Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Curious:

On a historical, intellectual, and relatively objective level, I’d have to say I don’t know. I haven’t read Luther. Most of the the few things I’ve learned about Luther have been here. I came here to get the story about Catholicism straight from the source, so I think I would do well to do the same about Luther and actually read some of HIS stuff and not just what people say about him, good or bad.

One thing that should be added: the vast majority of his works read by students today are his more polemical works–challenging as they do the doctrines and beliefs of others. Martin Luther wrote a lot–volumes in fact. Luther was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, and he wrote many commentaries on the books of Scripture.

Many say that Luther was bitter, mean, not meek and humble. I think several things should be noted:

Firstly, Martin Luther was a very ill person. He suffered from numerous afflicting health problems during his life. His fasting in the monastery also (allegedly) permamently damaged his body even after leaving. He probably suffered from clinical depression as well. This is not a complete excuse of Luther’s outbursts, but I think this should be kept in mind.

Secondly: whether one agrees with Luther or not, one must admit that Luther was fighting against those whom he believed advocated beliefs that were a dangerous threat to Christian truth. The Roman Catholics Popes, even in recent days, change their tone when they confront error. He had to utilize firm and sometimes harsh-sounding language to get his point across. Witness Paul VI’s letter of entreaty to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: certainly firmer in tone and more caustic than Paul’s other writings. St. Jerome too: against Jovinian; certainly the words St. Jerome employs are far from genial. And let us not forget St. Paul’s anger at the Judaizers and his wish that they would cut off more than just the foreskin. Perhaps Luther went a little too far at some points, but who here hasn’t said or written something they regret?

Thirdly: Martin Luther, however mean-spirited you might want to call him, did not promote armed rebellion against Rome (although, ironically, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (a Catholic) with his troops and with troops from Germany (who were Lutheran) sacked Rome. (Times were definitely complicated!) He disagreed vehemently with Muentzer on the issue of armed rebellion. He also rebuked the peasants who rose up in violent revolt.

 

[mozart-250]

Now if the question had been asked about Calvin or Zwingli, I would have answered a resounding “NO”.

Was Luther directly involved in religious persecution (see anabaptists) as Calvin and Zwingli were? If so I would flip to “NO”.

If Luther was indeed as anti-semetic as the Catholic apologists paint him to be, I would also flip to NO. I would like to see if sources without an agenda also agree he was anti-semetic.

Still thinking, but those are the issues for me. Character counts.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mozart-250:

Was Luther directly involved in religious persecution (see anabaptists) as Calvin and Zwingli were? If so I would flip to “NO”.

I believe this religious persecution of the Anabaptists at Lutheran hands came mostly after Luther’s time, but I could be wrong. The Anabaptists sprung from the Zwinglian camp over the issue of baptism, and many of their early reformers were put to death by the Zwinglians. Many soon fled to the cities surrounding Zurich where they could preach and live, at least until pushed out once again. Many of the early Anabaptists were perceived as violent radicals, no doubt because of a certain Thomas Muntzer.

 

[mozart-250]

I believe this religious persecution of the Anabaptists at Lutheran hands came mostly after Luther’s time, but I could be wrong. The Anabaptists sprung from the Zwinglian camp over the issue of baptism, and many of their early reformers were put to death by the Zwinglians. Many soon fled to the cities surrounding Zurich where they could preach and live, at least until pushed out once again. Many of the early Anabaptists were perceived as violent radicals, no doubt because of a certain Thomas Muntzer.

Actually the religious persecution of the anabaptists started as early in the 1520’s. Some of their early martyrs were Conrad Grebel (1526), Felix Manz (1527), and Michael Sattler (1527).

This of course predates Muntzer. It is debatable one should really call the Muntzerites anabaptists since their actions and beliefs contradicted Schleitheim confession (in my reading of the anabaptists I have come upon contradictory definitions of what they are).

Here is an article that describes Luther’s relationship to the anabaptists from the anabaptist perspective. I still don’t know what to think here. Luther was an advocate of the religious persecution of the anabaptists, but more as a reaction to Muntzer and a misunderstanding of anabaptism. So it is still unclear in my mind how much of a pass I should give Luther on this one.

This is in contrast to Zwingli who was directly responsible for one of the first anabaptist martyrs (Felix Manz) over the issue of rebaptizing. Or Calvin and Michael Servetus.

His Anti-Semitism is another issue and equally (if not more) troubling to me. Historians disagree how much his anti-semitism was a contributing factor with the holocaust.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

No, does the dog wag the tail, or the tail wag the dog ? he forgot he wasn’t, never will, now or ever will… be Pope.

 

[East_Anglican]

As a Catholic I would have to obviously say no. Outside of the Arian heresy, not one single person has done more to destroy Christ’s prayer that we may all be as one. If it weren’t for Luther(and others following him) CAF would not be necessary. We would all still be as one in our faith.

THe Pope Excumunicating him didn’t help matters did it?

 

[East_Anglican]

Consub instead of transub? I agree with him. Though some protestants now claim it isn’t what Christ said it is.

The wine being given to the laity? I agree with him.

The book of James being an epistle of straw? Absolutely outragous!

 

[desertwoman]

Hi .

This is a very common idea among Protestants. But I find it to be lacking in historical accuracy. There were reforms ongoing within the structure of the Church already, and none of them were for splintering the faithful or separating from the Church. For just one example please see this article about John Tauler. The concluding paragraph is quoted below:

Ah. Thanks my friend for the information.

From all of the historical writings on Luther, do we think that Luther just wanted a quicker reform or did he actually wanted to leave the Church? I think in Evangelical is not Enough, there was a footnote saying that Luther wrote to the Pope and was sorry for what happened for there were different denominations popping up based on the tenet of Sola Scriptura. I think thats the book, I could be wrong since I’ve been reading lots of Catholic Apologetic literature.

With that foot note, I went searching like made for that quote and letter to the Pope about him regretting what happened and for the various conflicting denominations popping up like crazy. Does anyone know of this letter? I work at the library and I’m searching for it like mad.

 

[Contarini]

Ah. Thanks my friend for the information.

From all of the historical writings on Luther, do we think that Luther just wanted a quicker reform or did he actually wanted to leave the Church? I think in Evangelical is not Enough, there was a footnote saying that Luther wrote to the Pope and was sorry for what happened for there were different denominations popping up based on the tenet of Sola Scriptura. I think thats the book, I could be wrong since I’ve been reading lots of Catholic Apologetic literature.

With that foot note, I went searching like made for that quote and letter to the Pope about him regretting what happened and for the various conflicting denominations popping up like crazy. Does anyone know of this letter? I work at the library and I’m searching for it like mad.

I am pretty sure that there is no such letter. Luther certainly commented on his disappointment with Protestant divisions and moral failings, but I don’t think he would have said this to the Pope! After his excommunication I don’t think Luther and the Pope had any further dealings. Furthermore, as Heiko Oberman points out, Luther’s deeply apocalyptic view of the world gave him a way of understanding the negative effects of the Reformation. The Gospel, after all, didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. Perhaps this was just rationalization, but some of what has been interpreted as disillusionment may simply be an expression of Luther’s conviction that the End was at hand, as well as his belief in human depravity.

As for the question of whether Luther wanted to “leave the Church,” it makes no sense, because Luther never thought he left the Church. Luther became convinced that the institution led by the Papacy was not the Church but rather a parasitic growth on the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually the religious persecution of the anabaptists started as early in the 1520’s. Some of their early martyrs were Conrad Grebel (1526), Felix Manz (1527), and Michael Sattler (1527).

Grebel and Manz were executed by the Zurich government with Zwingli’s approval; Sattler was executed by local officials of the Holy Roman Empire (i.e., by Catholics–the Reformed pastors in Strasbourg claimed him as a martyr while admitting that they had deep disagreements with him). Lutherans were relatively slow to execute people for religious reasons, although I believe some people were executed for “blasphemy,” and of course Anabaptists were often accused of "sedition.

This of course predates Muntzer. It is debatable one should really call the Muntzerites anabaptists since their actions and beliefs contradicted Schleitheim confession (in my reading of the anabaptists I have come upon contradictory definitions of what they are).

I think you are talking about Munster, not Muntzer, who was also linked with the Anabaptists by “magisterial” Protestants (historians debate whether this is accurate). The people at Munster were definitely Anabaptists, if you don’t start out by defining “Anabaptists” as “peaceful people.” I don’t think Schleitheim can be taken as the last word on what was an “Anabaptist.” Of course the term can be defined all sorts of different ways, but it seems to me that the definitions that exclude the Munsterites are motivated more by confessional Mennonite prejudice than anything else. Ironically, Menno Simons himself doesn’t seem to have doubted that the Munsterites were Anabaptists–his declared reason for abandoning the Catholic priesthood and bringing into the open his longstanding Anabaptist sympathies was that these poor “sheep” were being deluded by false leaders, with Munster as the prime example. Similarly, Obbe Phillips, who abandoned Anabaptism for a more “spiritualist” position that rejected the idea of recovering a true visible Church, gave Munster as one of his reasons for disillusionment with Anabaptism. No one at the time seems to have defined things otherwise. But since Mennonites eventually came to see themselves as the standard for what was an “Anabaptist,” it was easy to argue that the wackier elements of Anabaptism were really alien to the movement from the beginning.

A good book on Anabaptist attitudes to violence is James Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword. Stayer challenged the traditional Mennonite historiography and argued that Anabaptists had widely varying attitudes to the use of force. Another example of this (on the other side of the spectrum from the Munsterites in many ways) is Balthasar Hubmaier, who supported the right of civil authorities to use “the sword” and did not rule out the possibility that true Christians might be involved in this exercise of government power.

Edwin

 

[TraditionalCath]

Overall, all considered, do you admire Martin Luther (the Reformer in 16th-century Europe) for what he said, wrote and did concerning the Christian faith?

nope.

 

[desertwoman]

I am pretty sure that there is no such letter. Luther certainly commented on his disappointment with Protestant divisions and moral failings, but I don’t think he would have said this to the Pope! After his excommunication I don’t think Luther and the Pope had any further dealings. Furthermore, as Heiko Oberman points out, Luther’s deeply apocalyptic view of the world gave him a way of understanding the negative effects of the Reformation. The Gospel, after all, didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. Perhaps this was just rationalization, but some of what has been interpreted as disillusionment may simply be an expression of Luther’s conviction that the End was at hand, as well as his belief in human depravity.

As for the question of whether Luther wanted to “leave the Church,” it makes no sense, because Luther never thought he left the Church. Luther became convinced that the institution led by the Papacy was not the Church but rather a parasitic growth on the Church.

Edwin

Thanks for the response my friend.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mozart-250:

Actually the religious persecution of the anabaptists started as early in the 1520’s. Some of their early martyrs were Conrad Grebel (1526), Felix Manz (1527), and Michael Sattler (1527).

But unless I’m mistaken, these anabaptists were not persecuted by Lutherans, but by those of the Zwinglian identification.

This of course predates Muntzer. It is debatable one should really call the Muntzerites anabaptists since their actions and beliefs contradicted Schleitheim confession (in my reading of the anabaptists I have come upon contradictory definitions of what they are).

Agreed. There was so much confusion.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mozart-250:

…is an article that describes Luther’s relationship to the anabaptists from the anabaptist perspective. I still don’t know what to think here. Luther was an advocate of the religious persecution of the anabaptists, but more as a reaction to Muntzer and a misunderstanding of anabaptism. So it is still unclear in my mind how much of a pass I should give Luther on this one.

Luther personally had to deal with the Zwickau prophets. I wouldn’t be surprised if Luther viewed the other anabaptists as “fanatics,” as he did those [radical] anabaptists (?) surrounding him.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

Menno Simons himself doesn’t seem to have doubted that the Munsterites were Anabaptists–his declared reason for abandoning the Catholic priesthood and bringing into the open his longstanding Anabaptist sympathies was that these poor “sheep” were being deluded by false leaders, with Munster as the prime example.

Do you know where I could find more info on this? Is it in Stayer? I don’t recall ever of hearing this link between Simons and the Munsterites.

Thanks for the clarification of Muntzer / Munster.

I’ll definitely check out the book! The book I recently read just on th anabaptists, Story of the Anabaptists (Estep), gave a much different picture.

 

[Contarini]

Do you know where I could find more info on this? Is it in Stayer? I don’t recall ever of hearing this link between Simons and the Munsterites.

Thanks for the clarification of Muntzer / Munster.

I’ll definitely check out the book! The book I recently read just on th anabaptists, Story of the Anabaptists (Estep), gave a much different picture.

I’ve seen the book but haven’t read it, to be honest. I know that Estep gives a Baptist perspective, and I tend to be dubious of Baptist perspectives on the Reformation, which is probably prejudiced of me!

The most authoritative work on the Anabaptists and other radical movements is George Williams, *The Radical Reformation. *I believe the version I read (but never quite finished–it’s so long that it tends to be used more as a reference source) was the second, and there has been one more since then (Williams died a few years ago). Williams does a good job of covering all the different radical groups and discussing the links between them.

Williams also co-edited a volume in the Library of Christian Classics called Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers. Obbe Phillips’ account of his disillusionment with Anabaptism is in there–I don’t recall if there is any autobiographical material from Menno, but I think not. I think I read his account of how he came to become an Anabaptist in his collected works, published by the Mennonites.

For a good understanding of the Anabaptists, the two starting points I’d recommend would be Williams as a secondary source and the LCC volume as a collection of primary sources. The Classics of Western Spirituality also has a volume called Early Anabaptist Spirituality, which contains some very interesting writers who aren’t found in the Williams volume.

Another good source is David Steinmetz (my doctoral advisor), Reformers in the Wings, which contains brief sketches of twenty important (but second-rank–i.e., not Luther, Calvin, Menno, etc.) figures of the Reformation, including five “radicals”: Thomas Muntzer, Balthasar Hubmaier, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Hans Denck (who appears in the primary sources I’ve read to have been regarded as one of the leading Anabaptist figures of his day, but doesn’t fit very well into the standard narrative), and Pilgram Marpeck (essentially the southern German equivalent of Menno).

One more source and I’ll quite–John Howard Yoder (a very well-known Mennonite theologian who taught at Notre Dame) edited a volume of Michael Sattler’s writings, with considerable introduction and commentary. Sattler is one of the early Anabaptist figures who fits best into the trajectory that led to the Mennonites, and as such he’s well worth studying.

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

Thanks Edwin for the list of authors and books.

 

[mozart-250]

I think you are talking about Munster, not Muntzer, who was also linked with the Anabaptists by “magisterial” Protestants (historians debate whether this is accurate). The people at Munster were definitely Anabaptists, if you don’t start out by defining “Anabaptists” as “peaceful people.” I don’t think Schleitheim can be taken as the last word on what was an “Anabaptist.” Of course the term can be defined all sorts of different ways, but it seems to me that the definitions that exclude the Munsterites are motivated more by confessional Mennonite prejudice than anything else. Ironically, Menno Simons himself doesn’t seem to have doubted that the Munsterites were Anabaptists–his declared reason for abandoning the Catholic priesthood and bringing into the open his longstanding Anabaptist sympathies was that these poor “sheep” were being deluded by false leaders, with Munster as the prime example. Similarly, Obbe Phillips, who abandoned Anabaptism for a more “spiritualist” position that rejected the idea of recovering a true visible Church, gave Munster as one of his reasons for disillusionment with Anabaptism. No one at the time seems to have defined things otherwise. But since Mennonites eventually came to see themselves as the standard for what was an “Anabaptist,” it was easy to argue that the wackier elements of Anabaptism were really alien to the movement from the beginning.

Well I have been reading about the anabaptists from Mennonite sources on the web, and as such I would expect some of it to be spin.

That having been said, it seems to me that the term anabaptist of the 1500s is much like the term Baptist today, which encompasses Bob Jones, Jimmy Carter, Fred Phelps, Billy Graham, Jesse Jackson, Rick Warren, and Tony Campolo. It is almost too broad to mean all that much. Sure there are wierd ones in this list (Fred Phelps anybody), but one can also discern a mainstream.

Munster sounds like a wierd strain of anabaptism, but hardly representative of the whole. At least from what little I know about it. If would be a mistake to somehow make this representative of the whole (which some apologetics I have read seem to do).

Anyway, the anabaptists of the 1500s and 1600s are sort of near-and-dear to my heart, because in that time period it seems that some of them anyways seem to be the only ones that got the issue of killing other Christians for their beliefs right.

Anyway good to see someone chiming in on the subject that probably has forgotten more on the subject that what I know. That is a good thing.

Edwin

 

[paarsurrey]

Overall, all considered, do you admire Martin Luther (the Reformer in 16th-century Europe) for what he said, wrote and did concerning the Christian faith?

Hi

I admire Martin Luther. He was, to me, a sincere person who loved his religion. When he observed that things were not moving as he expected them to move, for the love of his religion , not for any worldy gains he spoke boldly to get the things straightened.
Thanks

One should search for truth in the NTBible, but one should not compromise on truth, if it is not found there.

 

[Contarini]

Munster sounds like a wierd strain of anabaptism, but hardly representative of the whole. At least from what little I know about it. If would be a mistake to somehow make this representative of the whole (which some apologetics I have read seem to do).

Well, I agree. If we must speak of a “representative Anabaptism,” it would be the tradition stemming from Schleitheim and running to Menno in the north and Marpeck in the south. But given the large numbers of north German and Dutch Anabaptists who flocked to Munster, and the perception of people like Menno and Obbe Phillips that Munster had seriously damaged the movement, I think we should not be quick to bracket out Munster. I think it’s more helpful, historically, to ask why a movement that was generally nonviolent could erupt into apocalyptic violence.

Anyway, the anabaptists of the 1500s and 1600s are sort of near-and-dear to my heart, because in that time period it seems that some of them anyways seem to be the only ones that got the issue of killing other Christians for their beliefs right.

If you bracket out Munster.

I admire the Anabaptists generally as well. But I think it’s a mistake to idealize them as the people who “got things right” and therefore try to explain away the more disturbing features that popped up from time to time (the early Anabaptist who cut his brother’s head off on what he said was a direct command from God would be another example–also what appear to be instances of Anabaptists leaving their “unbelieving” spouses and taking up with “believers” instead, though that’s a more shadowy and controversial issue).

Edwin