Why is Your Blog Address LutherWasNotBornAgain dot com?

Infant Baptism in the Orthodox Church | A Russian Orthodox Church Website

Reader: Sir, Regarding the name of your blog “Luther was not born again,” do you intend to make that as a factual statement, a parody, a catchy title or what? If you do indeed hold that it is factually accurate that Luther wasn’t born again (didn’t believe in Jesus’ deity, resurrection or what have you), how do you reach that conclusion? Please cite the document(s) that shows he didn’t believe those things because I am genuinely interested in this question now. Did he ever explicitly affirm those doctrines or did he ever explicitly deny those doctrines? It seems that if he never did either, then we can’t answer this question due to lack of evidence. Thanks.

Gary: This blog was originally created to “help” other disillusioned evangelical Christians like myself—Christians sick of the emotional roller coaster of Evangelicalism in which the only way one can verify his or her eternal salvation is by the subjective perception of “feeling” the presence of Jesus in your “heart”—to discover true Christianity: confessional Lutheranism! The title “Luther Was Not Born Again” was a teaser: Most evangelicals believe that Martin Luther had an evangelical born again experience, and that is why he broke from the Catholic Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. To his dying breath, Martin Luther believed that he was “eternally saved” or “born again” by an act of God in his water baptism as an infant!

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

4 thoughts on “Why is Your Blog Address LutherWasNotBornAgain dot com?

  1. An interesting opening (formal?) Feedback-comment Gary. Personally, since I wouldn’t know you Gary from the man on the moon, I would’ve greatly simplified my first inquiry to you as such:

    Sir, Regarding the name of your blog “Luther was not born again,” do you intend to make that as a factual statement, a parody, a catchy title or what?

    And simply, politely stopped there giving you the chance to explain. There is no need to waste time speculating as this person did, when you could’ve explained clearly, concisely. Very peculiar to show favor to so much speculation rather than patiently waiting on facts. 🤔

    Ahh, but right there… doesn’t that impatient agenda reflect so many subjective, biased, divided, and ill-informed Faith-followers today? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think much of the contemporary evangelical attitude is closer in line with the revivalist movement of the 19th century – Charles Finney et al. – and its emphasis on feelings and emotions, than it is with Luther or most of the other reformers of the 16th Century. This surprised me years ago when I read a bunch of books on the reformation. I don’t think Calvin, Luther, Zwingi, etc would really approve of a lot of modern day evangelical churches (I don’t have any experience with modern Lutheranism so I don’t know about them).

    Like

    1. Luther would be appalled by the evangelical belief that only an intellectually competent adult or older child can “decide” to be saved. Luther taught that salvation occurs strictly when God gifts salvation by the supernatural power of the spoken (or read) Word. Sinners do not “decide” to be saved. God decides who is saved and when they are saved. Many non-Lutherans do not realize that Lutherans believe in the predestination of the Elect. (However, unlike Calvinists, Lutherans do not believe that anyone is predistined to damnation. This is a non-sensical belief but Lutherans justify it by invoking “it is a divine mystery”.)

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s