Posted by MD on 4/13/2002, 2:52 pm

Reply to the Replies Posted by Steve B. on 9/29/2001, 2:19 pm , in reply to “To Steve: Replies from Marvin [Part 1]” A Few Remarks From An Ex-Chapelite AND An Ex-Lutheran Marvin, I’m kind of at a loss to reply to anything in your above postings. Many of the individual anecdotes are interesting, but when you wrap it up by writing that my motivation for posting here is anger against somebody at the Chapel for having hurt me, you’ve completely missed it. My last three years at the Chapel were very trying times, as I tried to reconcile commitment to the Lord and his Word with what was being taught and practiced at the Chapel, but I would not say they were lastingly hurtful. Certainly I never knew Don well enough in the first place to feel personally betrayed by him, and I can think of no other person that deliberately (or otherwisse, for that matter) hurt me in any way. Also, there’s another important point that deserves some attention. You write “I’m not saying you’re headed for hell as an atheist would be, but if after sensing the presence of God, you’re going to work to convince yourself that that’s not what it is, the same situation will apply. God is not going to present to you physical, material proof of his presence. “God has decreed that for the sake of fallen man in this fallen age, he is going to be an ‘invisible God.’ But man’s spirit is still supposed to be able to sense his presence when it’s there. When a man chooses to deceive his own spirit and try to convince himself that God isn’t there, then according to the way God has set this fallen age, that’s just the way it’s going to stay. But I wish you wouldn’t do that to yourself.” I wasn’t at the Chapel because I sensed the presence of God there, in song services or elsewhere. I was at the Chapel because, when I first encountered it, the pastors and teachers there seemed to be teaching the Word of God more purely, with deeper commitment, and with greater knowledge than any other place I had been. It’s not that I never “sensed the presence of God,” but I believe that a person should not base one’s acceptance of a church on feelings of whether or not “the presence of God is there.” I think that approach leaves a person open to deception—if a person bases his opinion of a church on the degree to which it can generate a feeling of God’s presence, then one is in the realm of emotion-based and experience-based religion, not that of New Testament spirituality. By the way, I couldn’t find any reproductions of the woodcut you mention of Luther and his wife. I thought it might have been in Roland Bainton’s biography of Luther, “Here I Stand,” since it uses numerous contemporary woodcuts as illustrations. But I didn’t see it in there during a quick scan of it this afternoon. However, I thought you might enjoy the above picture which I found on the Internet. It is a Roman Catholic caricature that shows Luther being used, literally, as an instrument of the devil. The caption said it was done by Erhard Schon, who lived from 1500-1542. Sincerely, Steve ---------- I’m glad we’re agreeing on so much now, comparatively, after agreeing on so little before Posted by Marvin on 10/3/2001, 11:27 am , in reply to “Reply to the Replies” Interesting medieval caricature too. Interesting that in German, “instrument” carries the same dual meaning as it has in English. (Maybe in some languages you would have to use different words for “tool” and “musical instrument.”) “If a person bases his opinion of a church on the degree to which it can generate a feeling of God’s presence, then one is in the realm of emotion-based and experience-based religion, not that of New Testament spirituality.” I agree in principle that one ought not to base his opinion of a church solely on the feelings generated there, and that if one does, he is, as you say, “in the realm of emotion- and experience-based religion.” I’m still going to maintain, though, that at Chapel the teaching was NOT to do this. The teaching was that although it may be good for theese feelings to be present, the Word of God must be our guide in all things—even spoken utterances had to be subject to the written Word or it was they that were to be thrown out, not the written Word. I think the Chapel had some balance about the Word-versus-experience that some shallow charismatic groups don’t have. It makes a pretty good-sounding argument against many of them. (Don’t think it was the case so much at Chapel, though.) ---------- The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543), Martin Luther Posted by JR on 9/30/2001, 6:57 pm , in reply to “To Steve [Part 4]” Dear Martin, Your high views of Martin Luther do not surprize me, because in most “Evangelical” circles, he is nearly placed as a prophet. But, you need to dig a little farther to see the REAL Martin Luther. I will set you on your way by giving you this http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html Afterwards, you might do well to study his treatment of those who were called Ana-Baptists, also. ---------- Martin Luther Posted by Marvin on 10/1/2001, 5:54 pm , in reply to “The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543), Martin Luther” Hi JR, I read the thread below where you introduced yourself, and I found it interesting that, even while never having attended Community Chapel or met anyone from it face to face, you enjoy reading and participating on this board, and have been reading it for two years so far. You say: “Dear Martin [and I assume by that you mean “Marvin”], “Your high views of Martin Luther do not surprize [“surprise”] me, because in most ‘Evangelical’ circles, he is nearly placed as a prophet. But, you need to dig a little farther to see the REAL Martin Luther.” Yes, I am well aware that there were many areas in which he lacked insights about many things. On the one hand, he was a man who sought God earnestly, applying faith as he prayed; one who, as a Roman Catholic monk, discovered the plan of salvation at a time in history when very few knew anything of it, and he did much—infinite amounts—towards bringing that plan of salvation to endless numbers of people. This is the side of him I think was great. However, he had his other side. I remember it being taught in a Bible college class how a theologian named Erasmus, who used to advise him (though Luther didn’t always listen to him), had a much better grip on discovering the truths of God from the Scripture than Luther had. (Erasmus was a humanist, but in those days, “humanist” meant something far different from what it means in the field of “secular humanism” today; merely one who studied the human race.) In fact, after reading, about a quarter of a century ago, many of Luther’s writings, I came to the conclusion that he was, in fact, quite slow, dense and sluggish at uncovering theological truths from the Bible—even considering the darkness of the age in which he lived. He began his campaign with his 95 theses which (according to legend at least) he nailed to the door of the castle-church in Wittenburg. But in it he was still recognizing the Catholic priesthood, the pope, purgatory and much else of Catholicism. And even as he came more and more out of it, there was still much of its paganism he could never kick. Not to mention his view on agreeing with Calvin to have a dissident, the Spaniard Michael Servetus, executed for believing in the Oneness doctrine. He pleaded for a more humane execution than burning. (Oh, great. What mercy!) (In our day we would know that even if Servetus’ viewpoint had been mistaken, all Luther had to do was say to his people, “Hey folks, this fella’s all flipped out. Don’t listen to him. Here’s what the Bible teaches. Follow it.” And regardless of what he could or couldn’t make from the Bible about the Godhead, the job would be pretty much done.) Luther also lived right at the same time as Columbus. He was nine years old when Columbus discovered America. But he used to say in his adulthood, “Another side to the earth? Where the trees grow down and the rain falls up? Whoever HEARD of such nonsense!?” He appears to have been one who wasn’t much into listening to people’s viewpoints before tossing them aside and refusing to consider any possible new insight on any issue. He rejected the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, but then instituted the Lutheran “consubstantiation,” also out of line with Scripture. He understood the truth about baptism by immersion, but then he wanted to immerse infants. His doctrines always seemed to contain at least one major twist, and the correct beliefs he had, always seemed to be truths that were discovered by others. Even when he discovered the plan of salvation, it was someone else who had given it to him. While he was beside the deathbed of an elderly monk in his monastery, telling him how hard he had been working to attain his salvation, the dying monk whispered that eternal truth to him: “Martin, you can never be saved by your works, but only by the mercy of God.” Well, for all the preaching of salvation he did that resulted in so many receiving the message, I say, “Great and wonderful.” But for most of what he taught on most issues of theology, I say, “There are many other places where you can get a better perspective on it.” So you see, I don’t hold Luther up TOO highly. That piece above took place in 1976, when I was young and still fascinated about a move of God where there had been none before (that I had known of, anyway) and the idea that the same kind of thing had happened in history before. Furthermore, we must remember that when God anoints someone for a specific task and works through him, in spite of that man having many faults, good things can still get done. I think a lot of good was done through Luther. But, as you see, he’s not my source of theological insights. Take care, Marvin