H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Double post.
- Status
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Also. And how would you know if a persons treatment of them is fair or unfair?
Even so. Most Lutherans have no problem with the ECFS, we like them! I quote them frequently.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I believe, if one reads the histories of various heretical
movements, it is typical for the person to begin with
one or two valid objections, push hard for that reform,
and as they gain a following, instead of submitting
to requests from the Pope to quiet down and come to
Rome, we will discuss it, they go off the charts. I think
with Luther, it was necessary emotionally to unravel
Church doctrine that was true in order to justify his
increasing nuttiness. I believe one historian claimed he
suffered from bi polar?
If the Pope demanded he come to
Rome or be excommunicated, he just threw out
Papal authority. Purgatory? Throw out Maccabees.
Ultimately the only way to justify his own behavior
was to reject the Church period. And the only way
to achieve that is to go entirely private interpretation
of scripture.
But what do most people remember about Luther?
He objected to the sale of indulgences. A benign
guy.
N
Nicea325
Guest
They agreed with Luther? How could they agree with someone living centuries later? U-huh! It is the oldest trick in the book. I have read enough by many who try convey a message that the ECF agree with him or her. JW’s use ECF’s to prove they agreed with the JW’s on the falsehood of the Trinity. Please!
He can be your hero, but he is NOTHING compared to any ECF.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I only have one hero: Jesus Christ!
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi HH,
“In fact, especially at the beginning, Luther was amazingly ignorant of the Fathers:”
It just could be that what Pelikan meant was that at the beginning of his Revolt, Luther was fairly ignorant of the Fathers, BUT THEN, later in his ‘career’, he became aware of the existence of Fathers earlier than Tertullian, going so far as to even quote them. You see, that would allow Pelikan to be correct in his statement AND allow for Luther quoting Irenaeus.
This ‘version’ though would mean that Luther was rather poorly educated in matters of early Church history when he began to refute those dozens of established Doctrines of the Church. Which would of course mean that he wasn’t very well qualified to refute the teachings of the Church. Of course if you choose, you can insist that Pelikan, the celebrated Lutheran Scholar was wrong on the matter.
Seriously, what’s not to love about the guy? Why wouldn’t EVERYBODY have him for their hero?
HH, if I were to list the all of the other groups that Luther wanted executed, would that make a difference to you?
Personally, I don’t get why Luther is your hero. I can understand a Lutheran honoring the founder of their religion, or respecting him, but not the whole hero thing. In my book that is going way too far for a man like Luther. For me it is all about character and behaving like a Christian.
Anyway, God Bless You HH, Topper
I think it us is pretty interesting that you would just PRESUME that Pelikan is wrong because he disagrees with you. You do realize of course that he was probably one of the most important Lutheran Scholars of the last century. Right? Maybe you should consider that he was right. After all, in reference to the quote, I said that:
“In fact, especially at the beginning, Luther was amazingly ignorant of the Fathers:”
It just could be that what Pelikan meant was that at the beginning of his Revolt, Luther was fairly ignorant of the Fathers, BUT THEN, later in his ‘career’, he became aware of the existence of Fathers earlier than Tertullian, going so far as to even quote them. You see, that would allow Pelikan to be correct in his statement AND allow for Luther quoting Irenaeus.
This ‘version’ though would mean that Luther was rather poorly educated in matters of early Church history when he began to refute those dozens of established Doctrines of the Church. Which would of course mean that he wasn’t very well qualified to refute the teachings of the Church. Of course if you choose, you can insist that Pelikan, the celebrated Lutheran Scholar was wrong on the matter.
Well, you already know that he was extremely intolerant, that he wanted to destroy the Church right at the beginning of his ‘reforming career’, and that he recommended that Anabaptists be put to death.
Seriously, what’s not to love about the guy? Why wouldn’t EVERYBODY have him for their hero?
HH, if I were to list the all of the other groups that Luther wanted executed, would that make a difference to you?
Personally, I don’t get why Luther is your hero. I can understand a Lutheran honoring the founder of their religion, or respecting him, but not the whole hero thing. In my book that is going way too far for a man like Luther. For me it is all about character and behaving like a Christian.
Anyway, God Bless You HH, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your post.
We know that Luther taught Sola Scriptura and we know how much damage that has done to Christian unity, but to point a finger at Luther directly is to undermine the foundations of Protestantism. So he must be protected.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your post.
In fact, many Protestant and even some Lutheran Scholars have come to similar conclusions. Of course, the ‘popular’ version of the history of Luther (the Legend) does not include what a lot of Scholars have admitted.
We know that Luther taught Sola Scriptura and we know how much damage that has done to Christian unity, but to point a finger at Luther directly is to undermine the foundations of Protestantism. So he must be protected.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
According to who? You?
Jesus tells us we are to listen to the Church, and if we don’t, we are to be considered outsiders (Matt 18).
Have you determined that infallibly? Could you be wrong?
Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. You say that the Church is wrong. You are therefore opposed to Scripture. The same scripture you say is the final norm.
Yep. Something sinful, according to Scripture.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
An ad hominem argument? Really? How disappointing.
Even though primary source material was provided?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mar,
Wow. Some people hit the nail on the head but you drove it all the way home in one blow. I agree with every word.
As you mentioned, they all seem to start with a couple of valid points, which of course Luther did. But where they ALL get into trouble doctrinally is that they emphasize normally one doctrinal aspect over all of the rest. In Luther’s case, (as you said), emotionally he NEEDED Salvation by Faith Alone SO BAD that he jettisoned a whole lot of things in his desperate attempt to convince himself that SBFA was a Christian Teaching. If he had been a better Theologian (meaning a Systematic Theologian) he would have realized early on how many established doctrines he would have to reject in order to protect SBFA. But he didn’t.
Which historian considered him to be bi polar? There were quite a few who provide a tentative ‘diagnosis’ but of course analyzing someone dead for 400+ years is pretty difficult, EXCEPT for the fact that he wrote down his almost every thought, filling more than 60 volumes.
Thankfully, there are many stories of historical facts which provide a glimpse into Luther’s emotional health, allowing us to make some general observations which are crucial in determining whether Luther should be viewed as a ‘Reformer’ or a Revolutionary bent on destruction.
As you stated, this was not a benign man. What puzzles me is how anybody can look at a man with such a violent and hateful manner, and believe that he was doing God’s Will in refuting SO MUCH of accepted Christian Teaching.
While it is true of course that God can ‘pick’ anyone He wants to work though on earth, just exactly how likely is it that he chose this particular man?
The indulgence issue and the various abuses of the Church were not what caused Luther’s problem with the Church and were forgotten almost immediately. They were nothing in comparison to his challenges to the authority of the Church. Interestingly, Luther didn’t even realize that his 95 Theses were a challenge to the authority of the Church and continued to proclaim himself to be the one who was actually teaching the Real Catholic Teaching for another 18 months or so. By the time he finally figured out that he was off base, he had been warned by a couple of dozen Catholic Theologians that he was wrong. Once he finally realized that the whole Church was not going to simply bend to his titanic will, THEN he ‘became the church’, and those who believed differently were not the church.
God Bless You Mar, Topper
Wow. Some people hit the nail on the head but you drove it all the way home in one blow. I agree with every word.
When you study the heresies prior to the Reformation, it is amazing how similar the people are who started them. John Huss and Martin Luther were really soul mates. Of course, as you mentioned, they ALL have to proclaim Sola Scriptura in order to have even the flimsiest claim to their own authority to teach differently than what they were taught.
As you mentioned, they all seem to start with a couple of valid points, which of course Luther did. But where they ALL get into trouble doctrinally is that they emphasize normally one doctrinal aspect over all of the rest. In Luther’s case, (as you said), emotionally he NEEDED Salvation by Faith Alone SO BAD that he jettisoned a whole lot of things in his desperate attempt to convince himself that SBFA was a Christian Teaching. If he had been a better Theologian (meaning a Systematic Theologian) he would have realized early on how many established doctrines he would have to reject in order to protect SBFA. But he didn’t.
Which historian considered him to be bi polar? There were quite a few who provide a tentative ‘diagnosis’ but of course analyzing someone dead for 400+ years is pretty difficult, EXCEPT for the fact that he wrote down his almost every thought, filling more than 60 volumes.
Thankfully, there are many stories of historical facts which provide a glimpse into Luther’s emotional health, allowing us to make some general observations which are crucial in determining whether Luther should be viewed as a ‘Reformer’ or a Revolutionary bent on destruction.
As you stated, this was not a benign man. What puzzles me is how anybody can look at a man with such a violent and hateful manner, and believe that he was doing God’s Will in refuting SO MUCH of accepted Christian Teaching.
While it is true of course that God can ‘pick’ anyone He wants to work though on earth, just exactly how likely is it that he chose this particular man?
The indulgence issue and the various abuses of the Church were not what caused Luther’s problem with the Church and were forgotten almost immediately. They were nothing in comparison to his challenges to the authority of the Church. Interestingly, Luther didn’t even realize that his 95 Theses were a challenge to the authority of the Church and continued to proclaim himself to be the one who was actually teaching the Real Catholic Teaching for another 18 months or so. By the time he finally figured out that he was off base, he had been warned by a couple of dozen Catholic Theologians that he was wrong. Once he finally realized that the whole Church was not going to simply bend to his titanic will, THEN he ‘became the church’, and those who believed differently were not the church.
God Bless You Mar, Topper
M
marywarfield
Guest
Topper, thank you.
There is a wonderful blogspot that documents the historians
and psychiatrists- especially Erik Erikson- that believe
Luther fit the manic depressive spectrum.
It’s really only very recently that Luther has become
the poster saint for those with OCD instead.
It is often ignored these days that underlying his
OCD was bi polar disorder.
But the simple fact is many Catholic reformer saints suffered
from scrupulosity/OCD managed to be canonized
rather than ex communicated. And a thoughtful person
MUST ask what was different in Luther’s case.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/erik-erikson-believed-that-martin.html?m=1
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
LOL, Erik Erikson, the atheist Freudian psychoanalyst?
The guy who said Luther “dethroned Mary because he hated his own mother”?
Can you tell us what diagnostic criteria Luther met to merit an OCD or bipolar diagnosis?
Do you think its ethical to diagnose person who is not sitting across the table from you? Much less a different country and five hundred years removed?
This is not an exercise in loving ones neighbor, it’s an exercise in psychohistory.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Forensic psychiatry has been around for a long
long time. It is a primary tool used by law enforcement
to locate serial murderers and rapists who are
not sitting across the table from them either.
Without regard to Freud or Eriksons religious
beliefs, psych auteur symptoms remain objective
and stable. And bless his heart Luther left plenty
of them behind in his journals.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Um no. Luther was hardly a serial killer or rapist, although similar accusations against him have been made, by atheists psychoanalysts and catholic apologists. Psychohistory makes for strange bedfellows. I am a therapist by trade, and if I were to try to pass of a diagnosis on someone not sitting across from me, much less in a different county, 500 years removed. I would be promptly fired, delicensed, and reprimanded by my state overseeing agency.
Like I said, this is not an exercise in loving ones neighbor.
Can you name some of the symptoms that have lead you to believe that Luther had bipolar disorder? And please cite the relevant journal entry and how you know this is meeting the diagnostic criteria of BPD I or II and not caused by some other psychosocial stressor (such as a price on his head).
N
Nicea325
Guest
Regardless of his so-called mental issues, Luther was arrogant. Simply by reading the many things he said is fair enough to say he was all about: Martin.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Have you ever actually read anything about Martin Luther
even the barest biography?
His own self proclaimed depressions began before
he ever entered seminary and alternated with bouts
of extreme activity. It is his own OCD (called scrupulosity by
Luther himself) that led him to challenge purgatory
doctrine to begin with. This is all OLD news
and directly from the man himself. I’m amazed you
claim him a hero when you know so very little about
him!!!
M
marywarfield
Guest
There is no sense debating whether Luther suffered
from mental instability/depression. It is well chronicled
and in fact Luther himself was way ahead of his time
in diagnosing and treating the disease not only for
himself but others he regularly counseled as well.
He was probably the first to really note cognitive
associations in the depressed person, the first to
clearly outline how depression is not necessarily the
work of Satan and how it can manifest itself in suicidal
thoughts and behaviors.
His own discussions of his depressions have been
a sort of cornerstone for mental health therapy for
quite a while. So its disingenuous for people to
argue Luther’s depressions etc.
And he became increasingly worse as he got older.
And no matter how we stretch, excuse, justify the man’s
intentions, his behavior has very little to do
with that normally considered Christlike or saintly.
From the Book of Concord site
ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/edwardslutherslastbattles.pdf
from mental instability/depression. It is well chronicled
and in fact Luther himself was way ahead of his time
in diagnosing and treating the disease not only for
himself but others he regularly counseled as well.
He was probably the first to really note cognitive
associations in the depressed person, the first to
clearly outline how depression is not necessarily the
work of Satan and how it can manifest itself in suicidal
thoughts and behaviors.
His own discussions of his depressions have been
a sort of cornerstone for mental health therapy for
quite a while. So its disingenuous for people to
argue Luther’s depressions etc.
And he became increasingly worse as he got older.
And no matter how we stretch, excuse, justify the man’s
intentions, his behavior has very little to do
with that normally considered Christlike or saintly.
From the Book of Concord site
ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/edwardslutherslastbattles.pdf
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Nonsense. I am not saying he wasn’t depressed at times. He obviously was.
I am asking how you know he had BPD I or II and how you know these symptoms weren’t causes by something else. Seems like you are quick to diagnose a mental disorder. I am thinking you have little or nor experience in the field of psychological diagnosis, do you? Perhaps you just don’t like the guy. Either way it’s not a exercise in loving ones neighbor to speculate about their mental disorders if they have one at all. Wouldn’t you agree?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I do agree he was way ahead of his time. And a genius. Dude wrote more theology than I could read in years and years. I really respect him and he is my hero.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Again you are 100% on the mark, or at least we are both wrong together about everything (as some would have it).
There was a huge difference between Luther and all of those also scrupulous Catholic saints who worked WITHIN the Church to reform Her. They were not ruled by their overwhelming terror over their everlasting salvation. They didn’t have to ‘find’ something in Scripture (Salvation by Faith Alone) and seemingly deliberately defy Scripture by claiming Personal Interpretation as a Christian Doctrine in order to quell their massive fears.
Erikson of course is criticized heavily, as is everyone else who dares to point out the obvious truths about Luther. But, increasingly it seems, more and more Protestant and Lutheran Scholars are making comments about Luther’s rather ‘unique’ psychological health issues.
“He would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………
He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………
A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….
Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because it is his personality and character that are at issue. Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Heiko Oberman, pg. 313-314
This is an interesting combination of comments from this Protestant writer. He admits that Luther had obvious psychological issues, and while he also admits that Luther’s problems would preclude the possibility of being allowed to teach in a modern university, he somehow fails to connect the dots in that he does not bring up the possibility that it could have been Luther’s psychological problems ALONE (solo psycho) that led to his certainty of his authority, and also hindered him from recognizing that he had no such authority whatsoever.
I would suggest that if Luther were to appear today and apply for some kind of official role as a ‘teacher’ or preacher in a Lutheran church, he probably would not last a month before being discharged. Oberman makes the same basic comment about the possibility of his being on a university faculty.
Oberman is not the only Protestant Scholar who has been honest about Luther’s mental health challenges. The thing that is significant is that Luther exhibited symptoms even in the monastery and yet he still was allowed to pursue not only the Priesthood but also a doctorate and a teaching position. The man responsible for this, Father Staupitz, showed very poor judgment and the historical record indicates that he was aware of his mistake.
It isn’t the comments of modern day historians, biographers, and theologians which make Luther’s psychological health an issue, but his own actions and written words. Furthermore, I would hope that Protestantism would understand the necessity of a ‘Reformer’ being emotionally healthy, or at least of being perceived as being so.
What are we to think of the ‘authority’ of a so-called Reformer to challenge existing doctrines by the dozen, when that reformer was very clearly unstable?
Luther was not the kind of man who should have been given that kind of responsibility, especially for teaching prospective priests. The situation was rectified in three steps. Luther was released from his duties as an Augustinian friar (by Staupitz), was excommunicated by the Church as a heretic, and was declared an enemy of the State by the Emperor and also by the Diet of Worms. Unfortunately though he was still allowed to teach by his Elector whose main goal was not the protection of Christianity but the reputation and ‘success’ of the University he founded a few short years earlier.
God Bless You Mar, Topper
Again you are 100% on the mark, or at least we are both wrong together about everything (as some would have it).
Dave Armstrong’s Blog and his 30 some books point to him being one of the top 2 or 3 Catholic Apologists in the world. Furthermore, his work in bringing out the Truth About Luther is first rate and exhaustive. Dave understands how big a role Luther has had in the division of Western Christendom.
There was a huge difference between Luther and all of those also scrupulous Catholic saints who worked WITHIN the Church to reform Her. They were not ruled by their overwhelming terror over their everlasting salvation. They didn’t have to ‘find’ something in Scripture (Salvation by Faith Alone) and seemingly deliberately defy Scripture by claiming Personal Interpretation as a Christian Doctrine in order to quell their massive fears.
Erikson of course is criticized heavily, as is everyone else who dares to point out the obvious truths about Luther. But, increasingly it seems, more and more Protestant and Lutheran Scholars are making comments about Luther’s rather ‘unique’ psychological health issues.
“He would not likely be offered a professorship (at the University of Wittenberg, now a part of the University of Halle), nor would it be any different in Heidelberg or Marburg……He would be an indisputably successful teacher, but as a colleague he would be irksome and unwilling to bow to majorities…….He would be driven by singular notions about the Devil and the Last Judgment…………
He would be biting and sometimes overly rough toward colleagues with whom he disagreed. Where generalized judgments were concerned, he would outdo anyone, working himself up to furious tirades. He would rant against papists, Jews, lawyers, and high officials………………
A psychiatric analysis would rob Luther of whatever chances he had left of teaching at a present-day university. The diagnosis would be persuasive – Paranoia reformatorica – but the grounds for it must remain irritatingly uncertain, ranging from neurosis to psychosis, from Oedipus complex to mother fixation. Fear of the Lord and abhorrence of the Devil are indicators of disturbed childhood development. And disturbing is what they really are…………….
Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from trying to imagine Luther as our contemporary because it is his personality and character that are at issue. Our anachronistic test is so illuminating because questions regarding his commitment cannot simply be shunted aside in an analysis of his person. The man and his cause are both intimately linked that any separation of the two will be at the expense of both. Even this speaks against offering Luther a professorship in our time, which prefers objective scholarship to a personal commitment and vision.” Heiko Oberman, pg. 313-314
This is an interesting combination of comments from this Protestant writer. He admits that Luther had obvious psychological issues, and while he also admits that Luther’s problems would preclude the possibility of being allowed to teach in a modern university, he somehow fails to connect the dots in that he does not bring up the possibility that it could have been Luther’s psychological problems ALONE (solo psycho) that led to his certainty of his authority, and also hindered him from recognizing that he had no such authority whatsoever.
I would suggest that if Luther were to appear today and apply for some kind of official role as a ‘teacher’ or preacher in a Lutheran church, he probably would not last a month before being discharged. Oberman makes the same basic comment about the possibility of his being on a university faculty.
Oberman is not the only Protestant Scholar who has been honest about Luther’s mental health challenges. The thing that is significant is that Luther exhibited symptoms even in the monastery and yet he still was allowed to pursue not only the Priesthood but also a doctorate and a teaching position. The man responsible for this, Father Staupitz, showed very poor judgment and the historical record indicates that he was aware of his mistake.
It isn’t the comments of modern day historians, biographers, and theologians which make Luther’s psychological health an issue, but his own actions and written words. Furthermore, I would hope that Protestantism would understand the necessity of a ‘Reformer’ being emotionally healthy, or at least of being perceived as being so.
What are we to think of the ‘authority’ of a so-called Reformer to challenge existing doctrines by the dozen, when that reformer was very clearly unstable?
Luther was not the kind of man who should have been given that kind of responsibility, especially for teaching prospective priests. The situation was rectified in three steps. Luther was released from his duties as an Augustinian friar (by Staupitz), was excommunicated by the Church as a heretic, and was declared an enemy of the State by the Emperor and also by the Diet of Worms. Unfortunately though he was still allowed to teach by his Elector whose main goal was not the protection of Christianity but the reputation and ‘success’ of the University he founded a few short years earlier.
God Bless You Mar, Topper
- Status