Follow up on SS

[House_Harkonnen]

I’m sorry but that’s a distortion. We give Chrystostom and
Ecks a pass because they did not attempt to destroy
the unity of the Holy Body of Christ.

It is Christ that should be your hero HH.
It is Christ that Luther uncharitably attacked.

Christ is my savior.

Luther is my hero.

It’s not sane or insane hatred of Jews that is beyond the pale, then why bring it up at all? It seems to be a favorite stone that folks throw against my hero Luther. But when pointed out other folks with hatred of Jews from the same time period, then the issue really is not that important anymore.

Unity in the church was already gone by 500 and certainly by 800, the church just limped on under an illusory unity until a formal break in 1054. To say that Luther was the one who broke it is silly and glib.

Furthermore I don’t see Luther as the one who broke unity, he was booted out, excommunicated. He didn’t leave. Even so, Luther was trying to bring the church back from error, the Lutheran reformation was a conservative one.

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11877557]It’s not an “attack” to state clearly ones opinion of
someone five hundred years dead. For instance it is not an uncharitable attack to state Attila the Hun raped, plundered and murdered.

Indeed, then I was not talking about someone’s opinion.

It seems to me that Lutherans in general want to protect Luther because bottom line- if he truly was mentally ill it calls into question his changing theology 1500 years old and the theology might be wrong I.e.purgatory, covering of baptism, etc.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is honestly overly speculative, and really irrelevant, since we don’t follow Luther the man. We confess what is in the Book of Concord and consider the writing, not the man.

As far as the new or modern tendency of Lutheranism purporting to be the REAL Catholic Church it seems to me about as valid as the U.S. stating suddenly that it is the REAL England and its the old England that went wrong lol.

I’ve never made that claim. What I’ve said is that we as Lutherans are part of the OHCAC, that orthodox confessional Lutheranism is catholic. Further, I have never denied that the Catholic Church is part of the OHCAC. All I have said is that the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is not only and exclusively the OHCAC.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mar,

There is no sense debating whether Luther suffered
from mental instability/depression.

It just COULD be that MAYBE Luther’s personality and personal demons could have had an impact on how he personally interpreted Scripture. At least that would explain how he could have taught that the Scriptures are supposedly so clear on doctrinal issues, and then been astonished when people disagreed with him, all the while recognizing that his interpretations were completely new to Christianity.

With that let’s see what a Lutheran expert on Luther has to say:

“Luther’s Mental Health

The adult Luther’s psychological health is even harder (than his physical health) to diagnose than his physical health, although some investigators have confidently concluded that Luther suffered from manic-depressive psychosis. Among the symptoms of this illness in his later years they list his frequent bouts with depression and spiritual temptation, his occasional expression of a death-wish, his vulgar and scatological language, his outbursts of rage and vilification and his visions of and contests with the devil.

Most scholars freely concede the unusual and perhaps even abnormal aspects of Luther’s personality without accepting the diagnosis that attributes these traits to an underlying psychosis. By most standards, Luther was a neurotic man who, in later life, suffered from bouts of depression. Given all the evidence of productivity, clarity of thought, and ability to work with others, however, it is highly doubtful that he can properly be diagnosed as psychotic.” Dr. Mark U. Edwards Jr. (Protestant), Luther’s Polemical Controversies, Article in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, Edited by Donald K. McKim, pg. 205.

Of course Luther was functional, but that does not mean that he was mentally healthy or stable.

”As it is seen in later chapters, apocalyptic views and his vision of his own role in the final drama of the world play a highly significant role in his polemics. At this point there is need only to consider whether these views might in themselves be regarded as symptoms of psychological imbalance: an odd mixture of paranoia and delusions of grandeur. The older Luther did firmly believe that he was living on the eve of the Last Judgment. Once the papacy had been exposed by the Reformation as the antichrist seated within the church, the final battle had been joined. Satan had unleashed all his minions in a last, desperate attempt to defeat the servants of Christ. Luther’s polemics were part of this final struggle. He saw this struggle as involving a recurrent contest between true and false prophets and apostles. Believing that mankind did not change and that the devil never slept, he could trace this struggle from the biblical histories into his own time. What happened to the prophets and apostles in their day could and would happen to the church of his day. Their experiences established a paradigm of the dynamics of all sacred history. Within this paradigm the papacy was the antichrist described in Scripture, the Turks were Gog and the little horn in the Book of Daniel, contemporary Jewry was the remnant of a rejected people suffering under God’s wrath, and his Protestant opponents were contemporary false prophets and apostles, like those who had plagued the true prophets and apostles. Furthermore, since Luther was always drawing comparisons and parallels between these opponents and the opponents of the prophets and apostles, it was only natural that he would see the true prophets and apostles as having provided a precedent for the way in which one should deal with such opponents. As a result he could explain and justify his polemics and his stubbornness on points of doctrine by pointing to the example set by these men of God. Personal disappointment and fears strengthened his conviction that he was living on the eve of the Last Judgment. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 16-17

Even this Lutheran Scholar admits that we need to consider whether Luther’s rather strange views “might in themselves be regarded as symptoms of psychological imbalance: an odd mixture of paranoia and delusions of grandeur.” Of course I am “at fault” for making this suggestion but all I am really doing is agreeing with Edwards, that this is something that we need to consider.

In regards to Luther’s well documented belief that the world of his time was about to end: how many examples do we have of Protestants who forged their own way doctrinally and also believed that they were living in the end times? Christian history documents them by the dozens. Given everything else we know about Luther, including the obviously strange and anti-Christian things which he taught as being “Scriptural”, why should we believe that he was teaching God’s Absolute Truth?

Edwards tells us that Luther justified his vicious attacks on his opponents because the prophets and Apostles treated their opponents the same way. This is a perfect example of what Edwards calls “delusions of grandeur”, and at least to rational thinking people, this “attribute” would make people think twice about Luther as being “inspired” by the Holy Spirit.

“According to the characterology established in psychoanalysis, suspiciousness, obsessive scrupulosity, moral sadism, and a preoccupation with dirtying and infectious thoughts and substances go together. Luther had them all. One of Martin’s earliest reported remarks (from his student days) was a classical obsessive statement: “the more you cleanse yourself, the dirtier you get.” Erikson, pg 61

MacBeth anyone?

God Bless You Mar, Topper

 

[benhur]

all the while recognizing that his interpretations were completely new to Christianity.

May I suggest this is purely your opinion and contrary to historical fact. My previous post # 160 alludes predecessors of "his interpretations’’, well many of them (we are all quite unique and have no exact predecessor).

 

[Topper17]

Hi HH,

No. But Eck, Luther’s principle catholic opponent criticized Luther for being TOO friendly to Jews.

Honestly the Catholic apologist “Luther was mean to Jews” argument is one of the weakest in light of actual Catholic history.

Read Eck’s Against the Defense of the Jews.

To tell you the truth, I am getting really tired of people slandering John Eck by inferring that he was as big or even a bigger anti-Semite than Luther. That is not true, and yet it is often claimed on the web by Protestants, including Lutherans. For years I have been asking for some kind of ‘proof’ that Eck was as bad as Luther (as if anyone actually COULD BE). I have never gotten back anything of any real substance.

Yes, Eck was anti-Semitic, but I contend that compared to Luther, he was a choirboy. Furthermore, I can prove my point.

On the other hand, you, pointing to Eck’s ‘Against the Defense of the Jews”, seem to have some real evidence. Clearly you have read this treatise and are able to quote from it extensively. Right? By extensively, what I mean is more than the two or three truncated fragments that are available with a modest web search.

So – let’s see if you have anything to back up your claim against Eck, or whether this is simply a hollow and often repeated false accusation. Once you have posted your Eck quotes I will post Luther’s horrendous ‘recommendations’ as to what should PHYSICALLY HAPPEN to the Jews. Then we will all be able to see who was ‘worse’ towards the Jews.

Furthermore, Catholic’s don’t ‘depend’ on Eck in order to validate Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, Protestantism’s credibility is reliant on that of Luther because he developed the fundamental doctrines that are the foundation of Protestantism and those which disagree with the teachings of the Historic Church. The doctrines which Luther developed which are a departure from the teachings of the Catholic Church include Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation.

So – since you have read Eck’s treatise and have concluded that he was at least as bad as Luther, then please post a few excerpts and provide a compelling argument for your position.

God Bless You HH, Topper

 

[joe371]

And yet you know, Joe, that no Lutheran worth his salt believes we have left the Church founded by Christ, or that we have “left Peter”. That is a Catholic paradigm that we don’t subscribe to.

But I wanted to ask you, Joe, as the OP, two things to see if we agree:

1. Do you think either of our communions benefits by attacking the other communion because of the other’s medieval theologians or members being anti-judaism (anti-semitic doesn’t fit any other that I can think of), since both communions reject that bigotry today?
2. If, in fact, Martin Luther was mentally ill, as has been alleged, is it appropriate or charitable to level the kinds of attacks against him we sometimes see? Would we tolerate verbal attacks against someone living today, regardless of what they said or did, if they were diagnosed as mentally ill?

Jon

I agree with you: it’s silly and counterproductive to attack any other communion of believers. I have have never heard (other than this thread) anyone say that ML was mentally ill. I’d feel bad for the guy if this were true. I agree with you on point number two, as does scripture:

“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.”

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

**Finally, my favorite passage:
**

“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.”

 

[joe371]

marywarfield;11877557]It’s not an “attack” to state clearly ones opinion of
someone five hundred years dead. For instance it
is not an uncharitable attack to state Attila the Hun
raped, plundered and murdered.

True…

It seems to me that Lutherans in general want to
protect Luther because bottom line- if he truly was
mentally ill it calls into question his changing theology
1500 years old and the theology might be wrong I.e.
purgatory, covering of baptism, etc.

Good point.

As far as the new or modern tendency of Lutheranism
purporting to be the REAL Catholic Church it seems to
me about as valid as the U.S. stating suddenly that
it is the REAL England and its the old England that went
wrong lol.

I don’t see how Christians belonging to the Lutheran church can claim to belong to the Catholic Church, all the while denying Catholic doctrines; not to mention the fact that they never attend Mass. I have family members who would never adhere to that modern tendency of Lutheranism, claiming to belong to the Catholic Church. Our brothers and sisters belonging to the LC do not even recognize the Petrine office. They (my family members) believe the CC fell by the wayside.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

And yet you know, Joe, that no Lutheran worth his salt believes we have left the Church founded by Christ, or that we have “left Peter”. That is a Catholic paradigm that we don’t subscribe to.

As I know you agree, it is of vital importance as to whether Lutherans have or have not ‘left the Church’. That is why it is so crucial that we be able to have an honest open dialogue.

But I wanted to ask you, Joe, as the OP, two things to see if we agree:

1. Do you think either of our communions benefits by attacking the other communion because of the other’s medieval theologians or members being anti-judaism (anti-semitic doesn’t fit any other that I can think of), since both communions reject that bigotry today?

Jon, from my perspective, it has NOTHING to do with ‘attacking the other communion”, but EVERYTHING to do with the Truth. As I have told you before, I strongly believe that the early history of the Reformation, AND the actual history of Luther, make it pretty clear what the ‘Reformation’ really was. We have seen how well some react to the actual facts surfacing.

Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews is not some isolated aspect of his character and exegetical abilities. Nor can it be isolated from the rest of his ‘Scriptural teachings’. They are all a part of the whole, and I would suggest that it is the whole which reveals Luther to be what he really was as opposed to the false Legend.

I can see where you would like to see the whole issue of the Jews taken off the table. But, if I remember correctly, you have also charged Eck with being anti-Semitic (obviously in relation to Luther). I offer you the same challenge I made to HH. Please post the Eck quotes and then we will compare them to Luther’s ‘recommendations.

There is a HUGE difference between what Eck and Luther wrote and that difference is a pretty large brick in the wall that shows Luther for what he was. If you disagree, then please post the quotes. If you don’t then not posting the quotes is probably the best thing to do, which BTW, would also prove my point.

1. If, in fact, Martin Luther was mentally ill, as has been alleged, is it appropriate or charitable to level the kinds of attacks against him we sometimes see? Would we tolerate verbal attacks against someone living today, regardless of what they said or did, if they were diagnosed as mentally ill?

I am having trouble with your statement. It seems to me that you are admitting to the possibility (albeit slight maybe) that Luther actually was mentally ill, but THEN would suggest, if that were true, we should stop criticizing his attempt to destroy the Church – out of Christian Charity? Please tell me that I have misunderstood you and explain what you really meant, because it sounds ‘pretty out there’ the way I have ‘heard’ it.

After all, IF Luther was mentally ill, then that would mean that Protestant theology was developed out of the mind of a mentally ill person.

Rather than ‘mentally ill’, how about - so terrified over his everlasting Salvation that his terrors ruled his life and caused him to ‘see’ things in Scripture that weren’t really there – like Salvation by Faith Alone, Sola Scriptura, and Private Interpretation?

From my perspective, given the fact that both the Scriptures and the Fathers teach against both Sola Scriptura and also Private Interpretation, Luther would have had to been driven by something pretty strong to be able to internally justify ignoring those warnings.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Amanda_Germany]

Blimey, when I first spotted this thread I was sort of shocked… until I found out that SS, in this case, is the abbreviation of “sola scriptura”… being German, I had been thinking of something else. Heavens, I’m relieved… sorry but I had to get this off my chest.

 

[marywarfield]

Blimey, when I first spotted this thread I was sort of shocked… until I found out that SS, in this case, is the abbreviation of “sola scriptura”… being German, I had been thinking of something else. Heavens, I’m relieved… sorry but I had to get this off my chest.

Lol

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11882080]
I can see where you would like to see the whole issue of the Jews taken off the table. But, if I remember correctly, you have also charged Eck with being anti-Semitic (obviously in relation to Luther). I offer you the same challenge I made to HH. Please post the Eck quotes and then we will compare them to Luther’s ‘recommendations.

There is a HUGE difference between what Eck and Luther wrote and that difference is a pretty large brick in the wall that shows Luther for what he was. If you disagree, then please post the quotes. If you don’t then not posting the quotes is probably the best thing to do, which BTW, would also prove my point.

No, I won’t. I won’t play that game because it isn’t one that reveals truth, but instead is one of polemical oneupsmanship, regardless of who plays.

What I will do is this: I will post two quotes from Luther.

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?–Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

and

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.

Had Luther been thinking about the former, a noble and true statement about the eighth commandment, he would not have, could not have written the latter, an abhorrent and odious statement.
Whether or not Eck’s comments, or those any other Catholic of the time, are worse than Luther’s is a trifling. The fact is the anti-Jewish sentiments of the 1500’s is rejected and condemned by both of our communions.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Blimey, when I first spotted this thread I was sort of shocked… until I found out that SS, in this case, is the abbreviation of “sola scriptura”… being German, I had been thinking of something else. Heavens, I’m relieved… sorry but I had to get this off my chest.

That is almost funny if the SS history weren’t so tainted. Wilkommen ! Nice cathedral you have there.Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. Hopefully, this post will clear up the ‘confusion’ about Eck’s and Luther’s respective levels of anti-Semitism. The magnititude of the anti-Semitism of these two men is completely different and that difference is everything. That being said, IN NO WAY am I defending Eck’s anti-Semitism. In any form and to any degree anti-Semitism to me is, among other things, a sin against both man and God. I’m sure you agree.

No, I won’t. I won’t play that game because it isn’t one that reveals truth, but instead is one of polemical oneupsmanship, regardless of who plays.

First of all, I don’t consider ANY kind of anti-Semitism to be a ‘game’, and as you will see, Luther’s ant-Semitism was FAR from ‘game-like’. On the old LCMS thread, in response to my comment that Eck got the best of Luther at Leipzig, Jon, YOU were the one who introduced Eck as being “virulently anti-Jewish” into our dialogue.

“You know, Topper, how virulently anti-Jewish Eck was, correct? This isn’t particularly alluded to in New Advent, but it is true.” JonNC, post number 289, 3/25/14 “No doubts about converting from LCMS” Thread

As a matter of fact, revealing the truth of Luther’s horrific ‘recommendations’ about what he wanted to happen to the Jews DOES “reveal truth”, but obviously not one you want revealed. Since you were the one who introduced Eck as being ‘virulently anti-Jewish’, you certainly don’t have the high ground from which you can criticize me for some sort of ‘polemical oneupsmanship’. In fact, by comparing Eck to Luther with regard to the DEGREE of MAGNITITUDE of their respective anti-Semitism, you have seriously slandered Eck, because, by comparison to Luther, Eck was a choirboy.

Rather than post the actual quotes which proves that Eck was anywhere near being in the same league as Luther in his anti-semitism, you want to discuss my methods?

What I will do is this: I will post two quotes from Luther.
Had Luther been thinking about the former, a noble and true statement about the eighth commandment, he would not have, could not have written the latter, an abhorrent and odious statement.

Since you saw fit to post one of Luther’s horrendous ‘recommendations’ from “On the Jews and Their Lies”, I will post a synopsis of all of them, noting that the summary is doesn’t come close to representing the evil of the whole text (which is of course available upon request). Also included will be comments from ONLY Lutheran Scholars, including the editors of Luther’s Works.

“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them……

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues…….

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them……

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.”

Topper: By “pain of loss of life and limb”, Luther is saying that if the Jewish rabbis are caught teaching the Jewish faith to Jewish people, they are to be executed.

“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like…….

“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping………”

Topper: In addition, this sixth recommendation included a proposal to steal the money of the Jews:

“Luther proposed that a specific sum of money should be used for sincere conversions and to maintain family life and the care of the old and feeble.” (Lutheran Professor) Eric Gritsch, “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism” (a VERY revealing book BTW) pg. 87

“Better yet, they should be expelled after a portion of their wealth had been confiscated.” Lutheran Professor) Mark Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 106

This exhortation to steal the wealth of the Jews is reminiscent of Luther’s recommendation that the belongings of the Catholic Church be stolen. It was.

“Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow…….”

Luther wanted to make it very clear that he wanted the secular authorities to carry out his evil recommendations.

“It was the duty of secular authorities, Luther insisted, to implement these recommendations.” Edwards, LLB pg. 132

“Luther, then, turned to the ecclesiastical authorities, especially pastors. They should support the secular authorities in their actions against the Jews. If Jews are in their midst, they should inform these authorities who must enforce the law. Luther reminded pastors that they must ‘save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death.’ He, then, offered his advice in ‘spiritual’ matters, consisting of four features:”, Gritsch, pg. 88

“First, that their synagogues be burned down…… Second, that all their books—their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible—be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf……. Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…… Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God’s Son Hebel Vorik, and thus also call his Father that.” Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 285-6

To be continued

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

The editors of Luther’s works make an important point as a footnote at the end of Luther’s third recommendation to the ecclesiastical authorities:

“Likewise exceeding in severity the fourth point in the former list, which spoke only of the prohibition of teaching, not of worship (though the destruction of the synagogues was no doubt intended to put an end to all such activities).” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 286

In the list of seven recommendations to the princes Luther recommended that rabbis be executed for the crime of teaching the Jewish Faith to the Jewish people. Here in his recommendations to church officials, expands his sanction of execution to also include the crimes “praising God, to give thanks, to teach publically”. After issuing this Christian advice, which like all of his teachings, were, (according to him) well founded in the correct interpretation of Scripture, Luther commented:

“If he (Luther) had power over the Jews, he would assemble their scholars and leaders and order them, “on pain of losing their tongues down to the root,” to convince Christians of their ‘truth’ within eight days, or, if they failed, to be punished for their lies.” Gritsch, pg. 89

What else could Luther have done to harm the Jews in this treatise? As if to answer that question, Luther repeated his instructions to the ecclesiastical authorities that they should “not be merciful” to the Jews.

“Therefore it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 292

History indicates that, far from being exonerated, Luther, as the author of this horrific book, has been indicted by virtually all Protestant scholars who have commented on the subject. This treatise is an indication of his version of the Christian conscience, and also of his character.

Whether or not Eck’s comments, or those any other Catholic of the time, are worse than Luther’s is a trifling. The fact is the anti-Jewish sentiments of the 1500’s is rejected and condemned by both of our communions.

Jon, if Eck was as you said, ‘virulently anti-Jewish’, how would you describe Luther now that the facts about his ‘recommendations’ have been posted.

Jon, how in the world can Luther’s recommendations that Jews be executed be ‘trifling’? Furthermore, Eck NEVER MADE EVEN ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. There is a HUGE lesson to be learned here about Martin Luther. He was by far the MOST HATEFUL Theologian in Christian history, which impugns his credibility as a teacher of God’s Absolute Truth, as a Scriptural Exegete and as a Christian leader.

That being said, please understand that this is NOT a criticism of either you or Lutheranism, Protestantism, or the LCMS. It is ONLY a criticism of Martin Luther the individual. Now, you can get upset if you want but it should not be with me. On the other hand, since you don’t ‘follow him’, the information I posted shouldn’t really be that upsetting to you. However, if you want to be upset with somebody you should single out Luther. Personally, I think that Martin Luther is the best advertisement for the Catholic Church has ever seen, and you can call it ‘polemics’ if you like but it is simply the Truth that Protestantism has ‘avoided’ telling for centuries. If you like you can think of this post as an ‘attack’, but I will tell you this – revealing the facts about a situation is NOT an ‘attack’.

The fact is that this Martin Luther, the man who wrote those horrific recommendations about what he wanted to happen to the Jews, was also the man who established the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, and more specifically, Lutheranism.

Your representation of Eck is not exactly rare. As you know, he defeated Luther the 7 day long Leipzig Debate in 1519, and for that, Protestant writers made sure to pay him back.

“Eck….was perhaps the most feared disputant of the German academic world. Protestant historicans have repaid Eck for the relentlessness with which he pursued Luther and his followers by four centuries of abuse.” Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt of Martin Luther”, pg. 331

Eck’s ‘crime’ – he recognized that Luther’s beliefs were outside the bounds of Catholic belief TWO FULL years before he forced Luther to realize it. IF Luther had been a better trained Theologian, he would have known that his 95 Theses were outside of those bounds before he wrote them. But, he wasn’t so he didn’t.

One other thing Jon, I don’t know what the ‘source’ was for your idea that you could accuse Eck of being anywhere NEAR as ‘anti-Jewish’ as Luther, but I would suggest that in the future you look at that source as being far too biased to be trustworthy. There are a lot of less than intellectually honest sources of information out there seeking to advance an agenda, or an ‘anti-agenda’.

As Always Jon, God Bless You, Topper

BTW, I have been asking for ‘proof’ that Eck was in the ‘same league’ as Luther for years, and am still looking. If you have anything substantive, meaning something from Eck’s actual writing, I am willing to alter my position. On the other hand, I would think that if there actually was anything of any substance ‘on’ Eck, it would be a whole lot more ‘available’ than those few mostly vague Lutheran criticisms of Eck’s anti-jewish ‘attitudes’ that are available.

 

[steido01]

There are a lot of less than intellectually honest sources of information out there seeking to advance an agenda, or an ‘anti-agenda’.

Indeed. I pray most readers are capable of separating the chaff from the wheat.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

As you prepare your response to my post numbers 173 and 174, I would like you to consider the following as it relates to Luther’s ‘attitude’ towards the Jews and how that attitude relates to Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation, both of which Luther taught:

“A grim problem at the heart of Lutheran (and Protestant) origins, that of Luther and the Jews…… While efforts to absolve Luther as simply a man of his times – as one who merely passed on and perpetuated what he himself had already received from his cultural and theological tradition – have generally been jettisoned, there still persists even among the educated public the perception that the truly problematic aspects of Luther’s anti-Jewish attitudes are confined to the final stages of his career……Luther’s theological evaluation of Judiasm and the Jewish people remains essentially unchanged from the earliest stages of his career….When one reads Luther with a careful eye toward ‘the Jewish question’ (and without a predisposition to exonerate him), it becomes apparent that, far from being tangential, the Jews are a central, core component of his thought and that this was the case throughout his career, not only at the end. If this is in fact so, then it follows that it is essentially impossible to understand the heart and building blocks of Luther’s theology (justification, faith, salvation, grace, freedom, Law, and Gospel, and so on) without acknowledging the crucial role played by ‘the Jews’ in his fundamental thinking.” Lutheran Professors Brooks Schramm and Kirsi, Stjerna, “Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 3-4

Schramm and Stjerna indicate that the ‘problem’ of Luther vs. the Jews is not one which can be isolated from the rest of his ‘theology’, but lies at the very center of it. In addition, his ‘problem’ with the Jews ran throughout the whole of his career. With that in mind, I would suggest that the center of Luther’s theology is not exactly ‘healthy’. There is also the issue of how Scripture is to be interpreted, and how Luther interpreted Scripture. In fact, Luther’s ‘recommendations’ about what he wanted to happen to the Jews can be seen as an example of Luther’s Exegetical ‘abilities’. Obviously his reading of Scripture was extremely effected by his hatred of the Jews. The fact that he (and many others since him) considered his recommendations to be ‘Scriptural’ is, to say the very least – disturbing.

Of course the ‘recommendations’ that Luther made as to what he wanted to ‘happen’ to the Jews were fully “Scriptural” so if anything actually did “happen” to the Jews, it certainly wasn’t “on Luther”, was it? After all, he quoted more than 150 verses of Scripture in “On The Jews And Their Lies”, and given his “extraordinary abilities” as a Scriptural Exegete, we have no choice but to believe that God wanted “the Jewish Problem” dealt with exactly as proscribed by Martin. Right? What Authority did he have to call for the most horrible punishments for the Jews, up to and including execution? Can we really consider this to be the teaching of a Christian Leader or a Christian Theologian? How do we ‘excuse’ this writing or explain it without severe damage to Luther’s reputation?

Martin Luther’s horrific recommendations about how the Jews should be dealt with is a perfect example of the results of Sola Scriptura. Of course, nobody actually practices Sola Scriptura in the strictest sense. Everybody ‘adds’ something to Scripture. It might be the Confessions of your particular denomination, or it might be the teachings of your favorite TV Evangelist. In the case of the Catholic Church it is the Bishop of Rome, the Ecumenical Councils and the Teaching Magisterium. In the case of Martin Luther, and not just on the matter of the Jews, it was a rather twisted sense of Christian Charity and his hatred of various groups that ‘informed’ his interpretations of Scripture.

I think that this is a pretty good indictment of Sola Scriptura in that everyone has the ‘right’ to decide what they want to ‘add’ to Scripture. As we both agree, when you add something like a Confession or a denominational statement, it does tend to keep people somewhat unified, although they might be unified in error. In the case of Luther, especially in the beginning, he was all on his own, developing interpretations out of his own ‘unique’ experience, and given his importance in Reformation theology, it is important to understand what that ‘experience’ actually was.

God Bless You As Always Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=

Topper17;11889642]Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. Hopefully, this post will clear up the ‘confusion’ about Eck’s and Luther’s respective levels of anti-Semitism. The magnititude of the anti-Semitism of these two men is completely different and that difference is everything. That being said, IN NO WAY am I defending Eck’s anti-Semitism. In any form and to any degree anti-Semitism to me is, among other things, a sin against both man and God. I’m sure you agree.

This is the game. You are concerned, somehow, with the “magnitude”. Its like arguing over who was the worse segregationist; George Wallace or Lester Maddox. It doesn’t matter, as the both were segregartionists.

First of all, I don’t consider ANY kind of anti-Semitism to be a ‘game’, and as you will see, Luther’s ant-Semitism was FAR from ‘game-like’. On the old LCMS thread, in response to my comment that Eck got the best of Luther at Leipzig, Jon, YOU were the one who introduced Eck as being “virulently anti-Jewish” into our dialogue.

Good. neither do I.

“You know, Topper, how virulently anti-Jewish Eck was, correct? This isn’t particularly alluded to in New Advent, but it is true.” JonNC, post number 289, 3/25/14 “No doubts about converting from LCMS” Thread

Exactly. and it is true. I also said in that post: It really doesn’t matter, quite frankly,…
It doesn’t matter, not because we should forget that kind of hatred, but because it was prevalent in that time, and both of our communions reject it today.

As a matter of fact, revealing the truth of Luther’s horrific ‘recommendations’ about what he wanted to happen to the Jews DOES “reveal truth”, but obviously not one you want revealed. Since you were the one who introduced Eck as being ‘virulently anti-Jewish’, you certainly don’t have the high ground from which you can criticize me for some sort of ‘polemical oneupsmanship’. In fact, by comparing Eck to Luther with regard to the DEGREE of MAGNITITUDE of their respective anti-Semitism, you have seriously slandered Eck, because, by comparison to Luther, Eck was a choirboy.

Again, degree of magnitude. That is the polemical oneupsmanship that I won’t participate in.

Jon, how in the world can Luther’s recommendations that Jews be executed be ‘trifling’?

I didn’t say that. What I said was: “Whether or not Eck’s comments, or those any other Catholic of the time, are worse than Luther’s is a trifling.”

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

=
This is the game. You are concerned, somehow, with the “magnitude”. Its like arguing over who was the worse segregationist; George Wallace or Lester Maddox. It doesn’t matter, as the both were segregartionists.

Good. neither do I.

Exactly. and it is true. I also said in that post: It really doesn’t matter, quite frankly,…
It doesn’t matter, not because we should forget that kind of hatred, but because it was prevalent in that time, and both of our communions reject it today.

Again, degree of magnitude. That is the polemical oneupsmanship that I won’t participate in.

I didn’t say that. What I said was: “Whether or not Eck’s comments, or those any other Catholic of the time, are worse than Luther’s is a trifling.”

Jon

Your view that it is a “trifling” is where the discussion
loses honesty. Let me put this to you- if Luther fundamentally
hated Jews to the point of recommending extermination
of those Jews and a complete intolerance and antipathy
toward the Talmud/OT that represented Jewish prayer
practices, in all honesty you HAVE to address the
thought that his theology is tainted by that hatred. Most
especially in the areas of purgatory and the deutero canon.

Purgatory was a Jewish concept. Praying for the dead
was a Jewish concept something they like Catholics carry
on today. Luther abandoned the idea completely and removed
as inspired anything in scripture that referred to it.
He could do that as the references were not clear to
begin with. As it was Jewish TRADITION- another idea
Luther rejects.
Problem is no actual archeological exploration had
occurred until three hundred years later when lo and
behold archeologists translate inscriptions and epitaphs
on walls and sepulchres in the catacombs and elsewhere
and guess what? Not only was praying for the dead
a huge Jewish custom but the early Christians retained the same
practice as well. The most shining example of course
is the epitaph written before death by an early
Christian Bishop Abercius, specifically asking all to
pray for him. 167AD. Hello. Luther was not to know that
science would prove purgatory was not some money
making deal invented by the Church later but a TRADITION
of early Christians right from the beginning.
I suggest to you Luther was anti purgatory not on true
theological grounds but due to his passionate desire
to remove any Jewish “stain” on Christianity.

 

[JonNC]

=marywarfield;11890607]Your view that it is a “trifling” is where the discussion
loses honesty.

Let me know if I have ever questioned your honestly, Mary. The trifling is in the attempt to compare, not in the anti-Jewish bigotry. Luther’s anti-Jewish writings and attitudes are to be condemned, without qualification or equivocation. And Lutherans do. Even the understanding of the era he lived in is no excuse.

Purgatory was a Jewish concept. Praying for the dead was a Jewish concept something they like Catholics carry on today. Luther abandoned the idea completely and removed as inspired anything in scripture that referred to it. He could do that as the references were not clear to begin with. As it was Jewish TRADITION- another idea
Luther rejects.

Mary,
Suffice it to say that Lutherans do not oppose prayer for the dead. It appears in Lutheran funeral rites, such as this from the Lutheran Service Book:

Give to Your whole Church in heaven and on earth Your light and Your peace…. Grant that all who have been nourished by the holy body and blood of Your Son may be raised to immortality and incorruption to be seated with Him at Your heavenly banquet.

Luther says this about it:

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and merely the devil’s annual fair.

And the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says:

Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; but we disapprove of the application ex opere operato of the Lord’s Supper on behalf of the dead.

All this is available, interestingly, on Dave Armstrong’s blog, where he cites Pastor Will Weedon.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/11/prayer-for-dead-lutheran-pastor-lcms.html

The issue of Purgatory is also not so easy to pigeonhole:

1. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice “has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries” (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, “with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article…” (§12). Behind Luther’s typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. “Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry” (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. “When they have given up their purgatorial ‘Mass fairs’ (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine’s word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers’ works or words” (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

The bolding is mine.

and

Distinctive Teachings
210. The differences between Catholic and Lutheran teaching on purgatory thus focus on 1) how the living relate to those undergoing this purgation, and 2) the extent and explicit character of the binding teaching on purgation and purgatory. The more explicit the binding teaching, the greater the difficulty Lutherans have in seeing this teaching as biblical and thus binding. We have seen in this dialogue that explicit Catholic doctrine on purgatory is more limited than often recognized. As the Catholic attitude toward differences with the Orthodox indicates, these two differences are not entirely separable. Common practices toward the dead can provide an assurance that permits a diversity in formulation. The following discussion of prayer for the dead must thus be considered in assessing the ecumenical significance of Catholic-Lutheran understandings of purgatory.
Convergences
211. Today, Lutheran and Catholic teaching integrates purgation with death, judgment, and the encounter with Christ. Recent Catholic and Lutheran understandings of purgation sound remarkably similar. While the word “purgatory” remains an ecumenically charged term, and for many Catholics and Lutherans signals a sharp division, our work in this round has shown that our churches’ understandings of how the justified enter eternal glory are closer than expected.
212.** In light of the analysis given above, this dialogue believes that the topic of purgation, in and of itself, need not divide our communions**.240

The bolding is that of the dialogue.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Let me know if I have ever questioned your honestly, Mary. The trifling is in the attempt to compare, not in the anti-Jewish bigotry. Luther’s anti-Jewish writings and attitudes are to be condemned, without qualification or equivocation. And Lutherans do. Even the understanding of the era he lived in is no excuse.

Mary,
Suffice it to say that Lutherans do not oppose prayer for the dead. It appears in Lutheran funeral rites, such as this from the Lutheran Service Book:

Luther says this about it:

And the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says:

All this is available, interestingly, on Dave Armstrong’s blog, where he cites Pastor Will Weedon.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/11/prayer-for-dead-lutheran-pastor-lcms.html

The issue of Purgatory is also not so easy to pigeonhole:

The bolding is mine.

and

The bolding is that of the dialogue.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

Jon

Yes Jon I concede great strides have been made. And it is
not my intention to suggest that modern Lutherans experience
the apparently pathological hatred of Jews evidenced by
Luther. Anti semitism has always been with us. It’s just
Hitler and Luther that carry the prizes for the most extreme
rhetoric. And we can say as has been said of Luther that they
were both products of their time, enjoyed massive appeal
among the crowds.

The thing is, the theology of Luther becomes suspect
when the idea that his view, his perceptions I.e doctrines,
tradition, Scriptural interpretation were seriously skewed.
It’s always been a question in my mind that if he could be
so horrendously incorrect in one area, and passionate in it,
as to what his underlying agenda really was.