabaoth; from your hands I find no offerings acceptable. But from farthest east to farthest west my name is great among the nations, and everywhere incense and a PURE OFFERING to my name, since my name is great among the nations, says Yahweh Sabaoth." Here is a prophecy, which shows that only one sacrifice is pure/worthy to be a sacrifice to God. What is good enough to be a sacrifice to God? God Himself!!! And hence, the Eucharists is the offering up of God (in flesh/the son) to God the Father in heaven. Additionally, there is a reference to this offering taking place from East to West to indicate this sacrifice would be done universally. What is universal? Catholicism. This prophecy is talking about the great universal gentile church where Christs' real presence is in the Eucharist, and is offered up to God the Father Almighty.

[@antlers163]

The Roman Catholic Church was one of the most rotten institutions on the planet when the Protestant Reformation took place. They dominated the lives of everyone, especially those of the peasants. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t want the laity to have the Bible because it threatened their power and control over the lives of others. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t want the laity to be able to read the Bible for themselves and see that there is NO mention of purgatory, NO mention of indulgences, NO mention of a Pope, and NO mention of a mediator between men and the God that created them. Thank God for the Protestant Reformation.

[@bau5kids]

Anyone else watching this for Trish's A- His lecture?

[@peternovak661]

So what was the Holy Roman Empire

[@Mr.QuantumC0re]

He changed in the Bible to put the alone faith alone. Which is not true.

[@mrbushlied7742]

My favorite "Christian" Reformation leader is Martin Luther. When Luther broke from the RCC he championed the Jews because for some strange reason Luther thought the Jews would convert to his pure form of Christianity. Luther actually believed Jews in the past centuries did not become Christians because the RCC was corrupt. When the German Jews showed no more enthusiasm in becoming Lutherans than in becoming Catholics, Luther wrote a polemic, "The Jews and Their Lies" and ensured that German Protestants would be just as anti-Semitic as German Catholics in the centuries to come. Protestants, and even Catholics for that matter, portray Martin Luther to be a kindly, even godly, theologian. Catholics think Luther was misguided; but basically a good man. Protestants think that Luther was divinely inspired. No one wrote about the true nature of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation until the genius Fred Engels wrote, "The Peasant War in Germany" in 1850. Engels explained why Luther encouraged the Catholic Emperor Charles V to slaughter tens of thousands of radical Lutherans and why a Lutheran army helped a Catholic bishop prince put down a rebellion of Anabaptists a generation after Luther. The Reformation was actually a class struggle. The mode of wealth and production the land owned by the landed gentry and the Church was giving way to early manufacturing in the towns and city that were controlled by the bourgeoisie. Capital, i.e. money, was replacing land as the guarantee of wealth and power during the Middle Ages.