Lutheranism?

from what I know is that they preserved the writings of ancient Greece and rome during the middle ages while western europe was illiterate as fuck

and now Muslims get credit for it and their "golden age"

Why didn't you post this thread on >>>/christian/ OP?

bump

Pull your head out of your ass retard

Fuck off d&c shill.

that's not acceptable here
>>>/cuckchan/

Your desert cult has nothing to do with politics, news or current events.

It's you who is shilling for semitic bullshit here, I'm just telling you to fuck off to your containment board.

goodreads.com/quotes/42017-be-a-sinner-and-sin-boldly-but-believe-and-rejoice

To sum it up, Lutheranism is a post fact rationalisation for sinning.

Justification through faith alone, meant to Luther that you could sin all you wanted and find salvation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Böhme#Theology

Lutherans have gone on to rightly reject this notion. Though Jakob was influenced by Kabbalism (which is Jewish and therefore subversive of Christianity Holla Forums oh and shut up about 'kike on a stick'), as were some other reformists and anti Catholics.
Maybe Lutherans have some reasonable theology now, though in the early stages of the reformation, nothing had a theological backing. It was either carnal like Luther's or to get a divorce like Henry VIII, all rather suspicious.

hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/
This is really interesting, talks about how more out breeding due to bipartite inheritance and the Church's ban on cousin marriage led to increased individualism. Along with translations of the bible into English leading to Lollard heretics, it makes sense that north western Europeans would seek a more individual relationship with God. Like the Quakers and most heresies besides Calvinists, which is an anomaly because they believe in predestination which leans towards more of an in group, as Luther did the bondage of the will (likely for sinful reasons).

The reformation was bound to happen, the justification after the fact is interesting, there's certainly a lot to protest about the Catholic Church now.

monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/pdf/luther_arbitrio.pdf (Luther's Bondage of the Will)

Asking what relation Protestantism has with jews and what relation Lutheranism has with jews is shilling?

Fuck off.

Race is not the only way towards God, you are focusing on earthy creations, placing them above God.
Pride comes before the fall, the white race has fallen far.

The Jews migrated to England and Germany after the inquisition, I think.
Racism was necessary as many of the ethnic Jews lied about their faith.

Read the OP you lying cuck, it's a thread about Lutheranism and it belongs on >>>/christian/

Begin with bondage of the will, what theologians think about the issue with prescience and free will is always fun.

That's a lie. He was reacting against kike legalism and Papal thievery through indulgences. Learn political hermeneutics, fuckwit.

Read your fucking Bible, you retard. All that "kabbalism" shit is all over. It's just mysticism, which is not anti-christian at all.

This is how retarded some people on Holla Forums are. I bet this one is a stormfront crossposter

Ivan, please go.

Anti-Christian!

100% this, top post

Where did I imply any of what you posted? Religious discussion is not political discussion, you have another board for a religious discussion, is that so hard to comprehend, christcuck?

His reaction against indulgences was in his 95 theses right?
What does this have to do with justification through faith alone?
I'm trying to learn.

Fair enough, maybe they weren't involved as much as I'd assumed, I'll look into more lad.
Only been reading for a couple of weeks.

Probably ought to be on /christian/.

just make a fucking general.

you sure are fuckin' retarded

I'm no theologian. If you want to have a theological discussion, then go to /christian/. if you want to discuss how this affects politics, then you're in the right place.

The point is his ideas weren't created in a vacuum. There was a socio-political context to them. If you are justified through faith alone then you don't need to buy indulgences (papal thievery). If you are justified by faith alone then you don't need to, for instance, be circumcised (jewish legalism), etc. Get the connection? A third of The Jews and their Lies is Luther ranting on how you don't need to be circumcised in order to get to heaven.

jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v12-n02/kabbalahhistory
Kabbalah would also, through the popular mystical Chassidic movement, exert a strong influence on the future thinking of Judaism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism#History
Seems the teachings of the Jewish Kabbalah had influenced Hasidic Jews the most. Okay, was probably wrong then, shouldn't assume things.

Was led to believe the Kabbalah had been developed further after their expulsion from Spain.

Linked to this. hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/
The reformation in general doesn't seem to have come about due to theological differences, but yeah should go to /christian/ about that.

That makes a lot more sense then, thanks.

You all realize no progress is made in these threads. All both sides do is scream at the other side. If you can all stop shoving Christianity or Paganism down each others throats and stop giving a flying fuck whether an user on 8/pol/ is Christian or Pagan then maybe we'd have less of these slide threads and more informative threads on shit that actually fucking matters.

Uh, you're the one who started.

I just asked for some places to read up on Lutheranism. I expected 5-10 replies and then for this thead to die.

Also, for someone who hates these threads so much, you forgot your sage.

...

I don't mean to discourage you. The Reformation is one of the most political happenings in the last millennium. Rawls (or was it Galston?) claims there are basically two different forms of liberalism (broadly what the US is) – Reformation Liberalism and (i forget the term he uses) Philosophical Liberalism. He claims the first is more like Rawls (and probably the Founders) and the second is more like Locke and Dworkin. The two are very distinct traditions he claims.

German princes didn't want their gold flowing to the Vatican so they protect Luther in order to have a valid reason to break away from the Catholic Church.

Whatever came after were opportunists interpreting the bible in a way that suits them, like every Christian theologian ever.

I'm not Orthodox. I'm Southern Baptist but while we do not have dual covenant theology too many of us believe Jews are oh so special and deserve special treatment.
The only treatment a jew needs is a stake to burn at.

polisci.ucdavis.edu/people/rstaylor/homepage/papers/Introduction.pdf
Thanks a lot, I'll read some of this now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

colonelby.com/teachers/bduncan/ethics/locke.html (Bit of a rubbish site.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

Of course you're not, user.. Orthodox for Greeks and Slavs is not what's considered orthodox for English-speaking peoples.

They didn't break away, they were kicked out by schismatics.

What's up with Calvinists? I don't know a ton about Christianity in general, but I know this Calvinist dude and he seems sort of red-pilled. I know he thinks the Bible is 100% literally true, like Adam and Eve and all that shit.

Ah, right Enlightenment Liberalism. That's what it was. You should actually find that particular article. it's really good. if you want to read about the origins and typesof liberalism in general, I would say read

Two Concepts of Liberty – Isaiah Berlin (inb4 kike)
Two Concepts of Liberalism – William Galston
Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism – George Crowder

If you want to go super-pro you can look at
Three Normative Models of Democracy – Jurgen Habermas

DISCLAIMER
Before anyone on Holla Forums screams at me, I should point out that this is simply the liberal tradition which the fascists were totally at odds with. There are other traditions as well that I'm not mentioning here.

oh I should add if you really want to know about the Founders, go to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and find the article on Republicanism.

Nigger that's half the fucking new testament. It's written in scripture that jewish laws are useless and the jews are going to hell

wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf
polisci.ucdavis.edu/people/rstaylor/homepage/papers/Introduction.pdf
catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2001043917.pdf
sze.hu/~smuk/Nyilvanossag_torvenyek_CEE/Szakirodalom/Deliberatív demokrácia/habermas_3_normative_models_of_democracy.pdf

Perfect, will download these, cheers.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

Only after Luther gave valid complaints on Catholicism at the time. No prince could go out and say the things he did, so they had to rely on Luther being a mouthpiece.

Ah it's The practice of liberal pluralism.
Can't see a full pdf, will look for it after the others then.

A lot better than the Roman Catholics or Eastern Catholics, but sometimes a little too bookish and not as civilised or organised and Episcopalians (in the Anglican Communion) used to be. Mr Donald Trump is part of a church that uses Calvinist theology, the Presbyterians.

Nah, not really interested in the headache.

The relationsship between Kabbalah and Judaism isn't so clear at all, although certainly many Jews practiced it.

If you prefer video/lecture, then you might go this route. Skinner is extremely brilliant and not a bad lecturer.

I really think reviving Republican Liberty is what the world has needed. When I talk to most lolbergtardians, they usually turn out to be Republicans (I think due to their Protestant Reformation Liberal-Republican roots)

okay. Well, apparently it was still a point of contention in Luther's time, at least when he spoke to Jews who apparently insisted upon it.

Yeah I see that's a little more complex now.

Maybe that's the solution for America's problems, but I wouldn't know. Provided it's socially conservative and not libertarian.
Kek, it's getting a bit late to read, this is easier for now.

The only headache here is your non argument.

oh Holla Forums
never change

That's the point of Republicanism. It emphasizes virtue whereas lolbergtardianism does not (hence why its jewish). Republicanism is mostly concerned with civic (as opposed to private) virtue like civic participation, etc but realizes the two are connected.

That video will only emphasize the Roman Liberty part of Republicanism. You'll have to read the Stanford article to learn about the Civic Virtue stuff, which was emphasized more in Machiavelli and the later Republicans I believe

Kek

That's good to know, listening now.

It isn't Lutheranism.
Its the Lutheran Church.

We make sure that our children take classes on the bible when they are old enough.
This generally consists of classes 3hrs in length, 2 times per week, over the course of 2 years.

We also place an important on Luther's Catechism which is a companion to the bible.
Children are given the small, abridged copy once they are 12-13 and begin classes.
It does not contain additional scripture, but it is more like an appendix.
It warns of the Jews, contains prayers, and 'debunks' lies inserted into scripture by the Catholic church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism#Lutheran

It is probably the most red-pilled denomination of Christianity.
Also the most true to the original scripture as it came about due to disagreements with Catholics over charging money to be forgiven of sins/worshiping mortals(saints) etc.
We teach that the Catholics, while slightly better than the Jews, are not to be trusted.
They are liars and thieves just barely a step up from Jews.

Keep in mind, kikes like this blame Lutherans for the Holocaust.

I don't know much about the Lutheran church itself yet, just talking about Luther then.
They're probably better Christians than Catholics today.

During the First and Second World War, German Protestant leaders used the writings of Luther to support the cause of German nationalism.[100] At the 450th anniversary of Luther's birth, which took place only a few months after the Nazi Party began its seizure of power in 1933, there were celebrations conducted on a large scale both by the Protestant Churches and the Nazi Party.[101] At a celebration at Königsberg, Erich Koch, at that time Gauleiter of East Prussia, made a speech which, among other things, compared Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther and claimed that the Nazis fought with Luther's spirit.[101] Such a speech might be dismissed as mere propaganda,[101] but, as Steigmann-Gall points out: "Contemporaries regarded Koch as a bona fide Christian who had attained his position [of the elected president of a provincial Church synod] through a genuine commitment to Protestantism and its institutions."[102] Even so, Steigmann-Gail states that the Nazis were not a Christian movement.[103]

The prominent Protestant theologian Karl Barth, of the Swiss Reformed, opposed this appropriation of Luther in the German Empire and Nazi Germany, when he stated in 1939 that the writings of Martin Luther were used by the Nazis to glorify the State and state absolutism:"The German people suffer under his error of the relation between law and bible, between secular and spiritual power",[104] in which Luther divided the temporal State from the inward focusing spiritual, thus limiting the ability of the individual or the church to question the actions of the State,[105] which was seen as a God ordained instrument.[106]

In February 1940, Barth accused German Lutherans specifically of separating Biblical teachings from its teachings of the State and thus legitimizing the Nazi state ideology.[107] He was not alone with his view. A few years earlier on October 5, 1933, Pastor Wilhelm Rehm from Reutlingen declared publicly that "Hitler would not have been possible without Martin Luther",[108] though many have also made this same statement about other influences in Hitler's rise to power. Anti-Communist historian Paul Johnson has said that "without Lenin, Hitler would not have been possible".[109]

checked

this is 100% unadulterated jewish garbage

This fucking kike nigger.

Von die Juden und Ihren Lügen was held in very high esteem by the NSDAP, as were Luther and the reformation generally. Papists eat shit. The Church was concerned about maintaining its authority in the Mediterranean and keeping the HRE as weak as possible. Why wouldn't Norn Europe spin away into heresy given that and the rampant corruption? You speak of the carnal faults of the Reform movements but nothing of the fucking Papists.

A Jew by the name Joseph Nasi had some role in the beginnings of the Eighty Years' War, of which it's end coincides with the end of the Thirty Years' War, one of the most destructive wars in European history. (Reformation plays some role in both wars.)

haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/1.539388
"When Selim II ascended to the throne, Joseph, with extensive trading ties in Europe, became an influential confidant. He helped the Ottoman porte negotiate peace with Poland in 1562, and was given a monopoly on the trade of beeswax with that kingdom. Seven years later, he encouraged the Netherlands to revolt against Spain (what became the Eighty Years’ War), and promised Turkish support. He was involved in intrigues related to the succession of princes who ruled Moldavia (with which he had a monopoly on the wine trade), and he encouraged the sultan to annex Cyprus to the empire. Selim did indeed conquer the island in 1571."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nasi
"Maintaining contacts with William the Silent, Nasi encouraged the Netherlands to revolt against Spain, a major adversary of the Ottoman Empire (the rebellion was ultimately carried out by the Union of Utrecht, as the start of the Eighty Years' War)."

ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/90953/Islam-in-Christian-tolerance-201001.pdf

"Just after the Beeldenstorm in October, Joseph Nasi, a Jewish friend of Orange from Antwerp who had fled from the Inquisition and now worked for the sultan, arranged for a letter from Suleiman I promising the Netherlands financial and military support. After the demise of Suleiman, diplomacy continued with sultan Selim II until cooperation was established in 1574."

Dutch sources: stormfront.org/forum/t1030000/
Also an interesting point:
"In short, he explains how the Iconoclastic Fury (Beeldestorm) as not at all a religious revolt as we are made to believe but that it was mostly inflammed by the Hunger winter of 1566 (666). Ordinary people were desperate and the decadence here and there of the catholic clergy and the growing opposition of protestantism on its way were important factors but it was hunger and the prices of wheat that fueled the revolt most of all. Like in Paris 1789 and Moscow 1917 .
This book does not give out the culprits as the man is a jew himself but if you combine the dots you will understand that the totality of the grain commerce in the Low lands went through the hands of merchants in Antwerpen, Brussels and Brugge. It is very easy to check that these merchants were all sephardic jews installed after having been kicked out of Spain. With the aid of their spriritual brethren the Ashkenaze jews, who controlled the Hanse cities in great Germany, jews controlled grain import and prices (and everything else) from the baltic states to bordeaux."

(Hundred years later we find another Orange, William III of England, who granted the Royal Charter to the Bank of England in 1694, was also financed by Amsterdam Jews. And prior to that Cromwell (Puritan) also had contact to Amsterdam Jews.)

By the way, the aunt of Joseph Nasi, Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi is experiencing some kind of revival recently. (For the Nasis being viewed as early Zionists of sorts.)
jpost.com/Israel/The-true-founder-of-the-Zionist-Movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracia_Mendes_Nasi
"Indeed, Dona Gracia is fast becoming a cult figure on the world stage. New York City designated a Dona Gracia Day in June 2010, followed by a similar proclamation in Philadelphia a year later. Israel’s political leaders honoured her for the first time in October 2010."

We're just trying to do as Jesus did.

What about the verses in the Bible that say that salvation is by faith alone?

The only counter argument to that that is brought up is "Faith without works is dead." which is not an argument because it doesn't really adress the salvation through faith alone.

I feel bad for Luther because he tried to save everyone and then he went and read jewish scripture from the torah to talmud and he was so shocked by its contents that were so anti-gentile that even he himself, Luther, found jews to be irredeemable.

The Epistle of James (which you're alluding to) was written in large part to refute salvation by faith alone. For example, he writes, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (KJV). His argument in the second chapter is you can believe whatever you want, but if you don't live righteously, you will still be damned. There are no Bible verses that teach justification by faith alone, though obviously "faith-alone" Protestants read the Bible with a different hermeneutic. It wouldn't really be on topic to argue about that, but we can see what Luther said about the Book of James.

In sum, Luther rejected the canonicity of James, because he said that James contradicted justification "sola fide." In fact Luther rejected several other New Testament books, which you can see from the editions of the Luther Bible that were printed in his lifetime (pic related). Here is Luther's preface to James from his NT translation.