500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks, Randy.

We, of course, could argue the authenticity of Ephesians (regarding Pauline authorship). Among scholars (including Catholic scholars, who’s writings have been vetted and granted an imprimatur certifying them to be free from doctrinal and moral error), the majority view is (to my knowledge) that Paul was not the actual author of Ephesians and that this was a later writing, following the ecclesiastical organization of the early church, and therefore the language could be viewed (by non Catholics) as being somewhat self-serving.

The view that Paul was the author is based upon many factors including: 1) the fact that the Letter itself contains two references to Paul as author and 2) claims to the contrary were unknown until the 16th century. Yes, there are stylistic differences between Galatians and, say, Corinthians, but these may be due to the fact that the Galatian Church was not in turmoil; consequently, Paul’s style could be more relaxed. One final point is that if Paul were in prison and suffering from bad eyesight, he was very likely to have employed a secretary to write his letter. If this person was the talented Dr. Luke, then we have even more reason to understand how Paul’s language may have been polished or altered from the style seen in his other epistles.

Anyway, my comment regarding Corinthians was simply to provide a reference to my (common sense) assertion that there have always been large numbers of people who faithfully participate in Catholic worship and liturgy without sharing belief in Magisterial authority. 1 Corinthians documented that this occurred – early on – even in a Christian community founded by the Apostle Paul, himself. The fact that Paul wished otherwise does not alter the reality of the fact that such divisions existed, from the very beginning. The fact that Paul wished otherwise must be viewed in the context of other “genuine” Pauline writings. In Romans, for example, Paul seems to approve of both Jewish and Gentile flavors of Christ veneration. Also, many Protestants would not accept that Paul was granted any divine authority, other than to provide his own personal views as a teacher.

That is a very interesting “Perspective on Paul”. Many Protestants revere Paul to the point of practically ignoring the gospels.

However, I didn’t comment for the purpose of debating theology; I commented because I thought that the Luther quotes were basically cheap shots, as explained in my first comment. You then asked me a couple of questions; I answered to the best of my ability. I’ll let my answers stand as written; I get enough in the way of debating on more politically-centered blogs. At this point in my life, I don’t want to debate religion, per se.

Okay. I think some of the Lutheran quotes are probably cheap shots, but there are others which are difficult for even the most ardent supporter to disown.

As I wrote, my personal belief is that God has always provided many pathways to grace and continues to do so. You disagree. That’s fine. We all must believe what we are capable of believing. It’s up to God to render the final judgement regarding who got it right. According to my belief, you’ve got it right, in the case of yourself, and that’s really all that matters, from both of our perspectives.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

“All paths lead to God” can be true under proper circumstances, but it is normatively (not absolutely) necessary for a person to be a formal member of the Catholic Church. Informal or imperfect communion or desire for such (whether implicit or explicit) is a whole other discussion.

 

[lweisenthal]

The view that Paul was the author is based upon many factors

Likewise, the view that Paul was not the author is also based on many factors. Can you agree that you and I could begin to argue this point and go back and forth for 100 rejoinders, and neither of us would be able to add any clarity to centuries of prior debate? The fact that certain Biblical questions were not challenged until the last 400 years is simply a reflection of the fact that views on Biblical authorship have evolved, just as views on astrophysics have evolved. Up until the mid-20th century, Catholic scholars weren’t even allowed to carry on the same type of Biblical scholarship that their Protestant counterparts had been engaging in for hundreds of years. As I wrote, a majority of theologians (including Catholic theologians, who have received imprimaturs) challenge the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. But I’ll agree that this doesn’t “prove” anything, at all. It’s a matter of what an individual believes.

Other than that, you can have the last word. I don’t think that I have anything helpful to offer, beyond my earlier comments, expressing my own personal points of view.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

 

[Peter_J]

You mean Orthodoxy

Actually, I’ve known Catholics who are happy to see fellow Catholics converting to Orthodoxy. Honestly, I’ve never known quite what to make of such an attitude. (Of course, in some cases the unspoken assumption seems to be “I’m glad you’re converting to Orthodoxy because you don’t agree with my take on Catholic teaching.”) Granted that may not be very relevant to you since you are Lutheran, but I wanted to mention it anyhow.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Likewise, the view that Paul was not the author is also based on many factors. Can you agree that you and I could begin to argue this point and go back and forth for 100 rejoinders, and neither of us would be able to add any clarity to centuries of prior debate? The fact that certain Biblical questions were not challenged until the last 400 years is simply a reflection of the fact that views on Biblical authorship have evolved, just as views on astrophysics have evolved. Up until the mid-20th century, Catholic scholars weren’t even allowed to carry on the same type of Biblical scholarship that their Protestant counterparts had been engaging in for hundreds of years. As I wrote, a majority of theologians (including Catholic theologians, who have received imprimaturs) challenge the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. But I’ll agree that this doesn’t “prove” anything, at all. It’s a matter of what an individual believes.

Other than that, you can have the last word. I don’t think that I have anything helpful to offer, beyond my earlier comments, expressing my own personal points of view.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Since I already conceded your point - at least some of the quotes are cheap shots - I think we’re good.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Actually, I’ve known Catholics who are happy to see fellow Catholics converting to Orthodoxy. Honestly, I’ve never known quite what to make of such an attitude. (Of course, in some cases the unspoken assumption seems to be “I’m glad you’re converting to Orthodoxy because you don’t agree with my take on Catholic teaching.”) Granted that may not be very relevant to you since you are Lutheran, but I wanted to mention it anyhow.

Why would they be, just out of curiosity?

 

[Darryl_B]

Since I already conceded your point - at least some of the quotes are cheap shots - I think we’re good.

Whenever I hear the phrase “Most scholars” I tend to think of wikipedia as the source. But not even wikipedia uses the phrase “most scholars” in relation to the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians, it uses the term “some scholars deutero”. Which is making me question the validity of anything else that might have been said. I think I will move on, as you have done.

 

[Darryl_B]

Since I already conceded your point - at least some of the quotes are cheap shots - I think we’re good.

Also, as I cross the Tiber I have this conviction that I should not take any baggage with me, much as you have also done. Thanks for that example.

 

[JonNC]

For clarification, do you think I’m saying Protestantism regardless of stripe is Our Lord’s Church or are you agreeing with me that NONE are Our Lord’s Church

I agreed with what you wrote. If you meant that we are not part of His Church, then 1) I obviously disagree, and 2) it isn’t for you or anyone else to say, anyway.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I agreed with what you wrote. If you meant that we are not part of His Church, then 1) I obviously disagree, and **2) it isn’t for you or anyone else to say, anyway. **

Jon

Arguably yes, but arguably no. But way of comparison, there’s no shortage of Orthodox telling us that we Catholics (and all non-Orthodox) are not part of the Church … and presumably you and I would both object to that statement, but that isn’t the point. The point is that we Catholics should have as much right as the Orthodox to tell people that they aren’t in the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Arguably yes, but arguably no. But way of comparison, there’s no shortage of Orthodox telling us that we Catholics (and all non-Orthodox) are not part of the Church … and presumably you and I would both object to that statement, but that isn’t the point. The point is that we Catholics should have as much right as the Orthodox to tell people that they aren’t in the Church.

Then Catholics must grant the same right to those Protestants who claim the CC is not part of the Christian Church.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Then Catholics must grant the same right to those Protestants who claim the CC is not part of the Christian Church.

Jon

Grant pending. Review to be conducted at next Synod.

Just kidding – I don’t speak on behalf of the whole Catholic Church. But, seriously, your logic makes sense, but I don’t know if matters much: protestants who tell us that we aren’t part of the Church, generally doesn’t incline most Catholics to say “Hey, don’t say we aren’t part of the Church” but rather to laugh or roll their eyes.

 

[steve_b]

I agreed with what you wrote. If you meant that we are not part of His Church, then 1) I obviously disagree, and 2) it isn’t for you or anyone else to say, anyway.

Jon

I’m not the one to define terms

The Church calls protestants brothers due to baptism, but seperated brothers just the same, because they are not in the Church, no matter what they think. Schism does that.

 

[lweisenthal]

I’m presuming that many have already read the most recent press interview with Pope Francis.

repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/

It is wonderful to have a Pope who is not obsessed with doctrinal purity. He doesn’t think it’s a good idea to proselytize secularists – I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude that he would apply the same philosophy toward Lutherans (i.e. stay away from the One True Religion chest thumping, and focus on what is really of importance – read the interview to get an idea of the Pope’s priorities).

This interview seems to be the first in what the Pope plans as a series. I’ll eagerly await the coming installments.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

 

[pablope]

GKC answered this quite well.

Quote:
Even though the scriptures he’s talking about are the OT books, because the NT while in the process of being written, hasn’t been identified yet, collected, and canonized as scripture which wouldn’t come for 300+ years after Paul wrote that… the point being, given what Luther did to the OT, who is he to make judgements about emphasizing or de-emphasizing any book in scripture? By, as you say, making comparisons between books, calling James like straw compared to other HE LIKES, He’s really contradicting [2 Tim 3:16]. James is scripture just as much as any book in scripture.

In the example of Jerome…he would later consider it to be sinful to do so…and submitted to the judgement of the Churches…and Cajetan would later say…he agreed with Augustine and Carthage.
But in Luther’s case…it looks like he went the opposite direction:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

 

[benjohnson]

But in Luther’s case…it looks like he went the opposite direction:

He sure did - unlike others, Luther put the deuterocanonicals in the hands of thousands of Germans and made them available to all in clear German.

Sounds like a good thing to me

Frankly, I don’t understand the seemingly Catholic obsession about complaining about Luther’s complete 74 book bible and printing thousands of copies of it.

If anything, you’d think Catholics would encourage protestants to look to Luther to regain those now-missing books.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’m presuming that many have already read the most recent press interview with Pope Francis.

repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/

It is wonderful to have a Pope who is not obsessed with doctrinal purity. He doesn’t think it’s a good idea to proselytize secularists – I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude that he would apply the same philosophy toward Lutherans (i.e. stay away from the One True Religion chest thumping, and focus on what is really of importance – read the interview to get an idea of the Pope’s priorities).

This interview seems to be the first in what the Pope plans as a series. I’ll eagerly await the coming installments.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

I agree. If the world thought Pope Benedict was ecumenically-open to Lutherans than Francis is likely to take the next step. I do believe Eucharistic hospitality between Lutherans and Catholics will be official during Pope Francis’ papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, as I cross the Tiber I have this conviction that I should not take any baggage with me, much as you have also done. Thanks for that example.

Okay…but just to be sure, can you elaborate on what you just said?

 

[lweisenthal]

P.S. Regarding the Pope’s recent press interview…

I love the following quote:

“I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope. We must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. Be poor among the poor. We need to include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.”

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

 

[Darryl_B]

Okay…but just to be sure, can you elaborate on what you just said?

Sorry, sometimes I like to thank people who have helped or encouraged me on my journey even though they haven’t necessarily intended to.

 

[pablope]

He sure did - unlike others, Luther put the deuterocanonicals in the hands of thousands of Germans and made them available to all in clear German.

Sounds like a good thing to me

Frankly, I don’t understand the seemingly Catholic obsession about complaining about Luther’s complete 74 book bible and printing thousands of copies of it.

.

I think you misunderstood what i meant by going the opposite direction. I posted this…In the example of Jerome…he would later consider it to be sinful to do so…and submitted to the judgement of the Churches…and Cajetan would later say…he agreed with Augustine and Carthage…meaning…Jerome went in the direction of considering it sinful to continue to hold contrary opinions to what the Church had decided…Luther went the opposite direction Jerome.

Sounds like a good thing to me

Frankly, I don’t understand the seemingly Catholic obsession about complaining about Luther’s complete 74 book bible and printing thousands of copies of it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

If anything, you’d think Catholics would encourage protestants to look to Luther to regain those now-missing books

I would think otherwise…I think it is Lutherans, who are viewed today as part of the umbrella of Protestants…to correct the removal of these books.