Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[mgrfin]

He was certainly very judgemental as a man and a teacher, and the standard he used was quite high. For example I believe when looking at Church doctrine he taught if any Catholic Church dogma was found to be in error, then all the rest of it would fall as well. That same standard by which he himself judged then can and should be applied to his work as well.

God Bless
Mike

I don’t know about his teaching that if any doctrine of the Church was found in error, the rest of it would fall as well.

I do know that he said that his doctrine stands or falls on one thing only JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY.

Of course, that is why he changed Romans 2:28 to fit his doctrine.
Faith Only is heresy, as is taught in Trent, and in the Epistles of Paul, and James.

The standards he set for others may have been high, but for himself, he was an obscene man.
mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know about his teaching that if any doctrine of the Church was found in error, the rest of it would fall as well.

I do know that he said that his doctrine stands or falls on one thing only JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY.

Of course, that is why he changed Romans 2:28 to fit his doctrine.

I think you mean 3:28. And since he was translating the Bible, obviously he changed it. Every translation is a change. You are working with a naive understanding of what translation is if you think there is any translation that does not change the text.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I think you mean 3:28. And since he was translating the Bible, obviously he changed it. Every translation is a change. You are working with a naive understanding of what translation is if you think there is any translation that does not change the text.

Edwin

You are correct: it is Romans 3:28. I had James on my mind. Thanks for the correction.

Not in total agreement with the rest of what you say… We say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, but that applies only to the originals. But we don’t have the originals, so we rely on “tradition” namely what has been handed down to us (by the Catholic Church). Translations can and sometimes do change the meaning of the text. (That is why the Catholic Church is the true interpreter of the Scriptures) But the word ‘only’ was specifically added by Luther. It was not in the original Greek in any extant manuscripts, nor in the Latin Vulgate.
His intention was to deceive since his teaching rose or fell on his Justification by Faith ONLY
Now if he could just find a text that said 'we are justified by faith ONLY not by works…" Well, it’s not there, cause it is not true. Trent set the matter straight in its ‘anathemas’ on Justification by faith only. (I’ve already gone there on other posts).
mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

You are correct: it is Romans 3:28. I had James on my mind. Thanks for the correction.

Not in total agreement with the rest of what you say… We say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, but that applies only to the originals. But we don’t have the originals, so we rely on “tradition” namely what has been handed down to us (by the Catholic Church). Translations can and sometimes do change the meaning of the text.

I didn’t say they changed the meaning of the text. I said they changed the text. Not sometimes–always.

Whether a given translation changes the meaning of the text is generally up for debate. In this case, Luther claimed that using the German word “allein” was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek. I think he was wrong. But it is in fact a question of translation, not of “addition.”

But the word ‘only’ was specifically added by Luther. It was not in the original Greek in any extant manuscripts, nor in the Latin Vulgate.

Obviously the English word “only” was not in Greek or Latin–nor did Luther use it. He used “allein.” He argued that it was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek, because this is how you spoke in German. I think this is a strained argument, but Luther was a sixteenth-century German, and I’m a 21st-century English speaker, so he has some advantage over me in this matter. Unless you know both Greek and German, both Luther and I have some advantage over you!

His intention was to deceive since his teaching rose or fell on his Justification by Faith ONLY
mgrfin

You have no business speculating on his intention. He explicitly said that his intention was to convey the meaning of the Greek, and you have no reason to suppose otherwise. I rather think he was wrong, but being wrong does not make him dishonest. I think translating “presbyteros” as “priest” is wrong also (because the word “presbyteros” would not convey the meaning to first-century Greek speakers that the word “priest” does to English speakers), but I don’t consider the translators of the Douay-Rheims dishonest because they thought differently. All translators are influenced by their theology. Sorry to be a snob, but unless you have done some translation you are unlikely to understand how it works. It’s not as straightforward as you seem to think.

Edwin

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Perhaps the bigger issue is whether or not Luther was qualified to render his own translation of the Bible in the first place.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps the bigger issue is whether or not Luther was qualified to render his own translation of the Bible in the first place.

Agreed. I know there were a lot of German translations around already–I don’t know how scholarly or readable they were.

Tyndale’s situation was different, since the Catholic Church in England refused to make a vernacular translation available.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

I didn’t say they changed the meaning of the text. I said they changed the text. Not sometimes–always.

Whether a given translation changes the meaning of the text is generally up for debate. In this case, Luther claimed that using the German word “allein” was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek. I think he was wrong. But it is in fact a question of translation, not of “addition.”

Obviously the English word “only” was not in Greek or Latin–nor did Luther use it. He used “allein.” He argued that it was necessary to convey the meaning of the Greek, because this is how you spoke in German. I think this is a strained argument, but Luther was a sixteenth-century German, and I’m a 21st-century English speaker, so he has some advantage over me in this matter. Unless you know both Greek and German, both Luther and I have some advantage over you!

You have no business speculating on his intention. He explicitly said that his intention was to convey the meaning of the Greek, and you have no reason to suppose otherwise. I rather think he was wrong, but being wrong does not make him dishonest. I think translating “presbyteros” as “priest” is wrong also (because the word “presbyteros” would not convey the meaning to first-century Greek speakers that the word “priest” does to English speakers), but I don’t consider the translators of the Douay-Rheims dishonest because they thought differently. All translators are influenced by their theology. Sorry to be a snob, but unless you have done some translation you are unlikely to understand how it works. It’s not as straightforward as you seem to think.

Edwin

You sound a bit like Dr. Gene Scott. But he passed away two years ago. His wife, Melissa, has taken over, and she claims to know 27 languages. You’re not Melissa, are you?

I’ve heard Dr. Scott’s argument about the addition of the word ‘only’, (German word “allein”) so it is not new to me either. Like you, I don’t agree with him (Luther and Scott). I don’t know German and I don’t want to, or have to. Luther is someone I’d rather forget about. I don’t excuse any of him

I also disagree that ALL translation changes the text, unless you mean in the most simplistic of cases, where it is just a different language. A translation can me made that is faithful, and does not change either the text or the meaning.

You have what is known as ‘faithful’ translations, and in all of my translations in latin and greek (long time ago) I tried to be as literal as possible without being stilted.

Luther is dead. I never held him in high regard. I judge his outward life as a total affront to Jesus Christ. He was a liar, a cheat, an immoral, obscene boar. A wild man, a loose cannon. He was a racist, who hated the Jews. His foulest language was saved for the Pope. He dispised women. Lutherans today disown him. He darkened soul led him to disown free will, and any good he tried to do, he failed. The religion he preached was from one who threw in the towel. Have faith; sin and enjoy it. “Once saved, always saved” is the devil’s doctrine.

I don’t accept any of it cause it happened nearly 500 years ago. St. Augustine was 1500 years ago, and his life, after his conversion was exemplary.

I think lots of people on this site are here to counter Catholic theology, and not to conciliate. What say you, Edwin? Are you here to counter us, or to conciliate?
mgrfin

 

[Mike_Brick]

Why on earth do you want to be like Luther? It makes no sense.
Edwin

Sorry if my thoughts weren’t clear. I do not want to be like him at all, and with God’s grace and a little “work”, I won’t.

Blessings

 

[mgrfin]

Perhaps the bigger issue is whether or not Luther was qualified to render his own translation of the Bible in the first place.

Correct. There were other German translations of the Bible available to Luther, and he used these. He rushed to get a translation into print, and I believe I read somewhere there were 1,000 significant errors in his first translation.
Caejetan made mince meat of Dr. Martin. No, he was not competent in much of anything, especially piety.

mgr

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Tyndale’s situation was different, since the Catholic Church in England refused to make a vernacular translation available.

I don’t want to sidetrack this thread. I was wondering if you could comment on what Catholic Answers says about what you just said here:

Did the Catholic Church refuse to make a vernacular Bible available in England?

Thanks!

 

[Contarini]

You sound a bit like Dr. Gene Scott. But he passed away two years ago. His wife, Melissa, has taken over, and she claims to know 27 languages. You’re not Melissa, are you?

No. And I don’t know 27 languages. I do, however, have some knowledge of German and Greek.

I’ve heard Dr. Scott’s argument about the addition of the word ‘only’, (German word “allein”) so it is not new to me either. Like you, I don’t agree with him (Luther and Scott). I don’t know German and I don’t want to, or have to.

Yes, you do. If you don’t know Greek and German you have no idea if Luther’s arguments are correct or not. He might be right that “allein” was necessary. If you are following Catholic scholars who do know the relevant languages, then that is a different matter. But even then, you are simply saying that Luther made a bad and overly biased translation, not that he deliberately added a word in order to deceive. That is simply not a legitimate accusation.

Luther is someone I’d rather forget about.

Then why not forget about him? Why are you making these unjustified allegations about him?

I don’t excuse any of him

Is simply being fair and accurate “excusing”?

I also disagree that ALL translation changes the text, unless you mean in the most simplistic of cases, where it is just a different language.

That is exactly what I mean. A different language means a different text.

A translation can me made that is faithful, and does not change either the text or the meaning.

I’m not sure what you mean by “text” as distinct from meaning. By “text” I mean words on a page. Different words, different text. Luther said that the use of the word “allein” gave a more accurate rendition of the meaning of the Greek. That is an argument about translation and has to be judged as such.

You have what is known as ‘faithful’ translations,

There are no entirely “faithful” translations–it’s an oxymoron. There are translations that are more faithful than others.

and in all of my translations in latin and greek (long time ago) I tried to be as literal as possible without being stilted.

But being literal may or may not be “faithful”–it all depends. I generally take a more literal approach than most translators also.

Luther is dead. I never held him in high regard. I judge his outward life as a total affront to Jesus Christ. He was a liar,

Yes, like many other Christians (though not St. Augustine, whom I tend to follow on this) he thought that lying was sometimes justified. I think he was far too loose on this point.

a cheat,

I’m not sure what you are referring to here.

an immoral, obscene boar.

He was often vulgar, and Pope Leo did inded call him a wild boar, though I’m not sure how one would evaluate such a claim. . . .

A wild man, a loose cannon. He was a racist, who hated the Jews.

He was not a racist except in the sense that like most people of his day he made generalizations about Saxons being drunkards, etc. His vicious attitude to the Jews was not based on race but on his hatred of their religious tradition and their rejection of Christ.

His foulest language was saved for the Pope.

Probably true.

He dispised women.

He was certainly a misogynist by modern standards. But he spoke very affectionately and respectfully of his wife, and of the Blessed Virgin. His Biblical interpretation shows far more sympathy for oppressed women such as Hagar than that of many other premodern commentators.

Lutherans today disown him.

I’m sure you can find Lutherans who do, but by and large this is false. It’s completely false of confessional Lutherans.

He darkened soul led him to disown free will,

Again, you are skirting blasphemy in your willingness to usurp God’s privilege of reading hearts. Historically, it is more accurate to say that his radical interpretation of the Augustinian theological tradition led him to disown free will (and yes, I know that St. Augustine did not go that far–that is why I said “radical”).

and any good he tried to do, he failed.

I think that’s too sweeping a judgment, but it’s too broad to debate.

The religion he preached was from one who threw in the towel. Have faith; sin and enjoy it.

That is not what he taught. I have abundantly shown this on a number of occasions, most recently here (posts 23-24).

“Once saved, always saved” is the devil’s doctrine.

In certain of its forms, I would certainly agree with you. But this is a moot point, because Luther did not teach any form of “Once saved, always saved.”

 

[Contarini]

I think lots of people on this site are here to counter Catholic theology, and not to conciliate.

And of course, your posts are extremely conciliatory

What say you, Edwin? Are you here to counter us, or to conciliate?
mgrfin

I’m here to counter anything false, and defend everything true to the best of my knowledge and ability. By and large, I agree with Catholicism far more than I disagree with it, and I agree with it more than any form of Protestantism except possibly the two I am affiliated with (Anglicanism and Methodism–but I can say that only because both of these are very broad traditions that can be interpreted in quite a Catholic direction).

Why are you here? Are you interested in truth, or only in Truth? Truth (i.e., ultimate truth about the True Church and the Big Picture) is only possible on the basis of truth (i.e., piddling little details like whether Luther actually taught eternal security or not).
Too many people here think that possession of the Truth allows them to play fast and loose with plain old garden-variety truth (or rather they assume that anything that serves the cause of Truth must be true).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sorry if my thoughts weren’t clear. I do not want to be like him at all, and with God’s grace and a little “work”, I won’t.

Blessings

Then do not cite his bigotry as an excuse for yours.

Edwin

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

he was nearly killed but saved by the power of one vote. hmm…

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by xmydreamsfadex:

he was nearly killed but saved by the power of one vote. hmm…

Clearly divine intervention.

 

[MikeB]

I would like to “weight” in on this subject. In the early days of my return to the Church I have made the statement that if Luther had not left the Church then in some ways he might have actually become a saint . . .

But I as studied more I found a very troubled man, which in many ways we all fall in that category. Here is a man who may not have even known of the early Church Fathers. Who in many ways did not even have a strong foundation in his own faith and had to form his own religion to find that foundation to give him some assurance of salvation.

Here is a man who thought that he was still a part of the Catholic Church and working to reform it. A man who probably had a confessor to his death bed but felt that the lay person didn’t need one. Who thought that his internal stomach problems were the result of demonic possession and not anything to do with his 350 lbs of weight.

A man who had such varying opinions that the vast majority of his writings have never been translated from the original old German. This is a question that no Lutheran wants to address.

Finally, each and every Christian needs to listen and discern among 3 voices in their head. There is the voice of God, our own voice and the voice of satan. God’s voice preaches to us of unity - “I pray that they are one as we are one” - our voice speaks of vanity - “Oh vanity of vanities”- and satan speaks of division and discord.

Did Luther listen to God?

Mike

 

[MikeB]

on the whole I prefer medieval Christianity (warts and all) to either Protestantism or post-Reformation Catholicism. That’s one reason I’m an Anglican. . . .

Edwin

But Edwin, the Anglican Chruch doesn’t look anything like the medieval Church??

Consider the fact that the Anglican Church would never have broken away if the Pope had given Henry his divorce. Prior to that point the Church of England was the Catholic Church’s biggest defender.

Mike

 

[Contarini]

But Edwin, the Anglican Chruch doesn’t look anything like the medieval Church??

I wouldn’t say that. I’m not actually claiming that we look more like the medieval Church than you do. But we certainly have many medieval aspects. More to the point, our 39 Articles do not function with the kind of authority for us that the confessions of Lutherans, Reformed, and yes, Roman Catholics do. Therefore, given the structural and liturgical continuities with the pre-Reformation Church, Anglicans have been able to retrieve the pre-Reformation heritage in a way that other Protestants and even Roman Catholics (I am using “Roman” deliberately because I am specifically speaking of the Latin Church here) find much more difficult.

I admit that this was far truer of the parish where I became Episcopalian (which has now split, with the priest and much of the congregation leaving the Episcopal Church) than of either of the parishes I’ve attended in other parts of the country. When I was in Journey in Faith (our equivalent of RCIA) and the priest was describing the Eucharist in very Catholic terms, I objected that this contradicted the 39 Articles, and the priest responded that IV Lateran was a Council of the whole Western Church and so trumped the Articles, which were drawn up only by a national church. This is the kind of thinking in which I was formed as an Anglican.

Consider the fact that the Anglican Church would never have broken away if the Pope had given Henry his divorce.

Annulment. And we don’t know what would have happened.

Prior to that point the Church of England was the Catholic Church’s biggest defender.

That’s just as oversimplified as the (spurious) Anglican claim that the Church of England before the Reformation had some kind of unique independence from Rome.

Edwin

 

[St_Violet]

I thought it was divorce?

and plus didn’t King Henry kill his first wife because she couldn’t give him a son. but even if the situation was about Henry getting an annulment, the Catholic Church doesn’t just give out annulments freely. I also learned he killed his mistress because she as well couldn’t give birth to a son.

Also do the Anglican Church permit female and homosexuals to be ordained ?

 

[mgrfin]

And of course, your posts are extremely conciliatory

Why are you here? Are you interested in truth, or only in Truth? Truth (i.e., ultimate truth about the True Church and the Big Picture) is only possible on the basis of truth (i.e., piddling little details like whether Luther actually taught eternal security or not).

Edwin

There’s hope for you yet, Edwin.