# Did Martin Luther screw up Christianity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856 "2005-07-10T17:03:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dio2112](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Dio2112](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dio2112)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856/81 "2005-07-23T05:17:48Z")
Hey, there’s an honest to god Biblical Scholar in here now. Couple of questions if they aren’t too off topic (just following precedent in this thread, heh). Is it fair to say that Paul didn’t seem to care much about (or even be aware of) the sayings (teachings?) of Jesus? In a recent reading of the Pauline epistles I saw a whole lot of interpretation about faith and Christ-on-the-Cross stuff, but virtually nothing about what Jesus had to say about things. Also, what do you make of Paul’s language about “my mind wants to do one thing but my body wants to do something else”, which as I recall was repeated in various forms in various letters (including mention of offending “members” of his body)? You probably see where I’m going with this. The occasion for my reading the Pauline epistles was that I was trying to see where the “Paul was gay” crowd was coming from when that meme made Time magazine a few years back. Seems to make sense as a possible explanation for Paul’s enthusiasm for this religion he was shaping. He boasted about being a highly qualified Jewish scholar, which means he knew all about the myriad rules a Good Practicing Jew had to follow, and maybe he even could manage to follow most of those rules most of the time. But if you have wet dreams about dicks, or get an erection when seeing a hot Greek kid, even the best Jew would get really bummed (tormented, even?) about fulfilling his desire to please God at all times. Makes sense that he would be smitten (literally) by a slightly different theology, where following a bunch of rituals and rules takes a back seat to God’s knowing that you are corrupt beyond self-help. Where _all_ is forgiven through Christ-on-the-Cross and God understands and says its ok if your “member” does these things so long as you don’t act on it. I assume, since I’ve seen nothing about it lately, that the Christian Biblical scholarship community has rejected this hypothesis. Any thoughts? I’ll justify this post by submitting that Luther didn’t screw up Christianity as it existed at his time–he just brought it roughly back in line with Paul’s interpretation. There. ---
**Author:** ![JMS\_CCT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbe5ce/32.png) [@JMS\_CCT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JMS_CCT)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856/82 "2005-07-23T13:24:22Z")
> [@Dio2112](#): > > Hey, there’s an honest to god Biblical Scholar in here now. Couple of questions if they aren’t too off topic (just following precedent in this thread, heh). > > > [@](#): > > > > Is it fair to say that Paul didn’t seem to care much about (or even be aware of) the sayings (teachings?) of Jesus? In a recent reading of the Pauline epistles I saw a whole lot of interpretation about faith and Christ-on-the-Cross stuff, but virtually nothing about what Jesus had to say about things. > > It isn’t that he didn’t care about Jesus’ earthly teaching. Only days following his Damascus road experience (Acts 9) he was preaching that Jesus was the Christ (the Jewish Messiah, which was a match with what Peter revealed in Matt. 16, and later preached in Acts 2 and 3. ). The point is, he was not beholden to the earthly Jesus, or what he said during his three year ministry, because he wasn’t a part of that program. That program–the kingdom gospel–was given to the 12 disciples, who, in turn, were told to take it to Israel, not Gentiles (Matt. 10:1-6). He was beholden to the Jesus that spoke to him from heaven, the ascended, glorified, Lord Jesus Christ. > > Consider his statements in 2 Corinthians: > > **2 Cor 5:16 > 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more**. > (KJV) > **2 Cor 11:4 > 4 For if he that cometh preacheth _another Jesus_, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.**(KJV) > > “Another Jesus?” I believe he’s talking about Jesus Christ “after the flesh” here–the one who walked around Palistine for three years-- who he says we (he and the Corinthians) don’t know. This begs the question: What “Jesus” do we know? Again, the ascended, glorified, Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven, who we have never seen or touched or heard speak (physically). How, then, can we know him? By the Spirit, through what Paul got from Him by revelation, and then wrote down in his 13 epistles. > > > [@](#): > > > > Also, what do you make of Paul’s language about “my mind wants to do one thing but my body wants to do something else”, which as I recall was repeated in various forms in various letters (including mention of offending “members” of his body)? > > You’re refering here to Romans 7: > **Rom 7:14-25 > 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. > 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. > 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. > 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. > 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. > 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. > 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. > 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. > 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: > 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. > 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? > 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. > (KJV)** > > **Col 3:1-2 > 1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. > 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. > (KJV)** > > The interesting thing about this statement Paul wrote about himself, is that it was written (according to the consensus of Bible Scholars) about 25 years into his ministry. This guy has been saved for 25 years, and he’s still having these problems? Whew, boy! Does this ever fly in the face of present day preaching, that claims Christians can live in a state of sinless perfection by getting the “second work of grace,” aka, the “baptism of the Holy Ghost.” Jimmy Swaggert claimed, in an article he wrote a few years ago (before his great “fall” from sinless perfection) in his magazine, that Paul wrote this very early in his ministry (i.e., he had yet to “get” the Holy Ghost). Charles Finney, in his book, “Systematic Theology” (1846), claimed Paul wasn’t talking about himself in the passage. It’s in the first person, Doctor! Because these men, both huge names among Christians in their respective times, adhered to the doctrine of Christian perfection, they had to pervert the clear meaning of the verses in order to “make” it work for them. > > Obviously, to those who aren’t brainwashed by Neo-Pentecostal theology, Paul is definitly speaking of himself in the passages. Romans 7 is part of the discourse in Romans 3 - 8, which deals with Man’s nature, God’s law, sin, and sins remedy. What Paul is saying here is this: Salvation changes nothing concerning our human (sin) nature, which–as far as God is concerned–is “desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9), and vain (Ps. 39:5). This is why he says, “in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” (vs. 18). Paul is merely being honest about himself here because he can be. What he understands ( and what Swaggert, Finney, et. al., obviously don’t understand) is that, by grace, God, in Christ, has paid for his sin, and therefore he is delivered from it’s (sins) penalty. He has already articulated this truth in chapter 6: > \*\*Rom 6:6-7 > 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. > 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. > (KJV) > > Rom 6:14 > 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. > (KJV) > > Rom 6:18 > 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. > (KJV)\*\* > > None of this has a thing to do with who we are in our flesh. It is about what has occured spiritually. What is crucified is the “old man” (e.g. Adam - Ch. 5:12), not the “sin nature.” Therefore, your sins and your sinning ways–if you have trusted Christ and what he did at Calvary–cannot condemn you, becuase you are under the grace of God (" **There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…" Rom 8:1; “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” Rom 5:20** ) > ) > > > [@](#): > > > > You probably see where I’m going with this. The occasion for my reading the Pauline epistles was that I was trying to see where the “Paul was gay” crowd was coming from when that meme made Time magazine a few years back. > > There is nothing in Paul’s epistles that even remotely suggests that he was gay. The fact that he wasn’t married, and had many intimate male friendships doesn’t make him gay. In fact, he condemns this behavior in Romans 1:26,27. But what if he was? Or, maybe, had gay longings? It’s just another sin. And, according to the above passages, **"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."** > > > [@](#): > > > > Seems to make sense as a possible explanation for Paul’s enthusiasm for this religion he was shaping. He boasted about being a highly qualified Jewish scholar, which means he knew all about the myriad rules a Good Practicing Jew had to follow, and maybe he even could manage to follow most of those rules most of the time. But if you have wet dreams about dicks, or get an erection when seeing a hot Greek kid, even the best Jew would get really bummed (tormented, even?) about fulfilling his desire to please God at all times. > > > > Makes sense that he would be smitten (literally) by a slightly different theology, where following a bunch of rituals and rules takes a back seat to God’s knowing that you are corrupt beyond self-help. Where _all_ is forgiven through Christ-on-the-Cross and God understands and says its ok if your “member” does these things so long as you don’t act on it. > > > > I assume, since I’ve seen nothing about it lately, that the Christian Biblical scholarship community has rejected this hypothesis. Any thoughts? > > What Paul says concerning sin is: > > 1. It’s not okay with God (Romans 6:1); but, 2.) He took care of the problem at Calvary (1 Cor. 15:3,4); therefore 3) The most henous sin(s) cannot condemn those who are “in Christ” (Rom. 8:1); because 4) Christ is all God now sees in us. (Gal. 2:20) > > Say, if when someone trusts Christ as they’re Savior, they are sleeping with someone else’s wife (or husband), which is the sin of adultry, what should they do? Stop doing it! What if they don’t? Is there some line drawn in the sand out there where their salvation is placed in jeopardy? Absolutely not! Reason being is because it is God Almighty who obtained it for them. All they did was accept it as a “free gift” (Rom 5:18). Will continuing in sin have consequences? Sure. It can destroy your testimony before the world, and cause you the loss of rewards (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Col. 3:23-25), but it can’t change your eternal destination. > > As for the thought life, here is Paul’s exhortation: > **Phil 4:8-9 > 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.**(KJV) > > **Eph 4:17-32 > 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, > 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: > 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. > 20 But ye have not so learned Christ; > 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: > 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; > 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; > 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. > 25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. > 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: > 27 Neither give place to the devil. > 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. > 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. > 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. > 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: > 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. > (KJV)** > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ll justify this post by submitting that Luther didn’t screw up Christianity as it existed at his time–he just brought it roughly back in line with Paul’s interpretation. There. Luther definitly saw and revealed a lot of Biblical truth, for which he should most certainly be given credit. I would strongly reccommend to any serious inquirer, his commentaries on Romans and Galatians. But, what he (and Calvin) did not see (or at least did not articulate) was “the mystery,” or the grace dispensation, and Paul’s exclusive claim to it. He believed we were (are) in the New Testament, and that believers in Christ are “born again.” Unfortunatly, most of the Christian establishment believe and teach this. Therefore Christians are living in a sea of guilt, pretending to be something they aren’t and never will be (in the flesh). They may very well be saved, but they will never “walk in newness of life” as long as they hold onto this belief. If we were (in the NT) this would be true(that believers are born again). But I challenge anyone to go to the operative scriptures that layout the characteristics of the NT saints who are born again (e.g., Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8; James 2; 1 Peter 1 & 2; 1 John 2 & 3), and prove to me that this is what Paul taught concerning salvation, sin, endowment, and the behavior resulting from it. No one in the present dispensation is “born again.” This is a kingdom condition. Folks who have trusted Christ under grace are saved and “sealed… unto the day of redemption.” (Eph. 1:14; 4:30) Just as Paul did, we live in bodies that are “sold under sin.” But, for those of us who are saved, that body of sin has been put to death (at the cross), and we, therefore, are spiritually dead to it (sin), and walking (spiritually) in newness of life in the rarified air of God’s matchless grace. Get your focus off your flesh and your sin, and onto Christ and what you are in Him. Amen. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856/83 "2005-07-23T14:50:54Z")
Let’s note that JMS@CCT’s views are a version of the Dispensationalist branch of Evangelical Protestantism, which places questionable emphases on the real distinctions between Christ’s earthly “Prophetic” ministry, His heavenly “Priestly” ministry, and His future “Kingly” ministry. In this view, Paul’s teachings emphasize the “mystery” of Christ as Heavenly Priest to save the Gentiles, setting aside Jesus’ earthly Prophetic teachings as relevant mainly to his Jewish audience & perhaps to be applied in His future earthly Millenial Kingdom. Most other Christians don’t emphasize such distinctions in Christ’s threefold ministry. nor in His, the Twelve’s, and Paul’s teachings. We look to harmonize them, not set them apart. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856/84 "2005-07-23T21:36:36Z")
Haven’t read the thread yet, but to the central question, “Did Martin Luther screw up Christianity?” while I think the principles in the Epistle of James are vital to Christianity being a moral religion, & thus Luther was wrong; I actually think James was more right than Xtianity as such was. Christianity was screwed up before Luther, Lutheranism is screwed up, Christianity will continue to be screwed up even if the John Shelby Spongs succeed in subverting its institutions into “niceness centers.” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856/85 "2005-07-24T00:11:14Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Let’s note that JMS@CCT’s views are a version of the Dispensationalist branch of Evangelical Protestantism, which places questionable emphases on the real distinctions between Christ’s earthly “Prophetic” ministry, His heavenly “Priestly” ministry, and His future “Kingly” ministry. In this view, Paul’s teachings emphasize the “mystery” of Christ as Heavenly Priest to save the Gentiles, setting aside Jesus’ earthly Prophetic teachings as relevant mainly to his Jewish audience & perhaps to be applied in His future earthly Millenial Kingdom. > > Most other Christians don’t emphasize such distinctions in Christ’s threefold ministry. nor in His, the Twelve’s, and Paul’s teachings. We look to harmonize them, not set them apart. Thanks Friar. I wasn’t familiar with this particular interpertation of the NT. It’s interesting but seems to me to be one more varied interpertation of what then"truth" is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-martin-luther-screw-up-christianity/311856.md?page=4)