Jeff, and others,

Due to your very presence on this blog, and from the ‘tag’ you chose to bestow upon yourself: of ScriptureZealot––I assume that you are of an evangelical persuasion; you likely have a desire to share God’s Word with others. I, too, take the Great Commission seriously, and it is for this reason that I write: I want to encourage you to do just as you have suggested––I want you, and any others led to this note, to read more about (and from the pen of) Luther.
Particularly, I recommend his “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” and “Vom Shem Hamphoras.”

As I assume you would agree, one can not overstate the vast importance of thoroughly researching any person or school of thought (outside of Jesus himself, outside of divine Scripture) which we might utilize as a vehicle to convey the reality of God to others. When we do this, we actively connect these quotes and the ‘quoters’ to Christ; when someone is first navigating through their hunger for God, they are sensitive to misdirection–which is why the Apostle Paul so often instructs us to consciously avoid becoming stumbling blocks––1 Corinthians 8 is one of many places where this is addressed (and it is but the first to come to mind).

I do not write this with any lofty air, though; I am addressing this as a well-earned warning–as I, myself, recently became just such a ‘stumbling block’… and even due to Luther, no less.
For I, too, had previously only read Luther’s work, selectively.
Basically, my two feelings for Luther had evolved like this: 1) I had grown up, like many, surrounded by an idealized image of Luther running up to those church doors with his history-altering theses, cleansing the church of corruption; 2) I had been taught to view him as a forefather, a forerunner, a man brave enough to snub his nose at authority and bring about change.

Only preconception 2 proved true, though… provided you capitalize the word ‘Authority’… But, first, I want to address my own…

I love the way this has made my brain work! Interesting post. I know what you mean about the essential need for and the essential fear of provocative posts. I recently wrote one on hell. My finger hovered over the “post now” button for ages. But it did provoke excellent dialogue.

Dr. G,
I never thought you might be Catholic. I am not Catholic either. So that much we can agree on are similarities.

KK. I am not a Catholic. I often mention Catholic theology, because – as an excercise in broad-mindedness – I, as a born Protestant, tried to learn to see the other side. And encourage others to do so.

Calvinists are mentioned in the book Tess of the D’Ubervilles by Thomas Hardy, British social commentator. He mentions most of the religions at work in England in his day. Apparently Thomas Hardy did not have a problem with religion, but the practitioners.

Now one of the questions I have is this…if Calvinism is a response to what it considered a false set of theological idea, but itself was responded to in such the same manner…in other words, if Calvinism was called heresy, then why would it consider others as being heretical? What then is the real basis for Calvinism if all theologies are based on scripture? I think people who push for any theology and defend it should know completely just how it came about. And no one should say their theology is true or correct if it is an offensive response to someone who merely viewed it differently and translated a verse from a different perspective.

Calvinism is only as correct as the understanding of a verse is. Theology was woven from the different views. And so to say any other theology is wrong is completely baseless. Arminianism is correct, Lutheranism is correct, Calvinism is correct. Just because you don’t agree with their viewpoint of a same word does not mean you are both right.

I tried this experiment with my brother (he’s a Freemason and has dabbled in witchcraft). I said “tell me what the word tank means.”

You might think it is a simple word and easy to define, but that little word has so many viewpoints. I asked other people the same question, and even though I got so many definitions, they all were correct because they all responded from their own understanding. My brother was in the military so he understood a tank as the big machine with a big gun. But fish are in tanks, gas is in tanks, in Texas a tank is a pond, to tank means to throw away or take a nosedive. The definitions are as broad as the understanding of the person. So all are correct. Now you can say that is just a word. Yes but concepts work the same way.

I asked my brother if things were a fact, would it be solid? He said facts cannot be changed. So I asked, “is it true if two objects are dropped off the Empire State Building, do they fall at the same rate of speed.” He said of course, and I said no….why? I said bowling ball and helium filled balloon. Both are objects released from your hands. One goes down, the other goes up. He said not fair…and so I said it’s a variable. Those should always be considered.

The last experiment was even more tricky, and no offense to any one out there, it was just used to make a point. I said this to several different groups and got the same response…”suppose I told you I saw a young black guy driving recklessly down Main Street. What would you infer from that statement?”

After the many different responses I got, I answered…”now suppose I told you that young black guy were an ambulance driver were on his way to an emergency”? Because we live in defined society, no one even considered that a young black guy would have a job as that, and to be doing his job, but by omission of facts and manipulation of viewpoints the correct view was not seen.

So what does this have to do with theology? If your theology is based your viewpoint does not make another person’s understanding wrong. If your theology is based without considering variables then you haven’t investigated enough. And if your theology is based in your own stereotypical bias, and you refuse to think any differently, then you didn’t believe all scripture.

And the same works for philosophy. Intellectual arrogance is detrimental. We are dealing with a great concept, and to belittle another’s viewpoint because they don’t see it like you is intellectual bigotry.

And that is what happened in history…some people refused to accept that someone else also had the right, but different definition. If you understand God from your own experience and understanding, then work with that. But don’t ever assume some one else is wrong just because they don’t see through your lenses.

Edward T. Babinski: “As for “uniting and dividing” in general one may note that’s exactly the basis of all TRIBALISTIC ways of thinking. What makes yours so holy special and intrinsically true beyond a doubt?”

Answer: The self-attesting Truth of both the Living Word and the Written Word.

P.S. Please note that Mr. Babinski is a co-blogger for Debunking Christianity. Their tagline states: “This blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity.”

Therefore, to be insulted by you is high praise indeed. Thank you for honoring me.

Wow you beat me by like 30 seconds to the punch lol

Also note that the systematizing of Calvin’s 5 points (what we know as TULIP) didn’t happen until after Calvin’s death. This systemization mostly came out of the Arminian-Calvinism controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church from my understanding

The five points of Calvinism were created after even Calvin’s time! They came from the Synod of Dort as many of the followers of Calvin’s teaching were responding to the Arminian Remonstrance.

Luther would have hung with Calvin in many areas although I think they would articulate things differently. They had mutual respect for each other.

Martin Luther died in 1546, while Calvin wrote Institutes around 1536. So they were alive at the same time. I am not sure however, over how much they interacted. It seems they didn’t interact much as Lutheranism and Reformed Theology are distinct theological systems arising at the same time. Martin Luther is kind of hard to nail down on a decent amount of theology because his views changed over time. For instance he didn’t initially reject purgatory all together when he wrote his 95 Thesis, but rather rejected the Catholic abuses of it. It wasn’t till later he rejected the notion altogether as unbibilical. From my limited understanding on the TULIP issue I think Luther and Calvin would disagree over the perseverance of the saints for sure. This however comes from second hand knowledge as I have some friends who’ve studied Luther and indicated to me that Luther thought that faith could be rejected even after one had made a genuine confession of faith.